From Theory to Practice: How STEAM Professional Development Shapes Teacher Beliefs and Perceptions About Design Thinking Activities

Abstract

Interest in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education and design thinking has risen as a way to equip students with 21st century skills, needed to solve complex real-world problems. However, integrating STEAM based design thinking challenges in the classroom poses challenges for educators, particularly in areas such as interdisciplinary collaboration, management of workload, and grasping the dynamics of STEAM integration through design thinking. This paper presents the results of an intervention of a teacher training on design thinking in STEAM education. The professional development training involved the researchers collaboration with four teachers of grade 5, from a school for underprivileged children, who designed and implemented integrated STEAM lessons and inquiry based design challenges. The duration of the training was 52 hrs, spread over 12 weeks, focused on developing and implementing three design challenges. Throughout the intervention period, from provision of materials to supervision of teaching, the entire experience was monitored and supported by the researcher in the role of a trainer and mentor. Data was collected through detailed classroom observations preceded by focus group interviews. Thematic analysis revealed changes in teacher self-efficacy, increased confidence, increased collaboration, and appreciation in the ability to connect curriculum with real-world problems. The training effectively supported teachers in implementing STEAM lessons and design thinking activities in their classrooms.

Keywords

STEAM education design thinking interdisciplinary collaboration STEAM professional development STEAM integration inquiry-based design challenges STEAM teacher beliefs real-world problem solving

Introduction

Interest in STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education and design thinking has risen as a way to equip students with 21st century skills needed to solve complex real-world problems (Dertli & Yıldız, 2024). However, research on teacher training for STEAM and design thinking integration is limited. There is a prominent disconnection between teacher’s belief and their practice of STEAM education (Kim & Bolger, 2017). Studies confirm this gap, with teacher training emerging as a recent focus in STEAM education research only since 2019 (Marín-Marín et al., 2021). While interest in this topic is nascent, experts have emphasized the critical importance of teacher professional development to successfully implement STEAM in schools (Cook & Bush, 2018). Without proper training and support in pedagogical and content knowledge, teachers struggle to integrate STEAM content and activities (Boice et al., 2021). Research findings support teachers’ lack of familiarity with the engineering component in inquiry learning and design thinking (Webb & LoFaro, 2020). This article reports the results of a study on primary school teachers’ professional development program on design thinking in STEAM education, and its effects on their beliefs.

Literature Review

STEAM Education

STEAM Education integrates different fields of science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics into a holistic interdisciplinary educational approach (Bati et al., 2018). STEM lays emphasis on analyzing student-created products, whereas STEAM (STEM + Arts) expands its focus on the context of the development of the product. Both approaches are concerned with linking creativity holistically with knowledge, skills, motivation, and social context and environment (Floerke, 2021). This helps in coming up with practical solutions to real life problems which are creative, relevant, contextualized, and flexible (Aguilera et al., 2024; Bati et al., 2018). STEM and STEAM originate from divergent epistemological perspectives, where “STEM represents a convergent standpoint of selecting specific areas of knowledge – meaning not including humanistic disciplines. On the other hand, STEAM proposes reinserting arts and humanities into the educational programme (Rodrigues-Silva & Alsina, 2023, p. 6).” The epistemology of STEAM education is rooted in the constructivist theory, where through deep engagement with the content being studied, students build their understanding of real world contexts through active engagement and inquiry based learning (Shultz et al., 2022).

Instead of teaching the disciplines in isolation, STEAM adopts inquiry based learning to foster critical and out of the box thinking, building collaborative skills through working in teams, and making connections with the real world. The problem to be investigated is cross disciplinary, and viewed as a theme to get an in depth understanding, make meaningful connections and have real life perspectives (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2013; Helmane & Briška, 2017; Roehrig et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022).

As the 21st century is characterized with increasing complexity and interconnectedness, this approach is consistent with the societal needs and requirements (Baran et al., 2017; Yıldız, 2017). Education should prepare individuals to solve problems in real life, which requires knowledge, skills and experience. Many studies have focused on STEAM from students and curriculum’s perspective (Kartini et al., 2021). However not many researches have focused on STEAM teacher training programs (Kim & Bolger, 2017).

