WrThe NewFoS Education Framework © 2026 by New Frontiers of Sound Science and Technology Center, University of Arizona is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
From Independent Programs to a Unified Framework
After the first years of implementing the Community College Workshop, Student-Centered Leadership modules, and the REM program, assessment data and program experience revealed clear and consistent threads across these initiatives, despite their independent development and structural complexity.
In response, the Education and Broadening Participation team convened in late summer and early fall to synthesize these insights into a unified framework that intentionally connects and guides all Center education programs.
Community College Workshop
Foundational Topological Acoustics engagement for community college learners
Student-Centered Leadership
Modules supporting identity and professional development
REM Program
Research Experience and Mentoring for undergraduate students
Topological Acoustics Textbook
A modular, inquiry-driven curricular ecosystem that supports flexible and scaffolded pathways into topological acoustics, connecting foundational knowledge, conceptual understanding, and research participation through customizable learning experiences
University of Arizona Grand Challenges Research Building 6th Floor, home of NewFoS
The Asset-Based Mindset:
Our Organizing Principle
We began with what is central to all programs and what we seek to cultivate: students. Research on student development indicates that adopting an Asset-Based mindset grounded in established educational theory is critical to building effective STEM learning environments that support student success, identity development, and persistence (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Yosso, 2005; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Espinoza, 2011; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017).
The Asset-Based mindset serves as the organizing principle of this framework, shaping how all approaches are selected, integrated, and enacted across programs. Using this framework, we recognize the strengths, experiences, and cultural wealth that all individuals connected to the Center bring, fostering confidence, belonging (Strayhorn, 2012), and innovation (Page, 2007).
No single member or student shares the same background or experiences; rather, there exists a diversity of academic, cultural, and experiential knowledge that creates a robust foundation for innovation, creativity, and growth.
What Asset-Based Thinking Cultivates
- Recognition of individual strengths and cultural wealth
- Confidence and sense of belonging in STEM spaces
- Innovation through diverse perspectives
- Inclusive learning environments for all learners
Left to Right: Yousif Kandelchy, undergraduate student at Wayne State University; Dr. Pierre Lucas, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Arizona
Undergraduate REM Students on Mt Lemmon from Left to Right: Ture Gustafson from University of Arizona; Yousif Kandelchy from Wayne State University; Anwar Gatto from University of Arizona; and Kevin Kraseman from University of Arizona
Looking Beyond the Artifact
How an archaeological perspective became a framework for understanding people.
The framework used throughout NewFoS emerged through the collaborative work of Sara Chavarria and Cory Knox. While working with STEM programs, Chavarria observed that professionals often focused on explaining their work without considering the broader experiences of the students they were trying to mentor. She sought a way to help students understand not only the science around them, but also the people, relationships, and experiences shaping their development.
Drawing on her background as a professional archaeologist and lithic specialist, Chavarria approached this challenge through a familiar lens. Archaeologists rarely reconstruct the past through written records alone. Instead, they interpret communities by examining the traces people leave behind. A projectile point, for example, is more than a stone tool—it is evidence of the people who created it, the environment in which they lived, the needs they sought to meet, the practices they developed, and the expertise they cultivated.
As she reflected on this process, Chavarria found herself returning to the same fundamental questions:
- Who were the people?
- Where did they live?
- What needs shaped their decisions?
- What practices did they develop?
- What expertise made those practices possible?
These questions revealed that artifacts tell stories far larger than the objects themselves. They reveal the relationships between people, place, human needs, practice, and expertise that define a community.
"Technology is not technology for technology's sake. It exists to serve people, places, and communities." Chavarria to REM students, 2026
The same perspective extends beyond archaeology. Just as archaeologists look beyond artifacts to understand ancient communities, educators can look beyond grades, research projects, and technical skills to better understand the students developing behind them. The questions that reveal the story of a community can also illuminate the development of a scientist, engineer, or future professional.
The LINCSS 5P Framework
This mindset informs how we design and support learners' STEM and NewFoS identity development. We frame this process using the LINCSS 5P framework (Chavarria & Knox, 2023): People, Personal, Place, Practice, and Profession. While many STEM programs primarily emphasize technical practice, our model expands beyond this narrower focus.
People
How research impacts individuals and communities; who benefits or is affected; and who influences the scientist, the research process, and areas of inquiry.
Personal
How individual experiences, beliefs, and values shape and inform research questions, approaches, and interests.
Place
The contextual environment in which research occurs, including geographic, institutional, and sociopolitical factors, as well as the historical context of the space.
Practice
The methods, tools, instruments, and processes used in research, and how these shape knowledge production; including whether practices are traditional, innovative, or evidence-based.
Profession
The culture of the field or discipline, including norms, collaboration, dissemination practices, career pathways, and the development of professional identity.
Making Identity Development Visible and Measurable
We posit that intentional engagement across these domains strengthens learners' sense of belonging and supports their recognition as STEM practitioners. By explicitly integrating and labeling programs and workshops with these domains, we make identity development visible, structured, measurable, and adaptable for ongoing evaluation for both learners and program developers.
