# Creating a Physicist: The Impact of Informal Physics Programs on University
Student Development

Callie Rethman  Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77845<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonathan Perry  Department of
Physics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712  Jonan Donaldson  Center for
Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845  Daniel
Choi  Center for Teaching Excellence, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX 77845  Tatiana Erukhimova  Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX 77845

###### Abstract

Physics outreach programs provide a critical context for informal experiences
that promote the transition from new student to contributing physicist. Prior
studies have suggested a positive link between participation in informal
physics outreach programs and the development of a student’s physics identity.
In this study, we adopt a student-focused investigation to explore the effects
of informal programs on dimensions of physics identity, sense of community,
21st century skill development, and motivation. We employed a mixed methods
study combining a survey instrument (117 responses) and interviews (35) with
current and former undergraduate and graduate students who participated in
five programs through a physics and astronomy department at a large land-grant
university. To examine interviews, we employed a framework based on situated
learning theory, transformative learning theory, and the Dynamic Systems Model
of Role Identity. Our findings, based on self-reported data, show that
students who facilitated informal physics programs positively developed their
physics identity, experienced increased 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 programs can be achieved by
departments of any size without significant commitment of funds or changes to
curriculum.

##  I Introduction

Many physics departments and national labs in the United States run informal
programs. These programs are often called “public outreach” Graur (2018),
reflecting a historical understanding of their main purpose: building a bridge
between “ivory tower” physicists and the general public, as well as providing
unique opportunities for engaging children in STEM, especially unprivileged
children Leshner (2007); Holt (2015); Commission (2002); Nat (2017); Council
(2015, 2009). Most American scientists agree that they should “take an active
role in public policy debates about issues related to science and technology”
Rainie  _et al._ (2015). There is an ongoing discussion on how to be more
effective in communicating scientific advances to various audiences Nat
(2017); Besley  _et al._ (2018). There have been calls from prominent
scientists to train future generations of scientists to be effective science
communicators Leshner (2007); Brownell  _et al._ (2013) and to recognize
public outreach effort as an integral part of scientists’ careers in academia
Graur (2018); Foster  _et al._ (2010).

Prior literature exhibits a consensus on the positive impact of out-of-school
programs on children. These programs increase childrens’ understanding and
interest in STEM and generate enthusiasm for science Council (2015, 2009);
Bartley  _et al._ (2009); Wulf  _et al._ (2013). They can be especially
impactful for children from underserved communities and females who otherwise
may not be interested in science simply due to their lack of exposure to
science programs and role models Dabney  _et al._ (2012); Schibeci (2006).
Major professional organizations of physicists, such as the American Physical
Society APS , American Association of Physics Teachers AAP , the Optical
Society OSA , the International Society for Optics and Photonics SPI , as well
as the Society of Physics Students SPS , make considerable efforts to share
outreach resources that help their members engage with the general public.
Funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, encourage
engagement between researchers and various communities through outreach as
part of their “broader impact” requirements NSF . Undergraduate and graduate
students have served as facilitators of physics outreach programs for decades,
and many program organizers would consider it obvious that these students
benefit from participation in the outreach programs. In this paper we use the
terms “informal” and “outreach” interchangeably to describe programs in which
students participate that are outside formal curriculum.

There has been increasing interest in understanding how undergraduate and
graduate student facilitation of these programs supports the development of a
physics and STEM identity, enhances retention and persistence, and supports a
feeling of community Finkelstein and Mayhew (2008); Hinko and Finkelstein
(2012); Hinko  _et al._ (2014, 2016); Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2016, 2018);
Prefontaine  _et al._ (2018); Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2020); Sauncy  _et al._
(2015); Bunshaft  _et al._ (2015); Quan  _et al._ (2019). The results of this
paper add to the growing understanding of how informal physics programs
provide a platform for broader interactions between an individual student and
the STEM community and equip university students with the skills needed for
the 21st century careers Heron and McNeil (2016).

The perspective that informal physics programs are beneficial only for the
public is detrimental, as it places them outside of university research and
teaching missions Hinko and Finkelstein (2012) and makes them low priority for
institutional support. Studies reporting on successful programs reflect on
university-community partnership, effective communication, passion for
science, reducing stereotypes, and longevity Finkelstein and Mayhew (2008);
Bartley  _et al._ (2009); Wulf  _et al._ (2013); Miranda  _et al._ (2018);
Hayes  _et al._ (2020); Greenler  _et al._ (1993). These programs are usually
viewed as part of a service mission of a physics department or as a
recruitment tool Hinko and Finkelstein (2012); Stewart  _et al._ (2013),
though some university professors may dissuade their students from engaging in
outreach believing their time is better spent on research Graur (2018).

There is not much literature on the impact of participation in informal
physics programs on university students. In 2008, Finkelstein and Mayhew
presented the results of a university-community partnership, Partnerships for
Informal Science Education in the Community (PISEC) at the University of
Colorado Boulder, where university students were mentored to teach youth in an
after-school community setting Finkelstein and Mayhew (2008). In a subsequent
study, Hinko and Finkelstein Hinko and Finkelstein (2012) reported that
university students had positive shifts in their perspectives of teaching and
learning, and improved their science communication skills through
participating in PISEC. They encouraged a shift from “outreach” to
“partnership”, emphasizing a win-win situation for both universities and
communities. Through further exploration of PISEC, Hinko et al. Hinko  _et
al._ (2014) constructed a framework for the assessment of scientific language
for physics students explaining (informal teaching) concepts to non-expert
audiences.

Teaching experience is a crucial aspect of formal physics training Feldon  _et
al._ (2011); Drane  _et al._ (2014). Many graduate students and some
undergraduate students acquire teaching experience through teaching
assistantships Otero  _et al._ (2010), but these are formal roles that are
constrained by the curriculum. Hinko et al. Hinko  _et al._ (2016) argued that
an overlooked area of the physics teaching experience for undergraduate and
graduate physics students is informal physics programs where these students
serve as facilitators. As compared to formal teaching assistantships, informal
physics programs provide less constraints, more ownership, more room for
initiative, more flexibility in time commitment, and more excitement. This may
translate into richer teaching opportunities, formal and informal, for
students.

Prior work indicates that development of a physics identity could help
students choose physics as a career and persist in the field Hazari  _et al._
(2010). Discipline-based identity, intertwined with the development of
motivational beliefs, increased self-efficacy, sense of belonging, external
recognition, and “real-world” experience could be the leading factors in
students’ persistence in, or attrition from, physics and other STEM fields;
thus, it has a potential for enhanced retention among students, especially
among underrepresented minority populations Perez  _et al._ (2014); Sauncy
_et al._ (2015); Bunshaft  _et al._ (2015); Quan  _et al._ (2019); Sawtelle
_et al._ (2012); Zwolak  _et al._ (2017); Thiry  _et al._ (2011); Kalender
_et al._ (2019); Hyater-Adams  _et al._ (2018, 2019); Lewis  _et al._ (2016);
Hazari  _et al._ (2013a, b); Close  _et al._ (2016); Irving and Sayre (2015).
Recent work from Fracchiolla et al. applied a community of practice framework
to study one after school program focusing on aspects including connections
within the physics community, sense of belonging, and development of physics
identity Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2020). Their work suggests that volunteering
in informal physics programs could have a positive influence on the growth of
a university student’s physics identity.