Many teachers have not received formal training to enable them to implement STEAM based lessons in their classroom. Studies also reveal that in some cases, teachers who did receive STEAM pedagogical trainings did not successfully implement it in their classes due to lack of perspective, self-inhibiting beliefs, or insufficient understanding of the purpose of STEAM education (Jones & Risku, 2015; Nadelson, 2013; Wang et al., 2011). Research reports that the epistemological beliefs of teachers are visibly translated and evident in their teaching practices in STEAM environments.

Design Thinking

Scholars have suggested multiple frameworks for STEAM pedagogy. Design thinking is a creative and flexible approach that helps in blurring lines among multiple disciplines (Graham, 2021; Henriksen, 2017). Design thinking is a human-centered, flexible approach to problem-solving that prioritizes understanding user needs, rapidly generating ideas, creating prototypes, and iteratively testing solutions (T. Brown, 2008). In education, design thinking provides a framework to foster more creative, integrated, and learner-focused instructional approaches related to STEAM (Aflatoony et al., 2018; Alashwal, 2020; Gruber et al., 2015). One of the methods that is used to connect STEAM in classroom is design thinking. STEAM education and design thinking are collaborative and problem solving method that is used to foster skills for 21st century (Henriksen, 2017; Jagodzinski, 2012; Kalin, 2019).

The term “design thinking” was first used by Rowe in 1987 in his study for thinking processes of designers. T. Brown (2008) elaborates that with time it gained popularity through efforts of Design Thinking for Educators (IDEO). The Stanford Design Thinking Model used in this study has five modes—empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test (Plattner et al., 2010). While presented linearly, designers iteratively revisit different modes as needed in a flexible, non-linear process.

While we describe them in linear fashion, design thinking is actually an iterative process (Plattner et al., 2010). Designers, teachers, and others can cycle through the process or return to previous modes as many times as needed, to understand better or explore problems and solutions. Stanford requires the designers to empathize first, to get better understanding of the problem. This can be attained through stories, asking questions or exploration to understand feelings around us (Plattner et al., 2010). After empathizing with problems the second phase requires designers to define the focus of problem, which includes more than definition- it requires the context and complexity of problem. The third phase, ideation, explores volume and multiple ideas of solutions to problems. Ideas range from obvious to far-fetched and are connected to the problem. After considering multiple ideas, those ideas are put to action and a prototype is developed. In this phase the ideas are implemented to become concrete. A prototype can be a physical object or a drawing. After this we move to our fifth mode, that is, testing. In the fifth mode designers test the prototype to understand if it solves our main problem. During all this process designer goes back and forth between all modes and revisits if the problem is being addressed. They may return to the ideation phase or empathy phase to find alternative solutions (Plattner et al., 2010).

Design Thinking and STEAM for Practice

Cohen et al. (2009) pointed that education policies are often constraining and not supportive of teachers exercising their creativity for STEAM lessons or activity. Teachers are often uncertain about their own potential, which makes it difficult to identify and implement STEAM education (Cropley, 2016). Kirschner (2015), Norton and Hathaway (2015) described how demand from teachers of 21st century is different from traditional teachers. The teachers today are constantly challenged and are required to make creative decisions for students to move toward STEAM education. They are required to implement STEAM in the classrooms to help students develop skills for 21st century (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ganira, 2022; Kalantzis & Cope, 2010).

However, professional development and teacher education has always lacked the specific tools and guidance that will help them confront complex challenges and educational problems related to STEAM education. For instance, one of the main problem is to integrate multiple subjects that are STEAM related, and move towards project based and real-world learning. At this point design thinking comes into focus and provides guidance to engage the scientific, creative, real-world and interdisciplinary approach in education, which are integral part of STEAM education as well (Plattner et al., 2010). As an interdisciplinary approach design thinking provides the tools and framework to STEAM education (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). Design thinking puts focus on creativity, problem solving and thinking approach which is at the core of human centered problem areas such as teaching, learning and problem solving within STEAM education.