All Center learning experiences are further structured through four complementary approaches. Each approach contributes distinct, research-grounded elements that, when integrated, support holistic STEM identity development across the LINCSS 5P domains.
Student-Centered Mentoring
Developmental relationships supporting academic and personal growth
Place-Based Learning
Situating STEM education within real-world, community contexts
Entering Research Curriculum
Structured scaffolding for undergraduate research experiences
BSCS 5E Instructional Model
Inquiry-based learning through five structured phases
Undergraduate REM Students on Mt Lemmon from Left to Right: Nestor Rojas-Badillo from University of Arizona; John Keleman from University of Arizona; and Luke Thoresen from University of Arizona
Undergraduate REM Students at CUNY from Left to Right: Diego Ferrer from University of Colorado Boulder; Sophie Do from University of Arizona; Patrice Akayi from University of Arizona; and Tyi Jones from Spelman College
Student-Centered Mentoring & Place-Based Learning
Student-Centered Mentoring
Drawing on mentoring theories that highlight psychosocial and career development functions (Kram, 1985; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Brueggeman, 2022), this approach positions mentors not only as technical guides but as facilitators of identity formation, belonging, and professional navigation.
Within our framework, mentoring is intentionally aligned across all 5P domains, supporting learners in connecting their experiences (Personal), relationships (People), and future pathways (Profession) to their work.
Place-Based Learning
This approach situates STEM education within real-world contexts, emphasizing the importance of environment, community, and lived experience in shaping learning (Gruenewald, 2003). It reinforces that research is not abstract or isolated but embedded within geographic, institutional, and sociopolitical contexts.
Within the wheel, Place-Based learning directly activates the Place domain while also strengthening connections to People and Personal by grounding learning in meaningful and relevant contexts.
Left to Right: Howard Yawit, PhD Student in Material Science at University of Arizona; Dr. Derrick Hylton, Associate Professor for Physics at Spelman College; Grant Batchelder, Administrator for Academic Programs at NewFoS; and Dr. Kasi Kiehlbaugh, Director of Health Sciences Design at University of Arizona
Entering Research & the BSCS 5E Model
Entering Research Curriculum
This curriculum provides structured scaffolding for undergraduate research experiences, focusing on research communication, ethics, project ownership, resilience, mentoring relationships, and disciplinary thinking (Branchaw, Pfund, & Rediske, 2010).
Rather than treating research as a set of discrete tasks, Entering Research emphasizes participation in research communities and supports learners in developing as emerging scholars. It strongly supports the Practice and Profession domains while reinforcing People and Personal through mentoring, collaboration, confidence-building, and reflection.
BSCS 5E Instructional Model
The BSCS 5E model (Bybee et al., 2006) offers a structured, inquiry-based approach through five phases: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. This model supports deep conceptual understanding and iterative learning, ensuring that students actively construct knowledge rather than passively receive it.
Within our framework, the 5E model primarily strengthens the Practice domain while enabling integration across all domains by structuring inquiry, active meaning-making, and how learners engage with People, Place, and Personal experiences throughout the learning process.
The 5E model ensures students actively construct knowledge at each phase, supporting iterative and inquiry-driven STEM learning experiences.
An Integrated, Counterbalancing System
As illustrated in the framework wheel, these approaches are not implemented in isolation. Instead, they are intentionally layered and integrated, allowing each approach to activate multiple 5P domains simultaneously. This design ensures that no single aspect of STEM identity development is privileged at the expense of others.
Learning experiences are co-constructed as interconnected systems, where mentoring relationships, contextualized learning, structured research experiences, and inquiry-based instruction collectively support the development of well-rounded STEM practitioners.
This integrated structure intentionally counterbalances the tendency of STEM education to prioritize technical practice, ensuring equal attention to relational, contextual, and identity-based dimensions of learning. This ensures that learners engage not only in what they do as scientists, but in who they are, where they are situated, and how they relate to the broader impacts of their work.
What They Do
Technical practice, research methods, and disciplinary skills
Who They Are
Identity, belonging, values, and personal connection to science
Where They Are
Contextual, geographic, and sociopolitical situatedness
How They Relate
Broader impacts, community connections, and professional networks
Branchaw, J. L., Pfund, C., & Rediske, R. (2010). Entering Research: A Facilitator's Manual. W. H. Freeman.
Brueggemann, A. (2022). Student-centered mentoring: Keeping students at the heart of new teachers' learning. Corwin Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. BSCS.
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
Chavarria, S. P., & Knox, C. (2023). Linking Inclusive Narratives to Create STEM Synergy (LINCSS): A Framework for Culturally Responsive STEM Education and Engagement. Online Submission.
Espinoza, O. (2011). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: A new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 53(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598918
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378023
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott, Foresman.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24622
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400830282
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006horn
The NewFoS Education Framework