The Effect of a Science Camp on Elementary Students’ Science Identity and Their Perceptions of Science, Scientists, and STEM Careers

Abstract

This mixed-methods research investigated the impact of a summer science camp—developed in conjunction with an elementary science methods course—on elementary students’ science identity, perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers. Data were collected from a total of 40 students in Grades 2–6 who attended the camp. The pre- and post-camp science identity surveys and focus group interviews were conducted at both the beginning and end of the camp. Data were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests and the constant comparative method. Data analysis revealed a significant overall increase (p = 0.008) in participants’ science identity scores following their participation in the summer science camp. Additionally, participants began to focus more on the epistemic goals of scientific investigations, rather than merely viewing science as experimentation. Their understanding of scientists’ work became more sophisticated, reflecting improved awareness of various scientific fields, types of scientists, specific experiments, and equipment. Participants also reported that camp activities more closely resembled the work scientists do, compared to their typical school science experiences. Most participants appeared to develop a heightened interest in science through the camp, which in turn fostered more positive attitudes toward pursuing STEM careers.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, a major concern in science education has been students’ declining interest in science and the decreasing number of individuals pursuing science in higher education or as a career (Herman, 2019; Kennepohl, 2009). To address this issue and increase the future pool of applicants for science-related careers, program designers and curriculum developers have focused on fostering positive attitudes toward science and scientists among students (Jayaratne et al., 2003; Stake & Mares, 2001). This effort is particularly critical in elementary education, as young students often display a natural curiosity about science (Eshach & Fried, 2005; Mantzicopoulos et al., 2008). With appropriate support, this early interest can be sustained throughout their academic journey and may ultimately influence their career choices in science-related fields. One key factor influencing elementary students’ persistence in science and their pursuit of science careers is their science identity (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011; Hazari et al., 2010; Trujillo & Tanner, 2014). Science identity refers to students’ perceptions of who they are, what they believe they are capable of, and what they aspire to do and become in relation to science (Brickhouse, 2001). It is shaped both by how students see themselves and by how they believe others perceive them as they engage in science-related activities (Aschbacher et al., 2010).

Students’ positive perceptions of science, scientists, and the work of scientists have been shown to influence their selection of STEM subjects in higher education and their pursuit of STEM careers (Dickson et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). However, research has consistently found that students often hold naïve understandings of science and stereotypical images of scientists (Adúriz-Bravo & Pujalte, 2020; Allchin, 2013). These stereotypes typically portray science as involving spectacular experiments and depict scientists as either superheroes or eccentric individuals working alone in laboratories. Encouraging students to develop more diverse and realistic images of science and scientists may help them view science as relevant and accessible (Hansson et al., 2021). In turn, this can help students see science as more personally meaningful and increase their chances of connecting with it.

To enhance students’ science identity and foster positive perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers, inquiry-based science learning has been widely recommended. Through inquiry-based learning—characterized by hands-on activities, experiments, and research experiences—children can begin to see themselves as actively “doing science” and “acting like a scientist” (Zhai et al., 2014). Moreover, this approach has been shown to help students “develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23). In this learning model, understanding science and the work of scientists is considered essential to effective science instruction (Zhai et al., 2014).

Informal STEM experiences, which provide unique opportunities for children to engage in inquiry-based science, can further support the development of science identity and interest in science and scientists (Bell et al., 2009; Rahm & Moore, 2016). These experiences can also increase students’ awareness of and interest in STEM careers (Maiorca et al., 2021; McCreedy & Dierking, 2013). A variety of informal STEM programs have been implemented to promote positive attitudes toward science and STEM careers, including the National Space Center (Jarvis & Pell, 2005), the Women in Natural Sciences program (McCreedy & Dierking, 2013), and STEM summer learning experiences (Maiorca et al., 2021). In this context, we designed a summer camp—an informal science learning opportunity—that incorporated inquiry-based science lessons aimed at enhancing elementary students’ science identity and fostering positive perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers.

This study was conducted within the context of an annual summer science camp for local students in Grades 2–6. The camp is integrated into a four-week, three-credit elementary science teaching methods course offered each summer. Compared to formal science classrooms, the camp offers greater flexibility for inquiry-based learning, as instructors are not constrained by standardized curricula, pacing guides, or high-stakes testing. It was purposefully designed to reflect key features of informal STEM learning environments, emphasizing student-centered, inquiry-based approaches aimed at fostering science identity, positive attitudes toward science, and STEM career aspirations among K–12 students (Hussim et al., 2024). To further enhance students’ awareness of STEM careers, the camp also included career-focused lessons and sessions with guest scientists.

The purpose of this research is to examine how participation in the summer science camp, integrated with the elementary science teaching methods course, influences science identity, perceptions of science and scientists, and awareness of STEM careers among students in Grades 2–6. This study is guided by the following research questions:

• How does participation in the summer science camp influence elementary students’ science identity and their perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers?
• What specific camp experiences influence elementary students’ science identity and their perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Informal STEM Programs

A substantial body of research has emphasized the positive impact of informal STEM learning experiences on students’ self-efficacy, interest, attitudes toward STEM, and aspirations for STEM careers (Hussim et al., 2024; Jarvis & Pell, 2005; Maiorca et al., 2021; McCreedy & Dierking, 2013; Xia et al., 2025). For instance, in a meta-analysis, Xia et al. (2025) found that participation in informal science education programs was positively associated with K–12 students’ interest, self-efficacy, attitudes, and career aspirations in STEM fields. Early science experiences outside of formal school settings are widely recognized as pivotal in shaping students’ future interest in STEM careers (Maltese & Tai, 2010).