Koehler et al. (2013, p. 4) draw attention toward teachers who are developing curriculum and give them the nomenclature of “designers.” They emphasize the role of educators in working with tools, content, and ideas to design experiences for learners. This suggests that teachers need experiences and training which puts them in the position of designers. This enhances their content knowledge as well as creative lesson designing and planning activities (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the field of education, design thinking is mostly defined as a logical, critical and creative approach to problem-solving that supports teachers in pedagogical design and enhances teaching quality and it possesses potential for improved learning and development (Razzouk & Shute, 2012).

Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices

According to recent theories teacher’ beliefs are central to their identity and their practices, and are a vital part of the teacher’s professional identity (Ho, 2022). The complex nature of teachers’ beliefs implies that teacher education is critical to consider the development of a consistent belief system in teachers.

Studies have shown that there is a connection between teacher’s belief and their practices (X. Chen et al., 2020; Lee, 2022). Many studies have suggested that beliefs not only influence classroom practices, but also influences the teachers change process, which makes it an important element in teacher professional development (Enderle et al., 2014; Sansom, 2019; Zheng, 2013).

Professional Development for Changing Beliefs and Practices

The professional development of teachers is considered to be a significant aspect in shaping up of their beliefs toward STEAM Education. Teacher training and professional development have many definitions, but their main goal is to promote teacher change toward better practice. A wide range of activities and interaction can increase teacher’s knowledge or bring change in their practices (Desimone, 2011, Shultz et al., 2022). Models of professional development have suggested a structured process is required to bring change in teachers (Jakopovic et al., 2023; Lee, 2022; Peterson et al., 2009; Sprick et al., 2006; Stichter et al., 2006). Sustained professional development that challenges beliefs in a reflective community can empower teachers to implement new instructional approaches, aligned to their evolving beliefs about teaching and learning (Thompson et al., 2012).

Rationale

This study aims to address the need for research on professional development to support teachers in STEAM and design thinking integration. Design thinking offers a framework to bring STEAM principles of creativity, problem-solving, and interdisciplinarity into classrooms (Henriksen, 2017). Examining how training influences teacher beliefs and practices is key to understanding the impact of design thinking on teacher professional development.

Research Question

To what extent does design thinking professional development influence primary school teachers’ beliefs about planning and executing integrated STEAM lessons and design thinking activities?

Methodology

The approach used for this study was qualitative action research, which focuses on solving problems in social systems, such as schools and other organizations. As an iterative process, action research allows evidence based identification of gaps in practice and implementation. It allows the researchers to devise and plan intervention in the light of those findings (L. Chen, 2022; Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Syah, 2016).Through the process of focused data collection from the participants and its detailed analysis, it helps to plan a contextualized and relevant intervention. The cyclical and iterative process helps in bridging the gap between theory and practice, leading to effective decision making (Koerich et al., 2009; Macdonald, 2012; Ronen, 2020). In the context of teacher professional development, it allows reflection and an iterative process to strengthen their teaching practices (Stringer, 2014).

Participants

The participants of STEAM Professional development training included four female teachers from an underprivileged school in Lahore. They were teachers of Science, English, Social Studies, and Mathematics. The teachers were from low socio economic backgrounds, and had graduated in general subjects. The Science and Mathematics teachers had studied science and math only up to high school. The teachers were in the age bracket of 23 to 30 years. The science and mathematics teacher had been with the school for over 2 years, whereas the English teacher had been with them for a little over a year, and the social studies teacher for about 8 months. They were teaching several classes at the primary level, across grades 3 to 7.

The participating teachers were informed ahead of the intervention of the purpose of the research and the methodology to be employed. Consent was taken from their Head teachers and from the participants as well, who agreed and volunteered to be a part of the research. They were assured of complete anonymity, that the results will not be shared with their head teacher or anyone else without their consent. They were free to opt out of the study at any time they wished to.

Research Process

The 12-week intervention involved:

Pre-training needs analysis

3-day design thinking and STEAM pedagogical professional development workshop

Three cycles of collaborative STEAM lesson design, implementation, and reflection

Design challenge classroom activities

Focus group discussions before, during, and after implementation

A needs analysis was conducted in the school before the professional development training, to identify areas of interest, logistic issues and any other challenges. This was followed by three full day professional development training to provide the teachers with an insight of STEAM lessons, Design Thinking Process and Design Challenge Activities. Thereafter, three cycles of STEAM design challenge activities with related lesson plans were implemented. Focus group discussions were carried out after each cycle with the teachers. Figure 1 below provides details of the professional development cycles.

