Durable STEM Education Programs: Evidence from Diverse Fields

A literature review. 

Jen Parsons and Christoper Banks
August 2024


Definitions
Amplification: The process of increasing the reach, effect, or intensity of a program or project's outcomes.
Durability: The measure of how long-lasting the impact of a program or project is over time and its ability to withstand counteracting forces.
Framework: A set of guidelines, processes, and procedures that define how a project should be managed.
Impact: The significant or lasting changes brought about by a program or project's outcomes, often related to strategic goals or mission.
Longevity: The time span of a program’s impact, in particular how long a program can sustain its impact.
Outcome: The results or effects generated by a program or project.
Program: A set of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually.
Project: A temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.
Scalability: The ability of a program to grow in size (e.g., number of participants) or spread to different locations and contexts.
Sustainability:	The ability of a program or project to continue delivering benefits and maintain outcomes over time.



Sustainability, durability, and longevity

These three concepts are related and are somewhat challenging to disentangle. For the purposes of this literature review, longevity is mostly concerned with the temporal aspect. A program has longevity if it has the ability to persist over a long period. Sustainability expands on this concept to include that the program continues to operate effectively over time, delivers benefits and maintains outcomes, and remains relevant and viable. Finally, durability is related to how a program delivers long-lasting impacts through its ability to withstand and adapt to changes, challenges, and counteracting forces (that is, it is resilient and can recover from setbacks). As durability encompasses aspects of both longevity and sustainability, it is the focus of this literature review.

Abstract

This literature review  addresses a gap in understanding of the durability of impact in STEM education programs. Despite significant investments in STEM programs in Australia, sustaining their benefits beyond initial implementation remains a challenge. This review examines interdisciplinary frameworks and strategies from diverse fields to analyse the factors contributing to the sustained success of programs and projects. It aims to identify best practices and key factors that can be applied to STEM education programs to enhance sustained impact. The review methodology included a structured search of literature across diverse fields, focusing on durability, sustainability, and longevity of programs and projects. The findings show that durability and sustainability are multifaceted concepts influenced by numerous factors, rather than a single element. The review identifies a suite of factors, categories and over-arching themes (see Figure 1) relevant to the durability of STEM education programs, including a clear vision that is strategically designed for durability and scalability. This vision is supported by long-term planning, with monitoring and evaluation processes embedded throughout the program's lifecycle to ensure continuous improvement. The importance of inclusive and collaborative structures is emphasised in the literature, fostering partnerships across various institutions, communities, and with external organisations. Aligning the program's vision and values with the host organisation and community needs is important, as is the presence of strategic and effective leadership, alongside dedicated program champions, to drive the program's success and ensure its longevity. These elements, amongst others, collectively contribute to durable programs and are relevant to the STEM education context. Insights from this review can inform the design, implementation, and delivery of future STEM education programs, contributing to their long-term success and impact.

