Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey
Abstract
1. Introduction
- RQ1: What is the readiness to apply STEM educational methods in Bulgarian schools regarding conditions, including institutional support, technological infrastructure, availability of resources, and teachers’ competencies?
- RQ2: What modern teaching methods and approaches are currently being applied in STEM education in Bulgarian schools?
- RQ3: What is the perceived effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of STEM teaching methods and approaches according to teachers?
2. Related Works
2.1. STEM Education Practices
2.2. Teaching Methods Applied in STEM
2.3. Challenges in STEM Education
- Access, equity, and inclusion—AI and VR require modern and compatible technical infrastructure and institutional licensing, which can widen the gap between well-resourced and underfunded schools, especially in small towns and villages, and re-expose the need for national or regional funding models.
- Pedagogical redesign and teacher roles—effective AI/VR integration demands new pedagogical approaches such as active learning and inquiry-based tasks. Therefore, STEM teachers will need more time to integrate AI-driven or VR-based activities into their curriculum.
- Curriculum alignment—AI/VR activities must be aligned to existing STEM learning objectives for achieving clear instructional added value.
- Data privacy, security, and ethics—as far as AI systems and VR tools collect various student data (performance, behavior, biometric data from sensors, etc.), the protection of privacy and ensuring compliance with GDPR and national education data policies are crucial.
3. Methodology
3.1. Interview Design
3.2. Data Collection
- Physical connection/communication—individual physical meetings with the interview participants at an agreed location (hall), where a member of the team conducts the scientific research by interviewing the STEM teacher specialist;
- Online connection/communication—conducting an online meeting in a specific virtual environment (after an agreed meeting by email with the participant), in which the interview is conducted live with a camera and microphone included in a virtual environment, or;
- Telephone connection/communication—conducting the semi-structured interview with the interviewer and the participant connected only by a live telephone connection.
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Participant Profiles
4.2. State-of-the-Art of STEM Education in Bulgarian Schools
4.3. Use of Teaching Methods and Techniques for STEM Education
4.4. Qualitative Assessment of STEM Teaching
- Effectiveness (rated positively by 64.58% of teachers)—includes achievement in STEM subjects, development of STEM competencies, and students’ interest in STEM;
- Engagement (rated positively by 70.83%)—hands-on activities, interaction, and use of technology;
- Applicability (rated positively only by 45.83%)—curriculum relevance, time and resources, and teacher support.
4.5. Key Themes and Insights That Emerged from the Interviews
- Need for the creation of STEM centers and classrooms at each school—found in answers such as
- S1: “In a few years, every school will have a STEM center. Let it not turn into a modern classroom. It depends on the direction that the management decides to follow”.
- S2: “I think that there should be STEM centers in every school because the children feel freer to learn and create”.
- S3: “Every school should have STEM classrooms and, above all, well-prepared teachers in a methodological aspect, and with more ideas”.
- Implementation of new electronic platforms and innovations, together with the inclusion of AI in STEAM education:
- S4: “Use of Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, robotics. These technologies will enable students to design, create, be creative, and acquire practical skills”.
- S5: “Including the development of technology will contribute significantly to the development of innovative and diverse methods that will keep pace with students’ needs for modern learning”.
- Need for more time and effort:
- S6: “… preparing for such lessons requires a lot of time and resources. This is an obstacle for teachers and is one of the reasons why they do not apply these useful methods”.
- S7: “Over the next 5 years, STEM education is likely to undergo significant transformations, including the integration of artificial intelligence and automation, which will personalize education and provide opportunities for learning new technologies. The emphasis will be on creativity, real-world problem solving, and interdisciplinary approaches, with a focus on diversity”.
- Development of 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking and collaboration:
- S8: “…it will be a major focus, using new pedagogical methods, including virtual realities, to prepare students for future industry demands”.
- S9: “STEM education will help students develop important skills such as critical thinking, innovation, and teamwork, which are essential for the professions of the future”.
- Positive trends for steady improvement:
- S10: “We are trying to improve the application of STEM without going too far”.
