Consortium Level Data

In this section you will find data from this reporting period’s DSEC programming aggregated to the Consortium level. This includes:

Administrative data (participant counts, demographics)
A data dashboard so that you can customize your own view of the data
Participant perspectives for both students and educators
Participant/program location data
Connectivity across Consortium members
Information about the STEM Technical Exchange and post-event survey responses from attendees

Base Period Participants

This section represents aggregated data across all Consortium programs. Hovering over a section of the graph will show participant counts and percentages. Overall participant counts differ from what is seen in the data dashboard due to two partners exiting the Consortium in February 2025. If you want to explore this data in more detail, use the arrow to access the Data Dashboard.

Data Dashboard

Please note that the total participant counts in the dashboard include participants from past consortium members that are not represented in the DSEC Base Period participant totals.

Student Perspectives: STEM Interest and Engagement

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased student interest and engagement in formal and informal STEM

For elementary and middle grades, students were asked to rate their STEM and the extent to which participating in DSEC programming increased their STEM interest. For secondary and postsecondary students, STEM interest and engagement was measured through a combination of survey questions related to future course taking plans, interest in extracurricular pursuits, and intended STEM majors. Secondary and postsecondary students also had the opportunity to rate the influence of DSEC programming on their STEM interest.

Student Perspectives: STEM Confidence

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant STEM competencies: STEM skills, knowledge, abilities, and confidence

Students at all grade levels responded to a series of survey questions related to their confidence in STEM, for which individual responses were compiled into aggregate scores. Further, students were asked to rate the influence of DSEC programming on their confidence in doing STEM. Note that competencies related to STEM knowledge, skills, and abilities can be found in participant perspectives highlighted in profiles of partner programs.

Student Perspectives: STEM Career Awareness and Interest

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, STEM research and careers

Elementary students were asked to rate their interest in pursuing a STEM career. Middle school students were asked to rate both their awareness of and interest in pursuing a STEM career. Middle school students had the opportunity to select one or more disciplines of STEM that they were most interested in pursuing as a career. Middle school students were also asked about the extent to which they agreed DSEC programming increased their awareness of and interest in STEM-related jobs or careers.

High school and postsecondary students retrospectively reported changes in their STEM career awareness and interest following program participation. These students responded to paired survey items where they were asked to rate their awareness of STEM careers before and after DSEC programming as well as interest in STEM careers before and after DSEC programming. In the graphs below you will see the number of students who selected each response category (e.g., “Not at all interested”) for the before question who selected each of the response categories for the after question. Use your mouse to hover above each strand for more detail on the before/after category pairing and the count of students.

How much I knew about STEM careers before and after DSEC programming (n = 2,938):

How much I was interested in STEM careers before and after DSEC programming (n = 2,919) :

Student Perspectives: DoW STEM Career Interest

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, DoW STEM research and careers

Middle school students were asked to rate their interest in pursuing a DoW STEM career. Middle school students were also asked about extent to which they agreed DSEC programming increased their awareness of and interest in DoW STEM careers.

High school and postsecondary students retrospectively reported changes in their DoW STEM career awareness and interest following program participation. These students responded to paired survey items where they were asked to rate their awareness of DoW STEM careers before and after DSEC programming as well as interest in DoW STEM careers before and after DSEC programming. In the graphs below you will see the number of students who selected each response category (e.g., “Not at all interested”) for the before question who selected each of the response categories for the after question. Use your mouse to hover above each strand for more detail on the before/after category pairing and the count of students.