Informal physics programs differ in terms of their target audience,
facilitators, settings, modes of implementation, scale, frequency, longevity,
and institutional support Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2018). Prior studies examined
a relatively small number of participants drawn from a limited range of
informal physics programs. In this paper, we present the findings from a mixed
methods study on the impact of different kinds of informal physics programs on
a large number of undergraduate and graduate students facilitating these
programs at Texas A&M University. The Department of Physics & Astronomy at
Texas A&M runs several nationally-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-on demonstrations, talking to and learning from the top-notch
researchers and astronauts – to the Just Add Science & Game Day Physics
programs which bring the excitement of physics to places where people already
are, such as heritage festivals, football games, or community festivals. The
Physics Show targets organized groups of K-12 students on campus. In the Real
Physics Live program, university students create entertaining educational
videos which illustrate important physics concepts using demonstration
experiments.

A goal of these programs is to make science exciting, understandable, and
accessible to the general public. Another equally important goal is to provide
opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students’ personal, academic, and
professional growth. One program, Discover, Explore, and Enjoy Physics &
Engineering (DEEP) was designed to be student-centered, with the main focus on
the experience of the university students, while other programs described in
this paper evolved over time from being considered as “public outreach” to
becoming an integral part of university students’ educational experience.

We conducted a student-focused investigation examining the impact of informal
physics programs on undergraduate and graduate student volunteers helping to
run these programs. We explored the effects of Texas A&M informal physics
programs on (a) establishing a student’s identity as a physicist and a STEM
professional; (b) students’ sense of belonging to the physics community and
the broader STEM community; (c) students’ development of soft skills, such as
communication, teamwork, design, and conceptual understanding; and (d)
students’ experiences, such as seeing new perspectives, motivation, interest
development, and empowerment. Also emergent in our analyses were unique
impacts of outreach programs on female students who are traditionally
underrepresented in physics. The results of this study could be of potential
interest to every physics department and physics educator, since some of the
informal physics programs do not require a large budget or any changes in the
curriculum.

##  II Program Structure

We analyzed the impact of five informal programs run by the Department of
Physics & Astronomy at Texas A&M on the university students who facilitate
these programs. Table 1 lists the years of implementation of these programs as
well as an approximate number of students participating every year. Although
each of these programs were founded at different times and with a different
target audience in mind, they all provide university students with potential
opportunities for leadership and teamwork, experiential learning, peer-
mentoring and peer-learning, networking within the different populaces of an
academic department, and developing important communication skills (Figure 1).
We describe the program Discover, Explore, and Enjoy Physics & Engineering
(DEEP) in more detail since this program was designed with a focus on
enriching university students learning and experience.

Figure 1:  Schematic of the program principles and their associated informal
physics programs at Texas A&M.

_Discover, Explore and Enjoy Physics & Engineering_ (DEEP) is a hands-on,
peer-learning community. On average, there are 60 undergraduate students and
13 graduate students (DEEP Mentors) who participate in the program each year
(2012-2021). Students work throughout the academic year in teams of 5-10,
side-by-side with their peers and graduate student mentors on research,
concept, design, and fabrication of physics demonstration experiments. Though
most students come from science and engineering majors, participation is open
to students from any discipline. The same student teams present their
experiments through other informal physics programs described in this section.
The demonstrations fabricated by students are added to the pool of
demonstration experiments available for all physics and astronomy courses.

Table 1:  Approximate number of annual student participants and the inaugural year for the Texas A&M informal physics programs included in this study. Program title | Initial year | Number
---|---|---
|  | of students
DEEP | 2012 | 70
Physics & Engineering Festival | 2003 | 300-400
Physics Show | 2007 | 200
Real Physics Live | 2016 | 11
Just Add Science/Game Day Physics | 2015 | 70

This program was designed with the intention that through these collaborative
hands-on extracurricular activities, students learn physics concepts more
deeply, get more opportunities for interactions with peers and professors
outside the classroom, develop collaboration skills through team interactions,
and increase communication skills as a result of presentations to a wide range
of audiences. The core goal of this program is to deepen students’ physics
content knowledge through transferable skills (i.e., teamwork, communication
ability, and ethics) and hands-on experiences, utilizing each individual’s
science background and identity to enhance their STEM learning experience
through peer learning communities aimed at small group and individualized
instruction.

The DEEP program facilitates peer mentoring which includes not only
undergraduate students interacting with each other across all classifications
but also graduate students mentoring undergraduates in their group. The latter
is fairly unique as graduate and undergraduate student populations usually do
not interact outside of formal settings.

Demonstration experiments cover a broad variety of topics from physics,
chemistry, electrical and computer engineering, etc. Students are encouraged
to be creative with ideas for demonstrations. They also prepare a poster and a
narrative explaining the underlying concepts at a level accessible for
visitors of all educational levels. Undergraduate students are involved in
every aspect of design, fabrication, and presentation of the experiments,
gaining invaluable experience. Students often enter the program as freshmen
and develop these skills over the course of their undergraduate careers.
Graduate students leading teams of undergraduates are provided with
opportunities to acquire leadership and mentoring experience: they build a
collaborative research team and lead this team through research, fabrication,
and presentation of their projects.

One example of a DEEP demonstration experiment designed and fabricated mostly
by freshman students is the superconducting train on a magnetic track (Figure
2). This single experiment teaches nearly all of the basic concepts of
electricity and magnetism and several key concepts from advanced physics
courses. It connects students with one of the most advanced and fascinating
transportation technologies: magnetic levitation trains that are currently
being tested in Japan, Europe, and the USA. Finally, it is mesmerizing for
anyone, from small kids to adults, to watch how the train levitates while
going round and round the magnetic track as if being held by some mysterious
force. It is therefore not surprising that this demonstration experiment is a
huge hit at Physics Shows, a favorite of the public at the Physics &
Engineering Festivals, and is regularly shown in the classroom.

Figure 2:  DEEP team members with their superconducting train track. This
demonstration experiment was part of Nobel Laureate David Lee’s public talk at
the 2013 Physics & Engineering Festival. Photo by Natasha Sheffield.

A good DEEP demonstration experiment does not have to be technically advanced
or expensive to be of high educational value. Another example conceived,
designed, and fabricated by DEEP students is a simple lever demonstration.
Although simple, it teaches a number of important concepts of mechanics and
provides a vivid explanation of the operation of construction cranes and
lifting machines. Another exciting demonstration built by DEEP students,
Methane Bubbles, was featured on the front page of the SPS Observer SPS (2014)
as seen in Figure 3. Displaying this demonstration experiment requires team
discipline and following strict safety rules.

Figure 3:  The front cover of the SPS Observer features the DEEP student
showing his demonstration at Texas A&M Physics & Engineering Festival SPS
(2014). Reproduced with permission from the SPS. Photo by Igor Kraguljac.

Now that we’ve discussed the DEEP program in depth, we will briefly review
four other programs which share some of the same program principles as DEEP.
All of these programs work together synergistically to build a cohesive set of
year-long outreach opportunities for students.

