STEM “On-the-Job”: The Role of Summer Youth Employment Programs in the STEM Learning Ecosystem

Abstract

Summer Youth Employment Programs (SYEPs) operate in most major U.S. cities and are known to build social–emotional and job skills in youth while reducing crime. Integrating STEM learning and summer employment offers a promising way to increase youth engagement in STEM—and allow leaders to access funding not typically used for education. Using a connected learning framework, we examined how STEM-focused SYEPs support STEM pathways, the practices they implement, and their connections with schools. Our study explored 10 diverse STEM programs (e.g., robotics, renewable energy, coding) within a citywide employment initiative in summer 2015. Through 22 staff interviews and focus groups with 59 youth, we found that these programs provided meaningful and engaging STEM experiences. They combined interest-driven exploration with hands-on, real-world learning in supportive environments. Many included mentors from groups underrepresented in STEM fields. While collaboration with schools was generally limited to recruitment and shared facilities, opportunities for deeper partnerships were evident. Our findings led to a list of ten promising practices for STEM-focused SYEPs. This study underscores the importance of lifelong, lifewide, and connected approaches to STEM learning through summer employment initiatives.

1. Introduction

Summer Youth Employment Programs (SYEPs) operate in most large U.S. cities (Kessler et al., 2022). They are typically run by local governments or organizations and combine paid employment with education and job training for high school-age youth or young adults (Greene & Seefeldt, 2023). SYEPs have been celebrated in recent years in both policy and practice for their evidence of societal benefits. Studies of SYEPs find that programs boost earnings and provide jobs for young people who may otherwise have trouble finding one, and participation has repeatedly been linked to reduced involvement in the criminal justice system (Y. Li & Jackson-Spieker, 2022). Promising evidence also suggests that SYEP participation can boost job readiness and youth development outcomes (Modestino, 2019). Given these findings, it is reasonable to wonder about the potential of SYEPs for learning in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) when SYEPs are intentionally designed with STEM goals. It is also reasonable to wonder the degree to which and how STEM-focused SYEPs collaborate with or complement schools and school-based STEM learning.

Through this descriptive, exploratory study, we conducted interviews with youth and adult leaders of 10 paid STEM-focused programs, operating as a special initiative within a citywide summer youth employment program. Our research is based on a broad hypothesis: Given previous research on SYEP and summer STEM programs, a STEM-focused SYEP will support STEM motivation and learning in ways that complement school-based STEM learning. We addressed several important aspects of STEM-focused SYEPs, considering: How might such programs support STEM career and higher education pathways? What practices and strategies do STEM-focused SYEPs enact? And how do STEM-focused SYEPs interact with schools and STEM learning in schools? This study provides a valuable starting point for exploring STEM-focused SYEPs and linking them to existing research across multiple domains, including out-of-school learning, STEM motivation, and career pathways. Importantly, it situates this exploration within programs designed to support youth from low-income families, aiming to address persistent inequities in STEM access and career opportunities.

1.1. Summer Youth Employment Programs

A challenge for policy and scholarship on youth development programs in general—i.e., afterschool, summer, out-of-school time—is that their voluntary nature leads to uneven attendance and, thus, they are difficult to study with post-positivist methods (McCall, 2009; Schorr, 2003). SYEPs, on the other hand, lend themselves nicely to what Schorr (2003) called “the methodologically elegant ways in which we evaluate drugs or electric toothbrushes” (p. 6). SYEPs have a set duration, relatively consistent attendance, relatively consistent programming, and, in collaboration with policymakers, can be set up for experiments that isolate their effects (e.g., a waitlist control design). In addition, SYEPs occur when school is not in session, so they are free from the worry that has arisen in research findings around youth employment—that too much teen work can disrupt school success (Akiva, 2017). In addition, SYEPs are strikingly shorter and less expensive than other jobs programs (e.g., Jobs Corps).

As SYEPs have generated policy attention, many of the effectiveness studies of SYEP (not STEM-specific) over the past two decades have used experimental methods and taken a public policy approach (Muir et al., 2024). Positive findings in these studies have led to substantial investments in local SYEPs. Heller (2014) conducted an experimental study of Chicago’s SYEP with over 1600 youth. She found a substantial reduction in violent crime arrests (from police department arrest records) for youth who took part in the program as compared to the control group. Further, violent crimes decreased even more across the 13 months after the program ended. This suggests the crime reduction was not simply due to youth being too busy working, but that the program led to meaningful changes in youth participants. SYEP studies in other cities have also found reductions in crime including Boston (Modestino, 2019), Philadelphia (Davis & Heller, 2020), and New York City (Kessler et al., 2022). Modestino and Paulsen (2019) found that SYEP participation increased social skills, work readiness, and college aspirations. In a strengths-based study, Greene and Seefeldt (2023) found that youth identified several benefits of their participation in a 10-week SYEP: growth and skills related to transitioning to adulthood, building community and social capital, and accessing opportunities. However, despite the scholarship on SYEP effectiveness, studies that investigate mechanisms for how SYEPs work are relatively rare.

In addition to being conducive to experimental methods, SYEPs also fall under different categories of policy and funding than other education and youth development programs. Citywide SYEPs are typically funded through a mix of federal, state, local, and private investment, including workforce-related sources such as the federal Department of Labor—associated with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and several other funding streams (Schnippel et al., 2023). In addition, SYEPs can be considered crime reduction interventions and, as such, have relevance for related policy and funding.