Informal STEM programs have been shown to play a significant role in shaping students’ STEM-related identities. Extensive qualitative research has demonstrated that early exposure to informal science experiences contributes meaningfully to the formation of science identity (e.g., Barton et al., 2013; Rahm & Moore, 2016; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Science identity has emerged as a powerful tool for explaining students’ career decision-making processes (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). For instance, Rahm and Moore (2016) investigated the impact of sustained participation in informal STEM environments on the identity development and career paths of four youth from underrepresented backgrounds. Participants’ extended engagement in STEM activities fostered a strong sense of self as STEM learners and practitioners, which significantly influenced their academic and professional aspirations.

The types of informal science programs have also been an important focus of research. Based on a systematic review of 37 empirical studies on informal STEM learning for K–12 students, Hussim et al. (2024) identified several key characteristics of these programs. These include inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, design-based, cooperative learning, student-centered approaches, hands-on activities, and the development of 21st-century skills such as leadership, creativity, problem-solving, and technological literacy. Similar to many other informal STEM initiatives, our summer camp incorporated inquiry-based, student-centered, cooperative, and hands-on learning experiences. Additionally, we intentionally included explicit science career lessons and sessions with guest scientists, which we believe enhanced students’ interest in and understanding of science careers, as well as fostering more positive attitudes toward science and scientists.

2.2. Science Identity

Although there is no universally agreed-upon definition of science identity, it is generally understood as how students perceive themselves in relation to science, including their sense of capability and aspirations within the discipline (Brickhouse, 2001). It also encompasses students’ perceptions of how they are viewed by others while engaging in science-related activities (Aschbacher et al., 2010). Science identity is dynamic rather than fixed; it evolves over time and may follow different developmental trajectories (Brickhouse et al., 2000). From a situated learning perspective, students’ personal experiences and social interactions across various communities—such as school, home, and peer groups—can significantly influence the development and transformation of their science identity (Aschbacher et al., 2010). Students with a strong, positive science identity are often characterized by curiosity and enthusiasm, viewing themselves as individuals who embody the qualities of a scientist (Trujillo & Tanner, 2014). Research indicates that students with a well-developed science identity are more likely to engage in voluntary science learning opportunities both within and beyond the classroom (Vincent-Ruz & Schunn, 2019). Furthermore, a strong science identity has been linked to positive long-term outcomes, including persistence in science education and an increased likelihood of pursuing careers in science-related fields (Aschbacher et al., 2010; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Chemers et al., 2011; Chen & Wei, 2022; Hazari et al., 2010).

In an effort to clarify the construct of science identity, Carlone and Johnson (2007) developed a framework comprising the three key components: (1) competence—the ability to understand science content knowledge; (2) performance—the demonstration of relevant scientific practices within the social and cultural contexts of science; and (3) recognition—being acknowledged by oneself and/or others as a science person. Using this framework, they examined the science experiences of 15 successful women of color throughout their undergraduate and graduate studies and into the early stages of their science-related careers. They identified three distinct science identities among these women: research scientist identities, altruistic scientist identities, and disruptive scientist identities. Among the three components, recognition emerged as particularly influential in shaping science identity, especially in relation to how racial, ethnic, and gender identities intersect with the process of being recognized.

Hazari et al. (2010) noted that Carlone and Johnson’s (2007) model does not include a general interest component in science, as it was developed based on the experiences of practicing scientists. To address this limitation, they proposed adding interest as a fourth component of science identity—defined as a personal desire to learn more about science and to voluntarily engage in science-related activities. They argued that for students who have not yet committed to a specific major or career path, interest may play a crucial role in shaping their decisions about the kind of person they aspire to become. Using this expanded four-component science identity framework, Hazari et al. (2010) examined how high school students’ physics identities were influenced by their physics experiences and career outcome expectations. Their study revealed that students with a stronger physics identity were more likely to pursue careers in physics. Several aspects of high school physics education—such as an emphasis on conceptual understanding, connections to real-world contexts, opportunities for students to ask questions and share ideas, peer teaching, and supportive teachers—were found to positively impact students’ physics identity.

The four-component science identity framework has been widely adopted in studies examining the impact of informal STEM programs on science identity. For instance, Rodriguez et al. (2021) investigated the effectiveness of an informal STEM program in fostering and sustaining participants’ STEM identities. To expand upon Carlone and Johnson’s framework, they added a fourth component—ways of seeing and being—which encompasses the values, attitudes, and behaviors that emerge from immersion in a scientific discipline. Their findings indicated that, following participation in a program focused on conservation science and geospatial technologies, participants—including 54 high school students and 44 adults from conservation organizations—showed gains in nearly all STEM identity components from pre- to post-assessment, with the exception of “ways of seeing and being.” Moreover, improvements were observed across all identity constructs when comparing pre-program responses to those collected during a delayed post-survey. Similarly, Habig and Gupta (2021) applied the four-component science identity framework to examine how participation in a museum-based informal STEM program influenced high school students’ science identity. Their study found that, after engaging in a long-term program involving authentic scientific research experiences, students—primarily from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups—demonstrated significant improvements in science identity across all four components: competence, performance, recognition, and interest.

