Advancing Equity Through Transformative SEL: Insights from Preservice Secondary STEM Teachers

Abstract

Persistent inequities in STEM education underscore the need for teachers who can integrate rigorous content instruction with equity-focused, socially and emotionally supportive practices. This study examined how preservice secondary STEM teachers conceptualize their emerging professional identities, beliefs about social and emotional learning (SEL), and the relationship between SEL and equity in shaping their pedagogy. Using a phenomenological approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with eight student teachers enrolled in an undergraduate credential program in the Western United States. Interviews were analyzed through a combination of deductive coding informed by the transformative SEL (T-SEL) framework and inductive open coding to capture emergent themes. Findings revealed that participants defined their professional identities as facilitators and advocates for equity, while navigating tensions between relational commitments and systemic expectations that privilege content delivery. Teachers consistently articulated SEL as essential to fostering engagement, resilience, and critical thinking in STEM classrooms, yet reported gaps between beliefs and enactment due to time pressures, credentialing requirements, and disciplinary norms. Participants further described SEL and equity as deeply interconnected, framing SEL as a tool for amplifying student voice and affirming cultural identity. These findings highlight the promise of integrating equity-centered SEL within STEM teacher preparation to support early-career development.

1. Introduction

Despite considerable efforts to broaden participation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), persistent inequities remain. Black and Latinx populations continue to be significantly underrepresented, women remain underrepresented in mathematics, physical sciences, computing, and engineering, and only about 10 percent of employed scientists and engineers identify as persons with disabilities (National Science Foundation, 2021; Pew Research Center, 2021). As classrooms diversify, STEM educators play a critical role in shaping students’ engagement and persistence (Neally, 2022). Scholarship highlights the need for sustainable approaches that inspire diverse learners and points to the mediating role of emotional attunement in supporting achievement, prosocial behavior, and engagement across disciplines (Williams & Sheth, 2025). To meet these needs, STEM educators must be prepared not only to deliver rigorous academic content but also to cultivate inclusive, emotionally supportive environments.

Social and emotional learning (SEL) offers a promising framework for advancing equity in STEM education. SEL promotes skills such as emotional regulation, empathy, and responsible decision-making (CASEL, 2020), and aligns closely with the collaborative, inquiry-based nature of STEM instruction (Ozkan & Kettler, 2022). Research demonstrates wide-ranging benefits of SEL for both students and teachers, including improved academic performance, stronger social-emotional skills, healthier peer relationships, reduced distress, lower teacher burnout, greater self-efficacy, and more positive classroom climates (Corcoran et al., 2018; Domitrovich et al., 2016; Durlak et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2017). With regard to secondary students specifically, meta-analytic evidence confirms that school-based SEL programs produce significant positive effects on student outcomes (Cipriano et al., 2023). A systematic review of 40 studies shows that, although programs often targeted self-management and relationship skills, the largest gains emerged in self-awareness and social awareness, along with improvements in psychosocial health (Van de Sande et al., 2019). Similarly, a classroom-based study with middle school students found meaningful growth in social and emotional competencies, underscoring SEL’s role in adolescent identity formation and academic engagement (Green et al., 2021). Transformative SEL (T-SEL) extends this promise by explicitly addressing systemic inequities rooted in racial oppression (Jagers et al., 2019); however, despite this evidence, little is known about how preservice STEM teachers are being prepared to integrate SEL, particularly T-SEL, in ways that blend rigorous content instruction with equity and inclusion.

