Engineering science education: the impact of a paired peer approach on subject knowledge confidence and self-efficacy levels of student teachers

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Teacher Identity Code	Age	Gender	Chosen Speciality	Background
Teacher 1	19	Female	Steiner	White British
Teacher 2	20	Female	Art and Design	White British
Teacher 3	28	Female	Steiner	White British
Teacher 4	23	Female	Maths and Science	White British
Teacher 5	22	Female	Humanities	Asian British
Teacher 6	20	Female	Maths and Science	White British
Teacher 7	34	Female	Language and Literacies	Black British
Teacher 8	19	Female	Maths and Science	White British
Teacher 9	20	Female	Maths and Science	Asian British
Teacher 10	19	Female	Maths and Science	White British

Figure 1. The paired peer model for knowledge exchange.

Table 2. Pre and post participation group range and mean science and engineering SMK confidence ratings.

	Pre-Participation Test		Post-Participation Test
	Group Range	Group Mean	Group Range	Group Mean
Mean science SMK confidence	4.4–6.8	5.5 (SD = 1.8)	6.7–8.6	7.5 (SD = 1.1)
Mean engineering SMK confidence	2.2–4	3.3 (SD = 1.8)	6.6–8.4	7.3 (SD = 0.9)

Figure 2. Student teachers’ confidence in science and engineering subject knowledge.

Figure 3. Student teachers’ self-efficacy levels for teaching science and engineering.

Table 3. Pre and post participation group range and mean science and engineering self-efficacy ratings.

	Pre-Participation Test		Post-Participation Test
	Group Range	Group Mean	Group Range	Group Mean
Mean science self-efficacy rating	5.4–7	6.3 (SD = 0.9)	7.3–9.2	8.2 (SD = 1)
Mean engineering self-efficacy rating	3–4.8	4.1 (SD = 0.9)	7.5–8.2	7.8 (SD = 0.4)

Table 4. Coded themes and frequency of responses within these themes from the pre-service teachers.

Theme	Codes	Typical responses	Number of References
Children’s Responses	Enjoyment children’s engagement, enthusiasm and enjoyment	‘Many of them asked really good questions and made lots of good points’ ‘They loved the idea that they were engineers’	7
	Gender differences in the perceived interest and engagement of boys and girls	‘Many of the girls were fully engaged and some took control over the boys, they said that although they had previously thought only boys could do it’	2
	Inspiring Children children stating a future interest in STEM/engineering	‘One boy said to me “I love Science now because it is very fun and not that difficult” another said “it was epic, I really liked being an engineer. I gonna be a engineer”’ ‘After today though I think in their future when it comes to making some decisions about their potential careers they will not just dismiss engineering straight away’	3
	Learning perceived improvements in children’s understanding of the science topics covered and understanding of the nature of engineering	‘I believe the children learnt a lot as by the end of the day they had a clear understanding of what they were doing and why. They were able to describe why something was reacting in a particular way to something else which at the beginning of the day they couldn't’ ‘The children learnt quite a bit about what engineering is. This was evidenced when we asked them to write what they thought it was on post-its at the start of the day and then again at the end’	7
	Responses to the Students Children’s reactions to the students and engagement with them	‘The children responded very positively to me and my partner’ ‘Some children commented on us being nice, fun and friendly'	6
Materials	Resources provision of, usefulness and appropriateness of the engineering materials	‘Some of the equipment was not sturdy enough and not stored properly which meant that time was lost doing repairs’ ‘Some of the equipment we were using was breaking and this was a source of frustration for the children’	5
	Engineer Teaching Materials structure, usefulness and appropriateness of the teaching materials	‘My only negative was the amount of worksheets, they became quite laborious and therefore we Skipped quite a few. I found them slightly repetitive’ ‘The length of activities weren’t balanced well, for example I had to cut out a section and change the length of others’	6
Personal Reflections/ future practice	Personal Enjoyment student’s own enjoyment of participating	‘I've really enjoyed it so far, it's great experience’	6
	Future Practice of Teaching thoughts to be carried forward to impact on future practice	‘I’m quite likely to repeat parts of the lessons’ ‘I will think about how to make sessions more practical and engaging like this through using the engineering process’	20
	Personal Learning improvements in own understanding of and confidence in engineering and science SMK, ability to answer questions posed by the children.	‘More confident in teaching the knowledge about circuits in science’ ‘it has helped me understand the terms and concepts better and to be explain them in a way that the children would understand’	14
Working with a Peer	Shared Workload distribution of work, being able to address all work needing to be done by having a partner	‘It helped the children during the activities as there were enough adults assisting them in their work’ ‘It was great as it meant that we were able to share up the work like one person creates the PowerPoint, one makes the launches and the other makes and models the gliders’	4
	Sharing Expertise recognition and deployment of recognised differences in strengths and expertise	‘we really complimented each other’s strengths. I would tell them what we were going to do, organise the lesson and ask questions (intending to further their learning) and my partner would give really great explanations and clear examples of what we were teaching and take over the reigns as soon as I implied that I needed him to ‘my partner and I bounced off each other well and each had our own areas of specialism in order to help the children in different areas’	10

Figure 4. Number of codes related to each of the themes arising from the reflective diaries.