Recognizing the limited number of studies focused on elementary students, and acknowledging that interest is a particularly salient aspect of science identity at this developmental stage, we adopted a four-component framework to examine our participants’ science identity. To measure changes in science identity, we utilized the Student Science Identity (SSI) survey developed by Chen and Wei (2022), which is grounded in the four-component model. Chen and Wei (2022) reported that the SSI instrument demonstrated strong construct validity and reliability when administered to junior and senior high school students. They also emphasized the significance of the interest component, noting that it captures not only students’ desire to learn more about science, engage in related activities, and maintain positive attitudes toward science lessons, but also their interest in and aspirations for science-related careers. Consistent with this conceptualization, among the seven SSI questions assessing the interest component, four focus on general interest in science, while the remaining three pertain specifically to science career awareness. In our study, we separated the interest component into two distinct categories—interest in science and science career awareness—so that we could more precisely examine changes within each category. We define science career awareness as a multidimensional construct that includes students’ interest in and aspiration toward science-related careers (Kang et al., 2023). In addition to conducting SSI surveys, via interviews, we also aimed to explore how participants perceive themselves as scientists and their interest in science and science-related career awareness—the components that align with the recognition, interest in science, and career awareness components.

2.3. Perceptions of Science, Scientists, and STEM Career

Research on elementary students’ understanding of science has largely focused on the nature of science (NOS) perspective, which emphasizes the evolving, empirical, and socially embedded nature of scientific knowledge and practices. This perspective frames science as a human endeavor—shaped by theoretical frameworks, cultural influences, and grounded in observation and evidence, while remaining open to revision (Akerson et al., 2011; Schwartz et al., 2004).

Numerous studies have found that elementary students often hold naïve or limited understandings of the nature of science (Akerson et al., 2011; Dagher & Ford, 2005). Their conceptions of science frequently center on dramatic experiments, rather than recognizing science as a collaborative process that spans diverse fields and extends beyond the laboratory (Andrée & Hansson, 2014). For example, Zhai et al. (2014) reported that students in their study emphasized only the hands-on aspects of experiments in their descriptions and illustrations of classroom science, often omitting elements of inquiry such as applying knowledge or exploring their own questions. In addition to misconceptions about science itself, students often hold stereotypical images of scientists—typically portraying them as Western males who are either superheroes or eccentric individuals working alone in laboratories (Adúriz-Bravo & Pujalte, 2020; Allchin, 2013). Scientists are also commonly perceived as engaging in dangerous work (Dickson et al., 2021; Osborne & Collins, 2001; Zhai et al., 2014).

These stereotypes can negatively impact students’ attitudes toward science and reduce their interest in pursuing science-related careers (Andrée & Hansson, 2014; Archer et al., 2010; Aschbacher et al., 2010). While popular media such as cartoons and films contribute to the formation of these stereotypes, research also highlights the role of school science. A lack of authentic inquiry experiences and limited opportunities to interact with real scientists further restrict students’ understanding of science and those who practice it (Zhai et al., 2014; Song & Kim, 1999). When students are exposed to broader, more accurate representations of science and scientists, they are more likely to find science meaningful and relevant to their lives. This expanded understanding can also enhance their awareness of potential STEM careers (Hansson et al., 2021). In this regard, we believe that science camps offering inquiry-based lessons and opportunities to engage with real scientists can serve as effective environments for improving students’ perceptions of science and scientists, thereby increasing their interest in STEM pathways.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Context and Participants

The participants in this study were 40 local elementary students in Grades 2–6 who attended a summer science camp. Of the 40 participants, 18 were in Grades 2–3 and 22 were in Grades 4–6, comprising 21 boys and 19 girls. The camp was offered as part of a four-week, three-credit elementary science teaching methods course held during the summer at a state university in the United States. Elementary preservice teachers instructed the camp participants for two weeks to fulfill their practicum requirements. During the first 10 days (i.e., two weeks) of the course, preservice teachers engaged in various class activities and assignments in university classrooms to develop the knowledge and dispositions necessary for implementing inquiry-based science lessons. For the remaining 10 days, they were assigned to one of two instructional groups (Grades 2–3 or Grades 4–6) and taught the camp participants in their respective groups. Each camp day ran for four hours, from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.

