Creating a Physicist: The Impact of Informal Programs on University Student Development
Callie Rethman, Jonathan Perry, Jonan Donaldson, Daniel Choi, Tatiana Erukhimova
CCreating a Physicist: The Impact of Informal/Outreach Programs on UniversityStudent Development
Callie Rethman, Jonathan Perry, Jonan Donaldson, Daniel Choi, and Tatiana Erukhimova Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845 ∗ Department of Physics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 Center for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845 (Dated: December 29, 2020)Physics outreach programs provide a critical context for informal experiences that promote thetransition from new student to contributing physicist. Prior studies have suggested a positive linkbetween participation in informal physics outreach programs and the development of a student’sphysics identity and self-efficacy [1, 2]. In this study, we adopt a student-focused investigation toexplore the effects of outreach programs on dimensions of physics identity, sense of community, 21stcentury skill development, and motivation. We employed a mixed methods study combining a surveyinstrument (117 responses) and interviews (35) with current and former undergraduate and graduatestudents who participated in five outreach programs through a physics and astronomy departmentat a large land-grant university. To examine interviews, we employed a framework based on situatedlearning theory and the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity. Our findings show that studentswho facilitated physics outreach programs positively developed their physics identity, experiencedincreased sense of belonging to the physics community, and developed 21st century career skills.Specifically, students reported positive benefits to their communication, teamwork and networking,and design skills. The benefits of these outreach programs can be achieved by departments of anysize without significant commitment of funds or changes to curriculum.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many physics departments and national labs in theUnited States run outreach programs. These programsare often called “public outreach” [3], reflecting a his-torical understanding of their main purpose: building abridge between “ivory tower” physicists and the generalpublic, as well as providing unique opportunities for en-gaging children in STEM, especially unprivileged chil-dren [4–9]. Most American scientists agree that theyshould “take an active role in public policy debates aboutissues related to science and technology” [10]. There isan ongoing discussion on how to be more effective incommunicating scientific advances to various audiences[7, 11]. There have been calls from prominent scientiststo train future generations of scientists to be effectivescience communicators [4, 12] and to recognize publicoutreach effort as an integral part of scientists’ careers inacademia [3, 13].Prior literature exhibits a consensus on the positiveimpact of out-of-school programs on children. These pro-grams increase childrens’ understanding and interest inSTEM and generate enthusiasm for science [8, 9, 14, 15].They can be especially impactful for children from un-derserved communities and females who otherwise maynot be interested in science simply due to their lack of ex-posure to science programs and role models [16, 17]. Ma-jor professional organizations of physicists, such as theAmerican Physical Society [18], American Association ofPhysics Teachers [19], Optical Society [20], the Interna-tional Society for Optics and Photonics [21], as well as ∗ send correspondence to: [email protected] the Society of Physics Students [22], make considerableefforts to share outreach resources that help their mem-bers engage with the general public. Funding agencies,such as the National Science Foundation, encourage en-gagement between researchers and various communitiesthrough outreach, as part of their “broader impact” re-quirements [23]. Undergraduate and graduate studentshave served as facilitators of physics outreach programsfor decades, and many program organizers would con-sider it obvious that these students benefit from partici-pation in the outreach programs.There has been increasing interest in understandinghow undergraduate and graduate student facilitation ofthese programs supports the development of a physicsand STEM identity, enhances retention and persistence,and supports a feeling of community [1, 2, 24–32]. Theresults of this paper add to the growing understandingof how informal physics programs provide a platform forbroader interactions between an individual student andthe STEM community and equip university students withthe skills needed for the 21st century careers [33].The perspective that informal physics programs arebeneficial only for the public is detrimental, as it placesthem outside of university research and teaching missions[1] and makes them low priority for institutional sup-port. Studies reporting on successful programs reflecton university-community partnership, effective commu-nication, passion for science, reducing stereotypes, andlongevity [14, 15, 24, 34–36]. These programs are usu-ally viewed as part of a service mission of a physics de-partment or as a recruitment tool [1, 37], though someuniversity professors may dissuade their students fromengaging in outreach believing their time is better spenton research [3]. a r X i v : . [ phy s i c s . e d - ph ] D ec There is not much literature on the impact of participa-tion in physics outreach programs on university students.In 2008, Finkelstein and Mayhew presented the resultsof a university-community partnership, Partnerships forInformal Science Education in the Community (PISEC)at the University of Colorado Boulder, where univer-sity students were mentored to teach youth in an after-school community setting [24]. In a subsequent study,Hinko and Finkelstein [1] reported that university stu-dents had positive shifts in their perspectives of teachingand learning, and improved their science communicationskills through participating in PISEC. They encourageda shift from “outreach” to “partnership”, emphasizing awin-win situation for both universities and communities.Through further exploration of PISEC, Hinko et al. [25]constructed a framework for the assessment of scientificlanguage for physics students explaining (informal teach-ing) concepts to non-expert audiences.Teaching experience is a crucial aspect of formalphysics training [38, 39]. Many graduate students andsome undergraduate students acquire teaching experi-ence through teaching assistantships [40], but these areformal roles that are constrained by the curriculum.Hinko et al. [26] argued that an overlooked area of thephysics teaching experience for undergraduate and grad-uate physics students is informal physics programs wherethese students serve as facilitators. As compared to for-mal teaching assistantships, informal physics programsprovide less constraints, more ownership, more room forinitiative, more flexibility in time commitment, and moreexcitement. This may translate into richer teaching op-portunities, formal and informal, for students.Prior work indicates that development of a physicsidentity could help students choose physics as a careerand persist in the field [41]. Discipline-based identity, in-tertwined with the development of motivational beliefs,increased self-efficacy, sense of belonging, external recog-nition, and “real-world” experience could be the lead-ing factors in students’ persistence in, or attrition from,physics and other STEM fields; thus, it has a potentialfor enhanced retention among students, especially amongunderrepresented minority populations [30–32, 42–53].Fracchiolla et al. [2] used a community of practice frame-work to suggest that volunteering in informal physics pro-grams could have a positive influence on the growth of auniversity student’s physics identity.Physics outreach programs differ in terms of their tar-get audience, facilitators, settings, modes of implemen-tation, scale, frequency, longevity, and institutional sup-port [28]. Prior studies examined a relatively small num-ber of participants drawn from a limited range of out-reach programs. In this paper, we present the findingsfrom a mixed methods study on the impact of differ-ent kinds of informal physics programs on a large num-ber of undergraduate and graduate students facilitatingthese programs at Texas A&M University. The Depart-ment of Physics & Astronomy at Texas A&M runs severalnationally-recognized informal STEM learning programs. They span a wide range of activities and public audiences– from the
Texas A&M Physics & Engineering Festival where people can spend all day playing with hands-ondemonstrations, talking to and learning from the top-notch researchers and astronauts – to the
Just Add Sci-ence & Game Day Physics programs which bring theexcitement of physics to places where people already are,such as heritage festivals, football games or communityfestivals. The
Physics Show targets organized groups ofK-12 students on campus. In the
Real Physics Live pro-gram, university students create entertaining educationalvideos which illustrate important physics concepts usingdemonstration experiments.A goal of these outreach programs is to make scienceexciting, understandable, and accessible to the generalpublic. Another equally important goal is to provideopportunities for undergraduate and graduate students’personal, academic, and professional growth. One pro-gram,
Discover, Explore, and Enjoy Physics & Engi-neering (DEEP) was designed to be student-centered,with the main focus on the experience of the universitystudents, while other programs described in this paperevolved over time from being considered as “public out-reach” to becoming an integral part of university studentseducational experience.We conducted a student-focused investigation examin-ing the impact of physics outreach on undergraduate andgraduate student volunteers helping to run these pro-grams. We explored the effects of Texas A&M physicsoutreach programs on (a) establishing a student’s iden-tity as a physicist and a STEM professional; (b) stu-dents’ integration into the physics community and thebroader STEM community; (c) students’ developmentof soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, design,and conceptual understanding; (d) students’ experiences,such as seeing new perspectives, motivation, interest de-velopment, and empowerment. Also emergent in ouranalyses were unique impacts of outreach programs onfemale students who are traditionally underrepresentedin physics. The results of this study could be of potentialinterest to every physics department and physics educa-tor, since some of the informal physics programs do notrequire a large budget or any changes in the curriculum.