Introduction

STEM education programs aim to increase Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) competencies and aspirations among students, often with a focus on increasing participation from underrepresented groups (Australian Government, 2024) or addressing a skills gap (Bentley, Sieben, & Unsworth, 2022). Despite significant investments in these programs in Australia and in many other countries, many initiatives face challenges in maintaining their impact over time, with Australia’s Chief Scientist saying that “Australia is not getting the full value of its investment in STEM education” (Australia’s Chief Scientist, 2024). While short-term gains in STEM student engagement and performance are often reported, the persistence of these impacts are not well documented or measured (Johnson, Margell, Goldenberg, Palomera, & Sprowles, 2023). This is compounded by a lack of comprehensive strategies or frameworks that are tailored to sustain the benefits of STEM education programs beyond their initial implementation phase. A related issue is a gap in research regarding the critical factors that contribute to impact durability in STEM education (Li et al., 2022; Santos, Anderson, & Milner-Bolotin, 2023). In Australia, the sustainability and scalability of STEM programs can be hindered by challenges in aligning with the national curriculum (Pressick-Kilborn, Silk, & Martin, 2021) and a reliance on external experts for program delivery  (Deehan et al., 2024). 
Durability focuses specifically on the longevity and resilience of a program's impact. Concentrating on durability ensures that a program remains effective and continues to deliver benefits long (years or even decades) after its initial implementation, even as internal and external conditions may change. This can be particularly important in fields like STEM education, where the goal is to have a lasting influence on teachers and students’ skills, interests and aspirations (the STEM ‘pipeline’ metaphor conveys the importance of early interventions having important, long-term, downstream effects (Edwards, Buckley, Chiavaroli, Rothman & McMillan, 2023)). By definition, for impact to be considered durable in a STEM education program, it should be evident in longitudinal studies and demonstrate that the benefits extend into future educational and career pursuits, pedagogical or system change. For example, Shahali, Halim, Rasul, Osman, & Arsad (2019) measured the longitudinal impact of an integrated STEM program in Malaysia on middle school students and found that while short term impacts through increased interest in STEM subjects and careers were documented, this was unable to be sustained with the cohort of students after two years, as the level of interest in STEM subjects had decreased. Additionally, Hasim, Rosli, Halim, Capraro, & Capraro (2022) conducted a literature review that provided an analysis of STEM professional development activities and how this impacted teacher knowledge and instructional practices. They found that traditional professional development failed to result in sustained improvement in teacher practice and student learning and suggested that professional learning needed more comprehensive and ongoing programs to achieve long-term impacts. 
There are some studies that have shown student STEM education programs can have impact over time, for example, Burack, Melchior and Hoover (2019) showed significant impacts of an after-school robotics program on STEM engagement in college for students who participated. However, the authors acknowledged the limitations of this study, particularly in identifying the time frame at which these impacts are considered long-term. 
When comparing the characteristics of successful and less successful  Advanced Technological Education programs in the United States, it was found that deeper institutional integration and secure and diverse funding sources were the key to sustaining success (Bailey, Matsuzuka, Jacobs, Morest, & Hughes, 2003). Similarly, a systemic literature review conducted by Hasim et al. (2022) found some evidence that successful teacher professional development programs are characterised by their integrated STEM approach and the opportunity for teachers to engage in collaborative project and problem-based learning with STEM professionals. In addition, the review found that programs that offer ongoing support for teachers, as opposed to one-time events, were more likely to result in sustained outcomes for teachers and students. Finally, an example of longer term impacts has been demonstrated though a study that found teachers who participated in an Applied Mathematics Program had more students who chose a STEM major in college than those who didn’t participate (Henríquez Fernández, Barr, Antoine, Alston, & Nichol, 2021). 
The concepts of durability and sustainability can be understood in various ways. While some may see it as the ability to produce a lasting effect, such as teachers maintaining increased confidence and skills in STEM after a program concludes (Han, Kelley, & Knowles, 2023), or the continuation of program activities, others may define it as the continuous provision of funds and resources to continue an initiative. After the conclusion of CSIRO’s Indigenous STEM Education Project , an evaluation revealed that there was a potential overemphasis on continued funding rather than on continued impact, with less attention paid to developing strategies for embedding programs and sustaining long-term impact until later in the project (Walker & Banks, 2021). This resulted in discussions about project sustainability focusing more on identifying alternate sources of funding rather than ensuring knowledge and capability were embedded within communities and established institutions (Walker & Banks, 2021). While funding is important, greater impact is achieved when the focus is on strategically building capacity, supporting innovation, and ensuring a program's longevity after its conclusion with or without funding (Stevens & Peikes, 2006).
Research on the critical factors that contribute to the durability of improved outcomes is also limited, particularly within the STEM education field. The analysis of these factors and their relative contributions remains a largely underexplored area (Thomas & Zahn, 2010), an exception to this is in the field of health research (Schell et al., 2013; Wiltsey Stirman et al., 2012). Both Schell et al. (2013) and Wiltsey et al. (2012) conducted comprehensive literature reviews of sustainability in health programs and interventions and Schell et al. (2013) used this information to develop a conceptual framework for the sustainability of public health programs. Both studies found that sustainability is influenced by multiple factors and recommended that instead of focusing on a single factor, programs should create strategies that address multiple factors simultaneously. They found that health programs need time for impacts to be seen (Schell et al., 2013), and it’s likely that STEM education programs also have this challenge. Both fields involve complex human behaviours and learning processes that do not change quickly. Health programs often aim to alter long-standing habits or improve public health outcomes, which necessitates sustained efforts and the accumulation of incremental changes over time. Similarly, STEM education programs are designed to build knowledge, skills, and attitudes that may take time to develop into measurable outcomes such as academic performance, career choices, or innovation in STEM fields, with early intervention and lifelong learning key aspects of STEM education (Bentley, Sieben & Unsworth, 2022; Timms, Moyle, Weldon & Mitchell, 2018). If the full benefits from investments of time and resources are to be realised, a clear understanding and focus on durability is key and the complex interactions between durability factors should be understood.
This literature review has gathered insights from a variety of fields to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that drive long-term success in programs more widely. The authors have assumed that such insights will be able to be translated to the STEM education field and can be applied to this context. Incorporating insights from public health, environmental and social science, among others, can provide a richer and more nuanced understanding of the factors that could drive long-term success in STEM education projects, programs, or initiatives. The authors’ intention is that this information can then be used to develop frameworks for the design, implementation and delivery of future programs. However, to ensure that these factors are transferable from diverse fields, it will be important to test and refine any tools or frameworks.
This literature review seeks to address the knowledge gap of impact durability in STEM education by examining existing research, drawing upon interdisciplinary frameworks and strategies to provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that contribute to the sustained success of programs, projects and initiatives, more broadly. Through this review, we aim to identify best practices and key elements that could enhance sustained impact in STEM education initiatives, ultimately contributing to a more scientifically literate and technically skilled community able to meet the challenges of the future.