Eight preservice teachers were enrolled in the summer methods course during the data collection period. Their teaching responsibilities included developing and delivering two to three inquiry-based lessons using the 5E instructional model (each approximately 50 min in duration), as well as facilitating three to four hands-on activities such as discrepant events (each approximately 15 min long). Additionally, they collaborated to design and teach four 2-h team-based lessons focused on science careers and the engineering design process. Each instructional group was supervised by an experienced science teacher, with one teacher assigned to each group. In addition to the inquiry-based 5E lessons, hands-on activities, and team-teaching sessions, the summer camp aimed to enhance participants’ understanding of science and scientists by inviting several guest scientists to speak. Camp participants also attended two field trips designed to enrich their learning through active, hands-on experiences with the diverse resources available in the local community. The camp schedule is provided in Appendix A.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This study employed a mixed-methods convergent design with an embedded qualitative component (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). To measure changes in participants’ science identity resulting from their participation in the summer science camp, we utilized the Student Science Identity (SSI) survey developed by Chen and Wei (2022). Qualitative interview data were collected and analyzed to explore students’ perceptions of science, scientists, and science-related careers, as well as their camp experiences. For the first research question, quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed separately and then integrated during the interpretation phase. The second research question was addressed solely through qualitative analysis of interview data. This design facilitated a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the camp’s impact on students.

The SSI survey consists of 24 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale and represents four components of science identity: performance, competence, recognition, and interest. The survey items were primarily adapted and refined from previous studies (Childers & Jones, 2017; Kier et al., 2014; Lamb et al., 2012; Williams & George-Jackson, 2014), and the instrument demonstrated strong content validity, construct validity, and reliability, as confirmed by experts in science education (Chen & Wei, 2022). For the purposes of this study, we selected 22 items from the original survey, removing two items inappropriate for elementary students and modified them to align with the developmental level of elementary students. Notably, the interest component includes three items related to career awareness. To more precisely examine changes in students’ interest and aspiration regarding science careers, we analyzed career awareness as a separate component. In the adapted survey, five items assessed performance, six assessed competence, four assessed recognition, four assessed interest in science, and three assessed career awareness (see Appendix B).

To evaluate changes in students’ responses, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare pre- and post-survey scores, including both the total score and sub-scores for each component. Elementary preservice teachers assisted younger participants (i.e., Grades 2–3) in understanding the survey questions when they encountered difficulties in comprehension.

Pre- and post-camp focus group interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of science, scientists, and science-related careers. Participants were also asked to identify similarities and differences between the work that scientists do and their own experiences in school science classes and at the science camp, as well as to describe moments when they felt they were “acting like a scientist” (see Appendix C for the interview protocol). The post-camp interviews included additional questions about which specific camp experiences influenced their perceptions of science, scientists, and career awareness. Each focus group consisted of two or three children, and interviews lasted between 20 and 30 min. Prior to the interview, camp participants were asked to draw a scientist and later explain their drawings during the interview. These drawings were used to elicit participants’ perceptions of scientists; however, they were not analyzed as part of this study. Focus group interviews were chosen over individual interviews because this method tends to help participants—particularly younger children—feel more comfortable and willing to share their thoughts (Lewis, 1992). According to Lewis, focus group interviews can encourage children to elaborate on their responses when they hear others’ views, leading to deeper and more nuanced insights. This approach also helps reveal shared beliefs and attitudes. By fostering natural dialogue and reducing pressure, the method may enhance the reliability of children’s responses. A semi-structured interview format was used, guided by a flexible interview protocol. In-depth interviewing techniques were employed, with frequent probing to explore the reasoning behind participants’ responses. All interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis.

The interview data were analyzed using an iterative, inductive, constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), which enabled the researchers to differentiate between emerging categories and derive meaningful insights. Specifically, the first author employed open coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), identifying data segments related to the research questions through sentence-by-sentence reading and developing an initial list of codes that captured the concepts or essence of the identified data segments. This code list was refined through multiple iterations by combining, modifying, adding, or removing codes until no new codes emerged and no further revision was necessary.

Once the codebook was stabilized, the second author independently coded approximately 20% of the data (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020) which was randomly selected by the first author. The coding results were then compared, yielding an intercoder agreement of 85.0%. Any discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached, and the codebook was revised accordingly. For example, regarding perceptions of science, the first author coded the response, “I feel like it’s different because science feels like the most complex version of it because it’s got a lot of subjects in it, it can, you could study atoms you can study like plants you can study basically anything,” as “Science consists of various research areas related to natural phenomena.” However, the second author interpreted this response as reflecting students’ views that science integrates with other subjects. As a result, a new code—Science as Interdisciplinary Subjects—was added under the category of alternative views. A sample of codes and categories, along with excerpts, is presented in Appendix D. Using the finalized codebook, the first author completed coding across the full dataset. Upon completion, both authors collaboratively developed thematic categories related to participants’ perceptions of science, scientists, and themselves as scientists, using axial and selective coding approaches (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). This process involved comparing codes, identifying patterns within and across categories, and engaging in in-depth discussions. For example, the initial codes “Studying various natural phenomena” and “Include various research areas” were merged into a single code: Identifying more than two scientific research areas. This code was then combined with another code—Identifying more than two types of scientists—to form a broader category: Consisting of various research areas related to natural phenomena. We interpreted this category to mean that students were able to identify different fields of scientific research. In contrast, the code Identifying one or two specific research was assigned to a separate category: Studying natural phenomena. We interpreted this to suggest that students simply defined science as the study of natural phenomena, without recognizing its broader scope. Finally, the frequency of each category was calculated, and emerging patterns were described to provide a comprehensive understanding of the qualitative findings.

