“We Believe in STEAM Education, but We Need Support”: In-Service Teachers’ Voices on the Realities of STEAM Implementation

Abstract

The integration of STEAM education is widely recognized as a pathway to foster creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration, yet its implementation remains fragmented due to systemic and organizational barriers. This study examines educators’ perspectives on STEAM by focusing on three key questions: their attitudes toward STEAM, the challenges and needs they report, and how these vary by professional development experience, disciplinary background, and teaching experience. Drawing on a large-scale survey of in-service educators, the analysis shows that teachers hold strongly positive attitudes across dimensions of application, higher-order thinking, motivation, and collaboration. However, these attitudes are accompanied by substantial needs, particularly in curriculum guidance, instructional time, resource availability, and assessment frameworks. Professional development was found to strengthen educators’ enthusiasm but did not reduce broader systemic challenges, while disciplinary background and years of experience shaped specific needs and perceptions. The findings highlight that teacher motivation is a necessary but insufficient condition for meaningful STEAM implementation. Addressing the gap between vision and practice requires a multi-level approach that integrates competence-based professional development with structural reforms in curriculum, leadership, and institutional culture.

1. Introduction

The global emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education emerged in the early 2000s, largely in response to concerns about economic competitiveness, workforce readiness, and technological advancement (National Science Foundation, 2001). While the STEM agenda successfully highlighted the importance of scientific and technical literacy, it has also been critiqued for overlooking the role of creativity, design, and the humanistic dimensions of learning. To address these gaps, scholars and practitioners proposed the integration of the arts into the STEM framework, leading to the emergence of STEAM education (Yakman, 2008). This shift was further reinforced by the Rhode Island School of Design’s “STEM to STEAM” movement, championed by John Maeda, which argued that innovation in the 21st century requires a fusion of scientific rigor and artistic creativity (Maeda, 2013).

The integration of STEAM education has gained momentum as a strategic response to the evolving demands of 21st-century learning. STEAM education plays a crucial role in educational reform by challenging traditional, compartmentalized conceptions of school curricula and promoting more integrated, meaningful learning experiences. According to Davies and Trowsdale (2021), the dominant curriculum structure, often perceived as discrete and bounded subject slots, limits the potential of interdisciplinary approaches, particularly reducing the arts to a “servant” role in support of STEM outcomes. In their Imagineerium project, they demonstrate how multiple disciplines coexist, resulting in richer, more engaging, and more holistic learning. By combining all disciplines and embracing their interplay, STEAM initiatives can empower both teachers and students to engage in creative practices that transcend traditional subject boundaries.

STEAM education is considered promising because it expands the focus of STEM beyond technical proficiency, promoting creativity, imagination, and design thinking as essential components of problem-solving (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Moreover, STEAM broadens participation in science and technology by offering multiple entry points for students, particularly those who may not initially identify with traditional STEM pathways (Henriksen, 2014). In doing so, it enhances inclusivity and supports the development of transversal competencies, such as critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills, which are increasingly vital for addressing complex, interdisciplinary global challenges (Sochacka et al., 2016). Thus, the integration of the arts into STEM represents not merely an additive approach, but a holistic framework that reflects the interconnected and creative nature of contemporary innovation and education.

Research on curriculum innovation has increasingly emphasized that effective STEAM integration requires more than content combination, it demands a coherent and context-sensitive interdisciplinary design. Gao et al. (2020) argue that successful STEAM curricula should reflect school-level characteristics, be grounded in national standards, and prioritize authentic interdisciplinary learning over superficial subject “stacking.” To achieve this, teacher collaboration and the co-construction of STEAM curricula with support from higher education and other partners are essential (N. Spyropoulou & Kameas, 2024b; Wu, 2022; Milara et al., 2020).

Successful STEAM integration is characterized by authentic interdisciplinarity, where science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics are purposefully combined within coherent, problem-based learning experiences rather than treated as isolated subjects (Yakman, 2008). The arts play a central role in this process by fostering creativity, design thinking, and multiple modes of expression, moving from simple applications such as decoration of projects and colorings to essential tools for innovation (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Effective STEAM practices also emphasize real-world relevance by situating learning in complex, authentic problems. Art, like engineering, is concerned with finding answers to problems and seeking visual solutions using the design process (Bequette & Bequette, 2012). Furthermore, successful integration enhances student engagement and inclusivity, broadening participation among learners who may not identify with traditional STEM pathways. STEM disciplines can benefit from an artistic infusion that connects disciplines in ways that are powerful and motivating for learning (Henriksen, 2014), while simultaneously cultivating transversal competencies such as collaboration, communication, and critical thinking (Sochacka et al., 2016). Examples of such practices include music coding platforms like EarSketch, which merge computational thinking with artistic creativity, or environmental projects where students combine scientific data collection, mathematical analysis, technological prototyping, and digital storytelling to propose solutions. Together, these elements demonstrate that meaningful STEAM education transcends disciplinary boundaries and equips students with both technical expertise and creative capacities for the 21st century.

Classroom practices differ substantially between STEAM-focused and non-STEAM-focused contexts, reflecting contrasting pedagogical priorities and orientations. In STEAM-focused classrooms, learning is typically organized around interdisciplinary, project-based activities that connect science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics in ways that mirror real-world problem-solving (Yakman, 2008). Teachers often employ design thinking, inquiry-based learning, and collaborative projects, positioning students as active creators who integrate both technical knowledge and creative expression—for example, combining engineering principles with artistic design to construct prototypes or using storytelling and digital media to communicate scientific findings (Herro & Quigley, 2017; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). By contrast, non-STEAM-focused classrooms tend to maintain disciplinary boundaries, with teaching organized around subject-specific curricula that emphasize knowledge acquisition and assessment within traditional frameworks (Henriksen, 2014). While such classrooms may still incorporate creativity or cross-curricular elements, these are often peripheral rather than systematically embedded. As a result, STEAM-focused classrooms are more likely to foster transversal skills such as collaboration, innovation, and critical thinking, whereas non-STEAM-focused classrooms prioritize depth of disciplinary knowledge, sometimes at the expense of integrative learning opportunities (Sochacka et al., 2016).