Implementing SEL meaningfully in STEM settings is not without challenges. Schonert-Reichl (2017) found that most teacher education programs fail to address the five core competencies outlined by CASEL, leaving educators underprepared and often uncomfortable addressing students’ emotional needs. Time constraints, high content demands, and competing instructional priorities can further limit SEL integration (Hamer et al., 2024; Hooper & Johnson, 2025; Schiepe-Tiska et al., 2021). These barriers are particularly pronounced in secondary STEM contexts, where teachers face strong pressure to prioritize academic content and standardized outcomes, often at the expense of social-emotional goals. Research from the RAND Corporation shows that secondary teachers generally report fewer structural supports for SEL than elementary teachers, underscoring the difficulty of finding time and institutional backing for SEL in content-heavy STEM classrooms (Hamilton & Doss, 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified both the challenges and benefits of SEL implementation, as teachers confronted burnout, digital inequities, and heightened emotional demands while adapting to remote instruction (Levine et al., 2023). At the same time, it reinforced the central role of SEL in sustaining connection and supporting student well-being during crisis, likely shaping preservice teachers’ awareness of trauma, inequities, and the necessity of SEL in schools (Hamilton & Doss, 2020). The pandemic also catalyzed a broader recognition that student well-being is integral to academic engagement, elevating SEL as a long-term educational priority (CASEL, 2020; Cipriano et al., 2023). Importantly, the inequities laid bare during this period highlight the need for transformative SEL approaches that explicitly address systemic barriers facing students and educators of color (Jagers et al., 2021). Given the possibilities and challenges of SEL implementation in STEM education, this study examined how preservice STEM teachers conceptualized and applied SEL through an equity lens. Specifically, the study explored the following research questions: (a) how do preservice STEM teachers conceptualize T-SEL as part and parcel to their emerging professional identities and roles? (b) what beliefs do preservice STEM teachers hold about the value of SEL for pedagogy and instruction, and (c) how do preservice STEM teachers associate equity and SEL?

1.1. Teacher Identity, Beliefs, and Practices in SEL/STEM Instruction

Teachers’ social-emotional competence, shaped by their beliefs, plays a critical role in the effective implementation of SEL and in supporting student development (Brackett et al., 2012; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Recent scholarship emphasizes that adult SEL must move beyond skills training to address equity and justice, embedding commitments to anti-bias, critical consciousness, and systemic change at both individual and institutional levels (Huizar et al., 2025; Nash et al., 2024). Strengthening educators’ SEL competencies through such equity-embedded approaches is foundational for sustaining high-quality implementation and positive student outcomes (Cipriano et al., 2022).

Teachers’ beliefs significantly shape whether and how SEL is enacted in classrooms. Research on secondary teachers highlights both the promise and the barriers to implementation. Many teachers express support for SEL but report uncertainty, limited training, and difficulty defining SEL’s dimensions, which constrains authentic integration (Schiepe-Tiska et al., 2021). Others emphasize that authenticity, trust, and genuine commitment are essential for students to view SEL as meaningful rather than perfunctory (Tygret et al., 2024). Relatedly, studies of high school teachers show that personal beliefs and values about SEL, whether it is seen as integral to learning or as a competing demand, directly influence the extent to which SEL is embedded in instruction (Beissel, 2021). More broadly, comfort with SEL practices, perceptions of their value, and institutional support all influence implementation (Brackett et al., 2012; Huck et al., 2023). Within transformative SEL (T-SEL), teachers who view student diversity as an asset are more likely to adopt practices that affirm cultural and community knowledge, aligning with culturally relevant pedagogy’s goals of academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness (Jagers et al., 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Teacher identity provides a broader lens for understanding these dynamics. Identity is not separate from beliefs but is constituted through them, as teachers’ professional self-understandings are shaped by their values, emotions, and dispositions alongside institutional and relational contexts (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Beijaard et al., 2004). In STEM settings, where disciplinary demands often emphasize technical mastery and content coverage (Moore et al., 2020), teachers’ identities mediate whether they interpret SEL as a competing demand or as integral to rigorous, equitable practice. Teachers who integrate SEL into their professional identity are more likely to embed equity-oriented practices in STEM instruction, such as promoting collaborative inquiry, normalizing struggle as part of resilience, and affirming students’ identities as capable STEM learners (Boaler, 2016; Carlone & Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Yet little is known about how preservice STEM teachers’ developing identities shape their beliefs about SEL and T-SEL, and how these are enacted in practice. Examining this intersection offers critical insight into how future educators might integrate disciplinary rigor with socially just, equity-focused approaches to STEM teaching.