3.3. Limitation of the Study

The Student Science Identity (SSI) survey has demonstrated content and construct validity, as well as reliability, when administered to junior and senior high school students (Chen & Wei, 2022). For this study, we modified the survey items to align with the comprehension levels of elementary students and consulted science education experts to ensure content validity. While we do not have empirical evidence of construct validity for this younger population, expert review supported the appropriateness of the adapted items. The overall scale, comprising 22 items, demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.92 for the pre-survey and α = 0.93 for the post-survey), indicating strong reliability. Focus group interviews were chosen over one-on-one interviews to help participants—particularly elementary-aged children—feel more at ease when sharing their thoughts (Lewis, 1992). However, a potential limitation of this approach is that some children may have been influenced by their peers’ responses, which could have shaped or constrained their own. Additionally, the authenticity and quality of the children’s responses in this method depend on the interviewer’s skill and sensitivity (Lewis, 1992).

4. Findings

4.1. Changes in Science Identity

A paired-samples t-test conducted with 40 participants revealed a statistically significant increase in total science identity scores from the pre-survey (M = 88.55, SD = 13.75) to the post-survey (M = 91.30, SD = 15.53), p < 0.05 (See

Table 1. t-test Results on science identity components.

Components (Number of Questions)	Pre Mean (SD)	Post Mean (SD)	t (Sig. 2-Tailed)
Performance (5)	21.30 (2.99)	21.85 (3.62)	−0.979 (0.333)
Competence (6)	25.05 (3.85)	25.65 (4.60)	−1.669 (0.103)
Recognition (4)	14.03 (3.70)	14.43 (4.80)	−1.124 (0.268)
Interest in science (4)	16.83 (2.92)	17.95 (2.09)	−3.623 (<0.001 *)
Career awareness (3)	11.35 (2.82)	11.42 (2.99)	−0.245 (0.808)
Total	88.55 (13.75)	91.30 (15.53)	−2.803 (0.008 *)

N = 40 p < 0.05 *.

). While mean scores increased across all components of science identity, only the interest in science component demonstrated a statistically significant gain (p < 0.001). The remaining components—performance, competence, recognition, and career awareness—showed slight, non-significant increases.

4.2. Perceptions of Science

Camp participants were asked to describe what they think science is and how science differs from other subjects.

Table 2. Perceptions of science.

Categories	Pre Interview	Post Interview	Total
Conducting experiments/hands-on activities	21	12	33
Discovering/constructing new knowledge to answer the unknown	3	11	14
Studying natural phenomena	7	6	13
Consisting of various research areas related to natural phenomena	1	8	9
Inventing things that contribute to human health, wellness, and quality of life	3	6	9
Engaging in scientific processes	2	2	4
Other naïve/alternative views
a. Combined subject	6	7
b. Emphasizing math	5	5
c. Learning something	1	2
d. Making things	3	1
Total	15	15	30
No/Unclear responses	7	2	9

summarizes the categories that emerged from their responses, along with the frequency of responses within each category. Since some responses were coded into multiple categories, the total number of coded responses exceeds the number of interview participants (n = 40). Representative excerpts for each category are provided in Appendix D.

Compared to the pre-interviews, participants in the post-interviews provided more elaborate definitions of science. The most notable shifts included a decrease in responses that emphasized conducting experiments or engaging in hands-on activities, and an increase in responses that highlighted the discovery or construction of new knowledge to address unknowns, as well as the identification of various scientific research domains. In other words, post-interview responses reflected a more nuanced understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry, moving beyond the perception of science as merely experimental and recognizing its broader scope across diverse fields. For example, a third-grade student, Bronson, who initially stated that “science is like experiments” in the pre-interview, later commented in the post-interview that “[Science is] where you can figure out new ways, like, how animals live or find a new species of animals.” However, in both pre- and post-interviews, only two participants explicitly addressed the processes involved in scientific investigation. For instance, Samuel, a second-grade student, stated, “It [science] is where you test your hypothesis.” This finding implies that participants generally had a limited understanding of the scientific method.

Among other naïve or alternative conceptions, the most frequently expressed views included defining science as an interdisciplinary subject and emphasizing its connection to mathematics. For example, Mia (6th grade) remarked, “Science is many things… there are so many other subjects involved in it. It’s just like focusing on many others that kind of pull it all together into one subject.” Ava (5th grade) stated in the pre-interview, “Technically, science is math because you need math to know how to work things out,” illustrating the perception of science as either synonymous with or heavily reliant on mathematics.

4.3. Perceptions of Scientists and Their Work

Data analysis revealed that, compared to participants’ initial focus group responses, their post-interview descriptions of scientists and their work became notably more detailed and nuanced. These shifts in perception were categorized into four main themes.

First, participants demonstrated a broader understanding of scientific disciplines and natural phenomena in their post-interview responses. While their initial descriptions reflected a limited understanding of scientific research fields, many later identified various types of scientists—such as chemists, biologists, and astronomers—and described their work in more specific terms. They mentioned that scientists study animals, plants, fossils, atoms, medicines, and other subjects. This shift in perception is exemplified by Chloe, a fourth-grade participant:

They do experiments, and they work on stuffs

(Chloe, 4th grade, Pre interview)

There are multiple ways for scientists to do their work. If they are a paleontologist, they can dig up fossils and study them but astronomers just look at the stars and study them. They also for like chemists, they are in a lab measuring out ingredients and combining them to make different substances

(Chloe, 4th grade, Post interview)

Second, in both the pre- and post-interviews, many participants described scientists as individuals who conduct experiments using various tools. However, post-interview responses tended to include more specific examples of experiments and scientific equipment. For instance, Elliot, a fourth-grade participant, remarked: “They [scientists] do chemical reactions. They can do their work by studying atoms, and they can use things like microscopes or other scientific tools to help them do that.”