At the policy level, the European Union and other international bodies have increasingly highlighted the need for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate creativity and critical thinking with digital and scientific literacy (European Commission, 2025). Research has also pointed out the importance of educators’ competences in implementing STEAM effectively, noting that teachers require support in pedagogical design, collaboration across disciplines, and professional development opportunities (Herro & Quigley, 2017; Thuneberg et al., 2018). Despite these advances, debates remain on whether STEAM should be conceptualized as an integrated pedagogy, a transdisciplinary learning environment, or a framework for enhancing engagement in STEM through the arts (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019).

Central to the success of this vision is the professional development and sustained support of educators, a term used here to refer broadly to teachers, tutors, and other instructional staff involved (e.g., teaching assistants, laboratory teachers) in the design and delivery of STEAM learning. In response to the growing demand for clarity around the roles and competences of STEAM educators, recent work has focused on competence-based approaches. In our previous work, we developed the STEAMComp Edu framework (N. Spyropoulou & Kameas, 2024a, 2024c), which identifies 41 competences across 14 areas, organized into five interrelated educator roles: (a) the teacher-trainer-tutor, focusing on effective pedagogy, subject knowledge, instructional practices, and assessment; (b) the learning designer and creator, responsible for planning, preparing, and developing STEAM learning activities and supportive environments; (c) the orchestrator and manager, encompassing the coordination of content, technologies, resources, and group learning processes; (d) the community member, highlighting collaboration, networking, policy engagement, and sharing of best practices; and (e) the professional, emphasizing continuous learning, digital and transferable skills, and ongoing professional growth. However, while competence frameworks clarify what competences educators need, it does not in themselves capture the practical realities educators face in acquiring and applying these competences.

Educators are often highly motivated to integrate STEAM education, recognizing its potential to foster student creativity, problem solving, and critical thinking (Herro & Quigley, 2017; Silva-Hormazábal & Alsina, 2023). Despite this enthusiasm, the actual implementation of STEAM remains uneven and fragmented across schools and systems. Prior studies highlight persistent barriers such as limited planning time, rigid curricula, insufficient cross-disciplinary structures, lack of quality resources, and minimal institutional or policy support (Boice et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019; Breda et al., 2023). Also, it often demands cross-disciplinary collaboration, an increased workload, and a deeper understanding of what authentic STEAM integration entails. Many teachers tend to conceptualize STEAM as a collection of discrete activities rather than as a comprehensive, holistic approach to learning (Boice et al., 2021). A further difficulty is that numerous educators have limited prior experience with STEAM and struggle to meaningfully integrate its constituent disciplines. Collaboration across subject areas adds another layer of complexity, while facilitating effective student teamwork within STEAM projects also intensifies teachers’ responsibilities (Herro & Quigley, 2017). Although shared planning time can help mitigate these obstacles, teachers frequently report challenges in scheduling such time and concerns about additional workload. Moreover, STEAM pedagogy requires a shift away from traditional direct instruction toward a facilitator role that supports student-led exploration, a transition many educators find demanding. Finally, assessment remains a pressing concern: the collaborative and iterative natures of STEAM projects, alongside the integration of multiple disciplines, including those outside teachers’ primary expertise, make the design of authentic evaluation strategies particularly challenging (Opperman, 2016).

This tension highlights a deeper misalignment: while there is a broad consensus on the value of STEAM education and growing attention to defining teacher competences, there is still limited empirical evidence on what educators themselves identify as their most pressing needs for successful implementation. Much of the literature to date has concentrated on teacher attitudes or on theoretical frameworks (Chu et al., 2019; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2023; Anisimova et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2022) with less attention to the structural and organizational conditions that shape practice. In particular, there is a lack of understanding of how teachers’ needs align with their attitudes toward STEAM, and how these perceptions differ according to factors such as professional development experience, disciplinary background, and years of teaching experience.

Much of the existing scholarship on STEAM education has taken two primary forms. First, a substantial body of work has focused on building theoretical frameworks that conceptualize the aims, dimensions, or pedagogical orientations of STEAM (e.g., Chu et al., 2019; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2023; Anisimova et al., 2020). These frameworks have been useful in clarifying definitions, proposing interdisciplinary models, and positioning the arts within STEM; however, they often remain at a conceptual level without direct validation against classroom realities or teachers’ everyday experiences. Second, prior empirical research has tended to concentrate on teachers’ attitudes and perceptions, often through survey-based studies that explore their beliefs about the value of STEAM and their willingness to implement it (e.g., Ng et al., 2022). While such studies provide valuable insights into the general receptivity of educators, they rarely extend to a systematic examination of the conditions and resources teachers require for effective practice. In contrast, the present study builds upon these strands by moving beyond attitudinal measures or abstract theorization. It foregrounds educators’ own accounts of the professional, structural, and systemic needs that shape STEAM implementation, thereby connecting conceptual frameworks to lived realities and offering empirically grounded evidence that can inform both policy and practice.

In this context, the current study aims to fill this gap by highlighting the voices of educators. Instead of evaluating competences or examining isolated interventions, it explores the professional, structural, and systemic conditions that teachers themselves view as essential or currently missing for effective STEAM implementation in the classroom. Specifically, the study looks at (a) educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education, (b) the challenges and needs they identify across stages of preparation, implementation, coordination, and collaboration, and (c) how these vary based on professional development experience, disciplinary background, and years of teaching. To guide this research, the study addresses the following questions:

• RQ1: What attitudes do educators hold toward STEAM education?
• RQ2: What challenges and needs do educators report in implementing STEAM education, and how do these align with their attitudes?
• RQ3: How do educators’ attitudes and reported needs vary according to professional development experience, disciplinary background (STEM or no-STEM), and years of STEAM teaching experience?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The survey was conducted as part of a Horizon Europe project on developing a STEAM education roadmap and was designed as a large-scale instrument with multiple sections targeting different groups of stakeholders, including pre and in-service teachers. For the purposes of this paper, we focus exclusively on in-service educators (n = 664), representing 28 countries. The largest proportions of participants were based in Italy (n = 289, 31.8%) and Greece (n = 206, 22.6%), followed by smaller groups from Cyprus (n = 35, 3.9%), Turkey (n = 29, 3.2%), and Romania (n = 24, 2.6%). Additional representation came from Croatia, Spain, Portugal, and several other countries, each contributing fewer than 15 respondents.