II. PROGRAM STRUCTURE
We analyzed the impact of five outreach programs runby the Department of Physics & Astronomy at TexasA&M on the university students who facilitate these pro-grams. Table I lists the years of implementation of theseprograms as well as an approximate number of studentsparticipating every year. Although each of these pro-grams were founded at different times and with a dif-ferent target audience in mind, they all provide uni-versity students with potential opportunities for leader-ship and teamwork, experiential learning, peer-mentoringand peer-learning, networking within the different popu-laces of an academic department, and acquiring impor-tant communication skills (Figure 1). We describe theprogram Discover, Explore, and Enjoy Physics & Engi-neering (DEEP) in more detail since this program wasdesigned with a focus on enriching university studentslearning and experience.
FIG. 1. Schematic of the design principles and their associ-ated physics outreach programs at Texas A&M.
Discover, Explore and Enjoy Physics & Engi-neering (DEEP) is a hands-on, peer-learning commu-nity. On average, there are 60 undergraduate studentsand 13 graduate students (DEEP Mentors) who partic-ipate in the program each year (2012-2021). Studentswork throughout the academic year in small teams of 5-10, side-by-side with their peers and graduate studentmentors on research, concept, design, and fabrication ofphysics demonstration experiments. Though most stu-dents come from science and engineering majors, par-ticipation is open to students from any discipline. Thesame student teams present their experiments throughother informal physics programs described in this section.The demonstrations fabricated by students are added tothe pool of demonstration experiments available for allphysics and astronomy courses.This program was designed with the intention thatthrough these collaborative hands-on extracurricular ac-tivities, students learn physics concepts more deeply, getmore opportunities for interactions with peers and pro-fessors outside the classroom, develop collaboration skillsthrough team interactions, and increase communicationskills as a result of presentations to a wide range of au-diences. The core goal of this program is to deepen stu-dents’ physics content knowledge through transferableskills (i.e., teamwork, communication ability, and ethics)and hands-on experiences, utilizing each individual’s sci-ence background and identity to enhance their STEMlearning experience through peer learning communities
TABLE I. Approximate number of annual student partic-ipants and the inaugural year for the Texas A&M physicsoutreach programs included in this study.Program title Initial year Numberof studentsDEEP 2012 70Physics & Engineering Festival 2003 300-400Physics Show 2007 200Real Physics Live 2016 11Just Add Science/Game Day Physics 2015 70 aimed at small group and individualized instruction.The DEEP program facilitates peer mentoring whichincludes not only undergraduate students interactingwith each other across all classifications but also grad-uate students mentoring undergraduates in their group.The latter is fairly unique as graduate and undergradu-ate student populations usually do not interact outsideof formal settings.The DEEP program is designed to help students learnto (i) think critically and fully understand the sciencebehind their demonstrations in order to tailor presenta-tions to the audience and explain difficult concepts inunderstandable terms; (ii) work as a well-disciplined col-laborative team; (iii) develop teaching skills to keep theattention of the audience; and (iv) develop leadership,social maturity, and responsibility in order to work withdiverse groups. Students are exposed to rich learningexperiences not available in regular classrooms.The demonstration experiments cover a broad varietyof topics from physics, chemistry, electrical and computerengineering, etc. Students are encouraged to be creativewith ideas for demonstrations. They get support fromthe department machine and electronic shops. They alsoprepare a poster and a narrative explaining the under-lying concepts at a level accessible for visitors of all ed-ucational levels. Undergraduate students are involvedin every aspect of design, fabrication, and presentationof the experiments, gaining invaluable experience. Stu-dents often enter the program as freshmen and developthese skills over the course of their undergraduate ca-reers. Graduate students leading teams of undergradu-ates are provided with opportunities to acquire leader-ship and mentoring experience: they build a collabora-tive research team and lead this team through research,fabrication, and presentation of their projects.One example of a DEEP demonstration experimentdesigned and fabricated mostly by freshman students isthe superconducting train on a magnetic track (Figure2). This single experiment teaches nearly all of the basicconcepts of electricity and magnetism: electric currentand conductivity, induction, Lenz’s rule and eddy cur-rents, ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, and magnetic ma-terials. Furthermore, while fabricating it and just play-ing with it, students learn several key concepts from ad-vanced physics courses: low-temperature physics, TypeI and II superconductors, Meissner effect, vortices, crys-tal lattice, and electron scattering in solids. Next, thedemonstration experiment directly connects the studentswith one of the most advanced and fascinating trans-portation technologies: magnetic levitation trains thatare currently being tested in Japan, Europe, and theUSA. Finally, it is mesmerizing for anyone, from smallkids to adults, to watch how the train levitates whilegoing round and round the magnetic track as if beingheld by some mysterious force. It is therefore not sur-prising that this demonstration experiment is a huge hitat Physics Shows, a favorite of the public at the Physics& Engineering Festivals, and is regularly shown in theclassroom.
FIG. 2. DEEP team members with their superconductingtrain track. This demonstration experiment was part of No-bel Laureate David Lee’s public talk at the 2013 Physics &Engineering Festival. Photo by Natasha Sheffield.