1.2. Summer STEM Youth Programs

STEM-focused programs that serve youth outside of school occur in both the summer and school year. The dominant metaphor used by researchers and advocates is that STEM programs are part of a STEM pipeline—an ever-narrowing set of pipes that represent steps on the path to a STEM career—with children likened to the water flowing through the pipes and out-of-school STEM youth programs serving as potential patches against the “leaks” in STEM involvement and, ultimately, employment for marginalized groups (Cannady et al., 2014). However, Lyon et al. (2012) and others argue that the pipeline metaphor is too linear and limits the multiple entry and re-entry points needed for marginalized youth to overcome structural barriers to STEM participation.

Indeed, Batchelor et al. (2021) draw upon the metaphor of a braided river (“a wide, shallow system comprising numerous interwoven and changeable channels”) to better describe not only the myriad contributors to STEM participation and workforce development but also the ways that paths can adapt and be adapted to meet the individual needs of marginalized youth. The braided metaphor is a better fit than the pipeline as it acknowledges that young people may come in and out of STEM experiences (rather than “leaking” away, never to return) and their STEM interests may ebb and flow. Keeping these diverging perspectives in mind, summer STEM programs (with or without employment) are designed to increase STEM interest, engagement, and experience, and many are particularly focused on youth from groups that are less represented in STEM; namely, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) and women.

Studies suggest that participation in summer STEM programs can lead to increases in interest and motivation for STEM (National Research Council, 2015; Young et al., 2016). For example, a large study of STEM-focused afterschool programs across 11 states found youth-reported increases in STEM engagement, career knowledge and interest, relationship skills, critical thinking, and perseverance (Allen et al., 2020). However, evidence that STEM program participation increases STEM knowledge or sense-making is more mixed, with some studies showing benefits and others a reduction in sense-making connected to participation in summer or other optional STEM experiences (Liu & Schunn, 2018, 2020; Suter, 2016). Liu and Schunn (2018) suggest that the mixed and inconsistent findings about STEM learning in summer programs is driven by program quality, i.e., high-quality STEM programs likely build STEM knowledge, whereas lower-quality STEM programs may cause a decline.

Many summer STEM programs are operated by universities or other community organizations in the form of pre-college programs (Delale-O’Connor et al., 2021), which encourage and support STEM college-going, or bridge programs, which are STEM programs that students attend during the summer before starting college with the goal of supporting and retaining students, particularly those from marginalized groups. Bridge programs have been found effective at raising first-year grades and first-year college retention (Bradford et al., 2021). Like STEM SYEP, both pre-college programs and bridge programs typically involve authentic experiences and a clear connection to a future role.

Based on available program evidence, the committee on Successful Out-of-School STEM learning (National Research Council, 2015) suggested three criteria that produce positive outcomes. Programs should: “(1) engage young people intellectually, academically, socially, and emotionally… (2) respond to young people’s interests, experiences, and cultural practices; and… (3) connect STEM learning in out-of-school, school, home, and other settings” (p. 2). These criteria may help define program quality and explain mixed findings related to optional STEM participation and knowledge building. STEM programs that strategically incorporate youth employment are likely to excel in all three areas.

1.3. STEM Motivation and Learning

Given (a) the limited studies on SYEP implementation/mechanisms, (b) inconsistent and mixed findings around STEM learning in summer STEM programs, and (c) the absence of extant studies of STEM-focused SYEP, we take an exploratory approach in this study, with a focus on STEM motivation and learning. For young people to be persistently engaged in STEM in ways that may lead to a STEM career involves both STEM motivation and learning, especially as it relates to future career thinking (Wang & Degol, 2013). Our conceptualization of STEM motivation is informed by Situated Expectancy-Value Theory, which considers motivation to engage in a task driven by expectations for success and valuing the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Based on this theory, for a young person to persist in a STEM-SYEP (i.e., keep attending and benefit), they must expect to succeed and value their participation over any perceived costs of participating. In this exploratory study we are attuned to key aspects from the motivation literature, including interest, intrinsic value, attainment value, and expectancy for success. By STEM motivation, we include interest, value, and expectancies, as well as persistence, i.e., momentary task motivation as well as ongoing motivation to persist in STEM.

1.4. STEM-Focused SYEP

We know of no studies that specifically investigate STEM-focused SYEPs. And none of the experimental evaluations of citywide SYEP specifically investigate STEM, though it is likely that programs include STEM-related job placements. Based on limited available information, STEM job placements may be relatively rare in generally focused SYEPs. A recent analysis of Chicago’s program revealed the “science industry” category, the only STEM option among a long list of job types, received a relatively low number of applications (Modestino et al., 2023). Focused on different years of the SYEP featured in our current research, Jones et al. (2024) described summer placements in 34 sites, 2 of which were STEM-focused. In sum, STEM-focused SYEPs appear to be a promising idea that has not yet received scholarly attention. STEM-focused SYEPs may produce similar outcomes to non-STEM SYEPS while also supporting additional outcomes related to STEM motivation and learning.

1.5. Conceptual Framework

On a path to a STEM career, a young person goes in and out of formal (e.g., school) and informal environments (e.g., programs, museums, family experiences, camps), each of which may shape their STEM motivation and learning (Crowley et al., 2015). This idea of learning across contexts is predominant in recent learning ecosystem approaches (e.g., Akiva & Robinson, 2022; Hecht & Crowley, 2019), which define learning ecosystems as dynamic and complex, and note that individuals take myriad paths through settings in which learning occurs. Through a learning and development ecosystem approach, we consider the role and affordances of STEM learning in summer youth employment programs—as a potential complement to school learning (Akiva et al., 2023).