- S11: “It is desirable that STEM lessons be held more often in all schools. In the next 5 years, I assume that STEM education will be even more intensive”.
- S12: “I hope that work in STEM will be implemented at all stages of education, creating an optimal material base for the development of STEM in school”.
- S13: “STEM education will become the main type of education—integrated subjects, education in smaller groups, more differentiation according to the interests of students so that they can progress in education at their own pace”.
- S14: “This education has a great future in Bulgarian schools”.
- S15: “Every beginning is difficult. I hope that the results in the long term will be good”.
5. Discussion
- According to the interviewed teachers, some of the available STEM classrooms are not used entirely. Teachers who do not apply STEM educational methods tend to prefer using specialized classrooms as more equipped spaces for teaching students through traditional approaches.
- Most teachers still need additional qualifications to apply STEM methods effectively. In this way, they would be more confident and would use the available resources and STEM classrooms more often, applying modern technology-enhanced teaching approaches.
- The quantity and variety of integrated learning resources are lacking. The creation of such resources would motivate teachers to implement different STEM educational methods in their practices and would encourage students to acquire significant 21st-century skills.
- There is no separate time in the curriculum dedicated to STEM lessons. Educational stakeholders must provide additional time dedicated to STEM education and encourage teachers to develop STEM lessons for their students.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AI | Artificial Intelligence |
AR/VR | Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality |
RQ | Research Question |
SHAPES | reSearcH on formal models for the optimizAtion and Personalization of modErn technology method of STEM education |
STEAME | Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics, and Entrepreneurship |
STEM | Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics |
UNESCO | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization |
Appendix A. Translation of Interview Questions
- 1.
- What is your teaching experience in years?
- Up to 5 years
- Up to 10 years
- Up to 20 years
- More than 20 years
- 2.
- What position do you currently hold at the school? (for instance, teacher, senior teacher, deputy director, head of the department, etc.)
- 3.
- What is your gender?
- Female
- Male
- I don’t want to specify.
- 4.
- Which school subjects do you teach?
- Mathematics
- Informatics
- Physics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- IT
- Engineering subjects
- Arts
- Other
- 5.
- What educational levels do you teach?
- Primary school (1st—4th grade)
- Secondary school (5th—7th grade)
- High school (8th—12th grade)
- Other
- 6.
- What is the average number of students in the class?
- Up to 10 students
- Up to 20 students
- More than 20 students
- 7.
- What type of school do you teach at?
- General education
- Profiled school:
- –.
- Mathematical school
- –.
- Language school
- –.
- Vocational school
- –.
- School for learners with SEN
- –.
- Other
- 8.
- Is there a STEM center (classroom) in your school?
- No
- There is a STEM center (more than one classroom) built at the school
- The STEM center is under construction
- There is a STEM classroom built at the school
- The STEM classroom is under construction
- 9.
- How often do you use the STEM center (classroom) in the school?
- Every day
- Several times a week
- Several times a month
- Never/Almost never
- 10.
- How often is the STEM center (classroom) used by other teachers?
- Every day
- Several times a week
- Several times a month
- Never/Almost never
- 11.
- Do you or your colleagues use a STEM center (classroom) at another school?
- Yes
- No
- I would use it if I had access to it
- 12.
- How many teachers use the STEM center (classroom) at your school?
- I don’t know
- Up to 5
- Up to 10
- More than 10
- 13.
- What is the profile of the teachers who use the STEM center (classroom) at your school? (in terms of subjects taught, years of experience, students’ age, etc.)
- 14.
- Are the following conditions for teaching through STEM methods available at your school?—three-point Likert scale (Yes, No, Partially)
- Modern computer equipment
- Integrative learning resources
- Other specialized learning resources
- Internet connection in classrooms
- Time allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods
- Teachers with STEM qualifications
- Equipped laboratory for relevant STEM subjects
- Other
- 15.
- Do you need additional training and further qualification to teach effectively using STEM methods?
- No
- Yes
- –.
- Methodological courses
- –.
- Specialized STEM training
- –.
- Other
- Other
- 16.