In terms of gender distribution, the majority of participants identified as female (72.9%), with males accounting for 26.9% and less than 1% preferring not to disclose their gender. The sample was predominantly composed of mid- to late-career educators: 39.5% were aged 51–60, 36.2% were aged 41–50, while only 15.2% were under 40. Professional roles varied, though secondary teachers formed the largest group (45.5%), followed by primary teachers (20.7%) and school leaders (12.9%). Smaller proportions included pre-primary teachers (7.0%), vocational educators (3.8%), and adult educators or teacher trainers (3.2%). The majority of respondents held advanced academic qualifications, with 63.9% possessing a master’s degree, 16.2% a bachelor’s, and 15.0% a doctorate. Most were employed in public education institutions (94.0%), with only a small minority working in private or semi-private organizations. With respect to the teaching field, just over half of the respondents (54.5%) were engaged in STEM-related disciplines, while 42.8% taught in non-STEM fields. A small proportion (2.7%) did not declare a specific teaching subject, typically because their roles were in school leadership.

Regarding prior engagement with STEAM education, just over half (54.4%) had participated in professional development activities in the field. However, almost one-third (32.4%) reported no teaching experience with STEAM approaches. Among those with experience, the largest groups reported 4-15 years (27.9%) or 1–3 years (22.4%), while a smaller number indicated over 15 years of experience.

2.2. Instrument

The data presented in this paper were collected through a subset of a broader survey instrument developed as part of a larger research effort on STEAM education within the Horizon Project TheSeer (STE(A)M Education European Roadmap (https://www.scientix.eu/community/partner-projects/the-seer, accessed on 8 August 2025)). The overall instrument was designed to capture multiple dimensions of educators’ experiences, perceptions, and needs related to STEAM Education, including the need for support from policymakers and other organizations. To ensure a common understanding among respondents, the survey included the following definition: “Note: Keep in mind that when we refer to STEAM education, the ‘(A)’ in STEAM is used as a term that represents ‘All other subjects’ such as arts, humanities or any other subject (e.g., sports). In addition, we use the definition that STEAM education combines purposefully selected standards, content areas, and topics of at least two disciplines (one or more STEM subjects and at least one from all other subjects) that make sense together. This approach incorporates instructional activities involving the STEM fields and ‘All other subjects’ occurring across all educational levels and types as access points for guiding student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking.” It is widely acknowledged that STEAM education does not have a single, universally accepted definition (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Different interpretations exist depending on context, emphasis, and policy priorities. For this reason, and building on the existing literature that highlights STEAM as the purposeful integration of STEM with additional disciplines to foster creativity, transdisciplinary learning, and problem-solving (e.g., Herro & Quigley, 2017; Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019; N. Spyropoulou & Kameas, 2024a), we tailored the definition used in our survey. This version was chosen to clarify the meaning of the “A” and to reflect a broad interpretation (including arts, humanities, and other disciplines) that has been widely used in European initiatives. Importantly, this definition has also been adopted by the Horizon project SEER as a common reference point across multiple stakeholders. In this way, the definition reflects both theoretical grounding in prior research and practical relevance for ongoing European educational and policy developments.

The full survey instrument was developed through a multi-stage process. First, an extensive review of the literature on STEAM education frameworks, barriers, and teacher professional development informed the conceptual design of the survey domains. Second, draft items were examined by experts in STEM/STEAM pedagogy, competence frameworks, and educational research to ensure content validity. Third, cognitive pre-testing was conducted with a small group of educators, who were asked to complete the survey and provide feedback on clarity, cultural appropriateness, and item interpretation. Based on their input, several items were rephrased or simplified. Internal reliability and construct validity of the final instrument were confirmed through Cronbach’s alpha analyses across dimensions.

For the purposes of the present analysis, we focused on two key components of the instrument, educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education and their perceived needs for regarding the application of STEAM education in the classroom. The attitudinal component was structured into four categories, each representing a distinct dimension of teachers’ perceptions and beliefs: (a) Desire to Apply STEAM Education, (b) Thinking and Problem Solving, (c) Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning, and (d) Collaboration and Communication. Each category was operationalized through multiple items rated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

The Desire to Apply STEAM Education category assessed educators’ perceived usefulness of STEAM in teaching, their sense of preparedness to implement it, and their personal motivation to integrate it into their courses.

The Thinking and Problem-Solving category explored the extent to which educators viewed STEAM as contributing to creative, critical, computational, and transdisciplinary thinking, as well as autonomy in learning.

The Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning category measured beliefs about STEAM’s role in making learning enjoyable, reducing anxiety, boosting learners’ confidence, fostering self-management, and accommodating individual differences.

Finally, the Collaboration and Communication category addressed the perceived impact of STEAM on teamwork among students and teachers, communication skills, applicability across educational levels, and the variety of collaboration tools available. This design was informed by earlier research on perceptions of STEM integration (Altakhyneh & Abumusa, 2020; Shernoff et al., 2017) and adapted to capture the multidimensional nature of educators’ beliefs about the value, implementation, and outcomes of STEAM education. An overview of the categories and their respective items is presented in

Table 1. Statements of the attitudes categories.

Category	Item Statement
Desire to Apply STEAM Education	I think STEAM education is useful to me in teaching.
	I feel that I have the tools to implement STEAM education.
	I feel a desire to apply STEAM education in teaching my courses.
	I think that STEAM education develops the learner’s motivation to study.
Thinking and Problem-Solving	STEAM education is important for the development of creative thinking.
	STEAM education is important for the development of critical thinking.
	STEAM education is important for the development of computational thinking.
	STEAM education is important for the development of a transdisciplinary way of thinking.
	STEAM education develops autonomy in thinking.
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning	STEAM education is interesting and fun for learners.
	STEAM education relieves students’ anxiety in studying one or more of the STEAM subjects.
	STEAM education has an educational benefit in increasing the self-confidence of learners.
	STEAM education develops the ability to self-manage and organize.
	STEAM education takes into account individual differences among students.
Collaboration and Communication	STEAM education fosters collaborative work among students.
	STEAM education fosters collaborative work among teachers.
	STEAM education develops the ability to communicate with others.
	STEAM education can be applied in all classes at all stages.
	STEAM education collaboration tools are multiple and varied.