We use the Connected Learning model (Ito et al., 2020) as our organizing conceptual framework—see Figure 1. The “connected” in connected learning references both new ways of connecting through technology and connecting learning across arenas and contexts in a young person’s life (e.g., adults helping make connections for and with young people across settings; Dahn et al., 2023). Connected learning, as an activity learners engage in and as an instructional practice, builds on progressive learning approaches in the contexts of new technology and “changes in how we communicate, connect socially, and access information” (Ito et al., 2020, p. 26). It is conceptualized as driven by three overlapping spheres: Interest, opportunities, and relationships (Ito et al., 2020). Our hypothesis, restated in the context of this model, is that the structure of STEM-SYEP makes it particularly well-positioned to promote connected learning through these three spheres, which will lead to positive development in participants’ STEM motivation and learning.

In the STEM-SYEP context, interest-driven learning reflects the importance of learner agency and motivation. In these voluntary programs, young people choose to attend, and efforts are made to match youth interests to placements. For example, the current webpage for our sample program states, “[youth] are matched to job opportunities based on interest, experience, and skills” (citation hidden). However, this aspect is missing from SYEP scholarship reviewed earlier, which focuses almost exclusively on effectiveness rather than mechanisms. We know of only one extant study that addresses interest or motivation in the SYEP context: Jones et al. (2024) found that students rated their SYEP experience to be meaningful—an aspect of value in expectancy-value motivation theory (Van Tilburg & Igou, 2013). Meaning, in this context, refers to youth’s sense of benefit derived from instances of STEM exposure or exploration and perceived relevance of learning opportunities in relation to interests. The theoretical rationale that interest is an important driver for SYEP participation is strong, and this is an area of needed empirical work.

Opportunities in the connected learning model signify the wide range of in-school and out-of-school STEM learning opportunities a young person may experience. In the STEM-SYEP context, we expect youth to experience exposure to novel and meaningful opportunities to see and experience STEM and STEM learning in real-world conditions. Importantly, the real-world aspect of STEM-SYEP opportunities should raise the stakes for young people, presenting a different motivational context than school. Being relied upon to complete tasks in a job context, for example, feels different than being asked to complete a class assignment. In addition, within the context and purpose of a youth employment initiative aimed at low-income youth who often have limited to no access to meaningful, hands-on STEM opportunities (e.g., less access to advanced courses, STEM programs with fees, etc.), STEM-SYP acts as one way to mitigate an inequitable STEM ecosystem. Youth are placed in contexts that allow them to build not only interest and on-the-job skills but also increase their social capital through connections and cultivated opportunities with adults in their programs.

The Relationships sphere reflects the importance of both peer culture and adult-youth relationships in learning in a STEM-SYEP. We also include relationship quality in this sphere, which has been proposed to be the key factor that determines the effectiveness of an out-of-school STEM experience (Liu & Schunn, 2018) and influential to youth’s attitudes toward STEM in an informal STEM summer learning experience (Roberts et al., 2018). Research consistently finds that the quality of youth-adult interactions plays a critical role in success across a wide variety o settings (J. Li & Julian, 2012)—and youth employment settings are no exception. Existing research suggests, for example, that adult supervisors can support or undermine youth motivation and experience in the workplace (Zimmer-Gembeck & Mortimer, 2006). Extensive studies on employee-supervisor relationships indicate that prosocially motivated supervisors create conditions of psychological safety that are conducive to individual thriving and collaboration in the workplace (Frazier & Tupper, 2016), while a variety of harmful leadership styles leads to stress, burnout, and decreased creativity and morale among employees (Burns, 2017).

While the Connected Learning Model envisions an ideal intersection of personal interests, supportive relationships, and engaging learning pathways, in reality, there exist structural inequities that shape both programmatic resources and their quality, as well as who has access to such programs.

1.6. This Study

In this study, we analyze descriptive and analytic data from 10 STEM programs that operated in summer and fall 2015 as demonstration projects within a broader citywide SYEP context. The 10 programs varied in their STEM focus (e.g., renewable energy, making, robotics, coding) and operated during or slightly after the rest of the SYEP. Unlike the general SYEP, youth were not paired with provider programs that then facilitated their connection with employers. Rather, youth took part in programs at organizations that served as both provider and employer. Drawing from 22 interviews with program staff and focus groups with 59 youth, we investigated the following research questions, focusing on the components of connected learning and Figure 1 above. We ask the overarching question: How do STEM SYEPs demonstrate connected learning? Specifically:

• How do STEM Summer Youth Employment Programs facilitate and support STEM motivation and learning and pathways to careers and higher education?
• What practices or strategies do STEM Summer Youth Employment Programs use to promote STEM motivation and learning?
• In what ways do STEM SYEPs interact or connect with schools and/or school curricula?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Context

The data for this paper come from a subset of programs that were part of a larger citywide SYEP that began operation in the summer of 2015. The youth workforce initiative focuses on supporting youth ages 14–21 in securing gainful and supportive summer employment (i.e., six-week summer jobs where all participants are paid), including hands-on experience and soft skills training, that both exposes them to STEM and prepares them for future learning and employment. Participants in this program must meet family income1 and residency requirements. A total of 1839 youth participated in the overall program. These youth had an average age of 15.7, 53% identified as male, 88% identified as African American,2 and 59% qualified for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

During the summer of 2015, youth participated in 10 demonstration programs administered by 9 different organizations within the workforce initiative focused on STEM programs within the workforce context. These programs addressed a variety of STEM fields as noted in

Table 1. Program overviews.

