Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Impact of Outreach on Physics Student Development: Quantitative Results from a National Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The first national survey of undergraduate physics students who facilitate outreach finds that participation is strongly associated with confidence explaining physics, career skill development, growth mindset, and sense of belonging.

desk verdict First national survey of outreach participation in physics, but the headline mindset claim leans on a factor whose construct validity isn't established. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09874 v1 pith:LFKTLD7E submitted 2025-05-15 physics.ed-ph

Jonathan D. Perry , Toni Sauncy , Susan White , Rachel L Ivie , John Tyler , Tatiana Erukhimova This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords informalphysicsoutreachidentitysenseofbelonginggrowthmindsetcareerskilldevelopmentundergraduatestudentsnationalsurveyconfirmatoryfactoranalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Undergraduate students who help run informal physics outreach programs, such as public events, school visits, and videos, generally report being more able to explain physics to both specialists and the public and feeling more prepared for careers that use communication, teamwork, leadership, and design. In the first national survey on this question, more than 700 student responses were analyzed with factor analysis and 15 regression models, and participation in outreach was positively associated with growth mindset and sense of belonging at $p<0.01$. The paper argues that outreach programs, common but previously studied only at single institutions, may be a low-cost way for physics departments to support student development beyond the classroom. It cautions that the regressions do not establish causal direction.

What carries the argument

The survey instrument and its empirically derived seven-factor structure carry the argument. Likert items were designed to measure constructs of physics identity (interest and motivation, competence beliefs, recognition, and belonging), persistence, confidence, self-efficacy, and mindset; principal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization reduced the items to seven factors, including a two-item mindset factor and a belonging factor. Logistic and linear regressions then related these factors to participation in outreach, respondent characteristics, and institutional characteristics. What matters is that the factors are treated as measurements of the theoretical constructs, so the associations in the results inherit their meaning from that measurement assumption.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be a longitudinal or randomized study that measures growth mindset and belonging before and after students begin facilitating outreach, with a matched control group of nonparticipants; if mindset and belonging do not change following participation, the reported associations would be explained by selection rather than by outreach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that student facilitation of informal physics outreach is meaningfully tied to undergraduate student development, not just to audience impact. Students who participated in outreach were more likely to agree they can explain physics and astronomy ideas to people inside and outside the discipline, and large majorities reported using and feeling prepared for career skills such as communication, networking, creativity, design, and leadership during outreach. Multiple regression models controlling for demographics and institutional type showed that participation in outreach was positively associated with growth mindset and with sense of belonging at $p<0.01$. The paper interprets this as evidence that outreach may contribute to persistence-relevant motivational beliefs, while acknowledging that the reverse selection explanation remains possible.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the seven factors produced by factor analysis, especially the two-item growth-mindset factor, actually measure the psychological constructs they are named after; if the measurement is off, the reported links between outreach and mindset or belonging are not interpretable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Students who participate in outreach report higher confidence in explaining physics to both lay and expert audiences, which suggests outreach serves as a communication-skills venue beyond the classroom.
  • The results provide departments a justification for developing or expanding outreach programs as co-curricular career-skill development, since students reported practicing communication, teamwork, leadership, and creativity at high rates.
  • The link between outreach participation and growth mindset, if causal, gives departments a concrete, low-capital activity that may support resilience and persistence alongside coursework.
  • No significant demographic differences in participation were found by gender, race, or international status, so outreach appears accessible across groups, though first-year students participate less.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If the outreach-to-mindset direction is causal, outreach may function like other social-belonging interventions, and the asymmetry noted in the paper could be tested with a randomized encouragement design where students are assigned to facilitate outreach and mindset is measured before and after.
  • Inference: The two-item growth-mindset factor likely conflates mindset with feedback-seeking attitude, so future work should re-validate the factor with the full item set before building interventions on this specific result.
  • Inference: The null demographic differences, if replicated, suggest outreach could be an equitable engagement channel; a longitudinal comparison of outreach participants and nonparticipants matched on motivation would test whether selection explains the belonging result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the development, distribution, and quantitative analysis of a national survey of undergraduate physics students recruited through the Society of Physics Students, focusing on the relationship between student participation in informal physics outreach programs and constructs including physics identity, sense of belonging, growth mindset, self-efficacy, and career skill development. The authors describe a pilot phase, a national sample of 704 respondents, a factor-analytic reduction of survey items to seven factors, and a set of logistic and linear regression models. They report that outreach participation is associated with greater confidence in explaining physics, perceived career-skill development, and positive associations with growth mindset and sense of belonging. The paper also presents descriptive tables on motivations, career skill usage, and demographics, and discusses limitations including self-report and cross-sectional design.

