Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education is a newly emerged paradigm which focuses mostly on science and mathematics disciplines, but which also includes technology and engineering (Bybee, 2010b). STEM education is considered a means to help individuals develop different strategies in order to solve interdisciplinary problems and gain skills and knowledge in order to sustain scientific leadership and economic growth in the United States (Lacey & Wright, 2009). Recent reports indicate that the next generation is not prepared to respond either to current demands or to those of the future (National Research Council [NRC], 2011). International indicators (e.g., TIMMS and PISA) report that US students exhibit a low level of performance in mathematics and science. In addition, there has been witnessed a decrease in the number of graduates from STEM fields (NRC, 2011;

The purpose of this study is to present students' experiences, interest in engineering, and personal narratives while participating in a robotics summer camp in a metropolitan city in Turkey. In this study, I used qualitative data collection methods such as interviews, field notes, and observations. I used the four principles of Engle and Conant as a framework for analyzing their interactions and tasks as well as to make sense of their mutual interactions, tasks, and social structure in the robotics summer camp. The study findings indicated that the robotics summer camp was different from regular science classrooms in terms of goals, practical work, and social structure. The robotics summer camp provided students with the opportunity to engage in robotics activities and have personal interactions with engineering researchers about engineering and their future career plans. The robot design experience and close relationships with engineering professionals at the camp were sources that nurtured and maintained student interest in engineering. I concluded that the robotics summer camp was a venue for students to gain first-hand experiences, develop and sustain interest in engineering, and comprehend the nature of engineering in general. This in turn helped students to determine their career choice and sustain a lifelong interest in engineering.

In this paper, we discuss the individuals' roles, responsibilities, and routine activities, along with their goals and intentions in two different contexts-a school science context and a university research context-using sociological lenses. We highlight the distinct characteristics of both contexts to suggest new design strategies for STEM learning environments in school science context. We collected our research data through participant observations, field notes, group conversations, and interviews. Our findings indicate that school science practices were limited to memorizing and replicating science content knowledge through lectures and laboratory activities. Simple-structured science activities were a means to engage school science students in practical work and relate the theoretical concepts to such work. Their routine activities were to succeed in schooling objectives. In university research settings, the routine activities had interdisciplinary dimensions representing cognitive, social, and material dimensions of scientific practice. Such routine activities were missing in the practices of school science. We found that the differences between school and university research settings were primarily associated with individuals' goals and intentions, which resulted in different social structures. In school settings, more authentic social structure can evolve if teachers trust their students and allow them to share the social and epistemic authorities through establishing mentorship. We do not expect school science students to perform the tasks of scientists in the same manner, yet the desired school science activities should include mentorship roles and interdisciplinary perspectives and encourage school science students to pursue unanswered questions without looking for the right answer.

In this paper, we analyze the science activities offered at 7th grade in the Turkish science and technology curriculum along with addressing the curriculum's original intent. We refer to several science education researchers' ideas, including Chinn & Malhotra's (Science Education, 86:175-218, 2002) theoretical framework and Edelson's (1998) conceptualization of authentic science practices in our analyses. Our primary goal is to critique the science and technology curriculum and then offer alternative insights into learning science and doing science about force and motion concepts at 7th grade from epistemological and sociological perspectives. We introduce an Immersion Unit for teaching and learning the concepts of force and motion and discuss the elements of this immersion approach. Finally, we provide recommendations for designing and implementing similar immersion units for the science activities that are in practice.

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye örnekleminde STEM eğitimi üzerine yapılan nitel araştırma desenli çalışmaların eğilimlerini ortaya çıkartmak amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. STEM eğitimi çalışmaları, yıla göre dağılım, araştırma yöntemi, veri toplama ve analiz teknikleri ile araştırma konusu ve araştırma bulguları çerçevesinde incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda son on yıl içinde yayınlanmış nitel desenli 50 çalışmaya ulaşılmıştır. Bulgularımız arasında, geçmişten günümüze doğru yapılan araştırma sayısında niceliksel artış olduğu görülmüştür. Bu çalışmalarda hedef kitle olarak çoğunlukla öğretmenlerin seçildiği gözlenmiştir. Araştırma yöntemi olarak ise durum çalışması kullanıldığı bulunmuştur. Veri toplama araçları arasında görüşme tekniği, veri analizi için ise betimsel ve içerik analizi teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma konusu seçiminin genellikle STEM eğitimi ve uygulamalarına yönelik paydaş görüşlerini incelemiştir. Bu çalışmada ise, STEM alanında nitel araştırma desenleri ile hazırlanan çalışmaların bulguları arasında, beceri gelişimi, öğrenme faaliyetleri ve ilişkilendirme, tutum, kariyer tercihleri, STEM eğitiminde yaşanan problemler ve diğer olmak üzere altı farklı tema çerçevesinde bulgular sentezlenmiştir ve araştırmacıların teorik çalışma hazırlama eğiliminde olduğu görülmüştür. Araştırmacıların STEM eğitimi hakkında; çoğunlukla paydaşların görüş ve önerilerini öğrenme eğiliminde olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca STEM eğitiminin, bireylerin 21. yüzyıl becerilerini edinmesine, STEM disiplinlerinin ilişkilendirilmesine, öğrencilerin kariyer tercihleri ve mesleklere ait kavram yanılgılarına, STEM eğitimine yönelik paydaşların tutumlarına etkisini göstermiştir. STEM eğitimi alanında içerik geliştirmeye yönelik araştırmalar, öğrencilerin * Bu çalışma, "Türkiye örneklemindeki STEM eğitimi alanında yapılan çalışmaların içerik analizi" adlı yüksek lisans tezinden üretilmiştir.

is a scientific programs expert in the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). He received his PhD. in Curriculum and Instruction with specialization in STEM education at Texas A&M University in 2012. His research is in ethnographic studies of science and engineering practice, curriculum development, design of learning environments and robotics activities. He offers a graduate course in METU on communities of practice. Dr. Ayar worked for the Live Energy Project during his PhD studies at Texas A&M University. Prior to his PhD studies, he worked for three years as a science teacher at a private school in Turkey.

Background: Laboratory studies explore the norms and characteristics of scientific practice and explain the constructive nature of knowledge production.However, how learning and research are sustained in engineering research laboratories at the graduate level requires further investigation.Purpose: We explored the cultural characteristics of an interdisciplinary engineering research center and documented how its members interacted and sustained both research and learning activities. Design/Method: We employed ethnographic data collection strategies to document the process of developing expertise (i.e., learning) and meaningfully contributing (i.e., research) at the center. Participant observations, field notes, and interviews were conducted.Results: The center did not resemble the research laboratories described in prior ethnographic studies in terms of physical space; however, it is an organizational system that demonstrates various dimensions of human activity. We present our results in four subsections: (1) configurations of the research groups, (2) the roles and responsibilities of the engineering researchers,(3) characterization of the research center as a community of practice, and (4) authentic engineering practices. Mentoring as a tacit rule played a central role in sustaining engineering learning and research activities. It was dependent on the managerial preferences of lead engineering researchers as they developed different identities over time. Meetings, cultural transformation, shared repertoire, and tools characterized the center as a community of practice.Conclusions: Our findings inform how people learn. Educational settings should foster similar characteristics (e.g., mentoring to sustain engineering research, learning, and building a community of practice) to better portray authentic engineering and science practices to students.

Research Question 1: What are the students' science practices? Research Question 2: What is the nature of the "participant structures" that emerged within the scientific events the students performed? 550619S GOXXX10.