Type	STEM Focus	Characteristics	Activities
Camps	Technology	4 weeks, unpaid, ages 14–20	Electronics, wood shop, welding, screen printing
	Engineering	5 days, unpaid, ages 14–21	Mechanical application; electrical, hydraulics
	Renewable Energy	5 days, unpaid, ages 14–21	Practical Applications of renewable energy-solar, solar VP, wind, grid tie, solar-thermal
	Robotics	1 week, unpaid, grades 7–9	Robotics and manufacturing skills
	Game Design	2 weeks, USD 400, grades 9–12	Video game design
	Technology	1 week, USD 200, grades 9–12, all girls	STEM education, career pathway preparation for STEM fields
Traditional internships	Technology	6 weeks, USD 8/h, grades 9–12	Computer technology, advertising design, Building/Electrical construction
	Technology	6 weeks, USD 7.25/h, high school graduates	Computer information systems, Ethernet wiring/cable testing, Wireless networking, Updating manuals
	STEM Career	Varied duration, USD 8–12/h, grades 10–12	Different activities depending on host company (e.g., dental hygiene, IT, construction)
Non-traditional programs	Computer Game Design	6 weeks, USD 8.50/h, grades 9–12	Designing, creating and playtesting video games
	Technology/Web Design	110 h, 7.25/h, grades 9–12, designed for African American youth	Website design, Website developmental for a local business
	Technology/STEM instruction	3 weeks in Aug + Saturdays during school year, USD 7.25/USD 8.25, grades 9–12, designed for African American youth	Training teenagers on STEM content instruction

, approaching programming in what we categorized as three primary ways: camp, traditional internships, or non-traditional approaches. Camps took place in a setting focused on child and/or youth development, with supervision by professional adults and included educational and recreational activities. Traditional internships provided youth with on-the-job work experience in their chosen field, often through technical and career centers. Non-traditional programs had characteristics of both camps and internships, and they included innovative structures, partnerships, or programmatic aspects. Youth participants who took part in interviews (N = 59) ranged in age from 15 to 20, were 54% female, 46% male, and were 80% African American, 19% White, and 2% Asian (one African American youth also identified as Latina). Two programs (Non-traditional Technology/Web Design and Technology/STEM instruction) were designed for African American youth, and all interviewees were African American; one program (Technology camp) served all girls. All participants were from low-income families.

2.2. Data

Interviews with youth were semi-structured and included topics of interest, including recruitment methods (“Tell me how you heard about this program and how you got involved?”), logistics and support (“Was the program near/in your neighborhood?”), and youth changes in attitudes and perceptions of STEM (“Did this program change your impression of or interest in any of these areas of STEM?”). Interviews with adults were also semi-structured and included program design (“Describe your program design and what elements you thought of as most important going into the project.”), youth STEM interest (“Were youth who were in the program already interested in STEM to some degree?”), and potential barriers to youth participation (“What barriers existed for youth to participate in your program?”).

Audio files from 22 program personnel (from all 10 programs) and 59 youth representing 7 of the 10 programs were transcribed for analyses (955 min). The research team coded and analyzed interview responses using a collaborative, iterative, semi-structured coding process (Saldaña, 2015) focused on identifying and understanding themes relevant to our three central research questions. In the initial round of coding, we separately reviewed the dataset, utilizing four a priori codes aligned to our three research questions (STEM learning, School, College, Job/Career). Individually, we examined interview responses in the cloud-based application Dedoose (2024) to identify emergent themes and relevant insights. This process yielded approximately 250 coded excerpts, ranging from two to five sentences each, exported and bundled into four Excel spreadsheets by their a priori code. By creating “fields” in Dedoose, we also visualized demographic and categorical information. Drafting analytic memos (Lempert, 2007; Saldaña, 2015) aided the research team in our process of further identifying and refining codes and categories.

To transition from this initial stage, we reconvened as a team to develop and review a codebook (see

Table 2. Initial Codes and Examples.

Code	Code Description	Examples
College	How STEM SYEPs facilitate and support pathways to higher education. Perceptions of: - relationships between STEM SYEPs and youth higher ed plans or aims - programmatic exposure to higher ed - programmatic components for college readiness	- Adult: We had one of our college interns step forward and say, hey, there’s—you know, I want to go to school for computer science and is there more I could be doing here. And so we actually cast in with a little more programming casts, and he was able to get a lot out of it. [+STEM learning] - Adult: It had a great impact because… Most students go to college and change their major… So that gave them an opportunity to actually see… how this really works, if this is really a field for me. [+Job/Car]
Job/ Career	How STEM Summer Youth Employment Programs facilitate and support pathways to careers. Perceptions of: - job market and industry - programmatic exposure to industry professionals and work environments - program features of job/career pathways and readiness	- Youth: Yes, I did. They—they told us many things to help us to follow a career path, and what we could do with the knowledge we learned. And it’s very informing to us. They weren’t holding back anything. They were helping us—giving us a lot of knowledge that we can use. - Adult: ‘Cause on Tuesday-Thursday, they did their resumes. So I made them write their bio off their resume and then they created a link to their resume.
School	Ways that STEM SYEPs interact or connect with schools and/or school curricula. Perceptions of: - program-school comparisons (culture, structure, or pedagogy) - reflections on transfer or application of knowledge and skills across contexts (uni- or bidirectional) - school roles and functions in program	- Youth: You definitely get a lot of hands-on experience… Like our class, we do a lot of like writing work and like I guess like more learning than actual hands-on. We do some hands-on stuff, but not too much. With [SYEP], you actually get a lot of hands-on experience of what it would be like to actually have a job in the field. [+Job/Career; STEM learning] - Adult: …they were amazing, taking down [equipment], setting up, resetting, fixing all the computers so… they are now our apprentice students, so it—that is carrying on through the school year. [STEM learning]
STEM learning	Practices or strategies used to promote engagement in STEM learning. Perceptions of STEM: - learning goals - curriculum content - teaching methods - learning experiences - learning outcomes (including STEM identity development)	- Youth: It was pretty good on our side. I mean, like he said, … you have two software and two hardware, which just makes it work. Youth 2: Our supervisors like gave us a lot of room to like figure it out ourselves. Like solve problems and stuff. - Adult: … they went from one job to the next. So—they [got] to do things in their field, like… put lights up, pulled wire, and… construction, they built a shed out back. They helped work with—doing concrete and stuff like that… [+Job/Career; School]