Figure 1.

The professional development cycles.

Needs Analysis

A needs analysis was conducted through visits and consultations with the partner school to identify relevant STEAM pedagogical and curricular needs. It also explored teachers’ prior familiarity with STEAM and what other professional development training they had received. Next, focus group discussions were held with the participating teachers to understand their perspectives and challenges in teaching and for the orientation of the intervention. Thereafter, science Inquiry Lessons on STEAM Education, and Design Challenges focused on ramps, sun blocking structures and soluble and insoluble substances design challenge were identified in the light of the needs analysis.

The professional development plan for the design challenge activity for integrated STEAM pedagogy was thus planned in the light of the needs analysis. This 3 day training spanning 16 hr focused on familiarization with STEAM pedagogy, design thinking and hands on practice allowing the teachers to explore and enact design challenges. The teachers were asked to don the hat of a student, to gain learner perspective. Extensive debriefing and discussions were conducted to explore their current and expected pedagogical practices.

The Intervention

The intervention consisted of three action research cycles spanning approximately 4 weeks each. In each intervention cycle, the teachers were exposed to a STEAM inquiry challenge, based on the Stanford design thinking model. Lessons were planned specifically with the objective to make students realize the relevance of what they study in school to their real lives. It also aimed to assist the teachers in designing lessons which would create their students’ interest in studies.

In each action cycle activities were underpinned by the design thinking model. During this duration, the teachers developed related worksheets on Science, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Languages with the researchers’ assistance. Worksheets on English and Social Studies focused on building relevance and empathy, whereas those of Mathematics on the calculations which would be required in the design challenge.

The teachers designed lessons on different topics, such as ramps in the unit on forces and motions, and sun blocking structures in the unit on weather, and implemented them in their Math, Science English and Social Studies classes over a period of 3 weeks. The time duration was kept in mind so as not to disrupt the routine classes and accommodate the STEAM unit in the timetable. In this way, students were introduced to the topic through an interdisciplinary perspective. Teachers were required to shortlist materials required for each design challenge activity, which was then arranged for them. The inquiry learning through the design challenge activity, was the culminating task of each cycle, typically conducted in the fourth week. For each lesson and design challenge, the teachers were observed and also video recorded by the researcher. At the end of each action cycle, focus group interviews of all the teachers were also conducted using a semi structured interview protocol.

Ethical Considerations

This research was approved by the University Research Ethics Institutional Research Board. The study endeavored to ensure that the possibility of any harm or unpremeditated consequences are minimized through complete anonymity protocols, voluntary participation with rights to withdraw and confidentiality assurance that protected teachers from any potential harmful repurcussions with their schools’ administration. Data collection methods were non-intrusive, focusing solely on professional development experiences without exposing personal or sensitive information that could compromise participants’ employment status or professional standing. Informed consent was systematically obtained through a multi-level approach that ensured ethical compliance and voluntary participation. Prior to the intervention, all participating teachers were comprehensively briefed on the research purpose and methodology to be employed throughout the study. Written consent was secured from both the institutional level through head teachers and individually from each participating teacher who volunteered for the research. Participants received explicit assurances regarding complete anonymity and confidentiality of their responses, with clear guarantees that findings would not be disclosed to supervisors or external parties without their express written consent. Furthermore, teachers were informed of their unconditional right to withdraw from the study at any stage without penalty or consequence, thereby maintaining the voluntary nature of their participation and adherence to established ethical research protocols.

This research design provided a mutually supportive professional environment for the teachers’ professional development (Peltokorpi et al., 2012). To mitigate any extra burden, mentoring and training was built in each phase of the research to support them to reduce any perceived increase in workload related to the planning, material preparation, and implementation of STEAM lessons and design challenges. This strategy aligns with recommendations for supporting teachers during STEAM implementation (Boice et al., 2021). Teacher agency and autonomy were emphasized throughout the study.

To address any emotional discomfort that could have been experienced during focus group discussions, the researcher consciously kept a neutral and supportive stance to encourage them and not allow feelings of inadequacy or self-doubt among the participants. By creating a non-judgmental environment where teachers could engage in open reflection and dialogue, the study safeguarded participants’ emotional and psychological well-being.

