Data analysis elicited several themes in response to the research question. Affordances of the CPD were identified which supported teacher self-efficacy, as well as factors which constrained STEM practices, as perceived by the teachers who participated in the study.

Influence of CPD Programme on Teachers’ Overall Confidence and Self-Efficacy in STEM Teaching

Participants’ pre- and post-participation T-STEM scores are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Overview of T-STEM survey pre and post scores

While overall percentage increases shown in Table 4 are relatively small, pre- and post-comparison of the overall group’s responses to individual items reveals considerable shifts in teachers’ STEM confidence, as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Collated responses to individual TSTEM items (personal STEM teaching efficacy and beliefs) pre- and post-CPD

STEM Self-Efficacy

Survey responses aligned with participants’ accounts in focus groups of how the CPD course had influenced their confidence. One participant remarked, “I loved teaching science … I’d lost confidence in myself, because I haven’t been allowing myself to do it. I think courses like this just help people bring their confidence back” (Focus Group [FG] 4).

Participants also noted that while overall confidence had improved as a result of the CPD, gaps in their knowledge were perceived which continue to affect their confidence in certain aspects of their STEM practice. For example, one participant reflected, “[M]y confidence probably has improved but I still would say in certain areas in science I would definitely shy away from because I don’t think I know enough” (FG 2). Likewise, in a reflective diary entry, one participant noted that the CPD course provided them with the opportunity to critically reflect on their existing STEM knowledge and amend their subsequent pedagogical practice: “Since attending the CPD session I was alerted to the fact that at times, I was shying away from some of the more complex science” (Participant Reflective Diary Entry, 11/05/23).

Development of Self-Efficacy Through Increased Pedagogical Knowledge

Findings suggested that teachers developed teaching knowledge. Analysis of data indicated that teachers made a connection between developing knowledge and improved confidence. For example, one participant noted:

It’s been very, very good in terms of just developing my own subject knowledge... knowing that that’s needed and how to do it in effective way…It’s knowing what will make you an effective teacher, and be able to have the confidence to stand up and talk to children about what their science is, and what science they need to do. (FG 1)

As well as acquiring new knowledge, teachers discussed how the programme facilitated the resurfacing of prior subject knowledge. For example, from their own post-primary science experiences, as explained by one participant, “You mentioned Newton’s laws, I remember I learned that in secondary school, but I never thought of mentioning it to a child” (FG 3).

As a result of participating in the CPD programme, participants described how their knowledge of STEM-appropriate pedagogies was affirmed and enhanced. Teachers reprioritised active, hands-on and engaging pedagogies which had been sidelined, as explained by one participant, “I wasn’t doing a lot of it before. And now I’d be looking to try and find every opportunity that I can to try and do something that’s hands-on” (FG 3). Participants also stated that they had developed the knowledge and confidence to pose more challenging scientific tasks and concepts to children. Participants described how they adopted pedagogical approaches which involved co-learning with the children. Teachers explained how the CPD programme had equipped them to utilise open-ended inquiry more frequently and enact pedagogy which encouraged curiosity and embraced mystery, as described by one participant, “We were talking about embracing the mystery of stuff as an adult and not knowing the answers” (FG 4).

Arising from their engagement in the CPD, participants developed awareness of the importance of developing students’ cross-curricular STEM skills. Participants noted new understandings in relation to the discrete nature of STEM skills and knowledge associated with individual subject disciplines within STEM. For example, one teacher discussed how their expectations of a pupil did not correspond with reality: “We have a child in the class … I took for granted they would be good at science, but [they don’t] have those science skills… that you would expect someone who’s good at maths to have” (FG 2). Participants noted that the CPD programme offered them new insights into the kinds of activities which can promote development of students’ cross-curricular STEM skills beyond individual subject disciplines. For example, having engaged in the initial workshop activities, a participant described how they used a real-life task to teach science and maths skills and content “From the course… I tried to link in my science with my maths. We were measuring heart rate and how different activities affect heart rate, then going to interpret that and put those results into a graph” (FG 4).

Development of Self-Efficacy Through Increased Contextual Knowledge

Participants reported that the CPD programme enabled the development of their context knowledge across a variety of areas. These included knowledge of resources as well as raising their awareness of the influence of curriculum and assessment on their pedagogical practices.