Note: Codes are not mutually exclusive constructs. They represent interconnected domains (i.e., work-based STEM learning; STEM programs that emphasize job/career readiness).

below), share and reflect on our methodological choices, and discuss initial findings and discrepancies. Next, we condensed our large amount of excerpted data into a smaller number of codes or concepts to engage in collaborative thematic analysis (Miles et al., 2020; Saldaña, 2015). Each individual team member reviewed two of the four sets of excerpts bundled by a priori code, and two members reviewed three sets of excerpts, so that each bundled set was examined thoroughly by two different researchers. At this stage, we individually assigned unique codes to each excerpt through an open coding process, including elemental and affective coding methods, and developed categories aligned with each of the three inquiries (Saldaña, 2015). During the second round of coding, we reconvened to discuss conceptual unity, or convergence, across our individually generated codes and emergent categories, before clustering related ideas into higher-level themes. We met an additional time to evaluate and elaborate on these high-level themes to ensure they best captured the core findings of the study. Facilitated by a collaborative and systematic approach, this multi-stage coding process was aligned with our research aims.

3. Results

We summarize our thematic results in Figure 2 and describe them throughout this section. To address our research questions, we offer descriptive results that explain how STEM SYEPs support STEM pathways, engage program participants, and connect with schools/school-based STEM learning, and ultimately synthesize these results into promising practices for those that operate STEM-SYEPs.

3.1. Supporting STEM Motivation, Learning, and Pathways

To address our first research question, we examined how adult facilitators described and positioned their program’s design and goals, as well as how youth participants understood and connected their program experiences to future pathways—particularly in terms of college and career readiness. Results fell into three categories: Exposure, exploration, and experiential learning.

Many program leaders emphasized the importance of exposing youth to STEM, highlighting different ways their programs introduced participants to STEM careers. Sites hosted guest speakers from local STEM leaders, organized field trips highlighting real-world STEM careers and applications, and offered hands-on activities where young people engaged directly with STEM professionals.

For example, programs included company visits and discussions with STEM professionals, including CEOs. One youth shared:

We interviewed some of the employees who worked there. The president and CEO would always come in and talk to us… Within our groups, everyone gained experience giving presentations or brainstorming about research. By the end, they were happy just with the knowledge and experience they gained.

Though most programs were industry-specific, focused on the development and application of knowledge and skills in respective STEM fields or subfields (e.g., software engineering, network engineering, web development), four programs covered a variety of STEM disciplines and topics, seeking to recruit youth from underserved and underrepresented communities and maximize participants’ exposure to STEM more broadly.

Exposure naturally leads to exploration as STEM-SYEPs provide young people with opportunities to explore how STEM could play a role in their futures and to envision themselves as future STEM professionals. Related to the “interest driven” component of exploration shown in Figure 1, sites varied in the degree of student choice to promote STEM learning. For example, instructors and facilitators at a professional maker space encouraged youth participants to “drive their own learning” and “advocate for their own interests,” with the program culminating in youth being asked to design and carry out their own final maker project. This personalized learning approach contrasted with the limited flexibility and choice offered by a different program’s computer-based scripted curriculum. However, while some youth expressed frustration at working within one application for the entirety of the SYEP, which often required sitting at a computer for the majority of the day, they also voiced their appreciation for the opportunity to “figure things out” on their own while experiencing “what a job is really like.” Regardless of the frequency and degree of student choice, the hands-on, learning-by-doing structures across all programs allowed youth to cultivate confidence as they explored and applied STEM knowledge and skills in ways that might be challenging to achieve within the confines of a traditional classroom.

Exploration goes hand in hand with experiential learning, which presented as hands-on activities and, often, real-world projects. While camps strived to be “fun” and promoted STEM engagement through a combination of learning opportunities, almost all SYEPs emphasized experiential learning. “Having [STEM] come alive” according to one adult facilitator, was the crux of the program’s “experience and exposure.” To foster youth engagement in experiential, project-based learning, SYEPs utilized either an apprenticeship model or direct training and, subsequently, offered individualized support as needed to ensure youth participants were able to fulfill their job-specific (e.g., maintenance of a school’s computer network) or job-simulated (e.g., building a robot and presenting it to an audience) tasks. Moreover, the collaborative nature of real-world project implementation and problem-solving—whether an intentional component of camp design or an organic development of having multiple interns work at the same site within the same STEM field—necessitated not only the practice of interpersonal skills but also self-reflection on STEM-specific strengths, weaknesses, preferences, and aversions.

Exposure, exploration, and experiential learning worked together in STEM-SYEPs. Exposure was often enhanced through hands-on experiences. A youth reflected,

It was interesting to see how video games are made from beginning to end. That kind of got you interested in the field because we were doing the same exact thing they pretty much do in making the game.

Similarly, a program leader highlighted the value of hands-on, real-world experiences:

They had an opportunity to work in a real-world environment. I was an IT director, so I was able to help the kids here do the day-to-day things they would do in the industry—whether it was working at a school or somewhere else.

Youth participants noted that these experiences helped them understand both what they were passionate about and what they might not want to pursue.