How much I knew about DoW STEM careers before and after DSEC programming (n = 2,868):

How much I was interested in DoW STEM careers before and after DSEC programming (n = 2,874):

Educator Perspectives: STEM Confidence

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant STEM competencies: STEM skills, knowledge, abilities, and confidence

Teachers at all grade levels responded to a series of survey questions related to their confidence in STEM, for which individual responses were compiled into aggregate scores. Survey items were drawn from Ronan et al. (2023), Unfried et al. (2022) and Yoon et al. (2014). These survey items were divided into two categories following Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy: personal efficacy (confidence) and outcome expectancy. In addition, teachers were asked to rate the influence of DSEC programming on their confidence in teaching STEM. Note that competencies related to STEM knowledge, skills, and abilities can be found in participant perspectives highlighted in profiles of partner programs.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ronan, D., Erdil, D. C., & Brylow, D. (2023). Teacher attitudes & beliefs in computer science (T-ABC): Development & validation of a teacher survey instrument. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 23(2), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569945

Unfried, A., Rachmatullah, A., Alexander, A., & Wiebe, E. (2022). An alternative to STEBI-A: Validation of the T-STEM science scale. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00339-x

Yoon, S. Y., Evans, M. G., & Strobel, J. (2014). Validation of the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale for K-12 teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(3), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20049

Educator Perspectives: Changes to STEM Teaching Approaches

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Changes in teacher approaches to teaching about STEM concepts, practices, and careers in their classrooms

Teachers were asked to rate the frequency with which they used student-centered STEM teaching practices such as asking students to organize and analyze data, use representations and models, design and test solutions, and construct evidence-based explanations. Teachers also rated their perceptions of the importance of providing opportunities for students to develop and use 21st century skills such as setting goals, working effectively with others, managing time appropriately, communicating clearly, and being adaptable. Finally, teachers were asked to rate the influence of DSEC programming on their ability to use student-centered STEM teaching practices and their perspectives on the importance of providing opportunities for students to develop 21st century skills.

Educator Perspectives: Awareness of DSEC Opportunities

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, DSEC opportunities

Teachers were asked to rate the extent to which DSEC programming increased their awareness of DoW STEM opportunities for their students and their perspectives about the role of the DoW in supporting effective STEM programming nationally.

Educator Perspectives: STEM Career Awareness

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, STEM research and careers

Teachers were asked to rate the extent to which DSEC programming increased their awareness of STEM careers and their ability to teach students about STEM careers.

Educator Perspectives: DoW STEM Career Awareness

DSEC Near-Term Outcome: Increased participant awareness of, and interest in, DoW STEM research and careers

Teachers were asked to rate how familiar they were with STEM work that occurs at the Department of War and the extent to which DSEC programming increased their awareness of DoW STEM careers.

Participant Locations

During this reporting period, DSEC programming reached participants in all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories. Participant locations clustered in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, California, Iowa, Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, and along the northeast coast. Several DSEC partners’ participants were from outside the US, largely students at Department of War Education Activity (DoWEA) locations. The most international participants were in South Korea, Japan, Brazil, or Western Europe.

iFrames are not supported on this page.

Network Connectivity

Understanding DSEC partners’ interactions provides key insights into how partners share information, build capacity, coordinate efforts, and collaborate on joint efforts in service to the Consortium’s shared goals and outcomes.

In the biannual Consortium and Hub Health and Effectiveness Framework (CHHEF) survey, partners reported how often their organization interacted with each Consortium partner during the previous six months. Response options were quarterly or less, monthly, twice per month, weekly, and daily. We administered the survey four times over the Base Period.

Element 2 used social network analysis (SNA) to examine changes in partner interactions between the first and second year of Base Period, including shifts in the number and nature of those interactions.

The number of total interactions remained fairly consistent across time points, with only a slight decrease. In the first year of Base Period, partners reported a total of 396 interactions. In the second year of Base Period, partners reported a total of 372 interactions. This slight decrease in total interactions is likely due to the fact that BEST, a former hub lead, was no longer part of the consortium after the first year.

The average density of the partner’s remained steady at 74% across time points. Density measures how closely a network is connected by dividing the number of existing connections by the maximum possible connections (e.g., 50 existing connections / 100 maximum possible connections = 50% density). A density of 74% indicates a highly connected network.

The average number of connections among partners also remained steady. In the first year of Base Period, each partner reported interacting with 17 other partners, on average. In the second year of Base Period, each partner reported interacting with 16 other partners, on average.

The most common type of connections among partners remained consistent. Partners most commonly reported exchanging information with partners and least commonly reported collaborating in a sustained way on joint efforts.