1.2. Conceptual Framework: Transformative SEL

Transformative social and emotional learning (T-SEL) guided this study as an equity-focused expansion of traditional SEL. T-SEL emphasizes culture, identity, agency, belonging, and engagement, while also recognizing the importance of adult SEL. It was developed in response to the reality that many youth, particularly youth of color, immigrant youth, and those from low-income backgrounds, experience stressors such as stereotype threat, alienation, and institutional mistrust that undermine success. T-SEL seeks to transform individuals, interactions, and institutions so that schools support the optimal development and well-being of both young people and adults.

Although the CASEL framework identifies five core competencies—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making—T-SEL reframes and deepens these competencies by situating them in cultural, relational, and systemic contexts. For example, self-awareness includes recognizing bias and linking personal identity to collective histories; self-management encompasses agency, resilience, and resistance to oppressive stereotypes; social awareness and relationship skills extend to cross-cultural empathy, collaborative leadership, and navigating diverse norms; and responsible decision-making emphasizes ethical reflection and collective well-being. These interconnected competencies prepare learners and educators to become justice-oriented and equity-focused contributors in their communities.

Two dimensions are particularly relevant to STEM teacher preparation: belonging and engagement. Belonging extends beyond inclusion to authentic participation, shared ownership, and co-construction of knowledge, while engagement underscores the importance of student and teacher agency in shaping classrooms as democratic spaces. For preservice STEM teachers, T-SEL highlights how cultural identity, resilience, and collaboration can be integrated with rigorous content instruction. It also emphasizes that teachers’ own social-emotional growth is essential for modeling equity-focused practices. In this way, T-SEL positions SEL not as an add-on, but as a transformative approach that links social-emotional development, cultural responsiveness, and academic excellence at the heart of STEM education.

2. Methods

To investigate preservice STEM teachers’ beliefs about SEL, their professional identities, and connections between SEL and equity, we designed the study using a phenomenological approach. The phenomenological approach was designed to interpret the lived experiences of individuals and identify both shared and divergent meanings (Creswell & Poth, 2018) which was well suited to the study’s objectives, as it allowed us to examine participants’ beliefs and highlight common patterns across participants. It should be noted that all participants had received the same exposure to SEL through their program’s culminating seminar and supervision, providing a shared foundation for reflecting on SEL in interviews.

2.1. Participants and Data Sources

Participants were recruited from an undergraduate teacher credential program for STEM majors at a large public university in the Western United States. This program prepares candidates for secondary STEM teaching and integrates coursework on equity in STEM education alongside supervised field experiences where social-emotional learning (SEL) was discussed. All participants were in their final semester, completing credentialing requirements and engaged in student teaching placements.

Of the 15 student teachers completing program requirements across Spring 2021 (n = 7) and Fall 2021 (n = 8) cohorts, all were invited to participate after their coursework and student teaching were completed. Eight volunteered to participate: five science and three mathematics teachers (

Table 1. Summary of participants’ background information.

Name	Race	Gender	Teaching Experience (Subject/Level)	Semester in Course
HQ	Asian	Female	Middle school science	Spring 2021
LR	Asian	Female	Middle school science	Spring 2021
NG	White	Female	Middle school science	Spring 2021
JJ	Latinx	Male	High school math	Spring 2021
BL	Asian	Male	High school math	Fall 2021
SM	White	Female	High school science	Fall 2021
CS	Asian	Female	High school math	Fall 2021
AA	Asian	Female	Middle school science	Fall 2021

). To minimize potential bias, interviews were conducted via Zoom by one of the authors not directly affiliated with the program. Four participants from the Spring 2021 cohort were interviewed in July and August 2021, following the conclusion of their semester. Four from the Fall 2021 cohort were interviewed in December 2021, after their program requirements had ended.

Each semi-structured interview lasted 45–60 min and addressed participants’ pathways into teaching, their beliefs about SEL, and connections between SEL and equity in their role. Interviews were video-recorded and transcribed. The protocol, developed in advance, drew on strategies identified by Spradley (1979) and included descriptive questions to build rapport (e.g., “Why and how did you decide to become a teacher?”) and structural questions to elicit deeper reflection (e.g., “To what degree do you believe SEL and equity are connected?”). See Appendix A for the full protocol.