The potential benefits of this study significantly outweighed any minimal risk posed to the teachers. The training was contextualized and tailored specifically for teachers from low income schools for the underprivileged. It strengthened their pedagogical content knowledge, built their confidence in instructional planning, and fostered a collaborative environment in which they could share challenges and explore new strategies. For the broader educational context, the study offered insight into the implementation of STEAM education in low-resource settings, and presented a scalable model of contextualized teacher training that can contribute to national and regional educational reform initiatives—an ethical imperative to maximize societal benefits while minimizing risks (Milner-Bolotin et al., 2016).

The potential benefits significantly outweighed minimal risks, as the research contributed valuable insights to STEAM education implementation in under-resourced contexts while simultaneously providing participants with enhanced pedagogical skills and professional development opportunities. The study offered direct benefits to teachers through capacity building in interdisciplinary instruction methods, while generating broader societal benefits through improved understanding of effective professional development models for educators in disadvantaged educational settings, ultimately supporting enhanced learning outcomes for students in underprivileged communities.

Data Collection Tools

Needs Analysis

Individual interviews and focus groups were used at the initial stage of the study to gather data about the participants’ STEAM knowledge, needs and background of the learners and professional development perceptions prior to the training.

Semi-structured Interviews for Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions were conducted with all four teachers after each design challenge activity. Questions included in the interview were majorly concerning as to what aspects of learning did teachers value during the lesson plan, the practices they found helpful or not, how the professional development and lesson enactment helped them in their teaching practices, the different ways they applied the STEAM pedagogy approach in their own classrooms, and the challenges they faced.

Observation and Researcher’s Field Notes

Based on a list of indicators for desired behavior and practices, derived after extensive review of related literature, detailed observations were made, to gain a holistic understanding of the implementation of STEAM lessons and teachers practices. This data was corroborated with the focus group interviews conducted after each design challenge cycle. Thus the researchers were able to gain in depth information about the changes in the teachers’ beliefs and their views of design thinking activities after STEAM Professional Development.

Data Analysis

Data gathered from various sources, including three focus group discussions in each cycle, (approximately 6.5 hr), classroom observations of lesson implementation (24 contact hours), and execution of design challenge activities (12 contact hours), were systematically organized and meticulously transcribed. The qualitative data analysis adhered to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis approach, to ensure a rigorous and systematic examination of teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding STEAM education and design thinking. It helps in creating a comprehensive understanding of how the professional development training impacted teachers’ practices over time (Braun & Clarke, 2006). As asserted by Nowell et al. (2017), thematic analysis is well aligned with action research goals, as they both prioritize understanding experiential, practical and contextual based learning.

An external qualitative researcher reviewed the coding framework and thematic interpretations to ensure that themes were not overly influenced by the researcher’s expectations. Peer debriefing allows to reduce the research bias and promote reflexivity (Nowell et al., 2017). As the study included multiple action implementation cycles which required data collection at the end of each cycle, this approach allowed the researcher to conduct iterative coding process. The researcher conducted hybrid coding process, using both inductive and deductive coding. Inductive coding allowed themes to emerge naturally from the data, while deductive coding ensured that pre-existing theoretical frameworks were not imposed prematurely (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Deductive coding utilized predetermined categories based on established frameworks of teacher professional development, particularly Guskey’s (2002) Model of Teacher Change, enabling the mapping of observed changes against established theoretical foundations.

Open codes were developed and categorized into themes by identifying patterns and meanings within the data. The researcher developed a comprehensive codebook with clear definitions and exemplars, addressing coding inconsistencies through systematic review processes, such as distinguishing between “Collaboration” for teacher-to-teacher interactions and “Interdisciplinary Learning” for curriculum integration. This was followed by theme development and validation using the constant comparison method across multiple dimensions, including within-case analysis of individual teacher responses, cross-case pattern identification among participants, temporal examination across intervention cycles, and alignment with existing STEAM education literature. Constant comparison is utilized in analysis of data analysis where each finding and emerging theme is compared with previous data (Bencze & Bowen, 2009; Pignato, 2010; Randolph, 2010; Stillman, 2011). This multi-layered approach ensured that emerging themes were systematically validated and grounded in the data while maintaining consistency with established research frameworks.