A good DEEP demonstration experiment does nothave to be technically advanced or expensive to be ofhigh educational value. Another example conceived, de-signed, and fabricated by DEEP students is a simplelever demonstration. This experiment became an instantfavorite at Physics & Engineering Festivals. Althoughsimple, it teaches a number of important concepts of me-chanics, such as forces, torques, and mechanical work.It also provides a vivid explanation of the operation ofconstruction cranes and lifting machines.One of the most exciting demonstrations built byDEEP students, Methane Bubbles, was featured on thefront page of the SPS Observer [54]. Displaying thisdemonstration experiment requires team discipline andfollowing strict safety rules.Now that we’ve discussed the DEEP program in depth,we will briefly review four other programs which sharesome of the same design principles as DEEP. All of theseprograms work together synergistically to build a cohe-sive set of year-long outreach opportunities for students. t h e Spring 2014
SPS Observer
Volume XLVIII, Issue 1
Elegant Connections
CELEBRATINGPHYSICSOUTREACH / WHAT THE QUANTUM? / FALL 2013 SPS AWARD WINNERS / SOLVING THE CLEAN WATER PROBLEM / DEFYING GRAVITY
THE APPLIED PHYSICS OF GASOLINE ENGINES
GET INSPIRED WITH SCIENCE OUTREACH ... AND INREACH
FIG. 3. The front cover of the SPS Observer features theDEEP student showing his demonstration at Texas A&MPhysics & Engineering Festival [54]. Reproduced with per-mission from the SPS. Photo by Igor Kraguljac.
The Texas A&M Physics and Engineering Fes-tival [55] founded in 2003 is an annual event that at-tracts over six thousand visitors yearly. K-12 studentsand their families from all over Texas and nationwideattend the Festival; many schools bring busloads of stu-dents. For schools with a large percentage of underrepre-sented minority students transportation is partially paidthrough university diversity grants. The Festival includesa weekend on campus packed with activities: hundreds ofhands-on demonstrations, juggling science circus, bubbleshows, meetings with astronauts, and public lectures byworld renowned physicists. Previous speakers includedStephen Hawking (twice), Brian Greene, Phil Plait, SeanCarroll, Lucianne Walkowicz, Robert Kirshner, RockyKolb, Dudley Herschbach, and many others. Visitorsappreciate the opportunity to tour the Texas A&M Cy-clotron Institute, interact with Nobel Laureate David Leein his research lab, and (virtually) tour the Large HadronCollider. The Festival is a member of the Science Festi-vals Alliance, a collaboration of institutions committedto serve the public through informal science venues [56].Hands-on demonstrations run by DEEP students andother student volunteers are the heart of the Festival andthe primary reason why people attend the event. Sev-eral hundred undergraduate and graduate student vol-unteers participate in the Festival, explaining physicsconcepts behind interactive hands-on demonstrations forseven hours. The Festival gives students an opportunityto explain physics concepts to children and adults. TheFestival dissolves the boundaries between different pop-ulaces in academia: whether you’re a freshman in yourfirst physics course or you’re a Nobel Laureate, everyoneworks together as a team at the festival, building excite-ment for science and technology with the crowds whoshow up. All these contexts provide an opportunity fortransformational experiences.
Texas A&M Physics Show [57] is another venuefor students to present interactive hands-on demonstra-tions. The Physics Show (2007 - current) is an enter-taining and educational presentation adjustable to anyaudience level. There are two parts: one-hour presenta-tion followed by 30-minute interactive hands-on activi-ties (mini Festival). Two physics majors help with thepresentation and 5-10 graduate and upper-level under-graduate students lead the hands-on part. There are anaverage of 40 Physics Shows per year attended by 3,000K-12 students.
Just Add Science and Game Day Physics [58, 59]are outreach programs in which the students “meet peo-ple where they are” [56], by bringing their favorite hands-on demonstrations to existing events and venues wherepeople are already gathered: home football games, her-itage and community festivals, etc. These efforts engagewith audience members who may never attend a scienceevent on their own accord. The students work as a well-coordinated team and explain physics concepts to everyinterested person who passes by.In the
Real Physics Live program [60] students cre-ate short entertaining videos about physics demonstra-tions explaining the underlying physical principles. Thevideos are intended for middle and high school students,college freshmen, the general public, and all physics en-thusiasts. Graduate and undergraduate students work asa team to write scenarios and then star in the videos.All programs have similar design principles: throughparticipation in these programs the students design andbuild, teach/serve the public by applying their physicsknowledge, communicate scientific principles to non-scientists in an exciting way, lead, work in teams, andlast but not least, have a chance to build connectionsacross academic levels (undergraduate-graduate-postdoc-faculty).It should be noted that one of the authors is thefounder and organizer of several programs described inthis section. Two other authors are former active par-ticipants in multiple programs. The DEEP program waspartially supported by a Tier 1 grant from Texas A&Mand by the Texas A&M University system. Real PhysicsLive was supported by a mini outreach grant from APS.Just Add Science was partially supported by a grant fromthe Science Festival Alliance. All programs received on-going support from the Department of Physics & Astron-omy at Texas A&M.
III. FRAMEWORK
We see learning through the perspective of situatedlearning theory in which learning is defined as increasedpatterns of participation in a community of practice and identification as a member of the community [61]. One ofthe key insights of situated learning theory is that learn-ing begins through legitimate peripheral participation.Newcomers to a community observe the community fromthe periphery and gradually participate more as existingmembers of the community mentor them into communityideas and practices. Over time they develop greater pro-ficiency in knowledge, using new ways of knowing, andadopting the practices of the community as they movefrom the periphery toward the core [62]. This movementis characterized not only by greater expertise, but moreimportantly by being seen (by themselves and others)as members of the community. As their position ap-proaches the core of the community, they take on roleidentities as leaders and mentors with greater visibilityand responsibility [63]. Recent work from Fracchiolla etal. applied a community of practice framework to studyone after school program focusing on aspects includingconnections within the physics community, sense of be-longing, and development of physics identity [2].Through the lens of situated learning theory, learningis a change in who one is and what one does in the con-text of a community of practice. Therefore, identity is acrucial aspect of learning. The Dynamic Systems Modelof Role Identity (DSMRI) is a particularly useful frame-work for understanding identity in learning experiencesbecause it embraces the complexity of social-contextualelements which interact to facilitate or inhibit identitychange [64]. Role identity development involves context-specific self-perceptions, values, beliefs, goals, emotions,and perceived action potentials. Facilitation of identitydevelopment in learning environments requires contex-tual features for triggering identity exploration, scaffold-ing identity exploration, promoting relevance, and facili-tating a sense of safety [65]. Students’ identification withphysics may be formed by the fundamental constructssuch as performance defined as belief in ability to per-form required physics tasks, perceptions of competencydefined as belief in ability to understand physics content,recognition by others as being a good physics student,and interest as demonstrated by desire/curiosity to thinkabout and understand physics [41].Learning is a process of becoming, a change in identity,and engagement in the practices and knowledge of a com-munity. Transformative learning theory provides anotherpowerful lens through which to understand learning as achange in ways of knowing. This theory describes learn-ing as a process of the transformation of one’s “framesof reference” [66]. These frames of reference include as-sumptions, beliefs, perspectives, mindsets, and habits ofmind [67].Through the lens of the framework described above,we define physics learning as a process of change charac-terized by changes in engagement in the physics commu-nity, increasing identification as a member of the physicscommunity, and transformation of perspectives about thenature and role of physics in society.