2.2. Data Analysis

All transcripts were analyzed by the research team using the macroscopic–microscopic model (Horvat & Antonio, 1999). We began with deductive codes derived from the transformative SEL framework (macroscopic analysis) and then applied open coding to inductively identify concepts emerging from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Axial coding was used to connect and refine codes, resulting in 138 subcodes that were grouped under 12 codes and three themes: (1) emerging teacher identities as supporters, facilitators, and equity advocates, (2) beliefs about SEL in fostering engagement, well-being, and critical thinking in STEM, and (3) associations between SEL and equity.

3. Results

The following sections present findings organized around the study’s three research questions, drawing on preservice STEM teachers’ narratives to illuminate how they defined their professional identities, understood the role of social and emotional learning (SEL) in STEM education, and conceptualized the relationship between SEL and equity in their pedagogical practice. Participants’ accounts reveal both a strong theoretical alignment with the principles of transformative SEL (T-SEL) and the complexity of enacting these commitments within the structural, cultural, and practical realities of early career teaching. Across interviews, teachers articulated a vision of STEM instruction that integrates academic rigor with relational and emotional care, yet described tensions between this vision and the systemic pressures that often prioritize content coverage over holistic student development. These findings highlight how identity formation, beliefs about SEL, and equity-oriented practice are interwoven in ways that both reflect and challenge the broader norms of STEM education.

3.1. Emerging Teacher Identities as Facilitators and Equity Advocates

Preservice STEM teachers in this study described their emerging identities as an ongoing balancing act between subject matter expertise and relational and emotional care. Many articulated commitments to active learning, inquiry-based approaches, and instructional flexibility, while emphasizing the creation of supportive, responsive classroom environments. They frequently framed their roles as supporters and facilitators—educators who aimed to foster not only students’ academic achievement but also their confidence, resilience, and overall well-being.

A recurring theme was the tension between professional expectations and holistic teaching commitments. Participants described entering the profession with a clear sense that SEL and whole-child approaches are central to learning, yet they perceived that STEM teaching is often framed by colleagues, mentors, or systems as primarily about content delivery. This tension was heightened by the “nice teacher” vs. “strict teacher” dichotomy many encountered early in their careers. Several described being labeled “too soft” for prioritizing relationships, care, and responsiveness, even though they viewed these as essential to fostering trust and engagement. CS reflected on this perception, sharing

I feel like I’m fighting for my life as a new teacher. Because I get kind of a lot of crap for that from other teachers… I’ve been warned not to get too emotionally invested in my students because I’m not their therapist… but I’m also trying to advocate for my students as well because, like, if I wasn’t there, then that student would have gotten detention when he shouldn’t have.

In addition to the stressors associated with being new in the profession, some teachers described age and maturity level as an initial barrier to feeling confident to promote SEL. LR described her evolution as a teacher being connected to her personal development and increase in confidence with age and more practice that allowed her to take on a wider range of roles to support student SEL:

I think that just in becoming a lot like older and more confident, I feel more prepared to you know, take on some of the less academic stuff. Right like I’ve got a kid reached out to me about the fact that she’s like, very sad. She has no friends like we do lunch together. Now. I got a whole bunch of kids to do lunch together now. So I think that there are a lot more things that I feel like I can do because I feel more of like, I’m an adult. I can take care of this. I can help out with this stuff. Like people can come talk to me about their problems, and I can figure out a solution.

For these early-career teachers, establishing credibility while resisting purely punitive approaches required constant negotiation to strike a balance between asserting authority and high expectations with a deep commitment to care and equity.

Participants identified specific sources of inspiration that had a strong influence on their emerging professional identities. Mentor teacher modeling emerged as a pivotal influence on identity formation. Observing mentor teachers provided concrete examples—both positive and negative—of how to integrate (or separate) content expertise and relational practice. LR, AA, and NG credited their mentor teachers with shaping their project-based, student-centered approach, while others described moments where mentor practices conflicted with their values, prompting reflection on the kind of teacher they aspired to be. Personal and cultural identities also deeply shaped participants’ commitments to equity and culturally relevant pedagogy. SM’s stance as a “social justice fighter” reflected her drive to amplify marginalized voices and integrate indigenous knowledge into science instruction. JJ’s purpose in teaching was tied to supporting Latinx first-generation youth, grounding their pedagogy in culturally responsive, individualized instruction.