.

The second part of the instrument addressed educators’ needs for STEAM implementation. Its structure and content were informed by the STEAMComp Edu framework (N. Spyropoulou & Kameas, 2024a), which identifies the core roles and competences required of STEAM educators, along with related work regarding barriers in STEM/STAM education (Boice et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2019; N. D. Spyropoulou & Kameas, 2020; Breda et al., 2023). Items were designed to reflect key areas such as preparation and curriculum design, classroom implementation, coordination and resource management, collaboration within and beyond the school, and professional development. These areas were translated into needs statements that respondents rated to indicate the degree of support they considered necessary. Representative examples of needs items are also provided in

Table 2. Statements of the need’s categories.

Category	No of Items	Examples Statement
Needs for preparation/development of STEAM education programs before teaching (Pr)	12	Knowledge of STEAM education foundations Understanding the principles of a STEAM education curriculum Instructional design strategies
Needs for the implementation of STEAM education programs during teaching (Im)	17	Time to collaborate and plan More instructional time More manageable class sizes
Needs for the coordination of STEAM education programs (Cor)	6	Resource management Labs’ coordination Managing group of learners/teachers
Needs for collaboration with other educators/community building (Col)	7	Support on how to involve parents Support on how to involve the local community Support on how to involve the industry
Needs for professional development on specific topics related to STEAM education (PD)	16	Review and use of emerging technologies for STEAM education Discipline-specific training in different STEAM fields Examples of effective lesson plans in STEAM education

.

Before the final distribution, the survey instrument was pre-tested with a small group of teachers and the project partners to check for clarity, comprehensibility, and potential errors in wording. Feedback from this stage informed minor revisions to ensure that the items were accessible and unambiguous across diverse educational contexts.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The data were collected between October 2023–January 2024 through an online questionnaire administered via the LimeSurvey platform hosted by the university. The survey was disseminated through professional networks, institutional mailing lists, and social media channels targeting educators engaged in STEAM-related practices. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and consented to the use of their data for research purposes. Since the survey was part of the Horizon project, partners translated the original English version into Greek, Italian, German, and Dutch, while all partners distributed the survey.

For the data selected to be used in this study, quantitative data techniques were employed. Descriptive statistics were used to identify trends in perceived attitudes and needs across the different dimensions of STEAM implementation. Attitudes toward STEAM education were measured using four categories of items, and perceived needs/challenges were measured using five categories.

To examine the associations between attitudes and needs, bivariate correlations were performed. For each category, mean scores were computed by averaging the responses to the respective Likert-scale items. Items marked as Not Applicable (N/A) were treated as missing values and excluded from the calculation of the mean scores. Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s α) confirmed acceptable internal consistency for each scale. All attitudinal dimensions demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.73–0.83), while the five needs categories also showed acceptable to excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.72–0.99). Both Pearson’s r and Spearman’s rho were calculated. As the results were highly consistent across methods, Pearson’s coefficients are reported. To address differences in reported needs across educator profiles, comparative analyses were conducted using inferential statistics.

Depending on data characteristics, independent samples t-tests or one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were employed to explore variation by role teaching experience in STEAM, professional development in STEAM education, and subject area (STEM vs. non-STEM). These analyses aimed to identify significant patterns in how needs are experienced across different institutional and professional contexts.

3. Results

3.1. Educators’ Attitudes Toward STEAM Education

Table 3. Correlations between Educators’ Attitudes Toward STEAM Education and Their Reported Needs.

Attitude	Correlated Needs (Exact Items)	r
Desire to Apply	4.1 Understanding the principles of a STEAM curriculum	0.68 **
	4.1 Instructional design strategies	0.63 **
	4.2 Content knowledge of specific STEAM disciplines	0.65 **
	4.1 Educational resources selection	0.56 **
	4.1 Collaboration opportunities with other teachers	0.54 **
Thinking & Problem Solving	4.2 Feedback and assessment	0.67 **
	4.2 Monitoring support on the use of the content	0.62 **
	4.2 Technological/Laboratory support	0.53 **
	4.2 More instructional time	0.51 **
Motivation & Self-Learning	4.1 Educational resources preparation	0.70 **
	4.1 Innovative technology resources	0.69 **
	4.2 Time to collaborate and plan	0.57 **
	4.2 More instructional time	0.55 **
	4.2 More manageable class sizes	0.52 **
Collaboration & Communication	4.1 Collaboration opportunities with other teachers	0.82 **
	4.1 Establishment of a STEAM ethos/culture	0.60 **
	4.1 Organizational changes to school curriculum (e.g., time to collaborate)	0.55 **
	4.1 Financial support	0.50 **

Note. ** p < 0.01 for all correlations reported.

and Figure 1 present the distribution of responses across the four attitude dimensions: Desire to Apply STEAM Education, Thinking and Problem Solving, Motivation and Self-learning, and Collaboration and Communication. Overall, the results indicate that educators hold a strongly positive view of STEAM education, with agreement levels consistently high across dimensions.

The Thinking and Problem Solving dimension received the most support, with over 85% of educators agreeing or strongly agreeing that STEAM fosters creative, critical, computational, and transdisciplinary thinking, as well as autonomy in reasoning. Likewise, the Collaboration and Communication dimension showed similarly high endorsement, with more than 80% agreement that STEAM promotes collaboration among students and teachers, strengthens communication, and can be applied across all subjects and levels. Positive attitudes were also evident in the Desire to Apply STEAM Education dimension: approximately 75% of educators agreed or strongly agreed that STEAM is useful, enhances learner motivation, and is desirable to implement in their teaching. However, a notable proportion of neutral responses suggests that some educators remain uncertain about their capacity or available tools to fully apply it in practice.