IV. METHODS
A survey was developed to investigate the impact ofTexas A&M’s physics outreach programs on student’sidentity, integration within the physics community, 21 st century skills, and physics self-efficacy. This survey con-sisted of a subset of items from the Colorado LearningAttitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) as well as ad-ditional items constructed for the broader goals of thiswork [68]. The survey was distributed via email to cur-rent and former students who had worked with at leastone physics outreach program between 2013-2019. Twofollow-up emails were sent at two week intervals after theinitial survey to encourage as many responses as possi-ble. At the end of the survey, respondents were askedif they were willing to be contacted for a follow-up in-terview. Survey responses were analyzed for descriptivestatistics, specifically looking at self-reported connectionsbetween experiences facilitating outreach and improve-ments to both physics and non-physics abilities.The survey was distributed via email to nearly 400current and former students who engaged with at leastone physics outreach program between 2014-2019. Twofollow-up requests were made to encourage a higher num-ber of completed responses. A total of 117 completed sur-vey responses were received. As seen in Table II, just overa quarter of responses were from female students, with1% identifying as non-binary. A majority of responses,62%, were from current or former undergraduate studentsand 43% were from current or former graduate students.The excess percentages of responses were due to studentswho completed their undergraduate work at Texas A&Mand were either still completing or had also completedtheir graduate work there.Interviews were conducted with 35 current and formerstudents recruited from the volunteer pool of respondentsfrom the survey. This number of interviewees is morethan adequate for this study since 97 percent of themesin interview-based case studies are identified after twelveinterviews [69]. Interview questions were created basedon the view of identity as a Complex Dynamic System,which provides a multifaceted approach to investigatingidentity [64]. These questions probed for more in-depthstudent experiences during facilitation of outreach pro-grams. Interviews were conducted remotely and typicallylasted 15-30 minutes. Interviews were conducted by aresearcher who was unfamiliar with each interviewee. In-terviews were coded based on the framework describedin Section III. A total of 64 codes were used to catego-rize statements by three members of the research team inMAXQDA. Coding of interviews was done in stages bydifferent members of the research team. Initially, a teamof six coded three interviews after which the coding pro-cess was discussed and slight improvements were madeto the coding schema. A group of three researchers thencoded the same five interviews. Comparisons between thethree researchers yielded reliability kappa values of > > < < V. RESULTS
Students self-reported on the impact of their partici-pation in physics outreach programs (which we will referto as outreach for the rest of the paper) on their depth ofunderstanding, connections between topics, and the de-velopment of networking and teamwork skills. Responsesto these survey items are shown in Figure 4. A largenumber of responses indicate that facilitating outreachevents had either some positive impact or a strong posi-tive impact on the dimensions listed above. Over 80% ofstudents reported some positive or a strong positive im-pact on recognizing connections between physics topicsand on their overall understanding in physics. A slightlyhigher percentage, 85%, reported that participating inoutreach had a positive impact on their teamwork skillsand ability to network within the department.Students were asked to rate their confidence in theirchoice of majoring in physics before and after partici-pating in outreach. Of the 62 physics students who re-sponded, 29 students indicated an increase in confidencein choosing physics as a major after participating in out-reach. Thirty-two students maintained the same levelof confidence, ranging from not confident at all (1) toslightly confident (5) to moderately confident (11) to ex-tremely confident (15). One response indicated a de-crease in confidence in choice of major.Students who volunteered to be interviewed were ableto elaborate on their experiences in outreach and the con-nections noted in the results above. The demographicsof interviewees are shown in Table II. Below we presentresults on the frequencies of certain codes and themesfrom the interviews, a semantic network analysis, andmeaningful student quotes related to our framework.Interview questions posed to participants probed con-nections between participation in outreach and theirphysics identity, values, perceptions, and abilities. Stu-dents frequently discussed the impact of outreach on thedevelopment of skills related to communication, team-work, and design. The frequency of codes associated withthese skills from all interviews are shown in Figure 5. Asignificant number of interviewees touched on the impactof outreach on their communication skills, particularlytheir speaking ability. From the experience of one grad-uate student,
I’ve really learned over time that it’s one thingto know something, but it’s a whole differ-ent thing to be able to explain it to some-body and really effectively communicate yourideas... So that’s one thing I really gainedfrom [outreach] is just the ability to commu-nicate.
Our findings suggest that the student experience inoutreach promoted communication not only with otherpeople in STEM, but also with diverse audiences fromthe general public. From the student perspective, theseinteractions with the public could provide high impactexperiences. As one student put it, “it was very kind ofuplifting that say that I can make a difference, me justbeing in a STEM position... just by being there and ex-pressing your excitement for something that you are al-ready excited for.”
Multiple interview participants notedthat presenting scientific concepts to such a wide rangeof people played a significant role in their ability to ef-fectively communicate these challenging concepts withothers. As an undergraduate student said,
If you’re going to tell something to a 5 year-old and then something to a 65 year-old rightbeside them, they both have to understand andthey both want something different. You haveto learn how to speak on their level and sortof give your audience what they need.
As seen in Figure 5, communication is not the onlyskill commonly discussed by students. Leadership andteamwork experience were mentioned by nearly 50% and35% of interviews respectively. In learning to becomepart of a collaborative effort, one student shared thatthey “learned that you can’t do it all yourself...that youhave to lean on others and be part of a team.”
The pro-grams in which these students engaged, such as DEEPmentioned in Section II, can provide new experiences inwhich to develop interpersonal skills not often found inthe classroom. As another graduate student put it,
I was a mentor to a group of DEEP students,... And I think that was a different experiencethan I’ve had before, in that I’ve done teach-ing, I’ve done outreach, itself, but . . . manag-ing and delegating was something that I wasnot too familiar with, and it definitely gaveme very valuable experience ... will be veryuseful as I continue in my PhD.
Establishing interpersonal connections also goes beyondsmall teams, to networking with the broader department.Students, particularly undergraduates, get a chance todevelop additional, and potentially deeper relationshipswith researchers and faculty through outreach. One un-dergraduate’s experience was that they “developed a veryclose working relationship with certain professors in thephysics department as a result of [outreach].”
Though mentioned less frequently during interviews,skills related to creativity and design represent impor-tant experiences. Students engaged in building new, orimproving existing, demonstrations must develop and im-plement new solutions to each project. These projectsoften build on skills developed first within a current orprevious course. From one student’s experience,
You build demonstrations so you have to havea plan for them, put together an electri-cal schematic in order to have an Arduino-powered thing. This is all very real-world ap-plication stuff, and it all works really good onresumes.
To identify emergent themes and significant links be-tween codes, a Girvan-Newman cluster analysis was per-formed. The resulting semantic network map, at thep < So they have professor who will try and whoare like “Oh yeah, I’ll give an outreach sem-inar”, but they’re not driving it. They’re notsaying, “I’m sending emails to people, I’mlining classes up, we’re going to do them ev-ery single week through the entire year. Itdoesn’t matter, rain or shine” and just seeingthat has been a huge motivator for me.