These findings suggest that the consortium has consistently maintained a highly connected network of partners across the two-year period. The number and nature of interactions remained stable despite slight shifts in membership.

The following network map, known as a sociogram, displays the frequency of partner interactions over a six-month period (August 2025 to January 2026).

Thicker lines represent interactions occurring daily or weekly. Thinner lines represent interactions occurring monthly, twice per month, or quarterly or less.

Colored circles represent STEM Outreach partners (blue) and Hub leads (green).

We also asked partners to report whether their interactions with another partner fell into the following four connection types: Exchange Information, Build Capacity, Align or Coordinate Programming, and Collaborate. To examine partner interactions across these connection types, we focused our analysis on reciprocal interactions, meaning both partners reported the same type of interaction. Partners most commonly reported exchanging information with other partners and least commonly reported collaborating on joint efforts.

Network Analysis Calculations

Over the two year period, Element 2 administered the CHHEF survey biannually, for a total of four survey administrations. In each survey, partners were asked to report on the frequency and type of interactions with other partners.

To calculate the frequencies of interactions between any two partners during a six-month period, Element 2 averaged each pair of organizations’ reported frequencies. To determine the type of connection between any two partners during the six-month period, Element 2 examined reciprocal connections, reporting only those instances in which both organizations identified the same type of interaction (e.g., both partners reported exchanging information with each other).

The network maps present interaction data from the third survey administration, covering August 2025 through January 2026. This period was selected because partner interactions remained relatively stable throughout first and second year of the consortium, making these data representative of the two-year period.

Exchange Information: Members share information about their work and engage in mutual learning through conferences, meetings, occasional calls, email exchanges, or broader communication with members on Amaze. Over a six month period (August 2025 to January 2026), we found that, on average, each partner reported exchanging information with five other partners, ranging from 0 to 17 partners.
Build Capacity: Members provide or receive expertise, technical support, training, or coaching with the intent to build capacity and enhance organizational capabilities. From August 2025 to January 2026, we found that, on average, each partner reported building capacity with two other partners, ranging from 0 to 7 partners.
Align or Coordinate Programming: Members deliberately align or coordinate efforts, such as outreach for geographic or programmatic expansion, sequencing programming or pathways, and/or brokering relationships with DSEC members and other entities outside of DSEC. From August 2025 to January 2026, each partner reported aligning or coordinating programming with two other partners on average, ranging from 0 to 12 partners.
Collaborate in a Sustained Way to Design, Deliver, and Enact Joint Efforts: Members deliberately co-design efforts through sustained partnership—characterized by regular engagement, joint planning, shared responsibilities, and mutual accountability—to achieve shared outcomes. On average, each partner reported collaborating on joint efforts with two other partners between August 2025 and January 2026, ranging from 0 to 9 partners.

STEM Exchange

STEM Exchange

The STEM Technical Exchange, held September 22–23, 2025, was a national convening designed and supported by DSEC to advance STEM education and workforce development through cross-sector collaboration and evidence-informed practice.

Grounded in the theme “Pathways to Progress: Expanding Opportunities in STEM Together,” the STEM Exchange reflected DSEC’s role as a force multiplier for DoW STEM by bringing together stakeholders from education, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations to strengthen the STEM ecosystem in the United States and cultivate a sustainable, future-ready talent pipeline. Post-session and post-event electronic surveys were used to gather participant feedback throughout and after the STEM Exchange.

Collectively, attendance data and participant reflections suggest that the STEM Exchange served as a catalyst for inspiration, partnership-building, and continued momentum toward strengthening the STEM talent pipeline.

Thank you for the absolutely amazing conference! I love the DoD STEM community! It is so enriching and uplifting to gather with so many people that are passionate, innovative, and selflessly committed to support and inspire the next generation of STEM leaders.

[I] really enjoyed the built-in networking sessions and the opportunities to hear from and meet so many different people in STEM (industry, military, non-profit, education, beyond).

[I] also liked the networking power hour… everyone was very friendly and excited to talk and learn from each other.

Breakout sessions and workshops that are hands on and application based. I loved the ones that I actually tried something new!