Collectively, these perspectives align with transformative SEL’s focus on identity development. Participants saw themselves not simply as content experts but as relational practitioners responsible for nurturing students holistically and affirming cultural identities. This identity work emerged from the interplay of personal values, cultural experiences, mentor teacher influence, perceived professional norms, and the daily realities of supporting diverse learners in STEM classrooms while negotiating the balance between care, authority, and perceived credibility.

3.2. Beliefs About SEL in Fostering Engagement, Well-Being, and Critical Thinking in STEM

Participants expressed strong, consistent beliefs that SEL is essential to effective STEM instruction, framing it as the foundation for creating the emotional and relational conditions necessary for meaningful engagement with challenging content. They described SEL as cultivating the trust, safety, and collaborative spirit that enable students to participate actively, take intellectual risks, and persist through difficulty in STEM learning. Teachers highlighted skills such as emotional regulation, empathy, self-awareness, and relationship-building as crucial not only for students but also for themselves as educators. Several viewed SEL as a tool for helping students manage stress, normalize struggle, and sustain curiosity in the face of setbacks. LR, reflecting on her middle school STEM students, emphasized that

School is a big place where [learning how to process emotions and interact with others] happens… home might not be the best place to learn how to interact with others or to learn how to process your emotions… school is a big place where that happens.

Some spoke of a perceived hierarchy in which SEL was considered by colleagues or systems as an optional supplement—a “nice to have”—rather than an essential component of effective STEM teaching. Yet participants themselves articulated clarity about the integral role of SEL in creating environments where academic learning can flourish. CS captured this perspective in noting

Learning is like [an] inherently social emotional process… if students feel seen, heard, valued and included they’re going to be more engaged with the content. And if we don’t address those emotions in the first place, then… that provides a barrier to students in their learning.

These views resonate with transformative SEL’s emphasis on agency, as participants frequently connected SEL to the development of self-efficacy, resilience, and critical reflection. For many, SEL was also about building students’ courage to tackle complex problems and persist in the face of challenges, particularly in STEM fields where they may not see themselves well-represented. In this way, SEL was seen as a means of countering stereotype threat—helping students develop the confidence to participate fully, share their ideas, and envision themselves as capable contributors in disciplines where systemic inequities have historically limited access and belonging.

Importantly, several participants also described how engaging with SEL principles enhanced their own growth and well-being as educators, aligning with T-SEL’s emphasis on adult SEL as parallel to student development. SM highlighted that students need to see SEL modeled in order to participate fully in the process, noting that it “takes time and trust—students need to see SEL modeled, and teachers need to know how to engage in SEL as well.” For SM, modeling also required intentional self-care routines and boundaries to “best show up” for students. AA described problem-solving and dialogue with colleagues as essential to maintaining her own well-being. For many, SEL offered a reflective framework that encouraged ongoing pedagogical refinement, helped manage the stresses of teaching, and supported their resilience in navigating early-career challenges.

Many also reflected that they had already been practicing components of SEL—such as promoting students’ self-awareness during cooperative learning, valuing students’ cultural identities, and cultivating positive individual relationships—before learning about the formal framework. For these teachers, exposure to the T-SEL model offered a more coherent and intentional structure for concepts and practices they had previously valued in a more fragmented form. The framework helped them see how these efforts could be made more explicit, consistent, and purposefully integrated into STEM pedagogy.

Although participants articulated SEL as core to engagement, motivation, and deeper thinking, their classroom enactments revealed a notable belief–practice gap. In theory, they could see SEL as inherently embedded in STEM pedagogy through group work, participation structures, teacher–student relationships, and the overall classroom environment. In practice, however, SEL was often segmented into discrete activities—warm-ups, check-ins, mindfulness moments, or separate restorative conversations—rather than fully integrated into the design of STEM content and inquiry. For example, BL emphasized making students feel heard but largely implemented this through opening activities rather than within problem-solving or collaborative math work. AA connected SEL to representation and reflection prompts but acknowledged it was “not as easy or as clear” to embed in science content as in other subjects. These patterns suggest that while preservice STEM teachers hold T-SEL–aligned beliefs about the role of SEL in fostering both student and teacher growth, their implementation remains shaped by structural constraints, disciplinary traditions, and the limited modeling of integrated SEL in STEM contexts.