During interviews, students frequently mentioned thegrowth of their ability to explain and present topics toa variety of audiences, which ranged from young chil-dren to adults and sometimes included physics facultyand researchers. Students also touched on their growthin comfort and ability to work as part of a team. Ad-jacent to motivation, teamwork acts as a further nexusbetween several important themes of curiosity, ability tosee new perspectives, creativity and innovation, as wellas the potential for students to have a transformationalexperience. As an example, we consider the reflections ofa graduate student who said, but what I learned through years of doing out-reach is that instilling a sense of awe andfascination in entire classrooms full of kidsis way, way more important than coming upwith some new physics law.
Another major theme was students coming to viewthemselves as more of an expert in physics. Interact-ing with others could help students see themselves asa physics person because “other people saw” them “asa physics person”. This node shares several importantlinks to communication skills, which could help developa sense of expertise, as well as aspects of identity relatedto becoming a team person and the development of anidentity as a researcher. This link to researcher identitywould be particularly impactful for undergraduate stu-dents considering a graduate degree or current graduatestudents engaged in research. From one student’s expe-rience,
I literally just once in a while went out anddid a demo. Explained it again and again, thewhole day. And that was really fun. And sothat helped... solidify my image of myself asa physicist.
The role of strong outreach leadership through ac-countability forms an important cluster linked to stu-dent confidence and excitement as well as the ability toempower others. Such leadership provides not only thestructure for outreach programs, but also has a signifi-cant impact on students by being an exemplar for skills and fostering the culture around outreach. One studentdiscussed this impact, stating there is a genuinely amazing community atTexas A&M, and so much of it does centeraround [Dr. X]. She is a force of human na-ture.
Several secondary themes are also evident from the se-mantic network map. These themes exhibit fewer linksand less centrality, but still offer important insights intothe impact of participation in outreach. The personalperception of becoming more of an expert in physics islinked to skill development, individual responsibility, andan identity as a researcher. Experiences gained throughteamwork show links to the ability to see new perspec-tives, the potential for transformational experiences, andsense of belonging to the physics community. These arehighly valuable aspects of a student’s learning. From oneundergraduate student’s perspective,
I want to say that through these outreach [ac-tivities], I probably have felt closer to thephysics community than I have through myclasses themselves.
While another undergraduate student stated their expe-rience as,
I think that’s affected my identity as a physicsperson the most. Where I just kind of feellike I’m a part of this community in a sense.Like physics is something that I want to doand engage in.
Two peripheral themes are noteworthy for their con-tributions to the sense of community among students.Learning to understand others, or become more empa-thetic, is linked to themes including student confidence,identity as someone who can do physics, and communi-cation. Students who facilitated outreach programs de-scribed how it “impacted [their] ability to connect withothers” in a positive way. Outreach also provided a so-cial environment for students to develop connections withtheir peers. From the experience of one student
I went from a more loner type person to beingvery outgoing and social within the physicscommunity and being able to bond with otherpeople through [outreach] events.
For other students, the excitement and demands of out-reach events provided a bonding experience with theirpeers. In the words of one student
It helped me make a lot of friends...You fightin the trenches with a lot of people. Youhave these exhausting all day things whereyou talked to so many people.
These experiences, for some students, led to a deepersense of ownership and connection with physics, helpingthem want to become better ambassadors for their field.From one student’s perspective
I think it kind of shapes it to where almost be-ing in physics is a fun thing, and it’s makingme more want to be a representative for themajor in a sense. It’s making me want to getother people enthusiastic about the topic andnot have people immediately go, “Oh physics,I hated that class.” So yeah, I think it’s likedshaped my identity by making me want to bea representative for the major or for the sub-ject, I guess.
Being a woman in physics was observed to have strongties to outreach leadership and seeing oneself as a memberof the scientific community. For context with this theme,it should be noted that the coordinator for most outreachprograms at Texas A&M is a female faculty member.In the words of one female undergraduate student, thisimpact was described thus:
I think [physics outreach activities] have re-ally made me feel like I can be a part of thephysics major. I know as a freshman I feltlike maybe this wasn’t the right major, any-thing like this, but I think going out and teach-ing other people physics made me feel like Iknew what I was doing and made me feel likeI could keep going on the route of being aphysics major.
It is apparent that the community created throughoutreach activities promotes the building of relationshipsand integration into the physics community for all stu-dents. Although the framework employed in this workdid not seek to specifically differentiate the experiencesof different groups of students, certain patterns emergedwhen comparing male and female students. Our analysissuggests that female students experience stronger ben-efits from interactions with their peers and faculty aswell as recognition that there are people like them withinthe physics community. This feeling of representation, inparticular, appears to be linked with a deeper sense ofbelonging, which can be a critical factor in the determi-nation of student retention in higher education [46]. Asone undergraduate female student put it:
I will say that I met a lot of friends throughphysics outreach. And a lot of them weregirls in physics. And it was kind of cool tomeet a lot of people who were having the samethoughts as me, and we could just kind of bandtogether and have our own little communitywithin the physics department, so that wasdefinitely one aspect of outreach that reallystuck out to me.
A second theme that emerged among female inter-viewees was the importance of external recognition onphysics identity, which may also relate to physics self-efficacy. In the words of one female graduate student “Ithelped me see myself as a physics person because other people saw me as a physics person.”
Whereas male stu-dents spoke more often and more directly about internalself-perception, or viewing themselves as experts in thefield, female students self-perception was discussed morein the context of recognition as an expert from others.Outreach provides the opportunity for all students to dis-play their expertise to public audiences. While there arebenefits of this recognition as an expert to all students,the network analysis shows this was more impactful tofemale students. As one undergraduate female studentput it,
So it’s like not only do I believe in myself, butI have others who believe in me, so that wayif I ever falter in my belief in myself, I canfall back on the other people who believe inme.
The impact of recognition on students who participatedin outreach was important, but was of a different naturefor female students than for male students.
TABLE II. Demographics of survey responses by studentgender and classification. A total of 117 complete surveyresponses were received and 35 interviews were completed.Numbers add up to more than 117 as a few students con-tinued as graduate students at Texas A&M after completingtheir undergraduate degrees. Survey InterviewMale Female Male FemaleCurrent Undergraduate 29 17 3 5Former Undergraduate 20 4 3 1Current Graduate 21 6 11 3Former Graduate 14 5 8 2FIG. 4. Survey responses from all students on the impactof participating in outreach programs on recognizing connec-tions between topics, their depth of conceptual physics un-derstanding, networking within the department, and develop-ment of teamwork skills. FIG. 5. Frequency of soft (transdisciplinary) skill codes forall interview participants.