Program and Focus

The STEM Exchange’s intentional design balanced dissemination and active engagement through a mix of deep-dive presentations, interactive learning sessions, and general sessions that connected emerging technologies, workforce development, and cross-sector collaboration to the broader theme. These sessions demonstrated how investments in critical technology fields can serve as entry points for student engagement while also addressing broader workforce needs. The interactive “Power Hour: Connect, Collaborate, Create” session provided participants with intentional opportunities to build relationships, exchange expertise, identify shared interests, and explore solutions aligned to the STEM Exchange’s priority topic areas or “strands.” Through structured networking and discussion activities, participants were encouraged to leverage collective knowledge and form new partnerships that could extend the impact of STEM education and workforce development efforts beyond the convening itself. Almost all survey respondents (99%) also agreed or strongly agreed that their participation better equipped them to do their job within their organization. Collectively, these formats enabled participants to explore emerging research, share promising practices, and engage in collaborative problem-solving that promoted practical application, innovation, and cross-consortium learning.

The STEM Exchange’s content focused on priority strands that reflected critical national and workforce needs:

Defense STEM Priorities
Increasing Participation and Success in STEM
Fostering STEM Mindsets and Innovation
Career Connecting Learning
STEM Program Evaluation and Impact

By aligning priority strands with DoW STEM priorities, the STEM Exchange provided a coherent framework for participants to engage with content that was strategically relevant and actionable. All survey respondents (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that attending the STEM Exchange increased their awareness of how the DoW is supporting STEM broadly.

Connecting Strategy and Practice

A defining feature of the STEM Exchange was its emphasis on translating strategy into practice. Sessions highlighted real-world applications of STEM education, such as connecting emerging technologies to classroom instruction, designing scalable workforce pathways, and integrating technical and professional skill development. This applied focus enabled participants to leave with concrete tools, resources, and strategies that could be implemented in diverse educational and community contexts. Most respondents to post-session surveys (95%) agreed or strongly agreed that individual sessions were engaging, easy to understand, and well-aligned with program descriptions, and that the content was both relevant and applicable to their own programs or project work.

Networking

Beyond content delivery, the STEM Exchange served as a platform for network building and partnership development across the federal government and the broader STEM outreach community, strengthening connections across stakeholders and expanding opportunities for collaboration. By bringing together 342 in-person participants and 44 virtual participants, the STEM Exchange created a hybrid convening space for connection, collaboration, and shared learning across the STEM education and workforce ecosystem. Most respondents (96%) agreed or strongly agreed that there were adequate opportunities to network and collaborate with colleagues, and eleven percent of respondents explicitly mentioned in their written comments that networking was one of the most beneficial event activities.

Virtual participation further extended the event’s reach, with one virtual attendee describing the general sessions as “impactful” and highlighting the importance of bringing diverse partners together to “forge and maneuver the future of STEM.”

Participant feedback reflected the value of this intentional design, with attendees describing the event as “wonderful,” “amazing,” “inspiring,” and thoughtfully programmed.

Survey Results

Seventy-five attendees completed a brief survey about their STEM Exchange experience. Use the dashboard below to view the results.

Students

139,570 total student participants

Student Grade Level

Military-Connected Students

Category	Count	%
Military-connected	24,819	17.8%
Not Military-connected Student	114,751	82.2%

Educators

4,728 total educator participants

Educator Type

Category	Count	%
District Administrator or Staff	172	3.6%
School Administrator	187	4%
Teacher	3,052	64.6%
Other	576	12.2%
Counselor	88	1.9%
No position listed	653	13.8%

Educator Grade Levels

Category	Count	%
Educator Middle	727	15.4%
Educator High	1,096	23.2%
Educator Grade Not Listed	1,424	30.1%
Educator Elementary	746	15.8%
Educator Multiple Grades	461	9.8%
Educator 2-Year and/or Tech College Undergraduate	180	3.8%
Educator Undergrad	75	1.6%
Educator Grad Students	1	0%
Educator Post-doc	18	0.4%

Military-Connected Educators

Category	Count	%
Military-connected	264	5.6%
Not Military-connected Educator	4,464	94.4%