Participants identified how the CPD programme provided them with extensive high-quality tried-and-tested resources to support STEM teaching and learning in their schools. As noted by a participant, “[T]he first day we came here, we were given lots of ideas, which is brilliant because the main thing is always finding your ideas or finding something to give you inspiration” (FG 3). During focus group interviews, teachers also discussed and shared other sources of STEM teaching and learning materials with each other, including outside agencies and sources, for example, Nerve Centre, STEM Ambassadors, Sentinus and Explorify. Despite the resources provided to them as part of the CPD programme, participants indicated that access to resources posed significant and prevailing challenges, particularly for new experiments: “We don’t necessarily have everything you need first time around … It’s just that accessibility to resources at this stage now” (FG 1).

A lack of centralised funding for the purchasing of STEM-related resources was also highlighted, with teachers often self-funding the purchase of resources or sourcing materials from home. This was clearly articulated by a participant who noted, “Another thing that I found is our schools are so underfunded. So, anything like say for example, Play Doh, I had to go and buy that myself…” (FG 1). Likewise, participants also noted the time it takes to adapt resources and plans for their own school and class contexts. The time set aside within the CPD programme for auditing, planning and preparation was seen as invaluable, as stated by one participant, “To be honest, if it wasn’t for the grant [for substitution cover] that we got through this, you know, your board wouldn’t release you. There’s no way” (FG 4).

Curriculum and Assessment Context

Participants identified ongoing challenges linked to subject knowledge and curriculum alignment. This included a wider context and culture that places less emphasis on the teaching of science compared to the core curriculum subjects of Numeracy and Language and Literacy, and which also focuses heavily on thematic topics. Challenges associated with taking a thematic approach were also noted as a key issue, which participants associated with the current curriculum. When teaching thematically, in some instances, teachers could identify that the STEM was there all along and needed to be drawn out more. From their engagement in the CPD programme, participants reported developing the requisite knowledge to identify STEM opportunities in unexpected places and reframe previous practices with a STEM lens. For example, through incorporating STEM language within existing lessons in a more explicit way: “I was teaching forces … doing the activity, but not actually bringing the language [into it]. So, for next year, when I come back to my bridges topic, it’ll transform dramatically” (FG 1). Conversely, teachers also grappled with fitting a square peg into a round hole by trying to force STEM into a topic where it didn’t naturally fit. As explained by a participant, “Our curriculum in my opinion doesn’t help. I’m looking for ways to incorporate science through a topic which maybe doesn’t work” (FG 1). Some participants noted that these opportunities are not always easy to identify and sometimes felt forced: “I find a lot of my topics sometimes don’t lend themselves to a lot of STEM … [I am teaching] the ancient Egyptians at the minute, and I’m not sure what sort of STEM we could get into that” (FG 4). Furthermore, the consensus amongst participants was that schools are still dealing with the challenges of a post-COVID return to the classroom and pressures to achieve associated with post-primary examinations. One participant reflected, “There is a huge battle in schools at the minute I think, [we’re] covering gaps in terms of key curriculum things and things that are important for their future” (FG 4). Similarly, another participant shared that they were “doing literacy and maths most afternoons at the minute because I’m preparing them for next year” (FG 3).

Participants expressed the tension created by mandated statutory reporting in Literacy and Numeracy but not Science and the influence of this on their attempts to change their practice. Given that STEM is not a priority in transfer tests (from primary to post-primary), teachers no longer dedicated as much time to it: “I remember … doing magnets and floating and sinking… [but] because it’s not in the transfer test anymore. It’s not seen as being important” (FG 4). Further to this, it was highlighted that students themselves may not see Science as being that important because of the lack of formalised assessment taking place, as stated by a participant who noted “I think most students would know that assessment in science doesn’t really happen because it’s not statutory.” (FG 1).

