Education research occupies a distinctive position in public science because it is expected to advance scholarly knowledge while also informing learning, teaching, participation, and workforce development. This study examines how the intellectual characteristics of NSF-funded education proposals are associated with the subsequent academic performance of funded scholars. Linking 8,715 NSF education awards from 1990 to 2020 with 84,519 publications by principal investigators, the analysis focuses on four major NSF education divisions that collectively span undergraduate and graduate levels, formal and informal learning environments, and inclusive educational initiatives. Proposal novelty is measured as semantic distance from prior funded projects within the same division, topical diversity as breadth across latent research themes, and intellectual orientation as theoretical, practical, or balanced. The results show that NSF education funding is consistently associated with higher publication output across divisions. However, this increase is not accompanied by stronger citation performance or higher journal-level visibility; citation and CiteScore estimates are often negative, particularly in later decades. Proposal novelty shows limited and uneven associations with post-award outcomes, whereas topical diversity is more clearly related to publication growth in some divisions but weaker citation-based performance in others. Balanced proposals that integrate theoretical and practical aims display the most favourable overall profile, combining positive publication associations with fewer negative citation-based patterns. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating education research funding through multiple academic outcomes and division-specific research contexts.

翻译：教育研究在公共科学中占据独特地位，因其既要推动学术知识发展，又需服务于学习、教学、参与和劳动力培养。本研究探讨美国国家科学基金会（NSF）资助的教育提案的智力特征如何与受资助学者的后续学术表现相关联。通过将1990年至2020年间8,715项NSF教育资助项目与项目负责人发表的84,519篇论文进行关联分析，本研究聚焦NSF四个主要教育部门——这些部门覆盖本科与研究生层次、正规与非正规学习环境以及包容性教育倡议。提案新颖性以与同一部门前期资助项目的语义距离衡量，主题多样性以潜在研究主题的广度衡量，知识取向则分为理论型、实践型或平衡型。结果表明，NSF教育资助总体上与各学科部门更高的论文产出量呈正相关。然而，这种增长并未伴随更强的引用表现或更高的期刊级别可见度；引用次数和CiteScore指标估计值常呈负值，尤其在近几十年。提案新颖性与资助后成果的关联有限且不均衡，而主题多样性虽在某些部门与论文增长明确相关，但在其他部门中与基于引用的较弱表现相关联。融合理论目标与实践目标的平衡型提案呈现最优整体特征——既展现正向的论文产出关联，又减少负面的引用模式。这些发现凸显了需通过多元学术成果及学科部门特定研究情境评估教育研究资助的重要性。