Methods

A literature review methodology was used to identify research and other sources focussing on durability (and sustainability) of programs and projects across a variety of fields. This methodology included a structured search of relevant databases , journals, and key websites. Initial sources for potential inclusion in the review were found through Google and academic database searches, referring to existing literature reviews, and referrals from experts in the field. Initial sources then provided pathways to additional sources. Search terms used were: program and project sustainability/durability/longevity, STEM Education, impact framework, funding, scale, scaling, impact tool, sustained impact, lasting impact, amplification. 

Literature that were identified during the search were included in the review if they were in English , judged by the authors as transferrable to the STEM education context, and described distinct programs, projects, or initiatives rather than ongoing operations in an organisation. Originally it was hoped that there would be sources focusing on STEM education or education generally, but given how few sources there were, a number of related human services fields were also included, such as health. Similarly, peer reviewed journal articles and reports were originally prioritised but several best practice and case studies were also included. Other sources included scholarly books, conference papers, and institutional grey literature.
From the literature reviewed, 25 papers and reports were found to explicitly mention factors that lead to durable (or sustainable) impact of programs and projects and were included in the analysis (see Appendix A). Specifically, 248 factors leading to durable impact were identified and each of these factors were placed into categories and themes for simplification and to reduce repetition (see Appendix B for full list of factors). Included literature encompassed the fields of environment, health, education, social science, and sustainability, with 84 per cent of the publications coming from fields outside of education. Health publications had the highest representation at 56 per cent.

Categorisation of evidence

Each relevant paper/article/report was reviewed and if any factors related to the durable impact of programs/projects/initiatives were identified, these factors were included for analysis. The strength of each factor's contribution to the durable impact of a program, project, or initiative was assessed as shown in Table 1. 
 

Table 1: Criteria and scores to assess the strength of factors that contribute to the durability of a program, project, or initiative.
Criteria	Description 	Points 
Mention of the Factor	If the factor is mentioned in the documentation or there was some discussion of the factor related to the project or program.	1
Anecdotal accounts	If there are informal accounts or stories that suggest the factor contributes to durability.	2
Documentation	If there are records or documents that explicitly state the factor's contribution to durability.	3
Measurable	If there are metrics or data that quantitatively measure the factor's contribution to durability.	4
Peer-Reviewed	If the factor’s contribution to durability has been reviewed and validated by independent experts in the field.	5

Once factors were compiled, categories and over-arching themes were developed to classify factors that were similar or able to be themed to reduce duplication and for simplification. Scores were totalled for each factor category to provide a weighting and some measure of strength of contribution to durability.