_The Texas A &M Physics and Engineering Festival_ Fes  founded in 2003 is an
annual event that attracts over six thousand visitors yearly. K-12 students
and their families from all over Texas and nationwide attend the Festival;
many schools bring busloads of students. For schools with a large percentage
of underrepresented minority students transportation is partially paid through
university diversity grants. The Festival includes a weekend on campus packed
with activities: hundreds of hands-on demonstrations, juggling science circus,
bubble shows, meetings with astronauts, and public lectures by world renowned
physicists. Previous speakers included Stephen Hawking (twice), Brian Greene,
Phil Plait, Sean Carroll, Lucianne Walkowicz, Robert Kirshner, Rocky Kolb,
Dudley Herschbach, and many others. Visitors appreciate the opportunity to
tour the Texas A&M Cyclotron Institute, interact with Nobel Laureate David Lee
in his research lab, and (virtually) tour the Large Hadron Collider. The
Festival is a member of the Science Festivals Alliance, a collaboration of
institutions committed to serve the public through informal science venues SFA
.

Hands-on demonstrations run by DEEP students and other student volunteers are
the heart of the Festival and the primary reason why people attend the event.
Several hundred undergraduate and graduate student volunteers participate in
the Festival, explaining physics concepts behind interactive hands-on
demonstrations for seven hours. The Festival gives students an opportunity to
explain physics concepts to children and adults. The Festival dissolves the
boundaries between different populaces in academia: whether you’re a freshman
in your first physics course or you’re a Nobel Laureate, everyone works
together as a team at the festival, building excitement for science and
technology with the crowds who show up. All these contexts provide an
opportunity for transformational experiences.

_Texas A &M Physics Show_ Sho  is another venue for students to present
interactive hands-on demonstrations. The Physics Show (2007 - current) is an
entertaining and educational presentation adjustable to any audience level.
There are two parts: one-hour presentation followed by 30-minute interactive
hands-on activities (mini Festival). Two physics majors help with the
presentation and 5-10 graduate and upper-level undergraduate students lead the
hands-on part. There are an average of 40 Physics Shows per year attended by
3,000 K-12 students.

_Just Add Science and Game Day Physics_ Add ; Gam  are outreach programs in
which the students “meet people where they are” SFA , by bringing their
favorite hands-on demonstrations to existing events and venues where people
are already gathered: home football games, heritage and community festivals,
etc. These efforts engage with audience members who may never attend a science
event on their own accord. The students work as a well-coordinated team and
explain physics concepts to every interested person who passes by.

In the _Real Physics Live_ program Vid  students create short entertaining
videos about physics demonstrations explaining the underlying physical
principles. The videos are intended for middle and high school students,
college freshmen, the general public, and all physics enthusiasts. Graduate
and undergraduate students work as a team to write scenarios and then star in
the videos.

All programs have similar principles: through participation in these programs
the students design and build, teach/serve the public by applying their
physics knowledge, communicate scientific principles to non-scientists in an
exciting way, lead, work in teams, and last but not least, have a chance to
build connections across academic levels (undergraduate-graduate-postdoc-
faculty).

It should be noted that one of the authors is the founder and organizer of
several programs described in this section. Two other authors are former
active participants in multiple programs. The DEEP program was partially
supported by a Tier 1 grant from Texas A&M and by the Texas A&M University
system. Real Physics Live was supported by a mini outreach grant from APS.
Just Add Science was partially supported by a grant from the Science Festival
Alliance. All programs received ongoing support from the Department of Physics
& Astronomy at Texas A&M.

##  III Framework

Since our goal is to identify the effects of facilitating informal physics
programs on the development of university students, we needed three
theoretical frameworks: one to define learning, one to define identity, and
one to explain how powerful learning happens. These frameworks were important
in developing the instruments used to analyze student development within the
programs described in Sec. II. These instruments are described in further
detail in Sec. IV.

We define learning through the framework of situated learning theory in which
learning is defined as increased patterns of participation in a community of
practice and identification as a member of the community Lave and Wenger
(1991). One of the key insights of situated learning theory is that learning
begins through legitimate peripheral participation. Newcomers to a community
observe the community from the periphery and gradually participate more as
existing members of the community mentor them into community ideas and
practices. Over time they develop greater proficiency in knowledge, using new
ways of knowing, and adopting the practices of the community as they move from
the periphery toward the core Wenger (2000). This movement is characterized
not only by greater expertise, but more importantly by being recognized (by
themselves and others) as members of the community. As their position
approaches the core of the community, they take on role identities as leaders
and mentors with greater visibility and responsibility Wenger-Trayner and
Wenger-Trayner (2015). While situated learning theory defines the nature of
learning, we need an additional framework to understand how learning takes
place.

Transformative learning theory provides a useful lens through which to
understand how powerful learning occurs. This theory describes powerful
learning as a process of the transformation of one’s “frames of reference”
Mezirow (2009). These frames of reference include assumptions, beliefs,
perspectives, mindsets, and habits of mind Kegan (2009). Through situated
learning theory and transformative learning theory, we see learning as a
process of becoming, engagement in the practices and knowledge of a community,
and a change in identity.

We define physics identity through the lens of a Dynamic Systems Model of Role
Identity (DSMRI) which embraces the complexity of social-contextual elements
which interact to facilitate or inhibit identity change Kaplan and Garner
(2017). In Hazari et al Hazari  _et al._ (2010), students’ physics identity
was defined 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 think about and understand physics. We use this definition
as a seed and expand it through the framework of DSMRI which characterizes
identity as context-specific self-perceptions, values, beliefs, goals,
emotions, and perceived action potentials Kaplan and Garner (2017).
Facilitation of identity development in learning environments requires
contextual features for triggering identity exploration, scaffolding identity
exploration, promoting relevance, and facilitating a sense of safety Kaplan
_et al._ (2014).

Through the lens of the three frameworks described above, we define physics
learning as a process of change characterized by changes in engagement in the
physics community, increasing identification as a member of the physics
community, transformation of perspectives about the nature and role of physics
in society, and physics role identity development.

##  IV Methods

The frameworks described above were used to design a mixed methods study to
investigate the impact of Texas A&M’s informal physics programs on student
facilitators. A survey was developed to investigate the impact on student’s
identity, sense of belonging to the physics community, and 21st century
skills. This survey consisted of a subset of items from the Colorado Learning
Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) as well as additional items constructed
for the broader goals of this work Adams  _et al._ (2006). The survey was
distributed via email to current and former students who had worked with at
least one physics outreach program between 2013-2019. Two follow-up emails
were sent at two week intervals after the initial survey to encourage as many
responses as possible. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if
they were willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview. Survey responses
were analyzed for descriptive statistics, specifically looking at self-
reported connections between experiences facilitating outreach and
improvements to both physics and non-physics abilities.

The survey was distributed to nearly 400 current and former students. A total
of 117 completed survey responses were received. As seen in Table 2, just over
a quarter of responses were from female students, with 1% identifying as non-
binary. A majority of responses, 62%, were from current or former
undergraduate students and 43% were from current or former graduate students.
The excess percentages of responses were due to students who completed their
undergraduate work at Texas A&M and were either still completing or had also
completed their graduate work there.

Interviews were conducted with 35 current and former students recruited from
the volunteer pool of respondents from the survey. This number of interviewees
is more than adequate for this study since 97 percent of themes in interview-
based case studies are identified after twelve interviews Guest  _et al._
(2006). Interview questions were created based on the three frameworks
described in Sec. III that provide a definition and explanation of learning,
permitting a multifaceted approach to investigating identity. These questions
probed for more in-depth student experiences during facilitation of outreach
programs. Interviews were conducted remotely and typically lasted 15-30
minutes. Interviews were conducted by a researcher who was unfamiliar with
each interviewee.