Programs also gave students the chance to learn about the local STEM career ecosystem, including which [CITY]-based companies focus on specific STEM fields and how they engage with clients.

Beyond career exposure, STEM SYEPs focused on developing both technical and professional skills. Participants gained STEM-specific knowledge and abilities, such as webpage and game design, wiring, and using tools like 3D printers and laser cutters. At the same time, these programs emphasized general professional skills, such as giving presentations, working with clients, engaging in interviews, and creating resumes. One leader noted:

Part of it was supposed to be developing that resume, developing their job readiness skills… So they could go out and get hired—whether it was by Target or somewhere else.

3.2. Equity and Representation

Another significant goal of these programs was to provide opportunities for youth from identities that are underrepresented in STEM to see STEM professionals of color as role models. As one program leader explained, “To put people of color and teens of color in front of children of color and to hopefully develop more African-Americans thinking about STEM.” Programs overall recruited a large majority of youth of color, and all students at one program focused on women in STEM were girls. Sites varied in terms of how much they focused on representation or intentionality about addressing the needs of underrepresented youth.

However, two programs stood out for their consideration of racial and gender representation in STEM. A program designer from one of these programs remarked that it was imperative to “put people of color and teens of color in front of children of color” in the elementary STEM classroom so that both elementary and secondary-aged participants might receive opportunities to be “nurtured and challenged to become scientists” and “reconsider who they are and what role they play in the world.” Another program, focused on girls in STEM, invited female leadership from varying STEM industries to discuss STEM pathways and professions with participants. Both programs aimed to foster youth interest and curiosity in STEM disciplines in ways that moved beyond offering authentic STEM work experiences.

3.3. Connections with Schools

SYEPs interacted and connected with school and school curricula in several ways. Respondents commonly described schools as their main context for program recruitment. Some described working with schools to use their physical sites and sometimes equipment, many described complementary learning (i.e., SYEP and schools being two sites for STEM learning in a landscape or ecosystem), and they noted challenges in partnering with schools.

SYEP adults and youth described schools as the primary context for program recruitment, in ways that were direct (e.g., presenting or tabling at schools) and indirect (e.g., teachers recommending students for the program). Some described word-of-mouth recruitment, which typically happened through schools as well (i.e., youth recommending the program to their classmates). Most SYEPs directly recruited from schools, visiting them, with some conducting demonstrations. Some present to or involve younger students from feeder schools to generate interest for the high school programs. For example, the leader of the robotics program in a technology-focused site described exposing middle school students to robotics so they might join when they reach 9th grade:

They will come in and they will get a chance to see the class…And so people that are interested in robotics will…sign up for the robotics program… And then the following year, they can come in and be part of the program.

Many sites rely on teacher or school administrator recommendations, and many conduct an interview process for the SYEP. Sometimes this does not always work due to timing. For example, one site leaders said, “I did try to get teacher recommendation, but it was already too late in the summer. So…I went through the rosters and I looked at grades and attendance, and that’s who I picked.”

Some SYEP sites hold programming in school classrooms and other spaces. In one case this offered bonus opportunities for the youth: “You know, the other nice thing with the school, they provided breakfast for the kids and lunch for the kids.” Some SYEPs use school equipment, typically computers. However, this can be good and bad; for example, when asked what they would change about their experience, youth SYEP participants discussed the dated computers provided by the school: “Make sure the computers were like grade A, good stuff… just to be sure that nothing happens to anybody’s hard work.”

When asked about the connection with school learning, many youth and adult interviewees described their SYEP as a learning site that complements school. That is, they presented a learning ecosystem perspective (Akiva et al., 2023). More specifically, interviewees commonly described novel, hands-on learning experiences that differed from typical school classroom learning. For example, an IT director described employing two interns to work part-time supporting a computer network:

this summer…I was able to get two interns…And through the program, they had an opportunity to get real, hands-on—that they couldn’t have even gotten in a classroom. Because they helped me with reconfiguring the wireless network. And you can’t do that in a classroom, ‘cause nobody’s gonna let you attack their wireless network.

Interviewees also described engaging in STEM topics that were outside of the school curricula and allowed young people to explore and learn about their interests. Coupled with engaging, hand-on experience, this was described as a complement to school learning; for example: “getting them more excited and it’s showing them what’s happening out in the world that they might not be learning in school.” A youth described this in terms of their shifting interests:

Well, originally when I applied, I was trying to do something construction orientated because I’ve been doing like carpentry classes and things in my school. But I got the one for video gaming, and I thought that could work out well too because I enjoy technology. And I hope to go to college and get a degree in technology.

Connections between the summer experience and the school year were not formalized. But an adult leader gave a powerful example of how the STEM learning in the summer carried over for a set of young people. This interviewee described youth interns learning to troubleshoot computers and networks and how this led to the school year leadership roles: “In the summer, you can focus on your work. During the school year, you’re doing something, somebody else is—they’re stopping you in the hall, ‘Hey, kid. Kid, when you get a minute, could you stop over?’”

Finally, interviewees also described challenges in partnering with schools; many related to scheduling, most reflecting how SYEPs must work around the school. For example, one program leader—who recruited from multiple schools—described the challenges of working with school year schedules: “They all started at slightly different times because of when the school year started, and I’ve asked Annie and that team to—regardless of when they started, get them all on the same lesson, and I heard her say yesterday that they weren’t…” In addition, it can be challenging to coordinate with school in summer because staff are not there: “the hard things is that—we usually—on programs like this, we usually try to contact counselors from the schools. There’s no counselor from the school ‘cause everybody’s off. So, if for example, we knew we were going to have something end of July and we knew it in April, we can make arrangements and we can offset those issues.” But these complaints were generally a minor part of the interviews.

