Introduction
The benefits of participatory science (PS) include increased understanding of science, community participation in scientific research, and efficient data collection and analysis (Cooper 2016). School-based participatory science (SBPS), has the added benefits of engaging K–12 students and teachers authentically in science learning experiences (Carrier et al. 2024; Smith et al. 2025). Engaging K–12 students in PS projects at school can be a win-win for both scientists and educators (Atias et al. 2023), and many projects offer educational materials to support student participation. In a review of active projects on SciStarter.org (a searchable catalog of projects widely used by PS practitioners) we found 15% of projects offer classroom materials. The content of the materials varies widely. Many provide data collection–focused activities while others direct teachers to the same materials offered to all participants without additional content to integrate the project into a classroom setting. For example, iNaturalist has vast potential as an educational tool in K–12 classrooms, yet the iNaturalist Educator’s Guide (https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000170805-inaturalist-educator-s-guide) focuses on students making useful observations rather than offering explicit activities for K–12 settings. If projects do include PS classroom activities, few emphasize skill building or data analysis (Pizzolato and Tsuji 2022). Further, these activities are generally one-time experiences rather than a long-term, scaffolded program (Race et al. 2025), though the latter can facilitate deep learning and build scientific literacy (e.g., Dvir and Tsybulsky 2025). Few educational materials linked from SciStarter list classroom educational standards, spanning a wide age or grade range without explicit curriculum correlations. Lessons may also underestimate what teachers are allowed to do with their students and overestimate their access to resources. One example from the EBSCO database (https://www.ebsco.com/blogs/ebscopost/citizen-science-classroom-lesson-plans) suggests using eBird in classrooms, but assumes teachers can take students off campus, provide costly binoculars to each student, and skip lessons on bird identification. Few K–12 teachers could feasibly use eBird as described in this resource. However, there are also models of high-quality SBPS classroom materials. Those produced by staff at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology are among the best examples of SBPS resources available, blending science inquiry, content knowledge, teacher training, and data collection in a suite of highly tested materials (https://www.birds.cornell.edu/k12/).
Educative curriculum materials are “curriculum materials designed with the intent of supporting teacher learning as well as student learning” (Davis et al. 2017, p. 293). Such materials support teachers’ instructional practices and content knowledge as well as students’ learning and engagement in scientific practices (Davis et al. 2017). Davis and colleagues (2017) recommend design principles for supporting science curriculum, acknowledging that teachers will adapt materials, different teachers need to take up different features, materials should help teachers support students’ science learning, and features should support more effective take-up of science practices.
Using these principles for designing educative curriculum materials, we conducted a study titled “Supporting Elementary Teacher Learning for Effective School-Based Citizen Science,” or TL4CS, which studied how fifth-grade teachers incorporated PS projects in their instruction over two years. Our research was driven by several questions, but the most relevant to the contribution herein are these:
Does access to educative supports (defined below) for a participatory science project influence the extent to which teachers engage their students with the project? If so, how?
What types of educative supports do teachers use and value the most?
To answer these questions, we created a large, varied suite of written educative support materials for each of the two projects with which we collaborated: the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, & Snow Network (CoCoRaHS) and the Lost Ladybug Project (LLP). Our materials were available online and include (1) materials intended to educate teachers or highlight teaching resources that teachers might reference throughout the year and (2) monthly engagements that build on data collection activities and provide interdisciplinary connections in science, mathematics, social studies, and English Languages Arts (ELA). A description of the support materials can be found in Supplemental File 1, and full access to our supports for both projects, fully revised and adapted to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) at the end of our study, is available at www.sbpscience.org.
We piloted our materials for both projects in five classrooms, revised our materials based on pilot feedback, then recruited 52 fifth-grade teachers representing 52 different schools. Each study teacher was asked to implement both CoCoRaHS and LLP in their classroom for a full year, but were provided support materials for only one, randomly assigned. Participants were encouraged to use any resources they could find, including educational materials available through the CoCoRaHS and LLP websites, to assist in their implementation of the unsupported project. We then compared how effectively teachers implemented each project and assessed how useful the different types of supports we offered were to participants. We gathered data through surveys, interviews, weekly logs, and monthly meetings, and conducted in-depth classroom observations and student focus groups in a subset of 15 teachers.