Findings

Factors and themes related to program durability
The three themes and ten categories associated with program durability/sustainability are listed here, accompanied by a description of each:
Program dynamics
•	Program Design and Implementation – factors that include the planning and execution of a program to establish a robust foundation and adaptable framework for long-term program success and impact.
•	Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning – any factor that refers to the processes of tracking progress, assessing results, and applying lessons learned to improve program performance and durability.
•	Adaptability and Responsiveness – any factors that refer to a program's ability to adjust to changing conditions and respond to new challenges and opportunities in a way that maintains its relevance and effectiveness.
Community and resource dimensions
•	Financial and Resource Management - this includes any factor that mentions the efficient and effective use of financial resources and other assets to support the program's objectives and ensure its long-term viability.
•	Stakeholder Engagement and Partnerships - this category is for factors that involve key individuals and organisations that have an interest or stake in the program and/or mention fostering collaboration and support.
•	Community and Societal Factors - this category includes the social and cultural context in which the program operates, including community needs, values, and behaviours that can influence its durability.
Strategic foundations
•	Leadership and Governance – any reference to the roles and responsibilities of leaders and governing bodies in guiding the project or program towards its goals, ensuring accountability, and making strategic decisions that promote durability.
•	Organisational Capacity– factors that refer to the internal capabilities of an organisation, including staff skills, management systems, and physical infrastructure, which support the program's durability.
•	Policy and Legislative Support – factors that involve the alignment of the program with relevant policies and legislation that can provide a supportive framework for its ongoing activities and goals.
•	Integration and Alignment – factors that mention the importance of integrating the program's activities and goals with other initiatives and aligned with broader strategic objectives to create synergy and enhance durability.
Strength weightings of durability categories
Based on the criteria in Table 1, of the ten durability categories, the highest weighting was Organisational capacity (144) followed by Stakeholder engagement and partnerships (128). The category with the lowest strength weighting was Policy and legislative support (37) (see Figure 2). In terms of the three durability themes, the mean weightings were: Community and resource dimensions (114), Program dynamics (80), and Strategic foundations (75).
Figure 2: Program durability categories ranked by strength weighting, which is a sum of the scores given to each factor mentioned in each publication. 
 