The Motivation and Self-learning dimension was more mixed. While around 65–70% agreed that STEAM increases learner interest, confidence, and self-management skills, a higher share of neutral responses (around 20%) compared to other areas highlights some caution about its impact on relieving student anxiety and supporting self-regulated learning.

3.2. Reported Challenges in Implementing STEAM Education

Educators reported consistently high levels of challenges across all categories of needs, with the majority selecting either moderate or great need. On average, more than 80% of respondents indicated that they require additional support in order to effectively implement STEAM education (Figure 2).

In terms of the needs during the preparation phase (Pr), the most pressing issues were sufficient time for preparation (87% moderate or great need), organizational curriculum changes to allow collaboration (85.5%), and financial support (82%). Similarly, challenges during implementation of STEAM education (Im) were pronounced, with more instructional time (87%), technological and laboratory support (85%), and manageable class sizes (84%) emerging as the most significant barriers. Needs regarding coordination-management of resources and people (Cor) were also widely acknowledged: 82–85% of educators reported difficulties in managing groups of learners and teachers and stressed the need for administrative support and improved resource management.

For Collaboration needs, more than 80% of respondents emphasized the importance of teacher collaboration, participation in STEAM communities, and involvement of industry and local communities as critical enablers. Finally, Professional Development (PD) related needs represented one of the strongest cross-cutting areas of need. The highest priorities included training on emerging technologies (88%), inclusive and diversity-oriented practices (87.9%), and access to examples of effective lesson plans (83%). Other areas, such as student-centered methodologies and arts integration, were also reported by over 80% of educators.

To examine the relationships between educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education and their reported needs and challenges, bivariate correlations were calculated. Table 3 summarizes the strongest correlations (r ≥ 0.60, p < 0.01). The four attitude factors were highly interrelated (r = 0.65–0.80, p < 0.01), forming a coherent set of positive dispositions toward STEAM education. Educators who considered STEAM education useful, motivating, and relevant to learners were also those who valued problem-solving competences and highlighted the importance of collaboration and communication.

The first attitude dimension, desire to apply STEAM education, showed significant positive correlations with the need to understand the principles of a STEAM curriculum (r = 0.68, p < 0.01), the development of instructional design strategies (r = 0.63, p < 0.01), and content knowledge in specific STEAM disciplines (r = 0.65, p < 0.01). Moderate correlations were also observed with the need for educational resource selection (r = 0.56, p < 0.01) and collaboration opportunities with other teachers (r = 0.54, p < 0.01). These associations indicate that educators’ enthusiasm to implement STEAM in their classrooms is coupled with a recognition that they require structured curricular guidance, pedagogical frameworks, and subject-specific expertise to do so effectively.

The second dimension, thinking and problem solving was significantly correlated with the need for effective feedback and assessment mechanisms (r = 0.67, p < 0.01) and with support for monitoring the use of content in teaching (r = 0.62, p < 0.01). Additionally, moderate correlations were found with needs related to technological and laboratory support (r = 0.53, p < 0.01) and instructional time (r = 0.51, p < 0.01). These findings suggest that educators who view STEAM as a vehicle for higher-order thinking also acknowledge the necessity of systematic evaluation processes and monitoring tools that allow them to track and support student progress in line with these cognitive aims.

The third dimension, motivation and self-learning was significantly correlated with the need for well-prepared educational resources (r = 0.70, p < 0.01), access to innovative technology-based resources (r = 0.69, p < 0.01), and adequate time to collaborate and plan teaching activities (r = 0.57, p < 0.01). Moderate but consistent associations were also observed with the need for more instructional time (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) and more manageable class sizes (r = 0.52, p < 0.01). These findings emphasize that teachers who value the motivational benefits of STEAM are particularly attuned to the practical constraints of teaching, especially in terms of resources, time, and class structure. Moderate correlations were further observed with the need for organizational changes in the school curriculum to allow collaboration (r = 0.55, p < 0.01) and with financial support (r = 0.50, p < 0.01). This suggests that teachers who most strongly value collaboration and communication do not view these processes as individual choices, but as practices requiring institutional time, resources, and cultural endorsement.

Finally, the fourth dimension, collaboration and communication displayed the strongest correlation of the analysis, with the need for collaboration opportunities with other teachers (r = 0.82, p < 0.01). It was also significantly associated with the need to establish a STEAM ethos or culture at the institutional level (r = 0.60, p < 0.01). These results highlight that teachers who most strongly value the collaborative and communicative potential of STEAM education are also those who most insist on systemic conditions that support teamwork among educators and foster an institutional culture oriented toward interdisciplinary collaboration.

3.3. Exploring Differences Based on Year of Experience, Professional Development, and STEM or No-STEM Teaching Discipline

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine whether educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education differed depending on whether they had participated in professional development (PD) in STEAM education. The results revealed highly significant differences across all four attitudinal dimensions (

Table 4. Independent Samples t-Tests Comparing Educators with and without STEAM Professional Development Experience on Reported Needs and Attitudes.

Variable	t	df	p	Mean Difference (95% CI)	Variable	t	df	p	Mean Difference (95% CI)
Needs					Attitudes
Sufficient time for preparation	−3.84	650	<0.001	−0.25 [−0.38, −0.12]	Desire to Apply	−9.71	659	<0.001	−0.43 [−0.52, −0.35]
Organizational changes to school curriculum	−2.86	653	0.004	−0.19 [−0.32, −0.06]	Thinking & Problem Solving	−6.84	658	<0.001	−0.31 [−0.40, −0.22]
Establishment of a STEAM ethos/culture	−2.18	653	0.029	−0.15 [−0.28, −0.02]	Motivation & Self-Learning	−6.11	660	<0.001	−0.31 [−0.41, −0.21]
Financial support	−3.16	652	0.002	−0.20 [−0.32, −0.08]	Collaboration & Communication	−8.11	660	<0.001	−0.37 [−0.46, −0.28]
Support on how to involve industry	−3.42	651	0.001	−0.27 [−0.42, −0.11]
Best practices for integrating arts and design into STEM	−2.23	653	0.026	−0.16 [−0.30, −0.02]

).