- Which contemporary teaching methods in STEM education do you use?
- Project-Based Learning
- Problem-based learning
- Inquiry-based learning
- Flipped classroom
- Practice-based learning
- Jigsaw learning
- Engineering design
- Game-based learning
- Gamification
- Integrated learning
- Other
- 17.
- Which techniques and tools do you use for teaching?
- Presentations
- Group training
- Laboratory practice
- Practical assignments (projects, essays, and tasks)
- Simulations
- Robotics
- Internet search
- Workshops
- Gamification
- Digitalization (use of digital tools)
- Other
- 18.
- Do you apply personalization in STEM teaching?
- No
- Sometimes
- No, but I plan to do it
- Yes
- 19.
- Please share in what situations you apply personalization in STEM teaching:
- 20.
- Which of the following personalization strategies do you implement?
- Group personalization
- Individual personalization
- Personal personalization
- Flexible grouping
- Introducing knowledge according to the learning style
- Other
- 21.
- Which personalization techniques do you apply?
- Feedback
- Individual assistance
- Outdoor education
- Game-based teaching
- Competitive approach
- Forming assessment
- Independent use of digital platforms
- Differentiated assignments
- Synchronous and asynchronous activities
- Other
- 22.
- Effectiveness
- Achievement in STEM subjects: Do the methods improve students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding in STEM fields?
- Development of STEM competencies: Do the methods develop key STEM competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration?
- Interest in STEM: Do the methods stimulate students’ interest in STEM disciplines and careers?
- 23.
- Engagement
- Hands-on activities: Do the methods include hands-on activities, experiments, projects, and simulations that engage students?
- Interaction: Do the methods encourage active participation, discussions, teamwork, and peer learning?
- Use of technologies: Do the methods integrate appropriate STEM technologies that motivate and engage students?
- 24.
- Applicability
- Curriculum relevance: Are the methods aligned with the goals and content of the STEM curriculum?
- Time and resources: Are the methods realistic to implement within the time frame, school resources, and teacher qualifications?
- Teacher support: Are the methods easy for teachers to understand and implement without requiring excessive preparation or resources?
- 25.
- Flexibility:
- Adaptability: Can the methods be adapted to different levels of knowledge, interests, and abilities of students?
- Differentiation: Do the methods offer opportunities for differentiation of learning and support for students with different needs?
- Integration: Can the methods be integrated with other methods and approaches in STEM education?
- 26.
- Validity:
- Science-based: Are the methods based on research evidence and proven practices in STEM education?
- Relevance to trends: Are the methods in line with current trends and innovations in STEM education?
- Evidence of effectiveness: Is there empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the methods in different contexts?
- 27.
- Accessibility:
- Accessibility: Are the methods accessible to all students, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or physical abilities?
- Diversity of resources: Do the methods offer a variety of resources and materials that are appropriate for different learning styles?
- Ensuring equal opportunity: Do the methods create barriers for students with disabilities or from vulnerable groups?
- 28.
- Do you have comments on the questions in the current section?
- 29.
- Please share other good methods, practices, and techniques that you or your colleagues apply:
- 30.
- Is there anything else you would like to add? What prospects for development in STEM education do you see in the next 5 years?