3.3. Connecting SEL and Equity

For many participants, beliefs about SEL were inseparable from their commitments to equity and justice-oriented teaching, a connection that reflected and reinforced the equity-oriented teacher identities described in RQ1. These preservice teachers viewed SEL not simply as a tool for individual skill-building but as a vehicle for amplifying marginalized voices, creating inclusive spaces, and affirming students’ cultural identities—core tenets of transformative SEL’s distributive justice dimension.

Equity was most often defined in terms of student voice and representation. AA explained equity as ensuring that “your voice is heard, and you are represented” and sought to make science content more inclusive by highlighting scientists from diverse backgrounds. HQ described intentionally scaffolding participation for quieter students, noting

Let’s say they’re feeling a little shy in class, but I’d like them to share, so maybe coming up to them a few minutes before, like, ‘Hey, your response to this was really good when you told it to me one-on-one. Can I have you share with the class later?’ And if no, it’s okay—maybe next time.

Several participants framed their equity work as resisting inequitable or exclusionary school practices. CS described the tension she felt when school culture discouraged emotional investment in students, saying

I’ve been warned not to get too emotionally invested in my students because I’m not their therapist… but I’m also trying to advocate for my students as well because, like, if I wasn’t there, then that student would have gotten detention when he shouldn’t have.

Some participants described practicing SEL explicitly to advance equity goals by engaging in self-awareness and critical reflection on their own positionality. SM provided a clear example from her environmental science course during a lesson on racial injustices. As a White woman, she sought to model vulnerability and openness by acknowledging her privileges and limitations in fully understanding her students’ lived experiences. She reflected on concepts of White fragility and intentionally made space for students to process and respond, framing the discussion as a shared learning process in which her role was to listen, validate, and elevate student voices.

Although participants could articulate the conceptual relevance of embedding SEL in STEM pedagogy as a driver of equity—through collaboration, inclusion, and critical dialogue—many struggled to identify strategies for doing so beyond discrete activities like check-ins, warm-ups, or restorative circles. Without consistent exposure to integrated, equity-driven SEL in STEM contexts, these approaches often remained parallel rather than fully merged with content instruction.

The belief–practice gap was shaped by multiple barriers: time constraints, content coverage pressures, and disciplinary traditions that frame SEL as supplemental. Importantly, several participants also pointed to credentialing program requirements as a limiting factor. The focus on meeting formal observation rubrics, passing assessments, and demonstrating specific content delivery competencies left little space for experimenting with deeper SEL integration, especially when those practices were not explicitly recognized or valued in evaluation criteria. Participants were thus holding two truths—clear personal convictions that equity and SEL are central to effective teaching, and an awareness that institutional norms, credentialing pressures, and role expectations may not fully value these commitments. As SM described, the aspiration is to make SEL and equity “part of how you teach every lesson,” but achieving that requires intentional, reflective practice and courage to address inequities directly within the content itself.

In sum, participants’ approaches to SEL and equity were deeply shaped by their identity orientations and commitments to justice. When implemented with intentionality—such as through SM’s integration of racial justice dialogue into science content—SEL served as a transformative mechanism for building belonging, agency, and critical consciousness alongside academic learning.

4. Discussion

4.1. Limitations

Our semi-structured, in-depth interviews and subsequent analysis of data yielded insightful results about how our participants make sense of, utilize, and weave transformative SEL (Jagers et al., 2019) with integrity towards their role as STEM teachers who seek to open doors for all students. Compelling results and findings abound, we recognize that our study faced barriers to providing lasting insights into our initial inquiries. Our small sample size warrants consideration as the field endeavors to consider how these results might offer more visions forward for all preservice teachers. Additionally, the sample size limits the total diversity of perspectives rendered, which constrains our ability to speak cogently about variations (an impact of) culture, genders, context, and other forms of identity and social locations that research has noted as mediating effects.