Significance. If the central associations hold, this would be a valuable contribution: it is the largest national dataset to date on undergraduate physics outreach facilitators, and the study addresses an underrepresented topic in physics education research. The authors took useful steps such as grounding items in prior pilot work, distributing through a national network, and controlling for demographic and institutional variables in regressions. The paper also honestly acknowledges several limitations. However, the significance of the results depends on the construct validity of the factors and on the magnitude of the reported associations, both of which are currently under-supported: no factor loadings or reliability statistics are reported, no effect sizes or confidence intervals accompany any regression result, and the factor solution was revised after inspecting data-driven loadings. These issues must be resolved before the paper's claims can be interpreted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.C and Table II] The text states that the Growth Mindset construct 'resulted in two factors with two components loading together and one not loading with any other components,' but Table II lists three items under 'Mindset,' including the feedback item. If the feedback item did not load, the reported factor is not the hypothesized growth-mindset construct, and the regression result in Section III.A linking outreach participation to this factor may reflect openness to feedback rather than growth mindset. Please report rotated loadings for all items, Cronbach's alpha or omega for each factor, and a sensitivity analysis of the Section III.A result with the feedback item removed or reassigned.
  2. [Section III.A and Fig. 1] The abstract's 'strong association' claim is not supported by the reported statistics. All regression results are given only as p-values; no standardized coefficients, odds ratios, or confidence intervals are reported. A p<0.01 result at this sample size could correspond to a trivially small effect, so 'strongly positive' (Section III.A) and 'strong association' (Abstract) are unjustified. Please report effect sizes with confidence intervals for the outreach coefficients in all models, and adjust Figure 1 to encode effect size or at least report it in the text.
  3. [Section II.D] The manuscript reports over 400 hypothesis tests at a nominal alpha of 0.01 without any multiple-comparison correction. At alpha=0.01, one expects roughly 4 false positives by chance, and the large number of tests makes individual p<0.01 results weak evidence. Please apply a correction (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) or clearly label the analysis as exploratory; in either case, the 'rigorous alpha' statement in Section II.D should be revised.
  4. [Title and Section IV] The title and Discussion use causal language ('Impact'), but the design is a cross-sectional, self-reported survey. The authors acknowledge in Section III.A that regression does not provide causal direction, yet they later 'cautiously favor' a directional interpretation based on the p<0.01 vs p<0.05 asymmetry in Figure 1. This asymmetry is not a valid basis for causal inference. Please temper the causal framing throughout (including the title) or provide a clear causal identification strategy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.A] The text includes 'LQBTQIA+,' which appears to be a typo for 'LGBTQIA+'.
  2. [Table VI] The blank entries in Table VI are unexplained in the caption; a note should indicate which questions were not administered.
  3. [Table III] The Mann-Whitney U test is reported only as p<0.01; adding the test statistic or an effect size would aid interpretation.
  4. [Section II.C] The method is described as 'confirmatory factor analysis,' but the implementation is principal component analysis with Varimax rotation; the terminology should be aligned with the actual procedure.
  5. [References] Reference [61] is a bare URL; a full citation with access date is needed.
  6. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is described as showing 'statistically significant relationships' but omits the reverse-direction result mentioned in the text (p<0.05); clarify whether the figure includes all tested models.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey regressions are empirical associations, not predictions derived from their own inputs; the factor-analysis concerns are measurement-validity issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

