Informal STEM Access for Equity and Opportunity

The persistent underrepresentation of students from low-income households in STEM fields remains a critical concern for education researchers and practitioners. While structural reforms in formal education systems are needed, growing evidence suggests that informal STEM learning environments, such as summer camps, after-school programs, and community-based initiatives, play a critical role in shaping K-12 students’ STEM trajectories. These programs offer early exposure that not only cultivates interest but also fosters STEM identity, self-efficacy, long-term engagement and provides access, agency, and a bridge to the workforce.

This post examines informal STEM learning as a driver of equity in K-12 STEM education and career pathways, drawing on empirical research and exploring implications for educational institutions and research.

Theoretical Foundations

Informal STEM learning aligns with several key theoretical frameworks. Situated Learning Theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) states that learning occurs through participation in authentic contexts, which informal STEM environments often provide. Additionally, STEM Identity Development (Carlone & Johnson, 2007) notes that early engagement in STEM activities contributes to students’ perception of themselves as capable and legitimate participants in STEM fields. Together these frameworks underscore the importance of context, relevance, and sense of belonging in fostering equitable STEM participation and outcomes.

What Research Tells Us About Equity and Impact

A growing body of research highlights the critical role informal STEM learning plays in shaping students’ academic trajectories, career aspirations, and sense of belonging in STEM fields. These learning experiences, occurring outside traditional classrooms in settings are increasingly recognized as powerful equity interventions, especially for students from low-income and underrepresented backgrounds.

A comprehensive review by Hussim et al. (2024) synthesized findings from 25 empirical studies and concluded that informal STEM environments significantly enhance students’ interest, self-efficacy, and awareness of STEM disciplines. These outcomes are particularly pronounced among K–12 learners who may lack access to rigorous STEM instruction in formal school settings, reinforcing the importance of alternative learning pathways. Empirical studies have also demonstrated the long-term impact of informal STEM exposure. Mohr-Schroeder et al. (2014) found that informal STEM experiences like camps, clubs, and competitions, positively influence students’ perceptions of STEM and increase their interest in pursuing STEM careers. Similarly, Kitchen et al. (2018) found that participation in informal STEM programs during middle school significantly predicts students’ interest in STEM majors and persistence in related fields. A recent study by Chen et al. (2023) reported that students who engage in computer science (CS) learning both in and out of school are 171% more likely to express interest in CS careers. Out-of-school learning was the strongest predictor of having CS role models. The study suggests that informal learning not only boosts career interest but also impacts access to mentorship and representation, both key drivers of equity in STEM.

Studies have also identified key programmatic features that enhance the effectiveness of informal STEM learning. Effective informal STEM programs often incorporate hands-on, inquiry-based learning, culturally responsive pedagogy, mentorship, and identity-affirming experiences—features that are frequently absent or underdeveloped in formal school settings. Mentorship and identity-matching have emerged as essential components. Kricorian et al. (2020) showed that underrepresented students benefit most when mentors share similar backgrounds and experiences, helping to reinforce STEM identity and counteract stereotype threat. Their research supports the integration of culturally relevant mentorship models into informal learning environments.

As informal STEM learning continues to expand, researchers are also examining how it intersects with formal education systems. Archer et al. (2025) proposed a “learning market” framework to better understand the power dynamics and equity challenges that arise when multiple stakeholders such as schools, nonprofits, museums and tech companies, engage to deliver STEM programming. These authors suggest that informal learning spaces often offer more culturally responsive and flexible models than traditional classrooms, but they also require intentional coordination. Among these alternative spaces, public libraries have emerged as especially promising venues for informal STEM engagement. Shtivelband et al. (2016) emphasized their role as equitable access points, noting that libraries offer community-rooted programming that is both inclusive and adaptable. Their work highlights the importance of leveraging existing infrastructure to reach students who might otherwise be excluded from STEM opportunities.

Research increasingly shows that informal STEM learning plays a vital role in guiding students along STEM pathways. These experiences offer flexible, culturally responsive, and community-based entry points into STEM that formal education alone often struggles to provide.

Implications for Institutions and Research

This growing body of research presents a compelling case for academic institutions and researchers to engage more deeply with informal STEM learning environments, not only as sites of intervention, but as laboratories for innovation, equity, and career development across educational pathways.

Postsecondary institutions are uniquely positioned to collaborate with K–12 schools, libraries, museums, and community organizations to co-design and evaluate informal STEM programs. These partnerships can leverage institutional resources to support programming that is both evidence-based and community-rooted. As research shows, community spaces serve as equitable access points for STEM learning, and postsecondary institutions can play a vital role in sustaining and scaling these efforts.