Educators with PD expressed significantly stronger desire to apply STEAM education compared to those without, t(659) = −9.71, p < 0.001, mean difference = −0.43. Similarly, they reported more positive views regarding thinking and problem solving, t(658) = −6.84, p < 0.001, mean difference = −0.31, and motivation and self-learning, t(660) = −6.11, p < 0.001, mean difference = −0.31. The largest difference was observed for collaboration and communication, where educators with PD scored substantially higher than those without, t(660) = −8.11, p < 0.001, mean difference = −0.37. Taken together, these results show that professional development in STEAM has a consistent and positive association with educators’ attitudes, strengthening their willingness to implement STEAM, their recognition of its contribution to higher-order thinking, and their belief in its role in fostering motivation, collaboration, and communication. This pattern suggests that PD not only equips educators with tools but also enhances their confidence and enthusiasm toward STEAM education.

To examine whether professional development (PD) in STEAM education influenced educators’ reported needs, an independent samples t-test was conducted comparing those with prior PD experience to those without (Table 4). Overall, no significant differences emerged across the majority of reported needs, indicating that educators share many similar challenges regardless of professional development experience. However, several areas showed statistically significant differences.

Educators without PD expressed significantly stronger needs for sufficient time for preparation (t(650) = −3.84, p < 0.001, MD = −0.25), organizational changes to the school curriculum, such as time for collaboration (t(653) = −2.86, p = 0.004, MD = −0.19), and the establishment of a STEAM ethos/culture (t(653)= −2.18, p = 0.029, MD = −0.15). Similarly, they reported a greater need for financial support (t(652) = −3.16, p = 0.002, MD = −0.20), for support on how to involve industry in STEAM education (t(651) = −3.42, p = 0.001, MD = −0.27), and for best practices on integrating arts and design into STEM education (t(653) = −2.23, p = 0.026, MD = −0.16).

These findings suggest that professional development may help educators feel more supported in managing systemic and organizational challenges, such as time, resources, and collaboration. Furthermore, professional development appears to reduce educators’ perceived need for external collaboration with industry and for concrete examples of arts integration, possibly because such elements are often addressed during training. At the same time, the absence of significant differences in most items indicates that professional development alone does not eliminate the broader challenges of STEAM implementation, particularly in relation to assessment, instructional tools, and collaboration with colleagues.

To further explore whether attitudes toward STEAM education varied according to disciplinary background, an independent samples t-test was conducted comparing STEM and non-STEM fields-related educators across the four attitudinal dimensions (

Table 5. Independent Samples t-Tests Comparing Educators teaching subjects (STEM or non-STEM) on Attitudes and Reported Challenges.

Variable	t	df	p (2-Tailed)	Mean Difference (95% CI)	Variable	t	df	p (2-Tailed)	Mean Difference (95% CI)
Attitudes					Challenges
Desire to Apply	−5.50	641	<0.001	−0.26 [−0.36, −0.17]	Content knowledge of specific STEAM disciplines (Im)	2.33	638	0.020	0.18 [0.03, 0.33]
Thinking & Problem Solving	−2.19	640	0.029	−0.10 [−0.20, −0.01]	Organizational changes to school curriculum (Pr)	−1.91	636	0.056	−0.13 [−0.27, 0.00]
Motivation & Self-Learning	−1.08	642	0.280	−0.06 [−0.16, 0.05]	Monitoring support on content use (Im)	1.84	635	0.066	0.13 [−0.01, 0.28]
Collaboration & Communication	−2.93	642	0.004	−0.14 [−0.24, −0.05]	More manageable class sizes (Im)	−1.93	639	0.054	−0.13 [−0.27, 0.00]
					Inclusion & diversity in STEAM education (PD)	1.87	636	0.062	0.14 [−0.01, 0.29]

Note. Negative t-values indicate lower mean scores for non-STEM educators compared to STEM educators. The results present challenge variables that reached statistical significance (p < 0.05) and those that demonstrated marginal significance.

).

Significant differences were found in three of the four factors. For the desire to apply STEAM education, educators from STEM fields reported significantly higher levels than their non-STEM field educators, t(641) = −5.50, p < 0.001. Similarly, in thinking and problem solving, STEM field educators rated the contribution of STEAM more highly than no-STEM educators, t(640) = −2.19, p = 0.029. A comparable pattern emerged for collaboration and communication, where STEM-field educators again scored higher, t(642) = −2.93, p = 0.004. In contrast, no significant difference was observed for motivation and self-learning, t(642) = −1.08, p = 0.28, suggesting that both STEM and non-STEM field educators shared similar views about the role of STEAM education in fostering student motivation, confidence, and self-directed learning.

Independent samples t-tests were also performed to examine whether STEM and non-STEM educators differed in their perceptions of challenges related to STEAM education (Table 5). The analysis revealed one statistically significant difference. Non-STEM field educators reported significantly greater needs regarding content knowledge of specific STEAM disciplines compared to STEM field educators, t(638) = 2.33, p = 0.020. This finding suggests that while STEM field educators already possess discipline-specific expertise, non-STEM field educators identify disciplinary knowledge as a critical barrier for their effective participation in STEAM teaching. Additionally, several areas showed bordering differences close to statistical significance. Non-STEM field educators reported somewhat higher needs for organizational changes in school curriculum (e.g., time for collaboration, p = 0.056), monitoring support on the use of content (p = 0.066), more manageable class sizes (p = 0.054), and inclusion and diversity in STEAM education (p = 0.062). While these did not reach the conventional threshold for significance, they point to potential areas where disciplinary background may influence perceptions of systemic and pedagogical challenges. For all other dimensions, including curriculum principles, instructional design, educational resources, teacher collaboration, financial support, and assessment, no significant differences were found between STEM and non-STEM field educators. This indicates broad agreement across disciplines regarding the majority of challenges in implementing STEAM education.