Discussion

This review has identified factors that contribute to program durability and provided some measure of strength for each of these. However, there is a need to be cautious when interpreting these findings. While there is evidence supporting the role of certain factors in enhancing program durability, this should not diminish the potential significance of factors with lower strength weightings. Their apparent lesser importance may be attributed to underrepresentation in the literature reviewed or challenges in measurement, rather than reflective of an actual lack of impact.
What has been consistently found across all fields included in this review, is that the durability of a program depends on multiple interrelated factors that collectively foster long-term success and impact. Organisational support, including adequate resources and management backing, is the foundation that enables a program to thrive. This, coupled with a skilled and stable workforce that harbours positive attitudes contributes to a program's consistent and effective success. Investing in the ongoing training and development of staff, enhancing their capabilities and ensuring they remain at the forefront of program delivery were also indicated as factors contributing to program durability. Staff involvement in decision-making not only increases their commitment but also aligns their personal goals with the program's success. The skill and confidence of staff in program delivery are essential, as they foster trust and credibility in the program's outcomes.
Another important factor is an environment that values and supports the program—marked by a clear organisational structure and efficient procedures— laying the groundwork for durability. This includes the host organisation's ability to adapt its procedures and systems to integrate new elements, supported by robust structures, processes, and resources. The organisation's underlying capacity, often reflected in its longevity, indicates its internal capabilities to manage and sustain a program. An organisation that supports long-term goals, a perception of impartiality, encourages diverse stakeholder collaboration, and provides program champions all contribute to a program's enduring impact. Transitioning from a time-limited project to an ongoing initiative is a strategic move that integrates the program's principles within the community, thereby becoming a fundamental part of its continuous development. This approach may be suitable for certain programs, allowing them to evolve from temporary endeavours to permanent fixtures that contribute to long-term growth and progress.
Community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and partnerships contribute to program durability, providing a network of partners and champions to advocate for a program that is both impactful and sustainable. By creating inclusive and collaborative structures, stakeholders from various sectors are united in their pursuit of common goals, ensuring that the program's vision and outcomes are shared and supported. The establishment of local and global connections not only extends the program's reach but also secures its cultural relevance and resonance with the community it serves. Financial durability is equally important, with strategies for ongoing funding and the exploration of new revenue streams providing a stable financial base for a program's longevity. The sharing of lessons learned and best practices among stakeholders fosters a learning environment that promotes continuous improvement and adaptation, ensuring the program remains responsive to changing needs and environments. A holistic approach to program design, which integrates community and stakeholder perspectives with sound financial planning, is essential for creating programs that endure and thrive over time.
A program designed with a clear vision that encompasses durability and scalability has an increased probability to endure and adapt over time. By aligning design with the organisation's broader goals and strategies, the program contributes to achieving key objectives while also leveraging resources effectively. Consequently, the organisation's overall impact and cohesive progression towards shared targets is enhanced. The critical role of long-term planning, monitoring, and evaluation cannot be overstated, as these elements are crucial for tracking progress and facilitating necessary adjustments. A solid theoretical and research foundation supports the program's methodologies and outcomes, providing a credible evidence base for its activities. The ability to adapt to the evolving educational landscape, especially in STEM education, is essential for maintaining relevance and effectiveness. Continuous improvement and the flexibility to modify strategies and approaches as needed are hallmarks of programs that not only aim to make an immediate impact but also strive for lasting impact.
This literature review has confirmed there is a significant gap in our understanding of the factors that ensure STEM education programs in particular have enduring impact. While evidence from other sectors has informed valuable framework for shaping our understanding, a concentrated effort to deepen this understanding for STEM education programs is essential. Each of the categories and themes identified across the diverse fields in this review can be directly applicable to STEM education programs. There are specific contexts relevant to STEM education that are likely to have been insufficiently addressed in this review such as the  education system and Australian curriculum. Although the relevant category in this review scored lowest for evidence, this may diminish the role that this factor plays in STEM education, or education more broadly. Similarly, the earlier identified over-reliance of external experts in some STEM education programs could be considered when boosting the capabilities and resources of all project participants. A focus on teacher professional development is another way of sustaining impact. Professional development equips teachers with the skills to continuously improve their STEM knowledge and practice, which is particularly important in the everchanging STEM education landscape. This leads to sustained improvements, rather than temporary boosts that might come from short-term student-focused initiatives. Table 2 outlines some specific ways to apply these findings for STEM education programs.
While all programs are different, a common starting point for enhancing durability should be: "What does durable impact look like for this program?" This question prompts a deep dive into the program's long-term goals, the desired outcomes, and the strategies in place to achieve and maintain them. It encourages a reflective approach to program design and implementation, ensuring that the initiatives are not just effective in the short term but also structured to withstand challenges and adapt to changes over time. The factors presented here can be used to develop a durability framework that can be tested across programs, with program teams, stakeholders and funding partners to provide real-world validation, identification of any gaps and to allow for context specific customisation. 
Table 2. Suggestions for increasing the durability of STEM education programs
Program dynamics	Community and resource dimensions	Strategic foundations
Durable STEM education programs:
Are designed with a clear vision and long-term goals, and with durability and scalability in mind (specifically an explicit strategy for achieving sustained impact)
Are designed with diverse voices and perspectives, which ensures that the program is tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the community it serves, ultimately leading to a more durable program.
Have long-term planning, monitoring and evaluation processes in place, including incorporating regular assessment and feedback mechanisms to track progress and make data-driven decisions, and having contingencies for post-program monitoring and evaluation.
Are based on robust education, social, and personal theory and research that underpins the design and implementation of the program.
Have, built in the from the beginning, adaptability to changing conditions and needs, specifically flexibility to respond to the evolving demands of the STEM industry and the changing interests of students.
Have the ability to grow, either in terms of scaling to more locations, different participant groups, or having deeper impact.	Have partnerships within and across institutions, communities, and with external organisations. Building strong relationships with industry professionals, educational institutions, and community organisations can provide valuable resources and support for STEM programs. These partnerships can enhance the real-world relevance of the curriculum and offer students and teachers opportunities for mentorship and hands-on learning experiences.
Have stakeholders and partners that are supportive of the program’s vision and outcomes. Engaging stakeholders such as educators and community members in the program's development and execution can lead to a more invested and supportive community, which fosters a sense of ownership and shared responsibility. It also ensures that the program is tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the community it serves, ultimately leading to a more durable program.
Maintain a stable financial environment with strategies for ongoing funding from diverse sources and exploration of avenues for new revenue streams	Have a vision, values and objectives that align with host organisation, community and industry workforce needs, curriculum, broader educational needs, and relevant policies and regulations
Have strategic and effective leadership and program champions, including potentially distributed leadership within community networks and schools
Ensure that the program has the necessary support from the hosting organisation that is backed by a committed team can have a positive impact on its durability.
Boost the capabilities and resources of all project participants to ensure they continue to apply program impacts into the future
Identify and mitigate potential risks early in the project lifecycle