Our full results are available elsewhere, but we found that the project for which teachers had support materials was taken up in the classroom significantly more than the one with no support provided (Smith et al. in review). All teachers engaged their students with the projects for which they had support materials multiple times throughout the year to at least some degree, but some teachers did not implement the unsupported project in their classrooms at all. We also learned that teachers highly valued the support materials with suggested, flexible activities (we created no rigid lesson plans), a narrative of how a fictional teacher implemented the suggested activities in their classrooms, resources that taught teachers information that helped them more easily or confidently implement the project in their classrooms, and information that tied the project activities to their curriculum standards.
Providing high-quality classroom resources helps engage students, but many PS project leaders lack the expertise, time, or support to create materials useful for K–12 educators. Unfortunately, practical guides for integrating participatory science into classrooms are sparse (Bopardikar, Bernstein, and McKenney 2023). To help fill this gap, in this essay, we offer recommendations for PS project leaders who wish to develop support materials for teachers and bring their projects into K–12 settings. We share research-based, practical suggestions for how PS project leaders can create classroom materials that are maximally useful to teachers, minimizing the effort required for PS projects to create such resources while maximizing uptake in classrooms.
Complexities to Consider in K–12 Education
There are many complexities that must be taken into account when incorporating PS projects in K–12 settings. As part of the study, we developed an emerging theory highlighting the factors that determine if a PS project is well suited to formal classrooms (Smith et al. 2025). The theory, represented by a four-legged stool (see Figure 1), demonstrates the relationships between key factors: the PS project, the teacher, the teacher’s context, and the support materials. These factors interact with one another to determine students’ learning and engagement with the PS project. When the factors reinforce one another, there is a high potential for a successful SBPS experience for both the learners (teachers, students, and other school professionals) and the PS project personnel (scientists, researchers, project designers, etc.).
Figure 1
An emerging theory of school-based participatory science (Smith et al. 2025).
When determining if a PS project is a good fit for a K–12 setting, it is important to consider each factor represented in the emerging theory, but especially “participatory science project” and “teacher context.” Table 1 includes a non-exhaustive list of teacher and school context factors we took into consideration when developing our materials.
Table 1
Factors to consider when implementing participatory science in K–12 settings.
| TEACHER FACTORS | SCHOOL CONTEXT FACTORS |
|---|---|
| Covering all content, particularly if tested | State-mandated testing |
| Comfort taking students outdoors | School calendars and schedules |
| Familiarity with collecting data | Competing priorities (e.g., instructional initiatives, end-of-year requirements) |
| Experience with scientific sensemaking | Instructional time dedicated to science |
| Administrative support | Size of classes |
| Depth of science content knowledge | Number of classes |
| Comfort with unknown scientific outcomes | Availability of outdoor space |
| Students’ experiences |
Gauging Participatory Science Project Fit for Formal Education Settings: Questions for Consideration
When assessing whether a PS project is a good candidate for K–12 classroom integration, it is useful to ask the following key questions. Note that some projects may not align to all questions, yet may still be successfully implemented in K–12 settings.
Consideration 1: Can data collection protocols be carried out by K–12 students in schools?
What skills are expected from students?
When selecting projects conducive to yearlong data collection, we considered the grade(s) that could conduct the data collection activities. Reading a CoCoRaHS rain gauge to the nearest hundredth of an inch isn’t suitable for K–2 students but fits well with fifth-grade skills. With well-designed support materials, projects can help students strengthen skills like reading decimals or graphing. In an interview, one teacher described how CoCoRaHS aligned with their fifth graders’ data skills and real-life connections:
They can read decimals. In a beaker, to read liquid levels in something, to be able to record that information on a graph, to understand temperature, that’s something people don’t think about… So they’re making connections between temperature, precipitation and whether or not they can go outside for recess. Things that are practical for a kid.
We also evaluated data submission. For both CoCoRaHS and LLP, there were online reporting tools, so we considered what grade ranges could use a device to enter data, including numerical readings, images, and brief descriptions. One teacher described the success of students reporting data to the CoCoRaHS website:
We have a captain who was the one that logged the data, and the captain picked two people to go with them every morning to check the gauge and report it. All the kids had an opportunity to go out there, report it, and use the [CoCoRaHS] website.
What equipment is required?