References
- Aberšek, B., Aberšek, M. K., & Dolenc, K. (2016, May 2–4). Modernization, optimization and development of STEM education. The 11th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics (DIVAI 2016) (pp. 45–54), Šturovo, Slovakia. [Google Scholar]
- Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ángel-Uribe, I., Cano-Vásquez, L., & López-Molina, G. (2024). Characteristics of educational experiences in STEM education in Medellin. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(4), 1073–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulgarian National Statistical Institute. (2025). Teaching staff in general schools by teaching level and sex. Available online: https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3464/teaching-staff-general-schools-teaching-level-and-sex (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- Cairns, D., & Areepattamannil, S. (2019). Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education, 49, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. (Eds.). (2013). STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed.). Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Creating methodology and resources for STEM education in a STEM environment. (2025). Available online: https://stem.mon.bg/project-methodology-stem-resources-description/ (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- Darmawansah, D., Hwang, G. J., Chen, M. R. A., & Liang, J. C. (2023). Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2016). Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fung, C.-H., Poon, K.-K., & Ng, S.-P. (2022). Fostering student teachers’ 21st century skills by using flipped learning by teaching in STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(12), em2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gong, J., Cai, S., & Cheng, M. (2024). Exploring the effectiveness of flipped classroom on STEM student achievement: A meta-analysis. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 1129–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govaerts, S., Cao, Y., Vozniuk, A., Holzer, A., Zutin, D. G., Ruiz, E. S. C., Bollen, L., Manske, S., Faltin, N., Salzmann, C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2013). Towards an online lab portal for inquiry-based STEM learning at school. In J. F. Wang, & R. Lau (Eds.), Advances in web-based learning—ICWL 2013. ICWL 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8167). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gui, Y., Cai, Z., Yang, Y., Kong, L., Fan, X., & Tai, R. H. (2023). Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in stem learning: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herlinawati, H., Marwa, M., Noriah, I., Junaidi, Ledya, O. L., & Dominikus, D. B. S. (2024). The integration of 21st century skills in the curriculum of education. Heliyon, 10(15), e35148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2022). The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43, 101000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holik, I., Sanda, I. D., & Molnár, G. (2023). The necessity of developing soft skills in STEM areas in higher education, with special focus on engineering training. Athens Journal of Technology and Engineering, 10(4), 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Investment project of ministry of education and science of Bulgaria “STEM centers and innovation in education”. (2025). Available online: https://sf.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=549&lang=en (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- Irwanto, I., Saputro, A. D., Widiyanti, W., Ramadhan, M. F., & Lukman, I. R. (2022). Research trends in STEM education from 2011 to 2020: A systematic review of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(5), 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivanova, M., Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2024). Unveiling insights: A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence in teaching. Informatics, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ješková, Z., Lukáč, S., Šnajder, Ľ., Guniš, J., Klein, D., & Kireš, M. (2022). Active learning in STEM education with regard to the development of inquiry skills. Education Sciences, 12(10), 686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A.-I. (2021). Gamification in science education. A systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences, 11, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karacop, A. (2017). The effects of using jigsaw method based on cooperative learning model in the undergraduate science laboratory practices. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, S. C. (2014). Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education, 78, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krajcik, S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences, 7, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, J. S. C. (2022). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific Issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 659–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lomba-Portela, L., Domínguez-Lloria, S., & Pino-Juste, M. R. (2022). Resistances to educational change: Teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 12, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, L., Chang, R., Chandrasekaran, S., Coddington, A., Daniel, S., Cook, E., Crossin, E., Cosson, B., Turner, J., Mazzurco, A., & Dohaney, J. (2020). From problem-based learning to practice-based education: A framework for shaping future engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohr-Schroeder, M. A. (2015). Practice-based model of STEM teaching/STEM students on the stage (SOS). Sahin A. Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolova, N., Stefanova, E., Mihnev, P., & Stefanov, K. (2018). Opportunities and challenges for efficient and effective stem teachers’ competence development. In Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, L. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), Trends and advances in information systems and technologies. WorldCIST’18 2018. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 746, pp. 1367–1377). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nite, S., Capraro, M., Capraro, R., & Bicer, A. (2017). Explicating the characteristics of STEM teaching and learning: A metasynthesis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 52(1), 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortiz-Rojas, M., Chiluiza, K., Valcke, M., & Bolanos-Mendoza, C. (2025). How gamification boosts learning in STEM higher education: A mixed methods study. International Journal of STEM Education, 12, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osadchyi, V. V., Valko, N. V., & Kuzmich, L. V. (2021). Using augmented reality technologies for stem education organization. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1), 012027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revitalizing STEM education to equip next generations with STEM competency. (2025). Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/revitalizing-stem-education-equip-next-generations-stem-competency (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandrone, S., Scott, G., Anderson, W. J., & Musunuru, K. (2021). Active learning-based STEM education for in-person and online learning. Cell, 184(6), 1409–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2016). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefanova, E., Nikolova, N., Zafirova-Malcheva, T., Mihnev, P., Georgiev, A., & Antonova, A. (2019). Participatory model for identifying and measuring teachers’ competences for open and inquiry-based learning in STEM: Field experience. EPiC Series in Education Science, Proceedings of Learning Innovations and Quality (LINQ), 2, 28–39. [Google Scholar]
- Stehle, S. M., & Peters-Burton, E. E. (2019). Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 6, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- STEM courses for educators. (2025). Available online: https://edutechflag.eu/training (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- STEM strategy of Bulgarian ministry of education and science. (2025). Available online: https://www.mon.bg/bg/683 (accessed on 30 June 2025).