Interviews were coded using a code book based on the frameworks described in
Section III. A total of 64 codes were used to categorize statements by three
members of the research team in MAXQDA. These codes were organized into
categories of i) community (e.g. connecting with participants,
accountability), ii) soft skills (e.g. creativity and innovation, teamwork and
leadership, communication), iii) hard skills (disciplinary and non-
disciplinary skills), iv) affect and experience (e.g. seeing new perspectives,
transformational experiences, motivation and excitement, and v) identity (e.g.
curiosity, positionality related to ethnicity and gender, worldview, becoming
more confident). Categories i-iii are grounded in situated learning theory,
category iv is grounded in transformational learning theory, and category v is
grounded in DSMRI.

Coding of interviews was done in stages by different members of the research
team. Initially, a team of six coded three interviews after which the coding
process was discussed and revisions were made to the code book. A group of
three researchers then coded the same five interviews. Comparisons between the
three researchers yielded reliability kappa values of $>$0.8 between the first
two researchers and $>$0.6 between each of the first two researchers and the
third. One researcher coded all thirty-five interviews, while the remaining
two researchers each coded a subset of interviews. All interviews were coded
by at least two researchers.

To explore the relationships between codes we employed semantic network
analysis. Semantic network analysis uses social network analysis tools, but
instead of analyzing interactions within networks of people, it focuses on
interactions within networks of ideas Donaldson and Allen-Handy (2019).
Analysis of these networks starts with determining the likelihood that one
idea (a coded segment of text in the data) appears in the text near another
idea (a different coded segment). Pearson’s correlations of code co-
occurrences were calculated for each pair of codes, producing a correlation
matrix at the confidence level p$<$0.01 and another correlation matrix at the
confidence level p$<$0.001. These correlation matrices were imported into the
UCINET network analysis software Borgatti  _et al._ (2002) as 1-mode networks,
in which the columns and rows are identical and cells indicate the ties
between each set of codes Scott (2017). In order to characterize the position
of any given idea within the network of ideas, the centrality of each idea in
relation to other ideas in terms of distance (steps) between that idea and all
other ideas was measured by using UCINET to produce Eigenvector centrality
measures Kadushin (2012). These measures were then visualized in NetDraw
Bogartti (2002) as semantic network maps in which each idea (node) is
positioned in relation to direct ties — other ideas which are significantly
correlated — as well as indirect ties in the form of ties with other ideas
which are not significantly correlated directly with the given node, but have
ties with the other node through intermediary nodes which are significantly
correlated with both Valente (2010). For instance, if A is correlated with B,
and B is correlated with C (but C is not correlated with A), A has an indirect
tie with C. This is equivalent to a node level analysis used in prior physics
education studies Brewe (2018). These semantic network maps allow the
researcher to understand the complex relationships between ideas, as well as
characterize the importance of ideas within the network by automating node
size as a function of Eigenvector centrality measures. Additional analysis can
help the researcher identify groups of interconnected ideas. Girvan-Newman
cluster analysis Newman and Girvan (2004) in NetDraw uses betweenness
centrality measures of links to visually identify clusters (color coding),
thus allowing the researcher to describe semantic themes and relationships
between themes.

##  V Results

Students self-reported on the impact of their participation in informal
physics programs (which we will refer to as outreach for the rest of the
paper) on their depth of understanding, connections between topics, and the
development of networking and teamwork skills. Responses to these survey items
are shown in Figure 4. A large number of responses indicate that facilitating
outreach events had either some positive impact or a strong positive impact on
the dimensions listed above. Over 80% of students reported some positive or a
strong positive impact on recognizing connections between physics topics and
on their overall understanding in physics. A slightly higher percentage, 85%,
reported that participating in outreach had a positive impact on their
teamwork skills and ability to network within the department.

Students were asked to rate their confidence in their choice of majoring in
physics before and after participating in outreach. Of the 62 physics students
who responded, 29 students indicated an increase in confidence in choosing
physics as a major after participating in outreach. Thirty-two students
maintained the same level of confidence, ranging from not confident at all (1)
to slightly confident (5) to moderately confident (11) to extremely confident
(15). One response indicated a decrease in confidence in choice of major.

Students who volunteered to be interviewed were able to elaborate on their
experiences in outreach and the connections noted in the results above. The
demographics of interviewees are shown in Table 2. Below we present results on
the frequencies of certain codes and themes from the interviews, a semantic
network analysis, and meaningful student quotes related to our framework.

Interview questions posed to participants probed connections between
participation in outreach and their physics identity, values, perceptions, and
abilities. Students frequently discussed the impact of outreach on the
development of skills related to communication, teamwork, and design. The
frequency of codes associated with these skills from all interviews are shown
in Figure 5. A significant number of interviewees touched on the impact of
outreach on their communication skills, particularly their speaking ability.
From the experience of one graduate student,

> I’ve really learned over time that it’s one thing to know something, but
> it’s a whole different thing to be able to explain it to somebody and really
> effectively communicate your ideas.

Our findings suggest that the student experience in outreach promoted
communication not only with other people in STEM, but also with diverse
audiences from the general public. From the student perspective, these
interactions with the public could provide high impact experiences. Multiple
interview participants noted that presenting scientific concepts to such a
wide range of people played a significant role in their ability to effectively
communicate these challenging concepts with others. 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 right beside them, they both have to understand and they both want
> something different. You have to learn how to speak on their level and sort
> of give your audience what they need.

As seen in Figure 5, communication is not the only skill commonly discussed by
students. Leadership and teamwork experience were mentioned by nearly 50% and
35% of interviews respectively. In learning to become part of a collaborative
effort, one student shared that they “learned that you can’t do it all
yourself…that you have to lean on others and be part of a team.” The programs
in which these students engaged, such as DEEP mentioned in Section II, can
provide new experiences in which to develop interpersonal skills not often
found in the classroom. As another graduate student put it,

> I’ve done teaching, I’ve done outreach, itself, but … managing and
> delegating was something that I was not too familiar with, and it definitely
> gave me very valuable experience … will be very useful as I continue in my
> PhD.

Establishing interpersonal connections also goes beyond small teams, to
networking with the broader department. Students, particularly undergraduates,
get a chance to develop additional, and potentially deeper relationships with
researchers and faculty through outreach. One undergraduate’s experience was
that they “developed a very close working relationship with certain professors
in the physics department as a result of [outreach].”

Though mentioned less frequently during interviews, skills related to
creativity and design represent important experiences. Students engaged in
building new, or improving existing, demonstrations must develop and implement
new solutions to each project. These projects often build on skills developed
first within a current or previous course. From one student’s experience,

> You build demonstrations so you have to have a plan for them, put together
> an electrical schematic in order to have an Arduino-powered thing. This is
> all very real-world application stuff, and it all works really good on
> resumes.

To identify emergent themes and significant links between codes, a Girvan-
Newman cluster analysis was performed. The resulting semantic network map, at
the p$<$0.01 level, is shown in Figure 6. Here the interconnectedness of major
themes is evident, with larger blocks and a higher number of links
representing centrality of a code to the impact of students’ experiences due
to outreach.

A number of important themes and connections are observed from the map in
Figure 6. The most central node is increased motivation, which is linked to
nodes related to both physics identity and skill development. Motivation will
drive student engagement in outreach, providing opportunities to impact their
physics identity and skill development.