Third, several participants demonstrated a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of science in their post-interview responses, particularly regarding the diversity of scientific methods and the process of scientific investigation. For example, Sam, a fifth grader, initially expressed a naïve view in the pre-interview: “Hulk is a scientist; that’s how he turns into the Hulk.” In contrast, her post-interview response reflected a more informed perspective: “There are many sciences, so there are many procedures in order to do their [scientists’] jobs properly. You’re not going to use the same procedures in space as you would when studying plants, right?” This shift suggests that Sam had begun to recognize the diversity of scientific disciplines and the corresponding variation in scientific methods. Similarly, Sarah, a third-grade participant, articulated an understanding of the iterative nature of scientific inquiry:

I feel like a scientist when I complete a science experiment and it works well, it doesn’t always have to work for me to feel like a scientist because, because part of being a scientist is trial and error, yeah, so like, you try things, and they might not work out, but it’s still important stuff. You can learn from mistakes

(Sarah, 3rd grade, post-interview)

Lastly, the most frequently cited characteristics of scientists in both the pre- and post-interviews were intelligence and proficiency in mathematics. Notably, the importance of mental health was mentioned exclusively in the pre-interviews, while communication skills emerged as a new theme in the post-interviews. For example, in the pre-interview, Liam, a fourth grader, stated, “Mental health, because they can make something, like something dumb, then something really bad goes wrong.” Larry’s comments about communication skills in the post-interview can be compared to his earlier remarks. In the pre-interview, Larry, also a fourth grader, said, “They [scientists] should know about all the subjects,’ but in the post-interview, he emphasized communication skills, stating, ‘They should be able to communicate well with each other; they should be kind to each other.”

Table 3. Characteristics of scientists.

Identified Characteristics of Scientists	Frequency
	Pre-Interview	Post-Interview	Total
Intelligence	9	8	17
Proficiency in mathematics	6	11	17
Proficiency in reading	5	6	11
Curiosity/Wanting to learn new things	3	7	10
Patience and/or Persistence	5	3	8
Knowledgeability	4	4	8
Diligence	3	3	6
Teamwork	3	3	6
Communication skills	0	5	5
Mental health	3	0	3
Others (e.g., need a degree, being determined, taking risks, being a good leader, trying new things, being good at experiments, being careful, creative)	10	10	20
No responses	6	7	13

presents the full range of characteristics identified from participants’ responses, along with the frequency of responses each.

4.4. Perceptions of Themselves as Scientists

Camp participants were asked to describe the similarities and differences between the work scientists do and their own experiences in school science classes (pre-interview) and in science camp classes (post-interview). In the pre-interviews, 25% of participants agreed or somewhat agreed there were similarities between scientists’ work and their school science activities. In contrast, 59% identified similarities between scientists’ work and their experiences in the science camp classes during the post-interviews. This suggests that participants perceived a stronger alignment between their camp experiences and the work of scientists than between their regular school science classes and the work of scientists.

The most frequently identified similarities included: Conducting experiments (pre: 8, post: 11); Studying or learning about natural phenomena (pre: 7, post: 4); Discovering or exploring new things (pre: 0, post: 6); and Using various science tools (pre: 0, post: 3). Conducting experiments was the most frequently mentioned similarity in both the pre- and post-interviews. For example, Ariya, a fourth-grade participant, noted in the post-interview: “We do a lot of different experiments [during the camp], and they [scientists] do experiments too.” Discovering/exploring new things and using various science tools were only mentioned in the post-interviews. For example, Jamie, a 5th grader, shared:

I think there’s a little bit of a difference, but most of it’s still the same. Discovering the things, and we discovered things we didn’t know before. We tried new stuff that like we never tried before, and scientists do

(Jamie, 5th grade, post-interview)

These responses reflect participants’ engagement in inquiry-based learning during the camp. In the post-interviews, several participants also mentioned that using scientific tools—such as microscopes during guest scientist sessions—made them feel like they were acting as scientists. These comments likely stem from their hands-on experiences with high-quality scientific equipment provided during those sessions.