Many of our team are former classroom teachers, so we assessed what materials are likely available in most school settings, or if not available, easily accessible. We particularly considered these factors regarding materials required to collect and report data: low cost, easy and fast to obtain, enough for all students in the class to participate, and amount of storage space required. The CoCoRaHS rain gauge from WeatherYourWay costs about $40. Only one gauge is required for unlimited classes to participate, it can be reused each year, requires no indoor classroom storage space, and takes only a few days to ship. A class set of specimen jars aiding LLP data collection takes up little space, can be reused for multiple classes over many years, is inexpensive, and requires little to no set up or training. We also considered equipment necessary for reporting. Both CoCoRaHS and LLP required digital reports, so classrooms needed at least one internet-connected device to submit data. LLP asked for images of ladybugs, so teachers needed a device to capture and upload images. One teacher explained that capturing photographs was sometimes challenging:
They would get excited because they found a ladybug and they’d want to identify it and get a picture of it. Now we don’t have the resources. I’d have to use my phone because we don’t have class cameras or iPads or anything.
What level of training is required for teachers?
Some PS projects may require specialized equipment and lengthy training, costing educators time and money, so we considered training accessibility. We designed materials to be used without training, including resources on our website that teachers could revisit any time (Figure 2). We also offered a full day of in-person or online professional development to introduce teachers to the materials and allow them to experience some of the activities from a student’s perspective. Teachers found this opportunity supportive, and it contributed to their confidence using the PS projects in their classrooms.
Figure 2
Support materials to introduce the rain gauge.
How much time is needed?
Limited instructional time is one of the greatest challenges for K–12 teachers (Banilower et al. 2018), and less than 20 minutes per day is dedicated to elementary school science in the United States (U.S.) (Plumley 2019). It is important to ask how much time teachers and students need for data collection, reporting, and making sense of their data, how long project-related lessons take, and if the project requires large periods of uninterrupted time (e.g., a 20-minute whole-class ladybug search on the playground) or a brief time that naturally fits into the schedule (e.g., three minutes for two students to check the rain gauge in the morning before classes start). In interviews, teachers explained how they incorporated data collection, reporting, and discussion into their schedules:
In the morning, they would log the rain gauge and we would talk about it in our morning meeting…. Then we got to [the] weather [unit] and we did a lot more in depth with it, … and we talked about weather tools and data collection and weather and weather patterns and seasonality. Then it was more immersed. In the beginning of the year when it was during our morning meeting, [we spent] 10–15 minutes versus during science it was probably more 20–30 minutes.
Given that time is a major limitation and that some teachers had multiple science classes, we chose projects that allowed data collection within a single class period and were suitable for repeated, same-day use.
Will data collection occur during the academic year (i.e., August–May)?
Most U.S. K–12 schools follow an August–May schedule, so we chose projects that allow data collection during that time. However, teachers also valued materials that could extend into summer school or other programs. One teacher shared in an interview:
Some of [the students] are coming for summer school, so I will continue with the ladybugs because it’ll give them a chance to get a little bit more in depth…. I have flexibility of what I want to teach in the summertime. I can go back to some of the stuff I wasn’t able to touch during the regular semester, so I plan to use it during the summertime.
It was important to teachers that the materials were flexible enough to accommodate a fall–spring calendar while allowing for modifications.
Will data collection occur during school hours?
While students may continue PS projects at home, it is unrealistic to expect all data collection to occur outside school hours (7 a.m.–4 p.m.). Projects requiring nighttime data collection are not a good fit for K–12 settings. Teachers typically reported CoCoRaHS data when students arrived and LLP data after recess, during science class, or at the end of the day.
If outdoor data collection is required, is it feasible for data collection to take place on school grounds?
Schools’ access to outdoor spaces varies. Projects requiring specific features (e.g., trees, ponds) may require offsite trips and involve permissions, transportation, lost class time, and added costs. We selected PS projects suitable for a variety of schoolyard spaces.
Outdoor data collection for PS projects is at odds with many teachers’ limited training and confidence related to outdoor learning (Barrable, Touloumakos, and Lapere 2022). In our support materials, we included a detailed list of strategies for taking students outside and embedded these strategies throughout the monthly engagements. Figure 3 includes a sample of the project website’s “Considerations for Outdoor Learning” support, and in interviews, teachers expressed the value of these supports:
The Considerations for Outdoor Learning, I actually use that one because that helped me think through the potential behavior problems. I had a very explicit conversation with kids at the beginning of the year, and I told them, “This is not recess,” and [the support materials were] helping to set “What does outdoor learning look like?” because quite frankly, the kids don’t really get much of that, so they don’t know what it looks like.
Figure 3
Front matter supports to guide outdoor learning.