This approach also facilitated in identification of emerging themes and patterns in each intervention cycle facilitated to link the findings of every cycle to further guide the trainings. To increase the validity of the results the researchers employed the technique of member checking by sharing the transcribed data with the participants and sharing the emerging results regarding their beliefs and perceptions about STEAM professional development (Birt et al., 2016; Chase, 2017). Participants validated preliminary findings through structured feedback sessions. 85% of participants confirmed the accuracy of the themes, with suggested refinements incorporated into the final analysis. For instance, teachers clarified that their increased “confidence” specifically related to lesson planning and execution rather than general teaching ability. This technique assisted to reduce researcher bias, misinterpretation of results and provided a deeper understanding of the data. Cross-verification was conducted between focus group interviews, classroom observations, and researcher notes to ensure consistency of findings across different data sources. This provided supporting evidence for all major themes.

Results

This section presents the key findings from the qualitative analysis of teacher interviews and classroom observations, focusing on the changes in teachers’ beliefs and views related to STEAM education and design thinking activities. Teachers’ experiences of research are analyzed on the basis of their focus group interviews and the researcher’s observation.

It was seen that the teachers experienced pivotal shift in terms of their beliefs specifically concerning confidence, classroom discipline, teaching strategies, integration of subjects and shared their views on design thinking activities after STEAM training has influenced their practices and beliefs in terms of collaboration, interdisciplinary learning and practical experience (or real world experience), valuing empathy and engineering with low cost resources. These experiences have been analyzed in the following themes, which emerged from the teachers’ statements and the researcher’s observation.

Thematic Analysis of Teachers Beliefs After the Professional Development Confidence

Pre Intervention

Before intervention, teachers conveyed their uncertainty about effectively integrating STEAM subjects and design thinking activities into their lessons. They particularly highlighted their lack of confidence in incorporating engineering, which they felt less familiar with compared to science and mathematics. This uncertainty and challenge felt by STEAM teachers is also reported by (Boice et al., 2024; Quigley & Herro, 2016). The teachers in this study felt that they would not be able to figure out what material to use and how to use it. The science teacher felt “it seems a bit overwhelming to plan and execute the design challenge.” The science and social studies teachers also wondered “how can I possibly contribute to a STEAM lesson?” and “I don’t know how I would be able to have command on other teachers subject to interlink” respectively.

Post-intervention

As teachers engaged in the professional development sessions, they were exposed to various strategies and methodologies for integrating STEAM subjects into their curriculum. Of particular significance was the introduction to the design thinking process, a structured approach to problem-solving that emphasizes empathy, creativity, and iteration.

One key outcome of the professional development program was the noticeable increase in teachers’ confidence levels, particularly regarding their capacity to design and execute STEAM lessons. The English language teacher expressed “After going through the training I think I can develop the lessons for STEAM comfortably.” They expressed an increased sense of comfort with the design thinking process, incorporating the stages of Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test, and its utility in crafting interdisciplinary learning experiences. The training empowered them to create dynamic and engaging learning classrooms/experiences. The science teacher stated that, “I am planning to conduct more design activities by the end of this year.”

DeJarnette (2018) and Moghal et al. (2020) highlighted that after STEAM PD in the Early Childhood Education context, teachers enjoyed planning and executing STEAM lessons and expressed more confidence. Teachers in this study also shared that how they think they are now capable of developing STEAM lessons. They stated how they weren’t sure about STEAM lessons before training, whereas after completing training and classrooms interventions they were confident in developing lesson plans, initiating interaction with students, taking the charge of class, and more receptive to the students. “I found myself learning from the inquiry sessions in the design challenge” said the science teacher. “The connections my students made while empathizing in the ramps inquire helped me grow as a teacher and have more confidence in my learners” reported the Social Studies teacher. By the time of the last cycle of the intervention, the teachers could develop and execute the lesson on their own, were more focused on interacting with students’ that is, asking question from students, focusing on multiple answers from students instead of one right answer and were facilitating design activity on their own.