During interviews, students frequently mentioned the growth of their ability
to explain and present topics to a variety of audiences, which ranged from
young children to adults and sometimes included physics faculty and
researchers. Students also touched on their growth in comfort and ability to
work as part of a team. Adjacent to motivation, teamwork acts as a further
nexus between several important themes of curiosity, ability to see new
perspectives, creativity and innovation, as well as the potential for students
to have a transformational experience. As an example, we consider the
reflections of a graduate student who said,

> but what I learned through years of doing outreach is that instilling a
> sense of awe and fascination in entire classrooms full of kids is way, way
> more important than coming up with some new physics law.

Another major theme was students coming to view themselves as more of an
expert in physics. Interacting with others could help students see themselves
as a physics person because “other people saw” them “as a physics person”.
This node shares several important links to communication skills, which could
help develop a sense of expertise, as well as aspects of identity related to
becoming a team person and the development of an identity as a researcher.
This link to researcher identity would be particularly impactful for
undergraduate students considering a graduate degree or current graduate
students engaged in research. From one student’s experience,

> I literally just once in a while went out and did a demo. Explained it again
> and again, the whole day. And that was really fun. And so that helped…
> solidify my image of myself as a physicist.

The role of strong leadership through accountability forms an important
cluster linked to student confidence and excitement as well as the ability to
empower others. Such leadership provides not only the structure for outreach
programs, but also has a significant impact on students by being an exemplar
for skills and fostering the culture around outreach. One student discussed
this impact, stating

> there is a genuinely amazing community at Texas A&M, and so much of it does
> center around [Dr. X].

Several secondary themes are also evident from the semantic network map. These
themes exhibit fewer links and less centrality, but still offer important
insights into the impact of participation in outreach. The personal perception
of becoming more of an expert in physics is linked to skill development,
individual responsibility, and an identity as a researcher. Experiences gained
through teamwork show links to the ability to see new perspectives, the
potential for transformational experiences, and sense of belonging to the
physics community. These are highly valuable aspects of a student’s learning.
From one undergraduate student’s perspective,

> I want to say that through these outreach [activities], I probably have felt
> closer to the physics community than I have through my classes themselves.

While another undergraduate student stated their experience as,

> I think that’s affected my identity as a physics person the most. Where I
> just kind of feel like I’m a part of this community in a sense. Like physics
> is something that I want to do and engage in.

Two peripheral themes are noteworthy for their contributions to the sense of
community among students. Learning to understand others, or become more
empathetic, is linked to themes including student confidence, identity as
someone who can do physics, and communication. Students who facilitated
outreach programs described how it “impacted [their] ability to connect with
others” in a positive way. Outreach also provided a social environment for
students to develop connections with their peers. From the experience of one
student

> I went from a more loner type person to being very outgoing and social
> within the physics community and being able to bond with other people
> through [outreach] events.

For other students, the excitement and demands of outreach events provided a
bonding experience with their peers. In the words of one student

> It helped me make a lot of friends…You fight in the trenches with a lot of
> people. You have these exhausting all day things where you talked to so many
> people.

These experiences, for some students, led to a deeper sense of ownership and
connection with physics, helping them want to become better ambassadors for
their field. From one student’s perspective

> I think it kind of shapes it to where almost being in physics is a fun
> thing, and it’s making me more want to be a representative for the major in
> a sense.

Being a woman in physics was observed to have strong ties to outreach
leadership and seeing oneself as a member of the scientific community. For
context with this theme, it should be noted that the coordinator for most
outreach programs at Texas A&M is a female faculty member. In the words of one
female undergraduate student, this impact was described thus:

> I think [physics outreach activities] have really made me feel like I can be
> a part of the physics major. I know as a freshman I felt like maybe this
> wasn’t the right major, anything like this, but I think going out and
> teaching other people physics made me feel like I knew what I was doing and
> made me feel like I could keep going on the route of being a physics major.

It is apparent that the community created through outreach activities promotes
the building of relationships and sense of belonging to the physics community
for all students. Although the framework employed in this work did not seek to
specifically differentiate the experiences of different groups of students,
certain patterns emerged when comparing male and female students. Our analysis
suggests that female students experience stronger benefits from interactions
with their peers and faculty as well as recognition that there are people like
them within the physics community. This feeling of representation, in
particular, appears to be linked with a deeper sense of belonging, which can
be a critical factor in the determination of student retention in higher
education Kalender  _et al._ (2019). As one undergraduate female student put
it:

> I will say that I met a lot of friends through physics outreach. And a lot
> of them were girls in physics. And it was kind of cool to meet a lot of
> people who were having the same thoughts as me, and we could just kind of
> band together and have our own little community within the physics
> department.

A second theme that emerged among female interviewees was the importance of
external recognition on physics identity, which may also relate to physics
self-efficacy. In the words of one female graduate student “It helped me see
myself as a physics person because other people saw me as a physics person.”
Whereas male students spoke more often and more directly about internal self-
perception, or viewing themselves as experts in the field, female students
self-perception was discussed more in the context of recognition as an expert
from others. Outreach provides the opportunity for all students to display
their expertise to public audiences. While there are benefits of this
recognition as an expert to all students, the network analysis shows this was
more impactful to female students. As one undergraduate female student put it,

> So it’s like not only do I believe in myself, but I have others who believe
> in me, so that way if I ever falter in my belief in myself, I can fall back
> on the other people who believe in me.

The impact of recognition on students who participated in outreach was
important, but was of a different nature for female students than for male
students.

Table 2:  Demographics of survey responses by student gender and classification. A total of 117 complete survey responses were received and 35 interviews were completed. Numbers add up to more than 117 as a few students continued as graduate students at Texas A&M after completing their undergraduate degrees. | Survey | Interview
---|---|---
| Male | Female | Male | Female
Current Undergraduate | 29 | 17 | 3 | 5
Former Undergraduate | 20 | 4 | 3 | 1
Current Graduate | 21 | 6 | 11 | 3
Former Graduate | 14 | 5 | 8 | 2
Figure 4:  Survey responses from all students on the impact of participating
in outreach programs on recognizing connections between topics, their depth of
conceptual physics understanding, networking within the department, and
development of teamwork skills.  Figure 5:  Frequency of soft
(transdisciplinary) skill codes for all interview participants. Figure 6:
Semantic network map comprising all codes from 35 interviews at the level of p
$<$ 0.01.

##  VI Discussion

The informal physics programs described in Section II share common traits of
being student-focused programs that promote peer interactions, sense of
community, individual growth, and service to the public. It must be noted that
most of these programs historically started in response to the requests from
the community and local schools. Then it became clear that they could be
sustainable only with a maximally broad involvement of student population.
Therefore, a concerted effort has been made to convert their involvement into
a meaningful learning experience by fostering the principles described in
Figure 1. The Texas A&M physics outreach programs focus on students designing,
building, and presenting demonstrations to audiences of all ages and in a
variety of settings. The largest annual event includes participation from
several hundred STEM students and has welcomed around 7,000 attendees in
recent years. Smaller events throughout the year involve 2-20 physics students
engaging with groups ranging from K-12 students making visits to campus to
adults of diverse backgrounds at local community events and festivals.