4. Discussion

In this descriptive, exploratory study, we address the overall question—How do STEM SYEPs demonstrate connected learning? We address this through three research questions related to how STEM-focused summer youth employment programs (a) support STEM motivation, learning, and pathways, (b) address issues of underrepresentation in STEM, and (c) connect with schools. We found that STEM-focused SYEPs promote STEM learning and pathways through exposure, exploration, and experiential learning, and some do so in ways that offer representation of traditionally underrepresented race, ethnicity, and gender. Connections with schools were limited, though most programs recruit youth members through teacher nominations. STEM-SYEPs exist as learning settings that complement but tend to be separate from school STEM learning.

Figure 3 provides “promising practices”, which are rooted in our research and emerge directly from the findings. Practices 1–7 reflect findings associated with Research Question 1, Practices 8 and 9 reflect Research Question 2, and Practice 10 builds from our findings associated with Research Question 3.

4.1. Promising Practices for STEM-SYEP

Practices 1–3 in Figure 3 are about focusing programs on their strengths: exposure, exploration, and connection to adults in the local STEM ecosystem. All of this can occur in the context of experiential learning (Practice 5). Although SYEP leaders did not explicitly describe their programs as “experiential,” the structures they described embody the core principles of experiential learning. For instance, by engaging youth in meaningful, real-world tasks, SYEPs demonstrated that they created opportunities for participants to apply academic concepts, develop professional skills, and build their identities within specific fields. Youth recognized these opportunities as ways to develop and explore their interests and a chance to experience first-hand what the application of STEM learning looks like in professional practice. The interest-driven nature of SYEPs enables youth to explore and discover their passions in a supportive and engaging environment, which is essential for long-term motivation and career alignment. Where youth participated in hands-on, real-world tasks, youth described their engagement as motivating, which aligns with most contemporary motivation theories that suggest the importance of self-determination and task value (Cook & Artino, 2016).

Experiential learning and a focus on real-world tasks also mean that SYEPs center authentic work experiences rather than centering the learning experience on youth. Unlike traditional educational approaches that prioritize youth learning, SYEPs privilege the norms and expectations of adult professional environments, where the work itself takes precedence. This is not to say that youth learning did not matter, but instead that such an approach may offer the advantage of connecting youth learning to the realities of professional life, helping them develop a stronger alignment with future expectations. Engaging youth in authentic tasks can instill a sense of responsibility, build confidence, and provide a clearer understanding of workplace dynamics.

In addition to experiential learning, SYEPs offer the potential for authentic representation for BIPOC youth (Practice 8) in ways that traditional educational settings often lack (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). These programs provided access to professional opportunities where youth could see individuals who looked like them succeeding in STEM and other fields. Representation has the potential to foster a sense of belonging and help young people envision themselves as future STEM professionals. This is critical in STEM, where BIPOC scientists are underrepresented across fields. Within a citywide SYEP, this representation also offers the specific opportunity to understand the demographics of the STEM ecosystem within [CITY] and get to know members of their future networks.

SYEPs are not limited to any specific STEM discipline or professional domain; indeed, SYEPs work with a wide range of job types (Modestino et al., 2023). Rather, they function as a flexible framework that can be adapted to a wide range of interests and career paths. This versatility makes SYEPs a “shell” that can be customized to meet the evolving needs of youth and industries alike. As SYEPs continue to grow and evolve, there is a compelling opportunity to expand and enhance their impact in STEM by integrating targeted learning objectives, stronger partnerships, and more robust support systems.

Practice 10—Build strong school partnerships—results largely from what we did not see. Our interviewees described minimal connections between schools and programs, limited primarily to recruitment and space use. Improved collaboration between schools, community organizations, and employers could maximize the long-term impacts of these programs by helping to foster clear pathways and support participants as they transition into future educational or professional pursuits. For example, schools and other learning partners could use insights from SYEPs to identify what facilitated or hindered youths’ STEM identity development and skill-building; SYEPs, in turn, would benefit from knowledge of and connection to school curricula to support youth in making these connections and understanding the broader educational and career pathway.

Another opportunity for connection and improvement lies in providing individualized learning opportunities to youth participants. In their SYEP participation, youth had the opportunity to select opportunities best aligned with their interests and future goals. Further, individual SYEPs each served small numbers of youth and thus had the capacity to get to know youth. This structure lends itself to individualization in ways that are more challenging in schools but that are critical for development. As one program director noted, tailoring support to the unique strengths and areas for improvement of each participant is crucial for maximizing the benefits of these programs. While scaling this level of personalization poses challenges, it may be worth exploring innovative strategies to balance individualized support with broader STEM accessibility within both schools and SYEPs.

4.2. Connected Learning in STEM-SYEP

SYEPs play a key role within the broader learning ecosystem, offering hands-on, real-world experiences that extend beyond traditional classroom environments. Through this exploratory study, we found that STEM-focused SYEPs provide STEM motivation and learning in ways that other program types (e.g., schools, STEM summer camps) are less well-suited for. In other words, they offer potential advantages and strengths for a community’s overall STEM learning ecosystem. These programs place youth in authentic work settings where clear job and educational pathways and exposure to professionals with shared identities and lived experiences offer opportunities for personal growth and interest exploration.