This paper makes no first-principles prediction; its headline results are descriptive regressions and self-report comparisons computed from a national survey. Participation in outreach and the outcome factors are measured from separate survey items, and no outcome variable is constructed from the participation variable by definition. The factor analysis in Section II.C is exploratory in that the final seven-factor solution was selected after inspecting loadings, and the Mindset factor in Table II appears to retain a feedback item that the text says did not load with the other two mindset items; that is a genuine construct-validity and potential overfitting concern, but it is not a circular reduction, because no fitted parameter or factor loading is reused as the target result. The authors' prior single-institution pilot studies are cited for context and survey development, but the central associations are computed from the new national dataset rather than imported from those citations. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction, so the paper does not meet the standard for circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only fitted model parameters of note are the data-driven factor structure and the significance threshold. The analysis rests on the assumptions that self-reports measure the intended constructs, that the SPS sample is representative enough, and that the regression models include the relevant confounders. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Factor solution (7 factors with item assignments) = Table II: 7 factors, e.g., Mindset includes 3 items, Competence includes 4 items
    The analysis began with 8 hypothesized constructs, but after examining the initial principal component loadings the authors decided on 7 factors, dropping Persistence and reassigning items across constructs. This data-driven choice defines the outcome variables used in the regressions.
  • p-value significance threshold = 0.01
    The authors set alpha to 0.01 for the 15 regressions and roughly 400 hypothesis tests. This is a hand-chosen decision rule that affects which relationships are called significant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses validly measure the intended constructs (motivation, belonging, competence, confidence, recognition, self-efficacy, mindset).
    All outcomes come from self-reported items; no external criterion validation is provided, and the factor solution deviates from the hypothesized structure.
  • domain assumption The SPS membership list is an acceptable sampling frame for US undergraduate physics students.
    The survey was distributed only to SPS members; with a 13% response rate, non-response and self-selection could bias the estimates.
  • domain assumption The regression models control for the confounders needed to interpret the participation-construct associations.
    Observational cross-sectional design; unmeasured variables such as prior interest, GPA, or departmental culture could drive both participation and outcomes.
  • domain assumption Ordinal Likert items can be treated as continuous after normalization to 0-1 and subjected to PCA with Varimax rotation.
    The analysis uses principal component analysis on normalized Likert scales, which assumes interval-level data and linear relationships.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Outreach on Physics Student Development: Quantitative Results from a National Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFKTLD7E

@misc{pith2026250509874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Outreach on Physics Student Development: Quantitative Results from a National Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFKTLD7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09874}
}
read the original abstract

This work reports on results from the first national study of the impact of student facilitation of informal physics outreach programs on their physics identity, sense of belonging, and essential career skill development. Drawing on results from studies at a single institution with a well-developed physics outreach program, a national survey was developed and distributed through the Society of Physics Students' network to more than five thousand individuals. Responses to closed-form questions on the survey were analyzed descriptively and using multiple regression analysis to evaluate the relationship between student participation in informal physics outreach programs and the constructs of interest. Results show a strong association between students engaging in outreach with their confidence in communicating their physics knowledge, the development of key career skills, and direct connections with growth mindset and sense of belonging. These results may be useful to physics and other STEM departments around the United States who are seeking to elevate and broaden the learning experience of students.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09874 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Visual representation of statistically significant relationships between factors and outreach participation. Arrows point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Impact of Outreach on Physics Student Development: Qualitative Results from a National Survey

    physics.ed-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A national survey of physics students who facilitate outreach shows self-reported growth in belonging, identity, resilience, communication skills, and a growth mindset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock, A. Miyake, G. L. Cohen, and T. A. Ito, Psychology of Women Quarterly 41, 420 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    D. S. Yeager, G. M. Walton, S. T. Brady, E. N. Akcinar, D. Paunesku, L. Keane, D. Kamentz, G. Ritter, A. L. Duckworth, R. Urstein, et al. , Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 113, E3341 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    James, E

    M. James, E. Bertschinger, B. Beckford, T. Dobbins, S. Fries-Britt, S. Gates, J. Isler, M. Ong, A. Richard- son, Q. Williams, et al. , American Institute of Physics (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    J. L. Burnette, J. Billingsley, G. C. Banks, L. E. Knouse, C. L. Hoyt, J. M. Pollack, and S. Simon, Psychological bulletin 149, 174 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    C. L. Williams, Q. Hirschi, C. S. Hulleman, and J. Roksa, International Journal of Community Well-Being , 1 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Dobbins, Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2020)

    T. Dobbins, Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    K. L. Lewis, J. G. Stout, S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and T. A. Ito, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020110 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    G. M. Walton and G. L. Cohen, Journal of personality and social psychology 92, 82 (2007)

    2007

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    C. S. Dweck, Psychological review 124, 689 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    D. S. Yeager, C. J. Bryan, J. J. Gross, J. S. Murray, D. Krettek Cobb, P. HF Santos, H. Gravelding, M. John- son, and J. P. Jamieson, Nature 607, 512 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    C. A. Hecht, A. G. Latham, R. E. Buskirk, D. R. Hansen, and D. S. Yeager, CBE—Life Sciences Education21, ar82 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Hazari, D