The results noted in the prior section suggest that students facilitating
outreach programs experience positive impacts on their individual physics
identity, enhance their understanding of the concepts of the field, increase
their confidence, sense of belonging to the physics community, and improve
their 21st century skills. Our results showed that many students who
facilitated physics outreach programs reported an increase in their confidence
with physics as their choice of major. Through working with diverse audiences,
students developed a sense of their own expertise within physics leading to
the development of their personal physics identity.

We found that student motivation was a strong central theme. As follows from
Fig. 6, this motivation is directly connected with strong central nodes of
student excitement, curiosity, and changes in their worldview; development of
interest in physics, communication and teamwork skills; becoming an expert.
These are all building blocks of situated learning, transformative learning,
and physics role identity as defined in Sec. III. One can conclude that the
students who facilitated informal programs experienced a positive impact on
their physics identity. This parallels recent results from Fracchiolla et al.
who reported a connection between volunteering with physics outreach programs
and the development of physics identity Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2020).

Accountability to leaders in outreach is another strong central theme in Fig.
6. Analysis of interviews showed that the presence of a strong role model (the
faculty member in charge of outreach programs) was central in promoting
excitement among students and increased their motivation to engage in outreach
events.

Analysis of interviews suggested that external recognition is particularly
impactful for female students, facilitating growth of their individual physics
identities. This external recognition came from both the community of practice
surrounding informal physics programs as well as from the audience that
students were interacting with. In contrast to previous work by Hyater-Adams
et al., interviews with female students in this study only reported positively
on the effects of recognition from others Hyater-Adams  _et al._ (2018). These
interactions reinforced their identity as a physics person. This could
indicate that outreach is a high reward engagement for retention of female
students since, as noted by Hazari et al., the development of a physics
identity can help students choose and persist within the field of physics
Hazari  _et al._ (2010).

From the recent JTUPP report, a number of skills were identified as being high
priority for preparing students for a 21st century workplace, including
communication and teamwork Heron and McNeil (2016). During interviews,
students frequently discussed how facilitating outreach had improved their
ability to communicate with others. This is an essential part of a student’s
development, as any scientist should be proficient in communicating to a
diverse set of audiences. Whether a physicist works in academia, industry,
government, or elsewhere, it is an essential skill to effectively share ideas
with others, whether they are knowledgeable about our field or not. In having
students engage in outreach they become teachers to their audiences. This
provides not only an essential skill for the 21st century, but can also be a
critical reinforcement of the formal physics training of a degree plan Feldon
_et al._ (2011). As noted by Hinko and Finkelstein, outreach is a generally
overlooked area for the development of teaching skills Hinko  _et al._ (2016).
Outreach provides the structure through which we can let students teach.

Many outreach programs offer opportunities to foster teamwork and leadership
skills on an ongoing basis. While small group projects are often incorporated
into formal courses - such as labs - for short-term projects, much of a
physics curriculum focuses primarily on the work of the individual. This is
true at the undergraduate level, and especially true at the graduate level.
Working on a demonstration, or having ownership of a group of demonstrations,
is a task that goes beyond a single course and unit. Teams often work for most
of an academic year to research, design, and build the first version of a
demonstration. For many projects, there is often a second (and sometimes
third) cycle to improve a demonstration. Our findings show that outreach
supports the development of teamwork and leadership skills within a low stakes
environment. There is a particularly strong benefit to graduate students
through the DEEP program in working to manage a team of undergraduate students
while receiving mentoring from outreach leaders. These teams are effectively a
mock research lab with the graduate student functioning as the principle
investigator of the project.

In addition to communication and teamwork, some outreach program structures
support the development of creativity and design skills. When building a new
demonstration there is a goal in mind (produce the demo!), but the specific
form and method by which this is achieved is ambiguous. As seen in analysis of
our interviews, students were able to bring their own vision to projects
during the development cycle while learning the ”real-world” side to the
application of different parts of their education, such as circuits. Giving
students ownership of a project which will be used long after their time as a
student provides a sense of legacy and commitment to the apparatus that they
work to create. Such experiences have been recommended as ways to augment
undergraduate science education, meeting the broad range of individual
interests and talents of students Thiry  _et al._ (2011).

Sharing physics with people of all ages can help students develop a better
conceptual understanding of physics and recognize more connections between
different areas. In discussing the impact of outreach on their physics
understanding, students used words like “solidify” and “cemented” during their
interviews. In sharing their knowledge students restate their understanding,
and frame their knowledge in a way that it can be understood. This depth of
understanding is also strengthened by responding to questions where students
may push the limits of their own understanding to come up with a good bridging
analogy or explanation Redish (1994).

The results of this work are in alignment with previous finding from
evaluators at the Education Research Center at Texas A&M who concluded that
DEEP is a “highly successful” program Stillisano  _et al._ (2014). Program
evaluators concluded that significant enthusiasm existed among undergraduate
participants with many indicating intentions to return to the program in
subsequent years. Students reported their DEEP experiences as increasing
understanding of physics and engineering concepts, in addition to problem-
solving skills. Mentorship in the DEEP program demonstrated effective
leadership as reported by both graduate mentors and undergraduate students.
The DEEP program was identified as on target to enhance undergraduate
experiences and support students through active learning, service-oriented
learning, and teamwork.

##  VII Limitations

This study expands our understanding of the impact of student participation in
informal physics programs, however, there are several limitations which should
be noted. First, students self-reported on their experiences and perspectives
during both survey and interviews. Also, participants in this study come from
a single, large, land-grant, four-year public institution with a diverse
undergraduate enrollment. Information on student identities such as ethnicity,
first-generation status, etc. were not collected. Only the demographic
information of gender or classification (undergraduate or graduate) was asked
for. The outreach programs included in this study also represent a subsection
of the potential program structures which exist in physics departments across
the country. A larger follow-up study should collect this information, which
would allow for a deeper analysis of the impact of participation in outreach
on different student identities. Furthermore, findings from qualitative
analysis from interviews are not generalizeable, following principles of
social science research.

##  VIII Conclusion

The transition from novice to physicist is a lengthy and complex process that
is guided by both formal and informal experiences. For many, this is a journey
that begins with a movement towards becoming a physicist, but subsequently
turns in other directions. In this work, we observed how participation in
informal physics programs can support an individual in becoming a physicist
and boost their development through less structured, but critically important,
experiential learning. Informal physics programs provide an environment in
which students engage in experiential learning through facilitating physics
demonstrations and are able to learn through teaching individuals from a
diverse set of backgrounds. These experiences can provide rich teaching
opportunities for students by bringing physics beyond the pages of a textbook
Hinko  _et al._ (2016), which challenges them to break down concepts, and
potentially promotes a deeper understanding.

We have presented findings from a mixed methods study on the impact of five
informal physics programs on a large number of undergraduate and graduate
students from a large land-grant university. This study, based on self-
reported data, revealed that facilitation of physics outreach programs
promoted the development of students’ physics identity, sense of belonging to
the physics community, and the acquisition and improvement of 21st century
skills. Physics outreach programs can provide pathways to enhanced confidence
through experiential contexts beyond classrooms and laboratories. By
facilitating outreach, students foster skills that promote career readiness
such as communication, teamwork and networking, and design skills as well as
increased conceptual understanding of physics. There is a significant
connection between strong program leadership and multiple themes including
skill development, confidence, and motivation. Outreach facilitates the
development of a sense of belonging to a physics or STEM community, promoting
social interactions beyond formal contexts, such as classrooms or research
labs. We observed that female students reported that their sense of belonging
in the physics community was linked to interactions with others and external
recognition.