Of note is also the potential mediating effects of our study context. For example, our participants were all a part of a singular undergraduate teacher credential program. This limits exposure to a variety of pedagogical perspectives, curricula diversity, and programmatic designs. The aforementioned components might limit the perspectives and sensemaking of our participants. Furthermore, the program design is one that did not have an SEL and STEM teaching course specifically. Thus, without a formal course regarding SEL, our participants had limited exposure to SEL. Instead, our participants were exposed to SEL through the integration of Transformative SEL concepts and practices into their credential program’s culminating seminar and associated supervision course.

Lastly, our results come from a limited data set, and said data relied on one source of interviews which seek to understand the sensemaking of our participants. As such, the capacity to extrapolate to preservice teachers as a whole group is challenging. Our study of 8 participants, while small, yields compelling insights that warrant more inquiry and consideration as the field endeavors to forge new paths for equity and excellence in STEM education. Specifically, our study gives clarity into how preservice teachers may navigate and negotiate often seemingly disparate endeavors such as STEM education and educational equity.

4.2. Implications for Future Research and Practice

The field of education continues to point to the utility and capacity building qualities of attending to SEL and equity in STEM (Garner et al., 2018; Garner & Legette, 2023). Although advancements have been made in equity driven SEL (Gregory et al., 2021; Jagers et al., 2019), as well as SEL in STEM learning (Williams & Sheth, 2025), the field of STEM education has largely treated these two constructs as separate, but necessary. Our study demonstrates a new pathway already underway by the next generation of STEM teachers: weaving SEL and equity towards leveraging the best that science teaching can offer. Closing the opportunity gap (Corcoran et al., 2018) will continue to be the field’s most pressing challenge. Our participants teach us that in order to truly meet this challenge, the field must find ways to see SEL as supportive of STEM learning, and integral to optimizing engagement for our most historically marginalized learners. Our participants offer mindsets and dispositions that have proven to bolster integrating SEL and STEM pedagogies and practices in service of ardent equity-driven classrooms and learning environments.

Achieving widespread uptake of SEL and STEM is no easy feat. Our participants indicated that however convicted in the endeavor they may be, challenges of field perception of the role of the teacher as well as models for seamless weaving of constructs remains tedious and difficult. However, findings suggest several directions for preservice education and professional development. Building on the research that demonstrates the importance of educator competence in SEL (Gimbert et al., 2021) ways participants linked SEL to their identities as relational and equity-minded educators, teacher preparation programs can benefit from integrating SEL more intentionally into opportunities for identity development and reflection, helping preservice teachers consider how personal and professional identities inform equity-oriented practice. Given teachers’ beliefs that SEL supports engagement, motivation, and critical thinking in STEM, future research could examine embedding equity-centered SEL strategies within STEM methods courses and fieldwork. Prior work shows even short-term SEL interventions can strengthen teacher efficacy and empathy (Cochran & Peters, 2023), suggesting the promise of scalable models that prepare educators to apply SEL in content-specific settings. Furthermore, professional development can embed the connections between SEL and equity participants identified, such as culturally responsive practices and affirming diverse identities, through structured opportunities for practice, reflective dialogue, and peer collaboration (Schiepe-Tiska et al., 2021).

Finally, transformative SEL frameworks emphasizing justice, adult SEL, and collective well-being may provide a useful lens for rethinking how success is defined in STEM education. Exploring the impact of such frameworks may reveal ways to support preservice and in-service teachers in fostering classrooms that advance academic learning while also affirming students’ cultural identities and sense of belonging (Hamer et al., 2024). As educators ourselves we recognize the long-standing tension in the profession of teaching: teachers being asked to be more than their role description entails (Goldstein, 2014). While we do not suggest an expansion of the role of teachers, we know the power of collaborating with school psychologists, therapists, community organizers, social workers, and policy makers to promote holistic student development (Lewallen et al., 2015; Noddings, 2005). Accordingly, our participants described their persistence in fashioning mindsets and dispositions that result in their ability to navigate the challenges while advancing their own SEL and deepening their own conceptualization and practice of equity and excellence. Deep collaborations between mental health personnel and teachers can advance curriculum interventions where school psychologists support teachers in refining their essential questions, activities, and assessments to integrate SEL such as including student-led empathy interviews for projects; student reflection journal responses as formative assessments, teacher coaching sessions that start with joint SEL check-ins and reflections; and whole-school practice commitments to implement brief T-SEL micro practices such as those found in the growing number of open access SEL-based activities.

