IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03349-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Students’ perception of peer teaching in engineering education: a mixed–method case study

Author

Listed:
  • Constantin Cătălin Dosoftei

    (“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi)

  • Lidia Alexa

    (“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi)

Abstract

Background: Engineering education is constantly evolving and adapting to meet the demand for diverse skills and competencies in graduates, in response to the changing global economy and technological advancements. This requires shifting from a traditional content-oriented and professor-focused approach towards a more interactive, student-centered approach in which students actively engage in all process stages. The study’s main objective was to examine the students’ perceptions of peer teaching and better understand the method’s perceived advantages and disadvantages. The research was conducted over two academic years (2021 and 2022) and involved 96 students. The research incorporated quantitative and qualitative data collected through online questionnaires completed by the students at the end of the semester. The results showed a cumulative positive response rate for all close-ended questions of over 60%. The correlation analysis revealed medium positive relationships among the variables, including self-confidence, academic performance, communication and active listening, teamwork, knowledge consolidation, student-teacher benefits, and teaching activity. The thematic analysis of the open-ended questions showed that 87% of the respondents perceived the peer-teaching experience as positive and valuable. The main advantages listed by students were better communication, practicality, increased attention and interaction, and overcoming student-teacher anxiety. The main disadvantage was the perceived lack of structure and experience in coordinating laboratory work. The study results indicate that peer-based instructional methods can lead to more effective dissemination of knowledge among students, as evidenced by the high percentage of respondents who reported improved comprehension through peer-to-peer explanations. At the same time, the efficacy of this approach is contingent upon the instructor’s preparation and support, which facilitates the learning process and enhances the classroom’s social dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • Constantin Cătălin Dosoftei & Lidia Alexa, 2024. "Students’ perception of peer teaching in engineering education: a mixed–method case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03349-y
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03349-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03349-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03349-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Soldner & Heather Rowan-Kenyon & Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas & Jason Garvey & Claire Robbins, 2012. "Supporting Students' Intentions to Persist in STEM Disciplines: The Role of Living-Learning Programs among other Social-Cognitive Factors," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(3), pages 311-336, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena Sandoval-Lucero, 2014. "Serving the Developmental and Learning Needs of the 21st Century Diverse College Student Population: A Review of Literature," Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(2), pages 1-47, November.
    2. Julie J. Park & Young K. Kim & Cinthya Salazar & Shannon Hayes, 2020. "Student–Faculty Interaction and Discrimination from Faculty in STEM: The Link with Retention," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(3), pages 330-356, May.
    3. Yanqing Ding & Wei Li & Xin Li & Yinduo Wu & Jin Yang & Xiaoyang Ye, 2021. "Heterogeneous Major Preferences for Extrinsic Incentives: The Effects of Wage Information on the Gender Gap in STEM Major Choice," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 62(8), pages 1113-1145, December.
    4. Gaye D. Ceyhan & Alia N. Thompson & Jeremy D. Sloane & Jason R. Wiles & Sule Aksoy & John W. Tillotson, 2019. "The Socialization and Retention of Low-Income College Students: The Impact of a Wrap-Around Intervention," International Journal of Higher Education, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(6), pages 249-249, December.
    5. Darnell Cole & Joseph A. Kitchen & Adrianna Kezar, 2019. "Examining a Comprehensive College Transition Program: An Account of Iterative Mixed Methods Longitudinal Survey Design," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 60(3), pages 392-413, May.
    6. Zhiling Cai & Jinxing Zhu & Saiqi Tian, 2023. "Research Progress of STEM Education Based on Visual Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    7. Julie J. Park & Young K. Kim & Kristyn Lue & Jia Zheng & Roshan Parikh & Cinthya Salazar & Arman Liwanag, 2021. "Who Are You Studying With? The Role of Diverse Friendships in STEM and Corresponding Inequality," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 62(8), pages 1146-1167, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03349-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.