The understandings we gained shaped the ways we connect this work with our conceptual model based on connected learning (Figure 1, discussed above). Specifically, in the STEM-SYEP context, interest-driven learning emphasizes learner agency and motivation in STEM, with efforts made to align youth interests with job placements and on-the-job tasks. Youth and adult respondents alike indicated that interest seemed to enhance the youths’ participation and engagement with their work. The STEM-SYEP we studied offered further insights into the opportunity afforded to youth in experiencing real-world job settings and the ways the stakes and their motivation differed from other school-based STEM experiences. Indeed, these opportunities were a chance to “try on” a STEM job, allowing youth to see what STEM careers looked like in daily practice, what aspects they enjoyed (or did not enjoy), and how they connected (or did not connect) back to other aspects of their lives and experiences. To a lesser extent—due to the design of the study and the questions youth and adults responded to—relationships, and, in particular, building networks around STEM pathways, played into youth’s feelings of connectedness and understanding. However, we did hear the ways both youth and adults linked these experiences back to both schools and broader STEM ecosystems and the people in them to provide the clear connections that are evident in connected learning.

One area where this study’s findings can extend connected learning theory is in highlighting the crucial role of exposure and exploration as complements to interest-driven learning. While interest is a powerful motivator, people cannot be interested in what they do not know about. Therefore, simply allowing young people to follow their existing interests risks reproducing inequities, as higher-resourced youth often have greater exposure to fields like STEM. The ideas of exposure and exploration were prominent in our interviews, emphasizing the importance of intentionally exposing young people to a diverse range of STEM ideas, topics, fields, and careers. STEM-SYEPs are uniquely positioned to help young people experience and learn about STEM subjects they might not otherwise encounter, fostering new interests and potentially opening doors. In addition, one critical point, as noted above, is that all internships are paid. Within unequal ecosystems, low-income youth may be left out of opportunities because they need paid employment. Our findings and the associated promising practices thus underscore the importance of the need to mitigate the very real opportunity costs that low-income youth may face between a paid job and unpaid work to have such experiences.

4.3. Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insights into youth experiences in STEM-SYEPs, it is an exploratory study, and we acknowledge several key limitations. First, the sample of participants may have been biased in favor of those with positive perceptions of the program. It is possible that youth who disliked their experience or the program were less likely to participate in the study or provided more limited feedback during focus groups. Such selection bias would mean an overrepresentation of participants voicing favorable views and limit the generalizability of our findings to the broader population of youth participating in STEM SYEP. Similarly, we do not have data from youth who dropped out of the SYEP; those who remained in the program likely had more positive views. Such biases toward positive views cannot be mitigated. Second, these data were collected ten years ago and therefore do not capture potential changes brought about by COVID, societal change, policy change, or the current political and funding environment. Third, although this study sheds light on aspects of program effectiveness, such as participant satisfaction and perceived benefits, we do not have data to evaluate these programs’ overall impact on STEM learning outcomes. Future research could focus on systematically measuring the extent of STEM knowledge and skills that youth gained through their participation in STEM-focused SYEPs, providing a more in depth understanding of programs’ educational effectiveness and their potential to foster sustained interest and capacity in STEM careers. Future work might compare STEM learning in an SYEP versus in comparable (summer) programs that do not involve a work component. Additional future work might explore STEM-SYEP or general SYEP directly through a motivation lens.

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight the unique nature of STEM-SYEPs as opportunities for connected learning, as a vital part of a STEM learning ecosystem and, drawing from the earlier metaphor of the braided river (Batchelor et al., 2021), the ways they provide an additional stream for students to gain STEM experience, mentorship, and skill-building converge that shape young people’s STEM learning and career trajectories. Such opportunities are particularly important given the inequalities that exist within STEM ecosystems. They offer an authentic connection—even when relationships are not explicit—between school and work in ways that few other programs can, addressing educational equity by creating and strengthening pathways for students who may otherwise have limited access to STEM careers. Additionally, they provide cost-efficient opportunities to expand local STEM pathways, reaching underrepresented youth while fostering mutually beneficial partnerships between education and the STEM professional community. Despite their advantages, the initiative studied was temporary and short-lived, hindered by unstable funding. Without sustained financial support, STEM-focused SYEPs will struggle to be a consistent stream in STEM learning and career pathways, limiting their potential impact.

One critical takeaway from this exploratory study is the need for stronger and clearer connections between STEM employment programs and educational institutions. While we saw some connections for recruitment; increased, systematic collaboration would that students not only gain exposure to STEM careers but also experience continuity between academic learning and workplace application. Bridging these gaps would further allow for more seamless transitions for students and reinforce their learning, making STEM pathways more possible.

Additionally, program stability is critical for sustained impact. STEM SYEPs, such as the one we studied that is no longer in existence, face funding uncertainties which can limit their effectiveness. Establishing long-term commitments from industry partners, government agencies, and educational institutions can help solidify these initiatives, ensuring that students receive consistent and meaningful opportunities year after year.

Despite the promising potential of STEM-focused Summer Youth Employment Programs (SYEPs), critical gaps in our understanding remain. There is a need for sustained research to assess their long-term impact, identify effective practices, and strengthen their integration into broader STEM learning ecosystems. While exploratory studies like ours highlight encouraging experiences, they are only the beginning. Robust longitudinal research is essential to track how participation in STEM SYEPs influences students’ educational pathways, professional aspirations, and career outcomes over time.

Equally pressing is the lack of research on motivation within these programs. Although many students described hands-on job experiences as transformative, we still know little about the mechanisms that drive this engagement. Future research should explore whether and how real-world STEM work experiences stimulate interest, learning, and long-term commitment to STEM fields, particularly in ways that differ from traditional classroom instruction. Addressing these questions is essential for designing equitable STEM programs that meaningfully engage and support youth who are too often marginalized and excluded from current STEM learning ecosystems.