A key related area of concern raised by many of the participants was that of not knowing how to assess learning in STEM or that science and STEM were not areas of focus within school improvement plans. As noted by one teacher: “… with science and assessment, I just wouldn’t know how to assess efficiently or effectively” (FG 1). Participants noted that while the focus of the CPD programme was on STEM teaching and learning, they suggested that assessment was an issue which required further guidance and support. In particular, participants explained that the ambiguity of benchmarks within the Science and Technology progression document (CCEA, 2007b) made it difficult for them to interpret and make accurate assessment judgements during STEM activities. One participant said when considering the criteria for progression: “I looked up the progression document … because none of our [school] planning had reference to it.” (FG 2).

Self-Efficacy and Collective Efficacy: Fostering Capacity for Collaboration

While the CPD programme was not specifically aimed at developing capacity for collaboration, this was identified as a key theme from analysis of interview data. Participants remarked on the importance of adopting leadership roles and responsibilities as individuals within their own classroom environment in advocating for STEM and engaging in STEM pedagogies. Participants also noted the important role that all teachers play in developing home-school links and development of science capital, which refers to what they know and think about science, who they know and what sort of everyday engagement they may have with science and STEM (Archer et al., 2015). One participant reflected, when speaking about their students, “Doing that experiment, it just kind of made me aware these children maybe haven’t had the opportunities that we should have given them” (FG 2), with another participant remarking: “[The children] love learning, going home and using fancy words, saying to their mum or dad ‘I know what gravity is’… the course opened my eyes to that fact, don’t limit them and don’t limit your science. Just go for it” (FG 3).

Within their schools, many participants reported engaging in collaborative planning discussions with their colleagues, where they discussed individual and whole school STEM approaches; how they might adapt the CPD programme resources for different year groups and ensure links between STEM and the wider curriculum. For example, one participant who held a formal in-school leadership role mentioned: “I found it useful as [a] coordinator trying to improve science and STEM across the school. So even before we left on the first day, I emailed those PowerPoints to the year groups that teach those topics” (FG 1).

Many participants reported that they had engaged in capacity building activities by placing STEM on the agenda of staff meetings, leading by example, sharing physical resources and lesson ideas with colleagues. As explained by a participant: “Raising the profile of STEM, that’s what your aim is and for me, that’s the thing that I’ll take away from it [the CPD programme]” (FG 4).

Participants welcomed the opportunity to engage in STEM CPD and remarked on the wider lack of availability of STEM-specific training opportunities. Another participant stated, “There’s no science or STEM training, like from [when] I graduated that’s the last time I would have had any training in STEM” (FG 1). The CPD programme was perceived as an important opportunity for participants to come together with peers to share, affirm and celebrate their professional experiences. Participants remarked on the sustained delivery format of the programme over a number of days, which allowed them to develop collegial connections and build trust, which fostered professional sharing in a candid and open way. As explained by a participant:

We [teachers] don’t want to admit the things that we find difficult. But if you’re there for a little bit of time with people...a sense of trust [develops]...[you’re] just more willing to... be open whereas if it was just one day... I don’t think this would have happened in this way. (FG 4)

Participants valued the opportunity for dialogic interaction, which enabled them to consider alternative perspectives while explicating their own thinking and sharing ideas: “Having time to talk to each other…about what we did and what went wrong and what you can do better, just having that time. You don’t really get time anymore… to talk to other teachers just about your teaching” (FG 2).

The CPD course provided participants with an opportunity to collaborate and build their Professional Learning Network (PLN), making connections with schools in their locality and a link to teachers with common interests. Throughout the discussions, there was a pooling of ideas and sharing of alternative organisations that could be approached to facilitate CPD or classroom-based activities. As noted by one participant, “meeting a like-minded group of people that you all feel like you're in the same boat, …[it]gives you that confidence going back but it’s okay to make mistakes and it’s good to learn from them” (FG 2). However, there still appears to be some conflict between the participants’ confidence in sharing with colleagues back in their school versus a continuing lack of confidence in their willingness to have their STEM teaching observed and evaluated by a colleague. This was clearly illustrated by TSTEM item 7, which identified that following the CPD programme, still only 55% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that if given a choice, they would invite a colleague to evaluate their STEM teaching. Despite this, one participant spoke about their eagerness to support colleagues back in school with resources: “I signed up for Explorify and … I’m going to… present that as a tool to aid with the delivery of STEM” (FG 1).