- Stender, A., Schwichow, M., Zimmerman, C., & Härtig, H. (2018). Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1812–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutiani, A., Situmorang, M., & Silalahi, A. (2021). Implementation of an inquiry learning model with science literacy to improve student critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voutchkov, I., & Keane, A. (2010). Multi-Objective Optimization Using Surrogates. In Y. Tenne, & C. K. Goh (Eds.), Computational Intelligence in Optimization. Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization (vol. 7). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W., & Ouyang, F. (2022). The application of AI technologies in STEM education: A systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yannier, N., Hudson, S., & Koedinger, K. (2020). Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 30, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y., Feijoo-Garcia, M. A., Gu, Y., Popescu, V., Benes, B., & Magana, A. J. (2024). Virtual and augmented reality in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: An umbrella review. Information, 15, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y., & Shirazi, S. (2025). Factors influencing young people’s STEM career aspirations and career choices: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10763-025-10552-z (accessed on 31 August 2025).
Condition | Yes | No | Partially |
---|---|---|---|
Modern computer equipment | 68.74% | 9.38% | 21.88% |
Integrative learning resources | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
Other specialized learning resources | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
Internet connection in classrooms | 93.74% | 0.00% | 6.25% |
Time allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods | 18.74% | 34.38% | 46.88% |
Teachers with STEM qualifications | 28.12% | 37.50% | 34.38% |
Equipped laboratory for relevant STEM subjects | 28.12% | 50.00% | 21.88% |
Group | Features | Yes | No | Partially |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Effectiveness | 1.1. Achievement in STEM subjects: Do the methods improve students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding in STEM fields? | 65.62% | 3.13% | 31.25% |
1.2. Development of STEM competencies: Do the methods develop key STEM competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
1.3. Interest in STEM: Do the methods stimulate students’ interest in STEM disciplines and careers? | 59.37% | 3.13% | 37.50% | |
2. Engagement | 2.1. Hands-on activities: Do the methods include hands-on activities, experiments, projects, and simulations that engage students? | 75.00% | 3.12% | 21.88% |
2.2. Interaction: Do the methods encourage active participation, discussions, teamwork, and peer learning? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
2.3. Use of technology: Do the methods integrate appropriate STEM technologies that motivate and engage students? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
3. Applicability | 3.1. Curriculum relevance: Are the methods aligned with the goals and content of the STEM curriculum? | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
3.2. Time and resources: Are the methods realistic to implement within the time frame, school resources, and teacher qualifications? | 46.87% | 9.38% | 43.75% | |
3.3. Teacher support: Are the methods easy for teachers to understand and implement without requiring excessive preparation or resources? | 37.50% | 12.50% | 50.00% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paunova-Hubenova, E.; Bontchev, B.; Terzieva, V.; Dankov, Y. Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091155
Paunova-Hubenova E, Bontchev B, Terzieva V, Dankov Y. Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(9):1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091155
Chicago/Turabian StylePaunova-Hubenova, Elena, Boyan Bontchev, Valentina Terzieva, and Yavor Dankov. 2025. "Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey" Education Sciences 15, no. 9: 1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091155
APA StylePaunova-Hubenova, E., Bontchev, B., Terzieva, V., & Dankov, Y. (2025). Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey. Education Sciences, 15(9), 1155. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091155