Camp participants were more likely to identify differences between scientists’ work and their own experiences in school science classes than in camp classes (pre: 51%, post: 36%). In both the pre- and post-interviews, most responses regarding these differences fell into three primary categories. First, participants perceived scientists’ work as more advanced and complex compared to their science activities (pre: 9, post: 9). For example, Sadie, a third-grade participant, explained: “I feel like there’s a difference because this [our] science is easy. It’s kind of an easy type of science to study. However, scientists’ science is a lot harder and more complex. I think the only difference is the stuff we do in school is probably less advanced than what the other scientists do.” Second, participants viewed scientists’ work and work environments as more dangerous (pre: 4, post: 7). This perception is reflected in Owen, a third grader’s, comment:

It [our science] is less dangerous that you’re not taking the kite and almost getting struck by lightning. We’re not carrying acid. We’re not gonna carry it in a glass case and then take it out. And [if we do] and then it burns the whole entire school down

(Owen, 3rd grade, pre-interview)

Third, participants felt that their science activities lacked a sense of discovery (pre: 5, post: 4). They believed that while scientists generate new knowledge through research, students typically follow teacher instructions or learn from textbooks. Lisa, a second-grade participant, noted: “A science job is where, like, you figure out something new. At school, we just have to see what happened—not like figuring out something.” This perception was especially common when participants compared their school science experiences to those at camp. Many expressed that they did not feel like active participants in school science. For instance, Cindy, a fifth grader, stated: “I feel like when I’m at science camp, the science is, like, a lot more experiments. And at school, it’s just kind of boring, because we’re just reading out of a big fat textbook.”

4.5. Camp Participants’ STEM Career Awareness

The interview data suggest that camp participants not only increased their interest in science but also developed stronger aspirations for, and interest in science- and engineering-related careers. In the post-interviews, 84% of participants reported that their interest in science had increased as a result of the camp experience. While the survey data showed no significant change in scores related to science career awareness between the pre- and post-surveys, the interview responses revealed notable shifts in participants’ aspirations to pursue STEM careers. In the pre-interviews, 61.4% of participants expressed interest in becoming a scientist or engineer (40.9% scientist, 20.5% engineer). This figure rose to 81.8% in the post-interviews (56.8% scientist, 25.0% engineer). Additionally, 79.5% of participants stated that the camp increased their interest in science, and 54.6% reported a heightened interest in science- or engineering-related careers.

Many participants attributed this increased interest in science to the variety of hands-on science and engineering activities offered during the camp. Ashleyn, a fourth grader, stated, “After camp, yes, I think that all the experiments we did at science camp made me like science more.” Carry, a sixth grader, specifically highlighted the fruit electrode as the one that most increased her interest in science more: “I’m actually pretty interested in the fruit conductors where we used like the different fruits.” These experiences appeared to foster both enthusiasm for science and curiosity about STEM career paths. For example, Everett, a fourth-grade participant, shared: “I want to be a scientist. All of the new and different experiments that we did this year, rather than what I’ve known from the past, is what made me like science more.” They also noted that the science career and guest scientist sessions helped them learn about different types of scientists and their work, further enhancing their understanding of, interest in, and aspirations toward science-related professions. Michael, a sixth grader, mentioned that he learned about scientists’ work, particularly through a conversation with a guest scientist about ethical issues in scientific research. The session focused on genetic modification in fruit flies. He said, “Fruit fly thing, I asked about human experimenting, it’s illegal to genetically enhance humans.” Emily, a fourth grader, specifically identified the career lesson as the activity that increased her willingness to become scientists: “Because, like, I learned about all scientists. I feel like scientists get to do tons of cool things, but like, it’s cool I don’t really get to, so the science camp helps me like science more. I kind of wanted to be a scientist” James, a third grader, also said that the equipment used during the guest scientist lessons sparked his interest in becoming a scientist.

5. Discussion/Implications

The findings of this study underscore the effectiveness of informal STEM experiences in fostering elementary students’ science identity and shaping positive perceptions of science, scientists, and STEM careers. The science camps offered unique opportunities for inquiry-based learning through hands-on science and engineering design activities, free from the academic pressures of memorization and standardized testing. These experiences appeared to strengthen participants’ science identity and deepen their understanding of the nature of science. Notably, participants were more likely to perceive themselves as scientists during camp activities than during their regular school science classes. Career-focused lessons and guest scientist sessions also contributed to increased awareness of STEM careers and a more nuanced understanding of the work scientists do.

According to the SSI survey data, the two-week science camp led to a statistically significant increase in the interest in science component of science identity. This suggests that interest in science may be the most responsive aspect of science identity to short-term informal science education experiences. Interview data also support this finding, as most participants reported that their interest in science had increased as a result of the camp experience. Interest has been considered content-specific and recognized as a powerful influence on learning, goal-setting, and levels of engagement (Renninger, 2000; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). The four-phase model of interest development proposed by Hidi and Renninger (2006) suggests that interest evolves through distinct phases. According to this model, the interest in science our campers develop may be viewed as a psychological state arising from short-term changes in affective and cognitive processing. Future studies should examine the developmental phases of interest and explore how to foster a relatively enduring predisposition to reengage with particular content over time (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).

Compared to interest in science, the other components of science identity—such as performance, competence, recognition, and career awareness—exhibited only minimal and statistically insignificant growth. This finding suggests that these components may require sustained engagement to develop meaningfully. Science identity is both contingent and situationally emergent, yet it also has the potential to endure across time and context (Carlone & Johnson, 2007). In other words, while science identity may be shaped by immediate experiences, it tends to remain relatively stable and transferable across different settings (Elmesky & Seiler, 2007; Roth, 2006). These findings underscore the need for further research into how informal science education can effectively support the development of all components of science identity, particularly those less responsive to short-term interventions.