This literature review provides an analysis of the factors that contribute to the durability of programs and projects, with a focus on the strength of these factors. However, it does not address how these factors maintain impact over time. Future research should focus on the impact of these factors, considering their long-term effects and assigning additional weight to them. This will enhance our understanding of durability in the context of program and project management, ensuring that impact is not only achieved but preserved and consolidated over time. Such an approach will provide a more holistic view of durability, encompassing both immediate success and enduring influence. It is also important to consider the interaction of factors across various levels (e.g., individual, group, program, organisation, system), as well as the challenges related to maintaining consistency and adapting to change.
Conclusion
The literature review emphasises the critical importance of durability in STEM education programs, highlighting its multifaceted nature. It reveals that long-term success hinges on a complex interplay of factors, including organisational capacity, stakeholder engagement, and adaptability. The review advocates for programs to have a clear vision designed with durability and scalability in mind, supported by long-term planning, monitoring, and evaluation. It also emphasises the significance of inclusive and collaborative structures that foster partnerships at various levels, and strategic foundations, which align vision and values with organisational and community needs, led by effective leadership and program champions. Programs which are adaptable, responsive to the evolving demands of the STEM industry, and inclusive of stakeholder engagement are more likely to be durable and produce sustained outcomes. The review calls for a broader understanding of durability, urging a comprehensive approach that integrates insights from various fields to inform the design and implementation of enduring STEM education programs.
Future endeavours should focus on empirical validation of these factors in various educational contexts, longitudinal studies to track the long-term impact of STEM programs, and exploration of diverse educational settings to understand how these factors operate in different cultural and institutional settings. Additionally, an investigation into the role of policy changes, curriculum development, technology integration, teacher professional development, community and societal impact, and sustainable funding models in enhancing the durability of STEM programs would be beneficial.
By addressing these areas, future research can build upon the foundation laid by this review, contributing to the development of STEM education programs that are not only effective in the short term but also have a lasting impact on students, educators, and the broader community. The goal is to ensure that STEM education is a driving force for innovation and progress, equipping future generations with the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
 