Figure 5. Feedback ratings from student engineers and teachers on the Paired Peer Mentors Project.

Table

Phase 1- Pre Pairing activities
Activity	Content/Purpose
Pre-service teachers. 2 × 2 h seminar sessions	An Introduction to engineering. Assessing and addressing initial stereotypes. An examination of engineering is and what engineers do. An examination of children pre-conceptions, issues around STEM and engineering education and recruitment, children’s’ STEM choices and aspirations. Researching how such an approach could contribute to a child’s science capital and the impact that this may have. Introduction to, and a worked example of the Engineering Design Process. Examining if, why and how engineering should and could be in the primary school curriculum. An exploration of and a worked example of teaching science through engineering, evaluating use of a contextualised, problem solving approach. An introduction to the STEM engineering project.
Engineering undergraduates. 2 × 2 h seminar sessions	An examination of children pre-conceptions, issues around STEM and engineering education and recruitment, children’s’ STEM choices and aspirations. Reflections on own experiences and motivations. Introduction to relevant theories of learning (inc. constructivism and socio-constructivism, social and science capital) and demonstrations of the application of these theories. An introduction to and worked examples of questioning techniques. An exploration of the requirements of the National Curriculum. Exploration of frameworks on understanding and misconceptions. An introduction to the STEM engineering project. Examination of the science SMK required for each project. Creation of a microteach activity to share, demonstrate and disseminate SMK Delivery of microteach activity to engineer colleagues, evaluation and feedback. Exploration of Health and Safety issues related to the activities and safeguarding in the classroom. Production of a riSMK assessment.
Phase 2- Joint sessions
Activity	Content/Purpose
Knowledge Exchange. Pre-service teachers and undergraduate engineers 3 × 3 h sessions	Pairings and introduction activities and knowledge exchange interventions to help raise the pre-service teachers’ subject knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching science and engineering to primary-aged children. Structured interviews between the pairs with the engineers, examining the nature of role of engineering, the engineers fields of interest/expertise and ways of working. Introduction to the specific engineering challenge to be undertaken by each pair. SMK microteach activities led by the engineers plus subsequent discussions of issues around specific SMK. Joint working through of specific engineering challenges by each pair. Evaluation of the activities and assessment of any potential issues arising Introduction to activity structure and discussions about planning format Discussions about roles, leading and distribution Preparation of plans and resources
Phase 3- In school activities
Activity	Content/Purpose
Pre-service teachers and undergraduate engineers 1.5. days	Introductions with the children- discussion and demonstrations of the engineers roles and the nature of engineering. Question and answer sessions with the children related to this. Explorations of the role of engineers and the nature of engineering (e.g. engineering an envelope, construction of a weight bearing tower). Introductions to the engineering challenges and related stories. Demonstrations, explorations and experimentation related to the science SMK content of the challenges. Introduction and demonstration of the EDP activities (e.g. through a stable table activity). EDP Imagine stage (to offer a range of solutions), EDP ASMK stage (to discover project parameters and to narrow range of possible solutions). EDP plan stage (with demonstration, sharing of ideas and engineer support). EDP Make stage (interspersed with SMK activities when required) EDP Evaluate and Improve stage (continuous testing of products, planned activities to share solutions to problems and ideas for improvement, demonstrating the nature of the way that engineers work) Summing up activities.

Table

Engineering Challenge	Contextualised Pseodo-real-life story	Aspects of Science SMK covered.
High and Dry	Two children live on separate (Greek) islands. They wish to visit each other to spend the day together. They are able to swim to each other’s island but want to take some items with them that they do not want to get wet (phones, ipads, books, food, money etc.). Can you help the by building them a product which they will be able to use to transport their belongings and keep them dry whilst they swim?	Floating and sinking Properties of materials Density, weight, mass Buoyancy Forces- gravity, air and water pressure, upthrust, balanced forces. Displacement.
Suck it up!	The class have had a party in their classroom but now the room is very untidy and needs to be cleaned up. Can you design and build a device that will suck up all the small debis?	Electrical circuits Electrical conductors and insulators Switches Propellers/fans and air flow
High Flyers	Two children live opposite each other and have windows (of given dimensions) which face each other. They would like to send messages and small gifts to each other. Can you design and build a glider which will fly the distance between the windows with enough accuracy to reach and fly through the window?	Properties of materials Forces- air resistance, gravity, balanced forces, upthrust, introduction to the science of flight.