Although our participants did not name directly policies that mediate their ability to further their practices as powerful, equity-driven STEM teachers, their reflections offer insights into the broader systemic barriers. In order to ameliorate the challenge of weaving SEL and equity together, LEAs, districts, and educational policy makers can seek to safeguard professional development competencies that undergird teacher evaluations and review. In this way, teachers are reworded for their work to bring SEL and equity together in service of effective teaching and learning. Additionally, state boards of education can continue to refine the growing trends of ‘profile of a graduate’ (Drake, 2022) in ways that reflect the research that shows the effects SEL and cultural competencies (together) have on academic and pro-social outcomes (Garner & Legette, 2023).

5. Conclusions

Across interviews, participants emphasized that SEL creates the emotional and relational foundation necessary for meaningful engagement with rigorous STEM content. They described SEL as a process which fosters skills such as self-awareness, empathy, and collaboration, which support both student and teacher growth. Many had already been practicing components of SEL, valuing student identities, cultivating positive relationships, and promoting collaborative learning, without having learned the formal framework. Exposure to the T-SEL framework offered a more coherent model for these values-driven practices, yet systemic constraints, including time pressures, credentialing requirements, and expectations for content coverage, often confined SEL to discrete activities like warm-ups and check-ins. Participants also linked SEL to promoting student agency, enabling learners to take intellectual risks, build confidence, and counter stereotype risks in underrepresented STEM fields.

Participants further described SEL and equity as deeply interconnected, using SEL to amplify student voices, affirm cultural identities, and foster inclusive participation. In line with transformative SEL, they saw equity work as requiring critical self-reflection and intentional modeling of vulnerability, as in one participant’s example of acknowledging her positionality as a White woman when leading lessons on racial injustice in environmental science. Others framed SEL integration as a matter of educational justice, particularly for students with limited access to emotional and social supports outside school. However, many noted a gap between recognizing SEL’s conceptual relevance for equity and identifying practical ways to embed it consistently in STEM pedagogy. Addressing this gap will require concrete modeling, observation opportunities, and examples in teacher preparation (Gregory et al., 2021) that demonstrate how SEL can be integrated with STEM content in equity-focused, sustainable ways.

Preservice secondary STEM teachers in this study also described professional identities grounded in both subject-matter expertise and relational-emotional care. They positioned themselves as facilitators and supporters, aiming to foster students’ confidence, resilience, and well-being alongside academic achievement. Personal and cultural backgrounds informed their commitments to culturally relevant pedagogy and equity advocacy, yet participants also navigated tensions between these commitments and perceptions of professional norms that prioritize content coverage (Williams & Sheth, 2025). The “nice” versus “strict” teacher dichotomy emerged as a recurring challenge, with some feeling perceived as “too soft” for investing deeply in students’ holistic growth. These tensions highlight the importance of teacher preparation programs explicitly framing SEL and equity as integral to effective STEM instruction (Garner & Legette, 2023), consistent with Transformative SEL’s emphasis on relational and culturally responsive teaching (Jagers et al., 2019).

In sum, this study contributes to the literature by extending research on teacher beliefs (Beissel, 2021; Schiepe-Tiska et al., 2021; Tygret et al., 2024) and teacher identity (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Beijaard et al., 2004) into the underexplored domain of preservice secondary STEM education. Secondary STEM teachers are an especially understudied group in SEL and equity scholarship, despite the field-specific pressures they face around content coverage and assessment (Moore et al., 2020). By focusing on preservice teachers at an early stage in their career trajectory, this study highlights a critical window for professional identity formation, when beliefs about SEL, equity, and pedagogy are still being shaped and can be supported through preparation programs and professional development. Findings show that preservice secondary STEM teachers are already negotiating how to weave SEL and equity into their professional self-understandings, offering insight into how the next generation of STEM educators may reimagine teaching as both rigorous and relational. This study therefore fills an important gap in the literature and advances scholarship by documenting how preservice secondary STEM teachers conceptualize T-SEL as integral to their professional identities while also pointing to the systemic supports needed to sustain this integration over time.