Informal STEM outreach also offers significant benefits to higher education and to scientists. Programs like Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old and Shadow a Scientist have shown that engaging with younger students helps researchers improve their science communication skills, gain confidence in public speaking, and reflect more deeply on their own work (Clark et al., 2016). These experiences not only produce broader impacts for research funding but also foster a culture of civic engagement and mentorship within the scientific community. Moreover, emerging scientists develop transferable skills that enhance their academic and professional trajectories, impacting learners and leaders alike.

Informal STEM learning also offers valuable insights for curricular reform. Embedding principles from informal environments such as inquiry-based learning, culturally relevant pedagogy, and mentorship into formal STEM curricula may enhance student engagement and retention in STEM fields. Kricorian et al. (2020) demonstrated that identity-matching and mentorship in informal settings significantly benefit underrepresented students, suggesting that perhaps similar strategies could be adapted for classroom instruction.

Informal STEM programs represent a promising focus of inquiry for researchers too. There is a need for more longitudinal, mixed-methods studies that examine how informal experiences shape students’ STEM identity, motivation, academic outcomes and career outcomes.

Ultimately, informal STEM programs offer a model for culturally responsive pedagogy and career-connected learning that can inform broader educational reform. Research suggests these programs are not peripheral—they are foundational to building a more equitable and future-ready STEM workforce.

Barriers and Research Questions

Despite their promise, informal STEM programs face structural and operational challenges. Some examples are shown below. These questions invite rigorous inquiry and cross-disciplinary collaboration to generate effective solutions.

Conclusion

Informal STEM learning environments offer a compelling pathway toward equity in STEM education and careers. For students from low-income households, early exposure can cultivate identity formation, academic persistence, and career aspirations. For the academic community, these programs represent both a promising intervention and a fertile ground for research.
As we seek to dismantle systemic barriers in STEM, informal learning should be recognized not as peripheral, but as central to improving STEM equity. We need researchers, educators, and funders to collaborate on solutions to challenges like sustainable funding, equitable access, and diverse mentorship. Contributing to the design and testing of innovative models and funding programs that make STEM accessible for all learners can help transform informal STEM into a powerful engine for equity. Are you ready to lead the change?

Resources

1. Present your PHD Collaborator Packet, from Baylor University: A detailed outreach packet outlines how Baylor doctoral students present their research in classroom settings, typically with two sessions per semester, each around 20 minutes for introducing graduate studies and sharing their thesis.
2. Present your PHD YouTube video, overview of the program by Josh Russell, PhD candidate at UT Austin, explaining what a PhD thesis is to middle school audiences, breaking down complex research into straightforward, relatable terms.
3. PLOS Biology Study — “Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12 Year Old”, a peer reviewed program described in PLOS Biology combines training in science communication for graduate students with outreach to middle schools. It demonstrates benefits for both presenters (communication skills) and students (increased enthusiasm and understanding).

 

References

Archer, L., Freedman, E., Chowdhuri, M.N., DeWitt, J., Garcia Gonzalez, F., & Liu, Q. (2025). From STEM learning ecosystems to STEM learning markets: Critically conceptualising relationships between formal and informal STEM learning provision. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(22). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00544-4

Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237

Chen, C., Rothwell, J., & Maynard-Zhang, P. (2023). In-school and/or out-of-school computer science learning influence on CS career interests, mediated by having role-models. Computer Science Education, 34(4), 753–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2290435

Clark, G., Russell, J., Enyeart, P., Gracia, B., Wessel, A., Jarmoskaite, I., Polioudakis, D., Stuart, Y., Gonzalez, T., MacKrell, A., Rodenbusch, S., & Roux, S. (2016). Science educational outreach programs that benefit students and scientists. PLOS Biology, 14(2), e1002368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002368

Hussim, A., Lee, J., & Martinez, R. (2024). A systematic literature review of informal STEM learning. European Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), Article 122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1429622.pdf

Kitchen, J. A., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2018). The impact of college- and university-run high school summer programs on students’ interest in majoring in STEM fields. Science Education, 102(3), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21332

Kricorian, K., Seu, M., Lopez, D., Ureta, E., & Equils, O. (2020). Factors influencing participation of underrepresented students in STEM fields: Matched mentors and mindsets. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00219-2

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Cavalcanti, M., & Blyman, K. (2014). STEM camps, clubs, and competitions: Informal settings that impact student interest in STEM. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 105–114). Sense Publishers.

Shtivelband, A., Roberts, L., & Jakubowski, S. (2016). STEM equity in informal learning settings: The role of public libraries. Space Science Institute. https://www.spacescience.org/edu/reports/STEM-Equity-Informal-Learning-Settings-122316.pdf