Teachers and students reported benefits of outdoor learning, including improved social-emotional learning and connections with students’ lived experiences (Carrier et al. 2026).
Consideration 2: Is the project’s focus aligned with concepts addressed in K–12 science?
In what ways does the project align with curriculum standards?
In the U.S., 20 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the NGSS, and 29 others have standards influenced by the document that informed the NGSS, the Framework for K–12 Science Education (National Research Council 2012). PS projects should align with student performance expectations rather than creating an extra activity outside the curriculum. We asked: How can we design teacher support materials to better align with standards? One teacher shared the benefits of using a PS project closely tied to their curriculum:
The [state-mandated end-of-year standardized test] ties me down…. I was always really hesitant to try to do anything beyond what I’m supposed to do, but this was the most amazing thing because this project stayed with us through everything that we did throughout the year. I learned about something that I didn’t think I could do that would not be a waste of time. I just didn’t know what to expect. And it became just a part of the fabric of the whole year, it was our go-to. And everybody did well on their [state-mandated end-of-year standardized test].
See Supplemental File 2 for guidance on making connections to standards.
Based on alignment with curriculum standards, which course, grade, or grade band(s) are most appropriate for this project?
After determining the skills needed and alignment with curriculum standards, we determined that CoCoRaHS and LLP aligned with our state’s fifth-grade standards on weather and ecosystems. We wanted to share our materials nationally, and since the projects also fit national standards for grades 3–6, we used teacher feedback to redesign the materials for flexibility across grade levels at the end of our study.
Consideration 3: To what extent does the project lend itself to sustained engagement?
How much potential is there for ongoing data collection, and how might the data collected tie to multiple engagements that promote student sensemaking?
PS projects are often a “one-and-done” experience in schools, but ongoing data collection gives students purpose and reflects the work of professional scientists. Our support materials emphasize regular data collection (daily for CoCoRaHS and monthly or weekly for LLP) based on teachers’ schedules. In interviews, teachers described this process:
With the Lost Ladybug, we made sure we did a larger one-hour lesson every month, plus our daily walks. Whereas for CoCoRaHS, we went out, we checked it [daily], we looked at the data, and talked about tenths and hundredths.
Scientific sensemaking is “the process of building an explanation to resolve a perceived gap or conflict in knowledge” (Odden and Russ 2019, p. 187). Achieving student sensemaking often requires deep and extensive instruction and repeated exposure to a topic, but it also leads to far richer experiences in science that more closely mimic how professional science is conducted. We aimed to move students beyond data collection to making sense of the science concepts behind the project for which they had support materials. When using our monthly engagements throughout the year, teachers reported students’ continued motivation to collect, report, and interpret data. Dedicating one or two days per month to these lessons didn’t disrupt instruction and supported a yearlong progression of scientific sensemaking. Teachers described the value of this approach. One said:
It’s something that connects through the whole year. If we would only do a little project and then be done, they’re going to forget about it. They’re probably going to send me ladybug pictures until they graduate because we did this project. If we only did a one-and-done project, they’re not going to learn as much as they did about ladybugs.
How likely is it that people other than project staff can make sense of the data?
Can participants access their own and others’ data? If so, is enough information available in the export for students to work with and make sense of the data? When we developed our support materials, CoCoRaHS and LLP offered quick access to data and exporting, which was key for students to interpret, analyze, and present data. However, by year two of the study, the LLP website was no longer actively monitored due to funding limitations, and uploaded data was inaccessible. In contrast, teachers found CoCoRaHS’s easy data access helpful for supporting students’ sensemaking and making broader, global connections. One teacher described:
They got really interested when they figured out that all those little dots were real [places] like other schools, and then they were really interested and they wanted to know, ‘How can [the nearby city] get more [precipitation]?’ Then we started to compare data. That’s when they realized that we can compare things within the county, within the region, within the state. So as the project evolved, that’s when they got really into it, and then when we got towards the end of the project and we were comparing data seasonally. They also really liked that because then they could see on the chart how things were progressing.
Impact of Considerations for Project Selection
In our study of SBPS, we determined our audience (upper elementary classrooms) and then considered the importance of (1) feasible data collection activities, (2) alignment with K–12 standards, and (3) sustained engagement. After confirming CoCoRaHS and LLP fit these criteria, we designed yearlong support materials to connect the projects with teachers’ classroom implementation. We believe this approach can be easily emulated by other project leaders with great results.