Instructional Strategies

Pre-intervention

Before the intervention, teachers largely depended on traditional lecture-based instruction as their main teaching strategy. This approach typically involved teachers delivering content to students through lectures, with limited opportunities for active student engagement or participation in the learning process.

Post-intervention

The program encouraged teachers to adopt more diverse instructional strategies, including inquiry-based learning, student-centered activities, and hands-on design challenges. They observed the positive impact of these strategies on student engagement and learning outcomes.

Teachers reported several positive influences of design thinking on their teaching strategies, including a shift toward a more student-centered approach, increased emphasis on creativity and problem-solving skills, and, enhanced ability to connect curriculum content to real-world applications. Boice et al. (2024) report similar changes in teachers’ pedagogy after STEAM PD. All of them expressed that they were willing to experiment with new teaching methods without being self-conscious, hesitant, or doubtful of its utility. As the science teacher expressed, “It was a fulfilling experience as a teacher when during design activity students were able to remember what they studied in class and could connect as to where are they applying it.” All of them agreed in one way or another that “through this training I realized how I can still cover my syllabus with this new inquiry type method.” The math teacher however expressed “it is possible to collaborate and plan meaningful lessons, but taking out time to do so is not easy.” Though they all agreed that they appreciated the instructional approach they were exposed to, the social studies teacher said “being innovative is only possible if the head allows it, and not up to the teacher.” However, after the training they were able to understand how using different teaching methods would not negatively impact their teaching objectives. The English teacher observed “students who used to be passive were very active. They were collaborating with each other.”

As a result of the training all the participating teachers made an effort to allow students to share their thoughts and questions. The math teacher expressed “the training made me realize not to snub a student even if he/she is wrong.” The science teacher shared “Instead of scolding them, I let them speak out and correct him in a different manner if required. This way he won’t be scared of asking questions in the future.”

Interdisciplinary Learning

Pre-intervention

Teachers held limited views on the benefits of interdisciplinary learning, which highlighted a need for greater awareness, training, and support in this area. By expanding the educators’ understanding of the potential advantages of interdisciplinary approaches, we can empower teachers to explore new instructional strategies that foster deeper learning, critical thinking or real-world application of knowledge across multiple disciplines, as discussed by Ananda et al. (2023) and Ariesta and Suwono (2023).

Post-intervention

Teachers developed a positive view of interdisciplinary learning. They recognized the value of integrating different subjects to create more holistic and engaging learning experiences for students. They observed how design thinking provided a framework for creating these interdisciplinary connections. Understanding why ramps are necessary through the language class, to measuring speed and distance in math, linking concepts of forces and motion in science and then using simple technology and engineering sparked the interest of both teachers and students alike. Design thinking encouraged teachers to approach teaching in a more innovative and collaborative manner, allowing them to identify opportunities for integrating diverse subject matter and creating meaningful learning experiences.

Furthermore, teachers recognized the potential of interdisciplinary learning to engage students on a deeper level by tapping into their diverse interests, backgrounds, and learning styles. By integrating multiple subjects into their lessons, educators were able to make learning more relevant and meaningful to students, sparking curiosity and igniting a passion for lifelong learning. The science and math teachers expressed how they are viewing arts subject in a different light, as they both expressed that drawing and arts are really important for engineering. “I understood the importance of arts and drawing” they afiirmed.

All of them expressed that “it was a new concept for me to link the subjects with each other, I had no idea that subjects could be interlinked or linked with real life.” According to the Math teacher “doing the practical (design challenge) proved that subjects and curriculum is not limited to books, its related (linked) to our life.”

Teachers shared that they think STEAM education in design thinking is a very practical approach. When they conducted the first cycle, students were unaware of the whole procedure. However, by the second cycle they knew what was required from them and were more excited and invested in the lessons even before the activity.

Teachers by the time of the second implementation cycle were able to come up with more examples to link the lessons with the real world. They came up with examples and ways to link lessons with student’s surroundings and environment, and also got their students to do the same. During their third implementation cycle, they prepared stories and worksheets which were relevant to students. They came up with a story about how we prepare cool summer drinks in summer for the topic of “soluble and insoluble design challenge.”