References

Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., … Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1). doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
Altpeter, M., Schneider, E. C., & Whitelaw, N. (2014). Examining Strategies to Build and Sustain Healthy Aging Programming Collaboratives. Health Education & Behavior, 41(1_suppl). doi:10.1177/1090198114537065
Arbelaez-Ruiz, D., Franks, D. M., Sturman, K., & Ezeigbo, C. (2021). Durable Change-sustaining impact in natural resource governance. Brisbane, QLD Australia: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltdab1ff5a32c89a3e/blt42ccc1e703399c72/63d3583b48166810e8b60237/NRG_Insight_SustainabilityCaseStudy_DurableChange.pdf 
Australian Government. (2024). Pathway to Diversity in STEM Review. Final recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/pathway-to-diversity-in-stem-review-final-report.pdf
Australia’s Chief Scientist. (2024). Dr Foley welcomes release of STEM Career Pathways report. Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/dr-foley-welcomes-release-stem-career-pathways-report-0 
Bailey, T., Matsuzuka, Y., Jacobs, J., Morest, V., & Hughes, K. (2003). Institutionalization and Sustainability of the National Science Foundation’s Advanced Technological Education Program. Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/institutionalization-sustainability-nsf-ate.pdf 
Baum, F., Jolley, G., Hicks, R., Saint, K., & Parker, S. (2006). What makes for sustainable healthy cities initiatives? - A review of the evidence from Noarlunga, Australia after 18 years. Health Promotion International. doi:10.1093/heapro/dal023
Bennett, A., Naylor, R., Mellor, K., Brett, M., Gore, J., Harvey, A., … Whitty, G. (2015). Equity initiatives in Australian Higher Education: A review of evidence of impact. Retrieved from https://opal.latrobe.edu.au/ndownloader/files/28850364 
Bentley, B., Sieben, R., & Unsworth, P. (2022). STEM Education in Australia: Impediments and Solutions in Achieving a STEM-Ready Workforce. Education Sciences,, 12(10). doi:10.3390/educsci12100730
Bodkin, A., & Hakimi, S. (2020). Sustainable by design: A systematic review of factors for health promotion program sustainability. BMC Public Health, 20(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09091-9
Burack, C., Melchior, A., & Hoover, M. (2019). Do after-school robotics programs expand the pipeline into STEM majors in college? Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2). doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1244
Ceptureanu, S. I., Ceptureanu, E. G., Luchian, C. E., & Luchian, I. (2018). Community based programs sustainability. a multidimensional analysis of sustainability factors. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(3). doi:10.3390/su10030870
Chalmers, D., & Gardiner, D. (2015). The measurement and impact of university teacher development programs. Educar, 51(1). doi:10.5565/rev/educar.655
Cobian, K. P., & Ramos, H. V. (2021). A cross-case analysis of developing program sustainability and institutionalization in early stages of a multisite biomedical student diversity initiative. BMC Medical Education, 21(1). doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02663-2
Deehan, J., Danaia, L., Redshaw, S., Dealtry, L., Gersbach, K., & Bi, R. (2024). STEM in the classroom: a scoping review of emerging research on the integration of STEM education within Australian schools. Australian Educational Researcher. doi:10.1007/s13384-024-00691-7
Edwards, D., Buckley, S., Chiavaroli, N., Rothman, S., & McMillan, J. (2023). The STEM pipeline: pathways and influences on participation and achievement of equity groups. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 45(2), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2180169
Han, J., Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. G. (2023). Building a sustainable model of integrated stem education: investigating secondary school STEM classes after an integrated STEM project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(4). doi:10.1007/s10798-022-09777-8
Hasim, S. M., Rosli, R., Halim, L., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2022). STEM Professional Development Activities and Their Impact on Teacher Knowledge and Instructional Practices. Mathematics, 10(7). doi:10.3390/math10071109
Henríquez Fernández, C., Barr, C., Antoine, A., Alston, C., & Nichol, C. (2021). Long-Term Impact of Teacher Professional Development on Black Female Students’ Engagement in STEM. The Journal of STEM Outreach, 6(1). doi:10.15695/jstem/v6i1.01
Hodge, L. M., & Turner, K. M. T. (2016). Sustained Implementation of Evidence-based Programs in Disadvantaged Communities: A Conceptual Framework of Supporting Factors. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12082
Johnson, M. D., Margell, S. T., Goldenberg, K., Palomera, R., & Sprowles, A. E. (2023). Impact of a First-Year Place-Based Learning Community on STEM Students’ Academic Achievement in their Second, Third, and Fourth Years. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1). doi:10.1007/s10755-022-09616-7