Recommendations for Creating Teacher Support Materials for Participatory Science Projects
Once a PS project has been deemed a good fit for K–12 settings, project developers may increase the likelihood of project uptake by designing support materials for educators. Based on what we learned about teachers’ uptake of PS in a classroom setting, we propose the following recommendations for creating educative support materials for PS projects.
Recommendation 1: Design support materials that encourage sustained and purposeful project engagement
Our yearlong activity sequence engaged students with project data monthly and with data collection more frequently, encouraging data collection routines and increased investment. Our sequence builds complexity over time as students develop skills and knowledge to engage more deeply with the PS project, its data, and related science content and practices as the year progresses. Aligning engagements with required curriculum further helped teachers see the project as complementary rather than supplementary. This suggests the value of recommending multiple engagements over time and providing opportunities for participants to access and interpret collected data.
Developing a full curriculum to accompany a PS project was beyond our study’s scope and likely beyond the resources of most PS projects. Instead, we developed a yearlong series of flexible monthly activities that guided students to engage with the data they or others collected. We identified what standards or practices the PS projects’ foci aligned with and then considered how we could use project data to deepen students’ understanding. For example, our CoCoRaHS materials focus on patterns in weather data and provide multiple opportunities for students to work with CoCoRaHS-collected data in increasingly sophisticated ways, from student-generated graphs to data visualization tools. For classes observing ladybugs, students created school grounds maps to better understand the dynamics of their schoolyard system and its inhabitants over time. The monthly activity overview emerged as an important resource for teachers, who relied on these brief descriptions to gauge the feasibility and benefit of taking on an activity each month. They could also see how project implementation would progress over the course of the year. In addition to the monthly supports, we also designed “front matter” supports that we anticipated teachers may use multiple times in their ongoing engagement in the project, such as Considerations for Outdoor Learning (Figure 3). It is also worthwhile to consider ways in which the lived experiences of students can impact and enhance the data collection and their deeper understanding of the results.
Recommendation 2: Prioritize supports that maximize benefits for all involved in the project while allowing for flexibility where possible
PS project leaders and individuals involved in formal education settings (e.g., students, teachers, etc.) can all benefit from PS project use in K–12 settings. We found certain tasks are non-negotiable. For example, precipitation data must be collected that follow established protocols to ensure all participants are contributing comparable data. From the teacher’s perspective, it is important that the focus of the project fits their curriculum requirements. It is therefore important that supports are project specific and tailored to a particular K–12 audience.
Once projects identify what matters most for implementation (e.g., data collection consistency, accuracy, etc.), these aspects should be presented early and revisited throughout to emphasize their importance. Similarly, connections to targeted concepts and related benefits for student learning should be apparent and integrated throughout. Our design used this approach to elevate the importance of particular ideas. For example, recording zeroes (i.e., no precipitation or lack of ladybugs) can be discouraging or demotivating to students, but understanding the importance of these values to the dataset is critical for student understanding. We structured student materials (e.g., data recording sheets) and teacher supports to call attention to the importance of including these values in the dataset.
It is worth considering what kinds of supports teachers gravitate toward. Our study demonstrated that teachers were most likely to use the “Overview,” “Narrative,” and “Science Content” supports (Smith et al. in review). It is important to present the project’s goals in these most frequently used supports in order to increase the likelihood of project uptake. Based on the findings of Davis et al. (2017), we anticipated that teachers would adapt our materials, and they did to varying degrees. We also found that teachers highly valued the flexible nature of our resources and the opportunity to incorporate the PS projects as they best fit the needs of their students and context. Therefore, the “Overview” serves as a starting point for teachers, and we avoided making these descriptions overly prescriptive apart from following designated project protocols. For example, in an activity where students graph precipitation data, we encourage teachers to decide whether students work as a class to graph data or create graphs independently. We balance this approach with “Narrative” supports, which describe a fictional teachers’ approach to the activity. We included a narrative each month based on the findings of Davis et al. (2014) regarding how images of implementation are influential in teachers’ uptake. The narrative for the precipitation graphing activity above describes one teacher’s rationale for creating a class graph to review graphing skills and how the teacher facilitates discussion. Alignment with the content teachers are responsible for teaching is essential, so teachers find value in “Science Content” supports that make these connections clear. It is important for educators to make explicit connections with developmentally appropriate science content and practices. See samples of these three support types in Figure 4 (all examples come from CoCoRaHS).
Figure 4
Sample of written support types used most often.