    Z. Hazari, D. Chari, G. Potvin, and E. Brewe, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57, 1583 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hazari, G

    Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, 978 (2010), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tea.20363

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    Heron and L

    P. Heron and L. McNeil, American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers, Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Smith, C

    M. Smith, C. Fracchiolla, S. Fleming, A. Dominguez, A. Lau, S. Greco, D. Lincoln, E. Katifori, W. Ratcliff, M. Longobardi, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10623 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Rethman, J

    C. Rethman, J. Perry, J. P. Donaldson, D. Choi, and T. Erukhimova, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 17, 020110 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Randolph, J

    J. Randolph, J. Perry, J. P. Donaldson, C. Rethman, and T. Erukhimova, Physical Review Physics Education Research 18, 020123 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hinko and N

    K. Hinko and N. D. Finkelstein, AIP Conference Pro- ceedings 1513, 178 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Graur, American Journal of Physics 86, 725 (2018)

    O. Graur, American Journal of Physics 86, 725 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    A. I. Leshner, Outreach training needed (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Hinko and N

    K. Hinko and N. D. Finkelstein, in AIP Conference Pro- ceedings, Vol. 1513 (American Institute of Physics, 2013) pp. 178–181

    2013

  14. [22]

    Fracchiolla, S

    C. Fracchiolla, S. Hyater-Adams, N. Finkelstein, and K. Hinko, in Physics Education Research Conference 2016, PER Conference (Sacramento, CA, 2016) pp. 124– 127

    2016

  15. [23]

    N. R. Council, D. of Behavioral, S. Sciences, B. on Sci- ence Education, and C. on Successful Out-of School STEM Learning, Identifying and supporting produc- tive STEM programs in out-of-school settings (National Academies Press, 2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Editorial, Nature 542, 391 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    N. R. Council et al. , Learning science in informal envi- ronments: People, places, and pursuits (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Rainie, C

    L. Rainie, C. Funk, M. Anderson, and D. Page, Pew Re- search Center (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    J. C. Besley, A. Dudo, and S. Yuan, Public Understand- ing of Science 27, 708 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    S. E. Brownell, J. V. Price, and L. Steinman, Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education 12, E6 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Prefontaine, C

    B. Prefontaine, C. Fracchiolla, M. Vasquez, and K. Hinko, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, 2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Perry, J

    J. Perry, J. P. Donaldson, and T. Erukhimova, in Pro- ceedings of PER Conf. 2021, virtual conference , Vol. 10 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    N. D. Finkelstein and L. Mayhew, in AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1064 (American Institute of Physics,

  24. [32]

    K. A. Hinko, P. Madigan, E. Miller, and N. D. Finkel- stein, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010111 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Fracchiolla, B

    C. Fracchiolla, B. Prefontaine, and K. Hinko, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020115 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Hazari, P

    Z. Hazari, P. M. Sadler, and G. Sonnert, Journal of Col- lege Science Teaching 42, 82 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Sauncy, K

    T. Sauncy, K. Redmond, and R. Czujko, AIP Conference Proceedings 1697, 120014 (2015), https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4937719

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Bunshaft, J

    A. Bunshaft, J. Curtis-Fink, A. Gerstein, D. Boyington, T. Edwards, and C. Jacobson, STEM connector’s STEM Innovation Task Force, available at: www. STEMconnec- tor. org (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    G. Quan, B. Gutmann, J. Corbo, B. Pollard, and C. Turpen, in Physics Education Research Conference 2019 (2019) pp. 482–487

    2019

  30. [38]

    Perez, J

    T. Perez, J. Cromley, and A. Kaplan, Journal of Educa- tional Psychology , 315 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Sawtelle, E

    V. Sawtelle, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Jour- nal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 1096 (2012), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/tea.21050

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    J. P. Zwolak, R. Dou, E. A. Williams, and E. Brewe, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010113 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Thiry, S

    H. Thiry, S. L. Laursen, and A.-B. Hunter, The Journal of Higher Education 82, 357 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes- Malach, and C. Singh, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020119 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Hyater-Adams, C

    S. Hyater-Adams, C. Fracchiolla, N. Finkelstein, and K. Hinko, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.14, 010132 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Hyater-Adams, C