A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons was conducted to examine whether educators’ attitudes toward STEAM differed depending on their years of experience teaching with a STEAM approach. Four categories of experience were considered: no experience, less than one year, 1–3 years, 4–15 years, and more than 15 years. The results showed a consistent pattern: educators with no prior STEAM teaching experience reported significantly lower attitudes across all four dimensions compared to those with any amount of experience.

Specifically, in the dimension Desire to Apply STEAM, educators without experience scored significantly lower than all groups with experience, with the largest differences observed relative to those with 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.68, p < 0.001) and more than 15 years (Mdiff = −0.61, p < 0.001) of STEAM teaching. Educators with less than one year of experience also scored lower than those with 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.40, p < 0.001) and more than 15 years (Mdiff = −0.33, p = 0.016), suggesting that longer engagement with STEAM teaching fosters greater desire and confidence to apply it. A similar pattern was found for Thinking and Problem Solving. Educators without experience scored significantly lower than those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = −0.31, p < 0.001), 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.45, p < 0.001), and more than 15 years (Mdiff = −0.30, p = 0.002). In addition, those with less than a year of experience scored lower than those with 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.31, p = 0.009), indicating that extended exposure strengthens recognition of STEAM’s role in fostering creative and critical thinking.

For Motivation and Self-Learning, educators without STEAM experience again scored significantly lower than those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = −0.38, p < 0.001), 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.50, p < 0.001), and more than 15 years (Mdiff = −0.35, p = 0.001). Educators with less than a year of experience also scored lower than those with 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.31, p = 0.037), suggesting that confidence in STEAM’s potential to motivate learners develops most strongly after sustained practice.

Finally, for Collaboration and Communication, the results again demonstrated clear differences by experience. Educators with no experience scored significantly lower than those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = −0.37, p < 0.001), 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.48, p < 0.001), and more than 15 years (Mdiff = −0.34, p = 0.001). However, differences among the experienced groups themselves were not statistically significant, suggesting that even a few years of practice with STEAM may be sufficient to shape positive attitudes toward its collaborative and communicative benefits. the results highlight a clear trend: educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education improve significantly with teaching experience, particularly between no experience and at least one year of practice. The strongest and most consistent gains appear between educators with no or limited exposure and those with 4–15 years of experience, after which attitudes plateau. This suggests that hands-on engagement with STEAM over time is critical to building both confidence and positive beliefs in its educational value.

Finally, a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc comparisons was conducted to examine whether years of teaching experience with STEAM education influenced participants’ reported needs and challenges. Across most items from the five categories (knowledge foundations, curriculum principles, disciplinary content, instructional design, preparation and use of resources, collaboration opportunities, organizational factors, and teaching practices), no statistically significant differences were observed between groups of educators with different levels of teaching experience. However, the significant differences in perceived needs and challenges emerged in:

• Financial support (Pr): Educators with more than 15 years of STEAM teaching experience reported significantly stronger needs for financial support compared to those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = 0.407, p = 0.006) and those with 4–15 years of experience (Mdiff = 0.356, p = 0.021).
• Tools for coordination (Cor): Participants with more than 15 years of experience expressed greater needs for tools to coordinate STEAM activities compared to those without experience (Mdiff = −0.360, p = 0.044).
• Resource management (Cor): Those with more than 15 years of experience reported higher needs in managing resources compared to educators with 1–3 years of experience (Mdiff = −0.393, p = 0.024).
• School organization/administrative support (Cor): Participants with more than 15 years of STEAM experience reported significantly stronger needs for administrative and organizational support than those without experience (Mean Difference = −0.433, p = 0.008), those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = −0.394, p = 0.035), and those with 4–15 years (Mdiff = −0.398, p = 0.024).
• Collaboration with industry (Col): Educators with 4–15 years of experience highlighted a stronger need for collaboration with industry compared to those without STEAM teaching experience (Mdiff = −0.313, p = 0.018).
• Collaboration with other teachers (Col): Educators with more than 15 years of experience reported significantly greater needs for collaboration with colleagues compared to those without experience (Mdiff = −0.504, p = 0.045).
• Collaboration with other schools/institutions (Col): Those with more than 15 years of experience expressed significantly higher needs compared to those without experience (Mdiff = −0.492, p = 0.050).
• Classroom organization and management (PD): Educators with more than 15 years of experience reported stronger needs in classroom organization and management compared to those without experience (Mdiff = −0.359, p = 0.044) and those with 1–3 years (Mdiff = −0.377, p = 0.044).

The findings indicate that while preparation and implementation needs did not vary significantly by years of experience, notable differences were observed in structural, organizational, and support-related needs. In particular, highly experienced educators (>15 years) consistently expressed greater needs for financial resources, administrative support, resource and classroom management, and collaboration opportunities.

4. Discussion

This study set out to examine educators’ attitudes toward STEAM education (RQ1), the challenges and needs they report in implementing it (RQ2), and how these vary according to professional development, disciplinary background, and teaching experience (RQ3). The findings paint a dual picture: educators are strongly supportive of STEAM’s pedagogical value, yet they also face persistent systemic barriers that prevent them from realizing its full potential.

Across all four attitude dimensions, desire to apply STEAM, thinking and problem solving, motivation and self-learning, and collaboration and communication, educators expressed consistently positive orientations. These results align with previous research showing that teachers perceive STEAM as a powerful vehicle for creativity, higher-order thinking, and transdisciplinary learning (Silva-Hormazábal & Alsina, 2023; Herro & Quigley, 2017). Particularly noteworthy is the strong endorsement of STEAM’s role in fostering collaboration and communication, echoing studies that highlight its capacity to break disciplinary silos and promote teamwork (Kim et al., 2019).

These findings also resonate with broader arguments in the literature about why STEAM is considered a promising approach. As described in the introduction, STEAM provides multiple entry points for learners (Henriksen, 2014) and supports transversal competences such as creativity, design thinking, and communication (Sochacka et al., 2016). Our results reinforce these claims by showing that teachers themselves value STEAM’s role in cultivating both cognitive and social learning outcomes. However, positive attitudes were not accompanied by reduced needs. On the contrary, teachers who valued STEAM most strongly also reported the highest demands for curriculum guidance, instructional design, subject knowledge, assessment tools, and systemic support. This reinforces the idea that enthusiasm is not equivalent to readiness (Boice et al., 2024). Instead, attitudes seem to heighten awareness of the structural, pedagogical, and cultural enablers required to bring STEAM to life. For example, correlations between positive views on problem solving and demands for assessment frameworks suggest that higher-order cognitive goals cannot be realized without strong monitoring and evaluation tools, a well-documented gap in current STEAM practice (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019).