VI. DISCUSSION
The outreach programs described in Section II sharecommon traits of being student-focused programs thatpromote peer interactions, sense of community, individ-ual growth, and service to the public. It must be notedthat most of these programs were not intentionally de-signed to foster the principles described in Figure 1 buthave organically grown to support them. The TexasA&M physics outreach programs focus on students de-signing, building, and presenting demonstrations to au-diences of all ages and in a variety of settings. The largestannual event includes participation from several hundredSTEM students and has welcomed around 7,000 atten-dees in recent years. Smaller events throughout the yearinvolve 2-20 physics students engaging with groups rang-ing from K-12 students making visits to campus to adultsof diverse backgrounds at local community events andfestivals.The results noted in the prior section suggest thatstudents facilitating outreach programs experience posi-tive impacts on their individual physics identity and self-efficacy, enhance their understanding of the concepts ofthe field, increase their confidence, and improve their21st century skills. We found that student motivationwas a strong central emergent theme. This motivation,which is entangled with strong outreach leadership andstudent excitement, leads to the opportunities throughwhich students gain confidence and develop their iden-tity as a physicist. This parallels recent results fromFracchiolla et al. who reported a connection between vol-unteering with physics outreach programs and a positiveimpact on physics identity [2].Many students who facilitated physics outreach pro-grams reported an increase in their confidence withphysics as their choice of major. Through working withdiverse audiences, students developed a sense of their ownexpertise within physics leading to the development oftheir personal physics identity. Analysis of interviews suggested that external recogni-tion is particularly impactful for female students, facili-tating growth of their individual physics identities. Thisexternal recognition came from both the community ofpractice surrounding outreach programs as well as fromthe audience that students were interacting with. In con-trast to previous work by Hyater-Adams et al., inter-views with female students in this study only reportedpositively on the effects of recognition from others [47].These interactions reinforced their identity as a physicsperson. This could indicate that outreach is a high re-ward engagement for retention of female students since,as noted by Hazari et al., the development of a physicsidentity can help students choose and persist within thefield of physics [41].From the recent JTUPP report, a number of skills wereidentified as being high priority for preparing students fora 21st century workplace, including communication andteamwork [33]. During interviews, students frequentlydiscussed how facilitating outreach had improved theirability to communicate with others. This is an essentialpart of a student’s development, as any scientist shouldbe proficient in communicating to a diverse set of audi-ences. Whether a physicist works in academia, industry,government, or elsewhere, it is an essential skill to effec-tively share ideas with others, whether they are knowl-edgeable about our field or not. In having students en-gage in outreach they become teachers to their audiences.This provides not only an essential skill for the 21st cen-tury, but can also be a critical reinforcement of the for-mal physics training of a degree plan [38]. As noted byHinko and Finkelstein, outreach is a generally overlookedarea for the development of teaching skills [26]. Outreachprovides the structure through which we can let studentsteach.Many outreach programs offer opportunities to fos-ter teamwork and leadership skills on an ongoing basis.While small group projects are often incorporated intoformal courses - such as labs - for short-term projects,much of a physics curriculum focuses primarily on thework of the individual. This is true at the undergradu-ate level, and especially true at the graduate level. Work-ing on a demonstration, or having ownership of a groupof demonstrations, is a task that goes beyond a singlecourse and unit. Teams often work for most of an aca-demic year to research, design, and build the first versionof a demonstration. For many projects, there is often asecond (and sometimes third) cycle to improve a demon-stration. Our findings show that outreach supports thedevelopment of teamwork and leadership skills within alow stakes environment. There is a particularly strongbenefit to graduate students through the DEEP programin working to manage a team of undergraduate studentswhile receiving mentoring from outreach leaders. Theseteams are effectively a mock research lab with the grad-uate student functioning as the PI of the project.In addition to communication and teamwork, someoutreach program structures support the development of1
FIG. 6. Semantic network map comprising all codes from 35 interviews at the level of p < “solid-ify” and “cemented” during their interviews. In shar-ing their knowledge students restate their understanding,and frame their knowledge in a way that it can be un-derstood. Our findings suggest more active engagementwith content than would be found in a traditional class-room and may promote better schema development. Thisdepth of understanding is also strengthened by respond-ing to questions where students may push the limits oftheir own understanding to come up with a good bridginganalogy or explanation [78].This study expands our understanding of the impactof student participation in outreach, however, there areseveral limitations which should be noted. First, all par-ticipants in this study come from a single, large, land-grant, four-year public institution with a relatively di-verse undergraduate enrollment. Information on stu-dent identities such as ethnicity, first-generation status,etc. were not collected. Only the demographic informa-tion of gender or classification (undergraduate or grad-uate) was asked for. The outreach programs includedin this study also represent a subsection of the potentialprogram structures which exist in physics departmentsacross the country. A larger follow-up study should col-lect this information, which would allow for a deeperanalysis of the impact of participation in outreach ondifferent student identities. Furthermore, findings fromqualitative analysis from interviews are not generalize-able, following the principles of social science research.To explore the topic of physics identity, future studiesshould endeavor to employ a validated instrument forthe constructs which are being studied.The results of this work are in alignment with previousfinding from evaluators at the Education Research Cen-ter at Texas A&M who concluded that DEEP is a “highlysuccessful” program [79]. Program evaluators concludedthat significant enthusiasm existed among undergraduateparticipants with many indicating intentions to return tothe program in subsequent years. Students reported theirDEEP experiences as increasing understanding of physics and engineering concepts, in addition to problem-solvingskills. Mentorship in the DEEP program demonstratedeffective leadership as reported by both graduate men-tors and undergraduate students. The DEEP programwas identified as on target to enhance undergraduate ex-periences and support students through active learning,service-oriented learning, and teamwork. VII. CONCLUSION
The transition from novice to physicist is a lengthyand complex process that is guided by both formal andinformal experiences. For many, this is a journey thatbegins with a movement towards becoming a physicist,but subsequently turns in other directions. In this work,we have observed how participation in informal physicsoutreach programs can support an individual in becom-ing a physicist and boost their development through lessstructured, but critically important, experiential learn-ing. Physics outreach programs provide an environmentin which students engage in experiential learning throughfacilitating physics demonstrations and are able to learnthrough teaching individuals from a diverse set of back-grounds. Bringing physics beyond the pages of a text-book challenges students to break down these concepts,promoting a deeper understanding.We have presented findings from a mixed methodsstudy on the impact of five informal physics programs ona large number of undergraduate and graduate studentsfrom a large land-grant university. This study revealedthat facilitation of physics outreach programs promotedthe development of students’ physics identity, sense ofbelonging to the physics community, and the acquisitionand improvement of 21st century skills. Physics outreachprograms can provide pathways to enhanced confidencethrough experiential contexts beyond classrooms and lab-oratories. By facilitating outreach, students foster skillsthat promote career readiness such as communication,teamwork and networking, and design skills as well as in-creased conceptual understanding of physics. There is asignificant connection between strong outreach programleadership and multiple themes including skill develop-ment, confidence, and motivation. Outreach facilitatesthe development of a sense of belonging to a physics orSTEM community, promoting social interactions beyondformal contexts, such as classrooms or research labs. Weobserved that female students experienced a greater senseof belonging in the physics community through interac-tions with others and external recognition.We recognize that the outreach programs included inthis study represent a subsection of the potential programstructures which exist in physics departments across thecountry. We believe that the design principles on whichthese programs rest can become a part of any physicsoutreach program at any institution. Everyone can startan outreach program, and it doesn’t even need a signif-icant budget or a change to current curriculum. Many3demonstrations are part of common physics laboratories.These can be used to seed these high impact experientiallearning environments which promote student growth asa physicist, as a member of their STEM community, andin the skills they will bring to their future careers. Fromone student’s experience through outreach,
I wasn’t sure if [physics] was a good fit for me,but I’ve definitely been really reaffirmed thatit’s something that I want to do and some-thing that I can do, something kind of I’mactually able to do.