We recognize that the informal physics programs included in this study
represent a subsection of the potential program structures which exist in
physics departments across the country. We believe that the design principles
on which these programs rest can become a part of any physics outreach program
at any institution. Everyone can start an outreach program, and it doesn’t
even need a significant budget or a change to current curriculum. Many
demonstrations are part of common physics laboratories. These can be used to
seed these high impact experiential learning environments which promote
student growth as a physicist, as a member of their STEM community, and in the
skills they will bring to their future careers. From one student’s experience
through outreach,

> I wasn’t sure if [physics] was a good fit for me, but I’ve definitely been
> really reaffirmed that it’s something that I want to do and something that I
> can do, something kind of I’m actually able to do.

The impacts of facilitating outreach on physics students merits further
examination from multiple perspectives. Our findings suggest that students
experience benefits from outreach differently based on gender. A subsequent
study that examines the impact of outreach of traditionally underrepresented
groups in physics for a larger population of students would be informative.
Another useful study would be to look at the impacts of programs of different
scales, size, and frequency of events throughout the year. A further dimension
that merits attention would be the comparison of facilitating outreach on
graduate versus undergraduate students for institutions where these students
volunteer side by side.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank all students who participated in the survey and
interviews. We would also like to thank the many wonderful students, faculty,
staff, and donors who make our outreach programs possible.