Preparation and planning emerged as one of the most pressing challenges, with educators calling for sufficient time, coherent curriculum frameworks, and opportunities for collaborative planning. These findings are consistent with earlier work emphasizing the need for institutional time allocation and curriculum coherence to support interdisciplinary teaching (Gao et al., 2020). Similarly, barriers during implementation, such as limited technological resources, large class sizes, and difficulties in sustaining student engagement, mirror findings from studies showing that a lack of resources and insufficient digital competence hinder STEAM adoption (Breda et al., 2023). The results also underscore the importance of institutional leadership and systemic coordination. Educators with longer experience in STEAM teaching reported the strongest needs for resource management, administrative support, and cultural change within schools. This suggests that extended engagement exposes the institutional barriers that constrain implementation, reinforcing arguments that STEAM is not an isolated innovation but a whole-school reform. Likewise, the high demand for collaboration with industry and external communities indicates that teachers see STEAM as inherently relational, requiring partnerships that extend beyond the classroom (Wu, 2022).

Professional development (PD) was found to be a decisive factor shaping attitudes. Teachers with PD experience consistently reported stronger enthusiasm across all dimensions. Yet PD did not eliminate systemic challenges, particularly those related to time, financial resources, and organizational structures. This highlights the need for PD that is not only competence-based but also embedded within enabling institutional conditions.

Differences by teaching experience and disciplinary background further shade these findings. Educators without STEAM experience expressed significantly lower attitudes, indicating that hands-on engagement is critical for building confidence and positive beliefs. Meanwhile, non-STEM field educators reported greater needs for content knowledge, consistent with prior work showing that subject expertise is a barrier for non-STEM field teachers’ participation in STEAM initiatives (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). At the same time, convergence between STEM and non-STEM field teachers around motivation and self-learning points to a shared recognition of STEAM’s potential to engage students across disciplines.

Finally, the contrast between this study and much of the prior literature should be emphasized. Previous scholarship has either remained at the level of theoretical frameworks (Chu et al., 2019; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2023; Anisimova et al., 2020) or has focused mainly on general teacher attitudes (Ng et al., 2022). While such work clarified definitions and conceptual models, it rarely captured the lived realities of implementation. By foregrounding educators’ reported needs across preparation, implementation, coordination, and collaboration, our study extends the discussion beyond abstract frameworks to provide empirically grounded evidence of the professional and systemic conditions necessary for effective STEAM integration.

Taken together, the results suggest that positive attitudes toward STEAM are a necessary but insufficient condition for meaningful implementation. Teachers’ enthusiasm must be accompanied by systemic measures that provide time, resources, curricular coherence, assessment frameworks, and leadership support. Without these conditions, the transformative potential of STEAM risks remaining aspirational rather than realized.

5. Implications

The findings have several implications for policy, practice, and future professional development:

• Multi-level support is essential: Efforts to advance STEAM must move beyond isolated training initiatives. Teacher PD should be integrated with curriculum design, assessment models, and institutional strategies to create an enabling ecosystem.
• Curricular and assessment reform is urgent: Teachers identified strong needs for clear curricular principles and validated assessment frameworks. Policymakers should prioritize the development of interdisciplinary curricula and evidence-based tools to measure competencies in creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration.
• Time and resources must be structurally allocated: Teachers consistently highlighted insufficient preparation and collaboration time as key barriers. Systemic scheduling solutions, financial investment, and provision of technological resources are required to support sustained interdisciplinary teaching.
• Leadership and school culture matter: School leaders play a pivotal role in legitimizing STEAM, enabling cross-departmental collaboration, and embedding a culture of interdisciplinarity. Without leadership buy-in, teacher enthusiasm may not translate into long-term reform.
• External partnerships enhance authenticity: Collaboration with industry, cultural institutions, and communities should be systematically embedded in STEAM initiatives to ensure relevance, authenticity, and student engagement.

6. Limitations and Next Steps

While the study offers valuable insights into educators’ attitudes and needs in STEAM education, certain constraints should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. The reliance on self-reported data means that responses may reflect perceptions rather than actual classroom practices, and social desirability bias cannot be ruled out. The cross-sectional design also provides only a snapshot in time, making it difficult to determine how attitudes and challenges develop as teachers gain more experience with STEAM approaches. Furthermore, although the sample was large and diverse, differences across regional and institutional contexts may not be fully captured, limiting the generalizability of the results. Moreover, although a shared definition of STEAM was provided, teachers may still vary in how clearly they envision its classroom application, with some views on costs and efforts remaining hypothetical; nevertheless, their recognition of STEAM’s overall benefits and potential for education was consistent.

Future research should address these limitations through mixed-methods approaches, combining survey data with classroom observations, interviews, and longitudinal designs to capture how attitudes, competences, and challenges evolve over time. Comparative studies between countries or educational systems would also enrich understanding of how policy and institutional contexts shape implementation. Finally, further work is needed to develop and test assessment frameworks, PD models, and institutional strategies that operationalize the competence-based vision of STEAM education in practice.

7. Conclusions

This paper provides examinations of educators’ perspectives on STEAM education to date, combining analysis of attitudes, reported challenges, and the influence of professional development, disciplinary background, and teaching experience. The study not only confirms widespread enthusiasm for STEAM’s potential but also uncovers the systemic, organizational, and pedagogical needs that must be addressed for meaningful implementation. By linking positive attitudes with clearly articulated demands for resources, curriculum guidance, and institutional support, the paper highlights the gap between vision and practice and offers evidence for a multi-level approach that integrates teacher competences, professional development, and systemic reform. In doing so, it contributes both to research on competence-based education and to ongoing policy debates on how to support teachers as agents of change in STEAM education.