The impacts of facilitating outreach on physics stu-dents merits further examination from multiple perspec-tives. Our findings suggest that students experience ben-efits from outreach differently based on gender. A subse- quent study that examines the impact of outreach of tra-ditionally underrepresented groups in physics for a largerpopulation of students would be informative. Anotheruseful study would be to look at the impacts of programsof different scales, size, and frequency of events through-out the year. A further dimension that merits atten-tion would be the comparison of facilitating outreach ongraduate versus undergraduate students for institutionswhere these students volunteer side by side.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank all students who participatedin the survey and interviews. We would also like to thankthe many wonderful students, faculty, staff, and donorswho make our outreach programs possible. [1] Kathleen Hinko and Noah D. Finkelstein, “Impactinguniversity physics students through participation in in-formal science,” AIP Conference Proceedings , 178–181 (2012).[2] Claudia Fracchiolla, Brean Prefontaine, and KathleenHinko, “Community of practice approach for understand-ing identity development within informal physics pro-grams,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 020115 (2020).[3] Or Graur, “Education and public outreach as an integralpart of a scientist’s career,” American Journal of Physics , 725–726 (2018).[4] Alan I. Leshner, “Outreach trainingneeded,” Science , 161–161 (2007),https://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/161.full.pdf.[5] Rush D. Holt, “Why science? whyaaas?” Science , 807–807 (2015),https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/807.full.pdf.[6] European Commission, “Science and society actionplan,” European Communities (2002).[7] “Researchers should reach beyond the science bubble,”Springer Nature , 391 (2017).[8] National Research Council, Identifying and SupportingProductive STEM Programs in Out-of-School Settings (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015).[9] National Research Council,
Learning Science in Infor-mal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits , editedby Philip Bell, Bruce Lewenstein, Andrew W. Shouse,and Michael A. Feder (The National Academies Press,Washington, DC, 2009).[10] L. Rainie, C. Funk, and M. Anderson, “How scientistsengage the public,” Science and Society (2015).[11] John C. Besley, Anthony Dudo, and Shupei Yuan, “Sci-entists’ views about communication objectives,” PublicUnderstanding of Science , 708–730 (2018).[12] Sara Brownell, Jordan Price, and Lawrence Steinman,“Science communication to the general public: Why weneed to teach undergraduate and graduate students thisskill as part of their formal scientific training,” Journal ofundergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publi-cation of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience , E6–E10 (2013). [13] K. M. Foster, K. B. Bergin, A. F. McKenna, D. L.Millard, L. C. Perez, J. T. Prival, D. Y. Rainey, H. M.Sevian, E. A. VanderPutten, and J. E. Hamos, “Partner-ships for stem education,” Science , 906–907 (2010),https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5994/906.full.pdf.[14] Jessica E. Bartley, Laurel M. Mayhew, and Noah D.Finkelstein, “Promoting children’s understanding and in-terest in science through informal science education,”AIP Conference Proceedings , 93–96 (2009).[15] Rosemary Wulf, Kathleen Hinko, and Noah Finkelstein,“Promoting children’s agency and communication skillsin an informal science program,” AIP Conference Pro-ceedings , 430–433 (2013).[16] Katherine Dabney, Robert Tai, John Almarode, JaimieMiller-Friedmann, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip Sadler, andZahra Hazari, “Out-of-school time science activities andtheir association with career interest in stem,” Inter-national Journal of Science Education Part B , 63–79(2012).[17] Renato Schibeci, “Student images of scientists: What arethey,” Do they matter , 12–17 (2006).[18] .[19] .[20] .[21] https://spie.org/ .[22] .[23] .[24] Noah D. Finkelstein and Laurel Mayhew, “Acting in ourown self-interests: Blending university and community ininformal science education,” AIP Conference Proceedings , 19–22 (2008).[25] Kathleen Hinko, Jordan Seneca, and Noah Finkelstein,“Use of scientific language by university physics studentscommunicating to the public,” in Physics Education Re-search Conference 2014 , PER Conference (Minneapolis,MN, 2014) pp. 115–118.[26] Kathleen A. Hinko, Peter Madigan, Eric Miller, andNoah D. Finkelstein, “Characterizing pedagogical prac-tices of university physics students in informal learningenvironments,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 010111 (2016).[27] Claudia Fracchiolla, Simone Hyater-Adams, NoahFinkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “University physicsstudents’ motivations and experiences in informal physicsprograms,” in Physics Education Research Conference2016 , PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 124–127.[28] Claudia Fracchiolla, Noah Finkelstein, and KathleenHinko, “Characterizing models of informal physics pro-grams,” in
Physics Education Research Conference 2018 ,PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018).[29] Brean Prefontaine, Claudia Fracchiolla, Manuel Vasquez,and Kathleen Hinko, “Intense outreach: Experiencesshifting university students’ identities,” in
Physics Ed-ucation Research Conference 2018 , PER Conference(Washington, DC, 2018).[30] Toni Sauncy, Kendra Redmond, and RomanCzujko, “The aip career pathways project,” AIPConference Proceedings , 120014 (2015),https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4937719.[31] A. Bunshaft, D. Boyington, J. Curtis-Fisk, T. Edwards,A. Gerstein, and C. Jacobson, “Focus on employabilityskills for stem workers,” STEMconnector (2015).[32] Gina Quan, Brianne Gutmann, Joel Corbo, BenjaminPollard, and Chandra Turpen, “The access network:Cultivating equity and student leadership in stem,” in
Physics Education Research Conference 2019 (2019) pp.482–487.[33] P. Heron and L. McNeil, “Phys21: Preparing physics stu-dents for 21st-century careers,” American Physical Soci-ety and the American Association of Physics Teachers,Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs(2016).[34] Rommel J. Miranda, Jennifer E. Scott, and Karen G.Schaefer, “Characteristics of effective astronomer-educator partnerships in formal urban middle schoolscience classrooms,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. ,010147 (2018).[35] Christian R. Hayes, Allison M. Matthews, Yiqing Song,Sean T. Linden, Robert F. Wilson, Molly Finn, Xi-aoshan Huang, Kelsey E. Johnson, Anne M. McAlister,Brian Prager, Richard Seifert, Sandra E. Liss, Andrew M.Burkhardt, and Nicholas Troup, “First results from thedark skies, bright kids astronomy club draw-a-scientisttest,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 010131 (2020).[36] Robert G. Greenler, Norman P. Lasca, Arthur S. Brooks,and C. Frank Shaw, “The science bagtm at the univer-sity of wisconsin–milwaukee: A successful forum for sci-ence outreach,” American Journal of Physics , 326–329(1993).[37] John Stewart, William Oliver, and Gay Stewart, “Re-vitalizing an undergraduate physics program: A casestudy of the university of arkansas,” American Journalof Physics , 943–950 (2013).