    S. Hyater-Adams, C. Fracchiolla, T. Williams, N. Finkel- stein, and K. Hinko, Physical Review Physics Education Research 15, 020115 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    E. W. Close, J. Conn, and H. G. Close, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010109 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020120 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    D. F. Feldon, J. Peugh, B. E. Timmerman, M. A. Maher, M. Hurst, D. Strickland, J. A. Gilmore, and C. Stiegelmeyer, Science 333, 1037 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Drane, M

    D. Drane, M. Micari, and G. Light, Educational Research and Evaluation 20, 210 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Otero, S

    V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, American Jour- nal of Physics 78, 1218 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Garrett, T

    C. Garrett, T. L. Erukhimova, J. D. Perry, and J. P. Don- aldson, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference (PERC) (2023) pp. 108–113

    2023

  43. [51]

    J. D. Perry, T. L. Erukhimova, C. Garrett, T. Sauncy, J. P. Donaldson, S. White, J. Tyler, and R. L. Ivie, in Physics Education Research Conference 2024, PER Con- ference (Boston, MA, 2024) pp. 318–323

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lave and E

    J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated learning: Legitimate pe- ripheral participation (Cambridge university press, 1991)

    1991

  45. [53]

    Mezirow, An overview on transformative learning, in Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists in their own words , edited by K

    J. Mezirow, An overview on transformative learning, in Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists in their own words , edited by K. Illeris (Routledge, Abing- don, 2009) pp. 90–105

    2009

  46. [54]

    Kegan, in Contemporary theories of learning (Rout- ledge, 2018) pp

    R. Kegan, in Contemporary theories of learning (Rout- ledge, 2018) pp. 29–45

    2018

  47. [55]

    Kaplan and J

    A. Kaplan and J. K. Garner, Developmental Psychology 53, 2036 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    T. A. Brown, M. T. Moore, et al., Handbook of structural equation modeling 361, 379 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Brown, JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 13 (2009)

    J. Brown, JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 13 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Weber, Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen (2022)

    J. Weber, Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Vazquez-Abad, L

    J. Vazquez-Abad, L. Winer, and J.-R. Derome, McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’´ education de McGill 32 (1997)

    1997

  52. [60]

    Riegle-Crumb, C

    C. Riegle-Crumb, C. Moore, and A. Ramos-Wada, Sci- ence Education 95, 458 (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    https://www.aps.org/learning- center/statistics/diversity

  54. [62]

    Cheng, G

    H. Cheng, G. Potvin, R. Khatri, L. H. Kramer, R. M. Lock, and Z. Hazari, in Physics Education Research Con- ference 2018 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    C. Good, A. Rattan, and C. S. Dweck, Journal of per- sonality and social psychology 102, 700 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    Master, S

    A. Master, S. Cheryan, and A. N. Meltzoff, Journal of educational psychology 108, 424 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Bedford, Research papers in education 32, 424 (2017)

    S. Bedford, Research papers in education 32, 424 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    J. L. Burnette, C. L. Hoyt, V. M. Russell, B. Lawson, C. S. Dweck, and E. Finkel, Social Psychological and Per- sonality Science 11, 107 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Marshman, Z

    E. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, C. Schunn, T. Nokes- Malach, and C. Singh, Canadian Journal of Physics 96, 391 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, C. D. Schunn, T. J. Nokes- Malach, and C. Singh, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research 18, 010116 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    S. Kim, J. Yun, B. Schneider, M. Broda, C. Klager, and I.-C. Chen, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organiza- tion 195, 219 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    E. M. Marshman, Z. Y. Kalender, T. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, Physical review physics edu- cation research 14, 020123 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    J. M. Nissen and J. T. Shemwell, Physical Review Physics Education Research 12, 020105 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    Z. Y. Kalender, E. Marshman, T. J. Nokes-Malach, C. Schunn, and C. Singh, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference (2017) pp. 204– 207

    2017

  65. [73]

    Wilson, R

    D. Wilson, R. Bates, E. P. Scott, S. M. Painter, and J. Shaffer, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 21 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    R. S. Barthelemy, M. Swirtz, S. Garmon, E. H. Simmons, K. Reeves, M. L. Falk, W. Deconinck, E. A. Long, and T. J. Atherton, Physical Review Physics Education Re- search 18, 010124 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    L. D. Conlin, E. Kuo, and N. R. Hallinen, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research 15, 020104 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.