An exploratory study comparing students' science identity perceptions derived from a hands-on research and nonresearch-based summer learning experience.

Although multiple efforts have been initiated to increase students' science proficiency scores, most of the schools in the United States do not reach the expected student academic performance. This study addresses the impact of a one-week summer scientific learning experience on students that worked with experimental procedures and students that did not. We describe and evaluate these two different interventions to explore what components influence high school students' perception of their scientific competence, performance, and recognition, using science identity as an analytical lens. Science identity score was increased at the end of both interventions. Interestingly, science identity change index was higher for the group that did not work with experimental procedures. Although this group did not perform any hands-on experiments, they report, through reflexive diaries and interviews that working with CRISPR-Cas9 models, being in a research laboratory, and seeing the instrumentation made them feel like scientists. Regarding science competence, both groups report exponential learning gains, although the group that performed the experiments reports more difficulties. Both groups report that mentorship was key in their competence and performance development. These findings suggest that our one-week scientific learning programs influence participants' perception of scientific competence and performance and create an opportunity to develop further studies on short scientific learning experiences using models and active learning activities.