Lam, D. P. M., Martín-López, B., Wiek, A., Bennett, E. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Horcea-Milcu, A. I., & Lang, D. J. (2020). Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transformations, 2(1). doi:10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9
Li, Y., Xiao, Y., Wang, K., Zhang, N., Pang, Y., Wang, R., … Star, J. R. (2022). A systematic review of high impact empirical studies in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education. doi:10.1186/s40594-022-00389-1
Loh, L. C., Friedman, S. R., & Burdick, W. P. (2013). Factors promoting sustainability of education innovations: A comparison of faculty perceptions and existing frameworks. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 26(1). doi:10.4103/1357-6283.112798
Luke, D. A., Calhoun, A., Robichaux, C. B., Moreland-Russell, S., & Elliott, M. B. (2014). The program sustainability assessment tool: A new instrument for public health programs. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11(2014). doi:10.5888/pcd11.130184
Mancini, J. A., & Marek, L. I. (2004). Sustaining community-based programs for families: Conceptualization and measurement. Family Relations, 53(4). doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00040.x
McCreight, M. S., Rabin, B. A., Glasgow, R. E., Ayele, R. A., Leonard, C. A., Gilmartin, H. M., … Battaglia, C. T. (2019). Using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to qualitatively assess multilevel contextual factors to help plan, implement, evaluate, and disseminate health services programs. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 9(6). doi:10.1093/tbm/ibz085
Pressick-Kilborn, K., Silk, M., & Martin, J. (2021). STEM and STEAM Education in Australian K–12 Schooling. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1684
Ramirez-Castaneda, V. (2020). Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0238372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372
Rhoades, B. L., Bumbarger, B. K., & Moore, J. E. (2012). The Role of a State-Level Prevention Support System in Promoting High-Quality Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-Based Programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4). doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9502-1
Rubio, M. A., Guevara-Aladino, P., Urbano, M., Cabas, S., Mejia-Arbelaez, C., Rodriguez Espinosa, P., … Sarmiento, O. L. (2022). Innovative participatory evaluation methodologies to assess and sustain multilevel impacts of two community-based physical activity programs for women in Colombia. BMC Public Health, 22(1). doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13180-2
Santos, R., Anderson, D., & Milner-Bolotin, M. (2023). Research trends in international science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education conference series: An analysis of a decade of proceedings. Frontiers in Education, 7. doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.1099658
Sarriot, E., Yurkavitch, J., Ryan, L., The Sustained Health, & Outcomes (SHOUT) Group. (2008). Taking the Long View : A Practical Guide to Sustainability Planning and Measurement in Community- Oriented Health Programming. Manual.
Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3). doi:10.1177/1098214005278752
Scheirer, M. A., & Dearing, J. W. (2011). An agenda for research on the sustainability of Public Health Programs. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11). doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300193
Schell, S. F., Luke, D. A., Schooley, M. W., Elliott, M. B., Herbers, S. H., Mueller, N. B., & Bunger, A. C. (2013). Public health program capacity for sustainability: A new framework. Implementation Science, 8(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-15
Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Arsad, N. M. (2019). Students’ interest towards STEM: a longitudinal study. Research in Science and Technological Education, 37(1). doi:10.1080/02635143.2018.1489789
Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning far the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research, 13(1). doi:10.1093/her/13.1.87
Stevens, B., & Peikes, D. (2006). When the funding stops: Do grantees of the Local Initiative Funding Partners Program sustain themselves? Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(2). doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.01.009
Thomas, S., & Zahn, D. (2010). Sustaining improved outcomes: A toolkit. Retrieved from https://nyhealthfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/sustaining-improved-outcomes-toolkit.pdf 
Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P.R. & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools: Literature and policy review. Australian Council for Education Research. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=policy_analysis_misc 
Walker, L., & Banks, C. (2021). Indigenous STEM Education Project - Final Evaluation Report. Canberra, Australia. 
Wiltsey Stirman, S., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-17