Regarding perceptions of science, more participants began to view science as a means of discovering or constructing new knowledge to answer unknown questions and to explore various aspects of the natural world. This shift suggests that participants increasingly focused on the epistemic goals of scientific investigation, rather than viewing science solely as a series of experiments. Previous research has shown that students often equate science with hands-on activities or experimentation (Dickson et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2014). While such activities can enhance students’ interest in science (Gibson & Chase, 2002; Roberts & Wassersug, 2009), it is important for students to engage intellectually and develop a deeper understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry (Hansson et al., 2021; Moss et al., 2001). Although the camp experience appeared to promote a more epistemic view of science, few participants explicitly mentioned the processes involved in scientific investigation. This indicates a limited understanding of scientific methods. The short duration of the camp and the structure of the inquiry-based lessons may not have been sufficient to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific methodology. These findings suggest that engaging students in authentic, inquiry-based research over a longer period may be more effective in developing their awareness of scientific processes and deepening their understanding of how scientific knowledge is generated (Habig & Gupta, 2021; Sahin et al., 2014).

Participants’ understanding of scientists’ work became more detailed and sophisticated through their science camp experience. They demonstrated an improved understanding of various scientific fields and types of scientists, as well as specific experiments and equipment. This improvement appears to be primarily influenced by the career-focused lessons and guest scientist sessions—distinctive components of the summer camp curriculum. When describing the characteristics of scientists, participants tended to emphasize individual traits, such as intelligence, rather than collaborative attributes like teamwork or communication skills. This pattern reflects a common misconception among children that scientists typically work alone and solve problems independently (Adúriz-Bravo & Pujalte, 2020; Archer, 2012; Newton & Newton, 1998). However, five participants mentioned communication skills in the post-interviews, suggesting that some began to recognize the importance of collaboration in scientific work. While many participants identified math and reading as essential skills for scientists, few acknowledged the importance of writing skills. Similarly, although scientists were frequently described as intelligent and knowledgeable, higher-order thinking skills—such as creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving—were rarely mentioned. This indicates a limited understanding of the diverse cognitive abilities required for scientific research. These findings highlight the need for more in-depth, inquiry-based camp activities that not only engage students in hands-on learning but also provide explicit opportunities to practice and reflect on higher-order thinking skills. Incorporating structured discussions about the cognitive and collaborative demands of scientific work may further support students in developing a more accurate and holistic understanding of what it means to be a scientist.

Regarding participants’ perceptions of themselves as scientists, many felt that their experiences in the camp more closely resembled the work of real scientists compared to their regular school science classes. This self-perception is related to the recognition component of science identity. Although the survey scores for recognition did not show a significant increase, interview data revealed that many participants perceived themselves as acting like scientists throughout the camp experience. This perception aligns with the finding that conducting experiments was the most frequently identified similarity between participants’ activities and the work of scientists in both the pre- and post-interviews. Engagement in inquiry-based 5E lessons, discrepant events, and engineering design activities appeared to contribute to participants’ sense that they were engaging in scientific practices. Additionally, some participants identified “discovering and exploring new things” and “using various scientific tools” as similarities—responses that emerged only in the post-interviews. This shift highlights the positive impact of the science camp. Unlike their school science experiences, camp participants engaged in open-ended inquiry that emphasized the exploration of natural phenomena and the generation of new knowledge. During guest scientist sessions, they also had opportunities to use advanced scientific tools, such as high-quality biological microscopes and scanning probe microscopy, which further reinforced their perception of doing real scientific work. Interestingly, “discovering and exploring new things” was also frequently cited as a key difference between the work of scientists and participants’ own experiences—particularly in relation to school science. This suggests that participants perceived school science as lacking opportunities for discovery and exploration. These findings imply that science education should incorporate more open-ended, inquiry-based experiences to help elementary students better understand and connect with authentic scientific practices.

Unlike the survey scores, which showed minimal change in science career awareness, the interview data revealed notable shifts in participants’ interest in pursuing science- or engineering-related careers between the pre- and post-interviews. This finding suggests that interview data can effectively supplement survey data, especially when the latter only includes a limited number of questions. Most campers appeared to develop a stronger interest in science through their camp experience, and this growing interest seemed to foster more positive attitudes toward STEM career pathways. The primary factor contributing to this shift was participants’ engagement in a variety of inquiry-based science lessons and hands-on activities, including engineering design projects. Additionally, opportunities to meet real scientists, learn about their research, and participate in team-taught sessions focused on science careers helped deepen participants’ understanding of what scientists do and strengthened their perceptions of themselves as potential scientists. These career-focused lessons also enhanced participants’ understanding of the nature of science (NOS). Teaching NOS has been widely emphasized as a way to challenge stereotypical images of science and scientists—such as the notion of scientists as extraordinary individuals or lone geniuses (Archer, 2012; Hansson et al., 2021). In this study, participants developed more nuanced and realistic views of science and scientists, with many shifting away from stereotypical images through their participation in the summer science camp. Although most informal STEM programs incorporate inquiry-based learning, this study highlights the added value of integrating career-focused lessons and opportunities for direct interaction with scientists. These components can be effectively embedded in both informal STEM programs and formal school science curricula to broaden students’ understanding of science and expand their visions of possible futures in STEM.