Teachers implement projects they see as complementary to what they teach, which may include mathematics, English language arts (ELA), and social studies, in addition to science. The better a project aligns with required content, the higher the return for students and teachers. Including opportunities for sensemaking while connecting to what students are learning can foster more student engagement, purpose, and personal investment in the PS project. Other support types (e.g., ELA, mathematics, outdoor learning, PS connections; Figure 5) may be used less often, but our data show that teachers find value in these supports and some anticipate using additional supports as they become more familiar with the project over time. Our findings agree with Davis et al. (2017) that if time and resources allow, providing a wide range of supports helps address the needs of a diverse audience of educators, particularly those who continue to use the project year after year. See Supplemental File 3 for resources to begin designing support materials.
Figure 5
Sample of additional written support types.
Recommendation 3: Engage educators in support materials development
It is important to gather stakeholder input in any education initiative, and incorporating PS into classrooms is no exception. Engaging educators from the start is particularly important, especially when a PS project is perceived as misaligned with instructional aims (Carrier et al. 2026). Although our team includes multiple former teachers, we created a Teacher Advisory Group (TAG) of individuals who were currently teaching and could pilot the materials and offer feedback (Carrier et al. 2026). We met virtually with our TAG monthly and interviewed each for feedback on our initial support materials. We revised the materials based on their feedback before sharing them with our study group teachers. We invited TAG members to join us at our professional development sessions, and the study teachers were eager to learn from them. This confirms the importance of showcasing teacher voice in supports, whether in written supports or through partnerships with educators.
We were committed to keeping the materials as-is during the main phase of our study, but we considered our study teachers as collaborators. Their feedback, gathered through weekly implementation logs, monthly meetings, and periodic surveys, allowed us to further refine the materials before making them publicly available. Viewing teachers as collaborators in the ongoing design and refinement of support materials will benefit a PS project team. In addition, PS project staff should become familiar with the content that teachers are responsible for teaching and acknowledge the pressure that teachers feel to cover this content. For example, reviewing NGSS for a particular grade or grade band can provide a helpful starting point, even though it will not reflect a teachers’ specific scope and sequence for instruction.
Many barriers may prevent bringing educators into PS project development efforts. Our team encountered challenges recruiting teachers for our study, primarily due to a lack of administrative permission. This may have been a result of our study requirements that participation had to be approved by both district and school administration. However, teachers are often influenced by the priorities of their administration and hesitate to take on a project without their support. We found the most success in a top-down approach to recruiting, reaching out to districts for permission to contact principals directly about this opportunity for teachers. Through this communication, we were able to share the potential benefits for students and teachers. We also successfully asked current participants to spread the word to colleagues as teachers were more receptive to hearing from those in a similar position. Limited time and resources appear to be perennial challenges for educators and PS project teams alike, but we suggest that prioritizing educator engagement in the development of educational materials may yield greater use by teachers because teachers trust materials vetted by other teachers more than those created by non-teachers. In addition, educators and their networks are an effective way to disseminate publicly available materials (see Supplemental File 4 for more guidance).
Conclusion
The questions for consideration and design recommendations presented here (see Figure 6) represent a starting point for PS project leaders who wish to bring their projects into K–12 settings. Because each PS project is unique, project developers should adapt our materials as needed. Our findings highlight the importance of project fit for teachers’ uptake. Teachers are more likely to invest in PS projects that align with standards, offer clear objectives, and become a lasting part of instruction. Materials that incorporate sensemaking beyond data collection foster authentic, long-term project engagement. Finally, collaborating with educators is essential to understand their goals and barriers. Intentionally designed, flexible, and educator-informed materials that align with curricular goals and foster meaningful engagement are key to increasing the usability of PS projects in K–12 settings.
Figure 6
Recommendations for selecting project fit and designing educative supports.
Supplementary Files
The Supplementary files for this article can be found as follows:
Supplemental File 2
Making Connections to Science Standards. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.898.s2
Supplemental File 3
Resources for Developing Your Own Materials. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.898.s3
Supplemental File 4
Recruiting Teachers and Sharing Your Resources. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.898.s4
Ethics and Consent
The research protocols were approved by the Horizon Research, Inc. Institutional Review Board (#00005913).
Acknowledgements
We thank the teachers who contributed to this study through materials development, survey and interview feedback, and classroom observations. We also acknowledge Elizabeth (Betsy) Davis and her colleagues for foundational work on educative curriculum design, which informed our adaptation for participatory science.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to all aspects of the manuscript.