[38] David Feldon, James Peugh, Briana Timmerman,Michelle Maher, Melissa Hurst, Denise Strickland,Joanna Gilmore, and Cindy Stiegelmeyer, “Graduatestudents’ teaching experiences improve their methodolog-ical research skills,” Science (New York, N.Y.) , 1037–9 (2011).[39] Denie Drane, Marina Micari, and Gregory Light, “Stu-dents as teachers: Effectiveness of a peer-led stem learn-ing program over 10 years,” Educational Research andEvaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice (2014), 10.1080/13803611.2014.895388.[40] Valerie Otero, Steven Pollock, and Noah Finkel-stein, “A physics department’s role in preparing physicsteachers: The colorado learning assistant model,”American Journal of Physics , 1218–1224 (2010),https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3471291.[41] Zahra Hazari, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip M. Sadler, andMarie-Claire Shanahan, “Connecting high school physicsexperiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, andphysics career choice: A gender study,” Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching , 978–1003 (2010).[42] Tony Perez, Jennifer Cromley, and Avi Kaplan, “Therole of identity development, values, and costs in col-lege stem retention,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 315–329 (2014).[43] Vashti Sawtelle, Eric Brewe, and Laird Kramer, “Explor-ing the relationship between self-efficacy and retentionin introductory physics,” Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching , 1096–1121 (2012).[44] Justyna P. Zwolak, Remy Dou, Eric A. Williams, andEric Brewe, “Students’ network integration as a predic-tor of persistence in introductory physics courses,” Phys.Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 010113 (2017).[45] Heather Thiry, Sandra L. Laursen, and Anne-BarrieHunter, “What experiences help students become scien-tists? a comparative study of research and other sourcesof personal and professional gains for stem undergrad-uates,” The Journal of Higher Education , 357–388(2011).[46] Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Marshman, ChristianSchunn, Timothy Nokes-Malach, and ChandralekhaSingh, “Gendered patterns in the construction of physicsidentity from motivational factors,” Physical ReviewPhysics Education Research (2019), 10.1103/Phys-RevPhysEducRes.15.020119.[47] Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, NoahFinkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “Critical look atphysics identity: An operationalized framework for ex-amining race and physics identity,” Phys. Rev. Phys.Educ. Res. , 010132 (2018).[48] Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, TamiaWilliams, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “De-constructing black physics identity: Linking individualand social constructs using the critical physics identityframework,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 020115(2019).[49] Karyn L. Lewis, Jane G. Stout, Steven J. Pollock,Noah D. Finkelstein, and Tiffany A. Ito, “Fitting in oropting out: A review of key social-psychological factorsinfluencing a sense of belonging for women in physics,”Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 020110 (2016).[50] Zahra Hazari, Philip M. Sadler, and Gerhard Sonnert,“The science identity of college students: Exploring theintersection of gender, race, and ethnicity,” Journal ofCollege Science Teaching , 82–91 (2013).[51] Zahra Hazari, Geoff Potvin, Robynne M. Lock, FlorinLung, Gerhard Sonnert, and Philip M. Sadler, “Factorsthat affect the physical science career interest of femalestudents: Testing five common hypotheses,” Phys. Rev.ST Phys. Educ. Res. , 020115 (2013).[52] Eleanor W. Close, Jessica Conn, and Hunter G. Close,“Becoming physics people: Development of integratedphysics identity through the learning assistant experi-ence,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. , 010109 (2016). [53] Paul W. Irving and Eleanor C. Sayre, “Becoming a physi-cist: The roles of research, mindsets, and milestonesin upper-division student perceptions,” Phys. Rev. STPhys. Educ. Res. , 020120 (2015).[54] SPS Observer (2014).[55] https://physicsfestival.tamu.edu/ .[56] https://sciencefestivals.org/ .[57] https://physicsshow.tamu.edu/ .[58] https://justaddscience.tamu.edu/ .[59] https://gameday.physics.tamu.edu/ .[60] https://realphysicslive.com/ .[61] Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, Situated learning: Le-gitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge UniversityPress, New York;Cambridge, U.K;, 1991).[62] Etienne Wenger, “Communities of practice and sociallearning systems,” Organization , 225–246 (2000).[63] Etienne Wenger-Trayner and Beverly Wenger-Trayner,“Learning in a landscape of practice: A framework,” in Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity,and knowledgeability in practice-based learning , edited byEtienne Wenger-Trayner, Mark Fenton-O’Creevy, StevenHutchinson, Chris Kubiak, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner(Routledge, New York, 2015) pp. 13–27.[64] Avi Kaplan and Joanna K. Garner, “A complex dynamicsystems perspective on identity and its development: Thedynamic systems model of role identity,” DevelopmentalPsychology , 2036–2051 (2017).[65] Avi Kaplan, Mirit Sinai, and Hanoch Flum, “Design-based interventions for promoting students’ identity ex-ploration within the school curriculum,” in MotivationalInterventions , edited by Stuart Karabenick and Timo-thy C Urdan (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bing-ley, UK, 2014) pp. 243–291.[66] Jack Mezirow, “An overview on transformative learning,”in
Contemporary theories of learning: learning theoristsin their own words , edited by Knud Illeris (Routledge,Abingdon, 2009) pp. 90–105.[67] Robert Kegan, “What “form” transforms? aconstructive-developmental approach to transforma-tive learning,” in
Contemporary theories of learning:Learning theorists in their own words , edited by Knud Illeris (Routledge, Abingdon, 2009) pp. 35–52.[68] Wendy K Adams, Katherine K Perkins, Noah S Podolef-sky, Michael Dubson, Noah D Finkelstein, and Carl EWieman, “New instrument for measuring student beliefsabout physics and learning physics: The colorado learn-ing attitudes about science survey,” Physical review spe-cial topics-physics education research , 010101 (2006).[69] Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson, “Howmany interviews are enough? an experiment with datasaturation and variability,” Field Methods , 59–82(2006).[70] Jonan Phillip Donaldson and Ayana Allen-Handy, “Thenature and power of conceptualizations of learning,” Ed-ucational Psychology Review , 545–570 (2019).[71] Stephen P Borgatti, Martin G Everett, and Linton CFreeman, “Ucinet for windows: Software for social net-work analysis,” Harvard, MA: analytic technologies (2002).[72] John Scott, Social Network Analysis , 4th ed. (Sage Pub-lications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017).[73] Charles Kadushin,
Understanding social networks : the-ories, concepts, and findings. Charles Kadushin (OxfordUniversity Press, 2012).[74] SP Bogartti, “Netdraw software for network visualiza-tion,” Lexington (USA): Analytic Technologies (2002).[75] Thomas W. Valente,
Social Networks and Health: Mod-els, Methods, and Applications (Oxford University Press,New York, 2010).[76] Eric Brewe, “The roles of engagement: Newwork analysisin physics education research,” Getting Started in PER(2018).[77] M. E. J. Newman and M. Girvan, “Finding and evalu-ating community structure in networks,” Physics Review