## References

  * Hinko and Finkelstein (2012) Kathleen Hinko and Noah D. Finkelstein, “Impacting university physics students through participation in informal science,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1513, 178–181 (2012).
  * Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2020) Claudia Fracchiolla, Brean Prefontaine, and Kathleen Hinko, “Community of practice approach for understanding identity development within informal physics programs,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020115 (2020).
  * Graur (2018) Or Graur, “Education and public outreach as an integral part of a scientist’s career,” American Journal of Physics 86, 725–726 (2018).
  * Leshner (2007) Alan I. Leshner, “Outreach training needed,” Science 315, 161–161 (2007), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5809/161.full.pdf .
  * Holt (2015) Rush D. Holt, “Why science? why aaas?” Science 347, 807–807 (2015), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/807.full.pdf .
  * Commission (2002) European Commission, “Science and society action plan,” European Communities (2002).
  * Nat (2017) “Researchers should reach beyond the science bubble,” Springer Nature 542, 391 (2017).
  * Council (2015) National Research Council,  _Identifying and Supporting Productive STEM Programs in Out-of-School Settings_ (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015).
  * Council (2009) National Research Council,  _Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits_, edited by Philip Bell, Bruce Lewenstein, Andrew W. Shouse, and Michael A. Feder (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009).
  * Rainie  _et al._ (2015) L. Rainie, C. Funk, and M. Anderson, “How scientists engage the public,” Science and Society (2015).
  * Besley  _et al._ (2018) John C. Besley, Anthony Dudo, and Shupei Yuan, “Scientists’ views about communication objectives,” Public Understanding of Science 27, 708–730 (2018).
  * Brownell  _et al._ (2013) Sara Brownell, Jordan Price, and Lawrence Steinman, “Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training,” Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience 12, E6–E10 (2013).
  * Foster  _et al._ (2010) 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, “Partnerships for stem education,” Science 329, 906–907 (2010), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5994/906.full.pdf .
  * Bartley  _et al._ (2009) Jessica E. Bartley, Laurel M. Mayhew, and Noah D. Finkelstein, “Promoting children’s understanding and interest in science through informal science education,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1179, 93–96 (2009).
  * Wulf  _et al._ (2013) Rosemary Wulf, Kathleen Hinko, and Noah Finkelstein, “Promoting children’s agency and communication skills in an informal science program,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1513, 430–433 (2013).
  * Dabney  _et al._ (2012) Katherine Dabney, Robert Tai, John Almarode, Jaimie Miller-Friedmann, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip Sadler, and Zahra Hazari, “Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in stem,” International Journal of Science Education Part B, 63–79 (2012).
  * Schibeci (2006) Renato Schibeci, “Student images of scientists: What are they,” Do they matter 52, 12–17 (2006).
  * (18) https://www.aps.org/.
  * (19) https://www.aapt.org/.
  * (20) https://www.osa.org/en-us/home/.
  * (21) https://spie.org/.
  * (22) https://www.spsnational.org/.
  * (23) https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf07046/nsf07046.jsp.
  * Finkelstein and Mayhew (2008) Noah D. Finkelstein and Laurel Mayhew, “Acting in our own self‐interests: Blending university and community in informal science education,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1064, 19–22 (2008).
  * Hinko  _et al._ (2014) Kathleen Hinko, Jordan Seneca, and Noah Finkelstein, “Use of scientific language by university physics students communicating to the public,” in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2014_ , PER Conference (Minneapolis, MN, 2014) pp. 115–118.
  * Hinko  _et al._ (2016) Kathleen A. Hinko, Peter Madigan, Eric Miller, and Noah D. Finkelstein, “Characterizing pedagogical practices of university physics students in informal learning environments,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010111 (2016).
  * Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2016) Claudia Fracchiolla, Simone Hyater-Adams, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “University physics students’ motivations and experiences in informal physics programs,” in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2016_ , PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 124–127.
  * Fracchiolla  _et al._ (2018) Claudia Fracchiolla, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “Characterizing models of informal physics programs,” in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2018_ , PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018).
  * Prefontaine  _et al._ (2018) Brean Prefontaine, Claudia Fracchiolla, Manuel Vasquez, and Kathleen Hinko, “Intense outreach: Experiences shifting university students’ identities,” in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2018_ , PER Conference (Washington, DC, 2018).
  * Sauncy  _et al._ (2015) Toni Sauncy, Kendra Redmond, and Roman Czujko, “The aip career pathways project,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1697, 120014 (2015), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4937719 .
  * Bunshaft  _et al._ (2015) A. Bunshaft, D. Boyington, J. Curtis-Fisk, T. Edwards, A. Gerstein, and C. Jacobson, “Focus on employability skills for stem workers,” STEMconnector (2015).
  * Quan  _et al._ (2019) Gina Quan, Brianne Gutmann, Joel Corbo, Benjamin Pollard, and Chandra Turpen, “The access network: Cultivating equity and student leadership in stem,” in  _Physics Education Research Conference 2019_ (2019) pp. 482–487.
  * Heron and McNeil (2016) P. Heron and L. McNeil, “Phys21: Preparing physics students for 21st-century careers,” American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers, Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs (2016).
  * Miranda  _et al._ (2018) Rommel J. Miranda, Jennifer E. Scott, and Karen G. Schaefer, “Characteristics of effective astronomer-educator partnerships in formal urban middle school science classrooms,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010147 (2018).
  * Hayes  _et al._ (2020) Christian R. Hayes, Allison M. Matthews, Yiqing Song, Sean T. Linden, Robert F. Wilson, Molly Finn, Xiaoshan Huang, Kelsey E. Johnson, Anne M. McAlister, Brian Prager, Richard Seifert, Sandra E. Liss, Andrew M. Burkhardt, and Nicholas Troup, “First results from the dark skies, bright kids astronomy club draw-a-scientist test,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010131 (2020).
  * Greenler  _et al._ (1993) Robert G. Greenler, Norman P. Lasca, Arthur S. Brooks, and C. Frank Shaw, “The science bagtm at the university of wisconsin–milwaukee: A successful forum for science outreach,” American Journal of Physics 61, 326–329 (1993).
  * Stewart  _et al._ (2013) John Stewart, William Oliver, and Gay Stewart, “Revitalizing an undergraduate physics program: A case study of the university of arkansas,” American Journal of Physics 81, 943–950 (2013).
  * Feldon  _et al._ (2011) David Feldon, James Peugh, Briana Timmerman, Michelle Maher, Melissa Hurst, Denise Strickland, Joanna Gilmore, and Cindy Stiegelmeyer, “Graduate students’ teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills,” Science (New York, N.Y.) 333, 1037–9 (2011).
  * Drane  _et al._ (2014) Denie Drane, Marina Micari, and Gregory Light, “Students as teachers: Effectiveness of a peer-led stem learning program over 10 years,” Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice (2014), 10.1080/13803611.2014.895388.
  * Otero  _et al._ (2010) Valerie Otero, Steven Pollock, and Noah Finkelstein, “A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The colorado learning assistant model,” American Journal of Physics 78, 1218–1224 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3471291 .
  * Hazari  _et al._ (2010) Zahra Hazari, Gerhard Sonnert, Philip M. Sadler, and Marie-Claire Shanahan, “Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, 978–1003 (2010).
  * Perez  _et al._ (2014) Tony Perez, Jennifer Cromley, and Avi Kaplan, “The role of identity development, values, and costs in college stem retention,” Journal of Educational Psychology , 315–329 (2014).
  * Sawtelle  _et al._ (2012) Vashti Sawtelle, Eric Brewe, and Laird Kramer, “Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 1096–1121 (2012).
  * Zwolak  _et al._ (2017) Justyna P. Zwolak, Remy Dou, Eric A. Williams, and Eric Brewe, “Students’ network integration as a predictor of persistence in introductory physics courses,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010113 (2017).
  * Thiry  _et al._ (2011) Heather Thiry, Sandra L. Laursen, and Anne-Barrie Hunter, “What experiences help students become scientists? a comparative study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for stem undergraduates,” The Journal of Higher Education 82, 357–388 (2011).
  * Kalender  _et al._ (2019) Z. Yasemin Kalender, Emily Marshman, Christian Schunn, Timothy Nokes-Malach, and Chandralekha Singh, “Gendered patterns in the construction of physics identity from motivational factors,” Physical Review Physics Education Research 15 (2019), 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020119.
  * Hyater-Adams  _et al._ (2018) Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “Critical look at physics identity: An operationalized framework for examining race and physics identity,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010132 (2018).
  * Hyater-Adams  _et al._ (2019) Simone Hyater-Adams, Claudia Fracchiolla, Tamia Williams, Noah Finkelstein, and Kathleen Hinko, “Deconstructing black physics identity: Linking individual and social constructs using the critical physics identity framework,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020115 (2019).
  * Lewis  _et al._ (2016) Karyn L. Lewis, Jane G. Stout, Steven J. Pollock, Noah D. Finkelstein, and Tiffany A. Ito, “Fitting in or opting out: A review of key social-psychological factors influencing a sense of belonging for women in physics,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016).
  * Hazari  _et al._ (2013a) Zahra Hazari, Philip M. Sadler, and Gerhard Sonnert, “The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity,” Journal of College Science Teaching 42, 82–91 (2013a).
  * Hazari  _et al._ (2013b) Zahra Hazari, Geoff Potvin, Robynne M. Lock, Florin Lung, Gerhard Sonnert, and Philip M. Sadler, “Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020115 (2013b).
  * Close  _et al._ (2016) Eleanor W. Close, Jessica Conn, and Hunter G. Close, “Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the learning assistant experience,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010109 (2016).
  * Irving and Sayre (2015) Paul W. Irving and Eleanor C. Sayre, “Becoming a physicist: The roles of research, mindsets, and milestones in upper-division student perceptions,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020120 (2015).
  * SPS (2014) SPS Observer 68 (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/.
  * Lave and Wenger (1991) Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger,  _Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation_ (Cambridge University Press, New York;Cambridge, U.K;, 1991).
  * Wenger (2000) Etienne Wenger, “Communities of practice and social learning systems,” Organization 7, 225–246 (2000).
  * Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner (2015) 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 by Etienne Wenger-Trayner, Mark Fenton-O’Creevy, Steven Hutchinson, Chris Kubiak, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner (Routledge, New York, 2015) pp. 13–27.
  * Kaplan and Garner (2017) Avi Kaplan and Joanna K. Garner, “A complex dynamic systems perspective on identity and its development: The dynamic systems model of role identity,” Developmental Psychology 53, 2036–2051 (2017).
  * Kaplan  _et al._ (2014) Avi Kaplan, Mirit Sinai, and Hanoch Flum, “Design-based interventions for promoting students’ identity exploration within the school curriculum,” in  _Motivational Interventions_ , edited by Stuart Karabenick and Timothy C Urdan (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, 2014) pp. 243–291.
  * Mezirow (2009) Jack Mezirow, “An overview on transformative learning,” in  _Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists in their own words_ , edited by Knud Illeris (Routledge, Abingdon, 2009) pp. 90–105.
  * Kegan (2009) Robert Kegan, “What “form” transforms? a constructive-developmental approach to transformative learning,” in  _Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words_ , edited by Knud Illeris (Routledge, Abingdon, 2009) pp. 35–52.
  * Adams  _et al._ (2006) Wendy K Adams, Katherine K Perkins, Noah S Podolefsky, Michael Dubson, Noah D Finkelstein, and Carl E Wieman, “New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The colorado learning attitudes about science survey,” Physical review special topics-physics education research 2, 010101 (2006).
  * Guest  _et al._ (2006) Greg Guest, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson, “How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability,” Field Methods 18, 59–82 (2006).
  * Donaldson and Allen-Handy (2019) Jonan Phillip Donaldson and Ayana Allen-Handy, “The nature and power of conceptualizations of learning,” Educational Psychology Review 32, 545–570 (2019).
  * Borgatti  _et al._ (2002) Stephen P Borgatti, Martin G Everett, and Linton C Freeman, “Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis,” Harvard, MA: analytic technologies 6 (2002).
  * Scott (2017) John Scott,  _Social Network Analysis_ , 4th ed. (Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2017).
  * Kadushin (2012) Charles Kadushin,  _Understanding social networks : theories, concepts, and findings. Charles Kadushin_ (Oxford University Press, 2012).
  * Bogartti (2002) SP Bogartti, “Netdraw software for network visualization,” Lexington (USA): Analytic Technologies (2002).
  * Valente (2010) Thomas W. Valente,  _Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications_ (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010).
  * Brewe (2018) Eric Brewe, “The roles of engagement: Newwork analysis in physics education research,” Getting Started in PER (2018).
  * Newman and Girvan (2004) M. E. J. Newman and M. Girvan, “Finding and evaluating community structure in networks,” Physics Review E62, 1–16 (2004).
  * Redish (1994) Edward F Redish, “Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics,” American Journal of Physics 62, 796–803 (1994).
  * Stillisano  _et al._ (2014) Jacqueline Stillisano, Kim Wright, and Hersh Waxman,  _Evaluation of the 2013-14 Discover, Explore, and Enjoy Physics and Engineering (DEEP) Program_ (2014).