Collaboration

Pre-intervention

Collaboration among teachers, particularly social studies and English teachers was minimal. Collaboration among teachers was lacking, particularly those who were not primarily related to the same subjects within the educational setting. Teachers were reluctant and unsure of how to collaborate at start of the design challenge interventions. Few teachers shared their concern about not getting enough support. The science teacher expressed, “This method will increase burden if I don’t get support from my fellow teachers.” The social studies teacher opined, “I do have a command on my own subject, but I don’t know how I can help other teachers in their subject.”

However as the training progressed, they started to communicate with each other. Professional development addressed the barriers to collaboration and promoting a culture of interdisciplinary teamwork within the school community.

Post-intervention

The program fostered collaboration among teachers from different disciplines. They worked together to develop integrated lesson plans, share resources, and support each other in implementing design thinking activities. This collaboration helped them overcome challenges related to integrating mathematics and science content into their lessons.

As the teachers embarked on the journey of incorporating design thinking principles into their teaching practices, they recognized the value of working together to create more cohesive and integrated learning experiences for their students. All the teachers shared that they would prefer collaborating with other teachers for future lessons, because students were very excited to study the same topic under multiple subjects, and they kept recalling how they studied this in the other subject. The social studies teacher commented that, “working with the science teacher on a design thinking project was eye-opening. We were able to create a much more comprehensive, wholesome and engaging learning experience for our students by combining our expertise.”

When they had to plan lessons for their third cycle they independently came up with the topic and theme. They helped each other in planning the design challenge activity and its implementation. Before the start of the design challenge activity, the teachers recapped the previous lesson with the students. They knew about each other’s content and were able to link their subjects with the fellow teacher’s discipline. Improvement in collaboration through STEAM education and design thinking has also been reported by Khan et al. (2023).

Empathy, Student Engagement, and Classroom Discipline

Pre-intervention

The teachers were more focused on delivering a lecture before the intervention. They primarily focused on delivering content, often overlooking the importance of understanding student perspectives and needs. This approach tends to result in a one-sided instructional method, where the transmission of knowledge took priority over engagement. By neglecting to consider student perspectives and needs, teachers inadvertently created barriers to effective learning, as students were mostly disengaged.

Post-intervention

Exposure to design thinking principles prompted a significant shift in how teachers approached their instructional practices, particularly in prioritizing student empathy. By integrating design thinking methodologies into their teaching, teachers began to recognize the importance of understanding students on a deeper level beyond academic performance alone.

As teachers embraced the principles of design thinking, they not only focused on delivering content but also tried to empathize with their students’ experiences, perspectives, and emotions. This involved creating opportunities for meaningful interactions and open dialogue with students to gain insight into their individual backgrounds, interests, challenges, and learning preferences. In their study Nyaaba et al. (2024) emphasized how STEAM education increases student engagement and design thinking competencies through activities which encourage empathetic problem solving.

Overall, exposure to design thinking principles empowered teachers to prioritize student empathy as a fundamental aspect of their instructional practice. By incorporating activities that facilitated a deeper understanding of student experiences and perspectives, educators were able to create more meaningful and impactful learning experiences for their students.

Issues and Their Solutions for the Underprivileged Context

The study acknowledges the challenges faced by underprivileged schools, including limited resources and larger class sizes.

Pre-intervention

Teachers shared how they don’t have resources to conduct activities and lacked ability to come with a topic to conduct activities on their own. They or schools can’t provide students with material for design activities. They also felt pressure to complete the syllabus in time.

Post Intervention

The training highlighted the potential of design thinking to address these challenges by encouraging them to find creative solutions using low-cost or no-cost materials for design challenges. It fostered collaboration among teachers and students to share resources and expertise. It also served in promoting a growth mindset and resourcefulness among students, equipping them with skills to adapt and innovate in resource-constrained environments. Few of the teachers expressed that if the students are formulating small ideas on few matters in class, they will think big in future for more real life problems. They will learn how to use the material we have instead of wasting or going overboard their budget and demands. They will learn how to utilize and find solutions within limited resources they have. The science and social studies teachers expressed that the students demonstrated a lot of creativity in their design challenges, which was beyond their expectation.

Overall, the findings suggest that the design thinking professional development program positively impacted teachers’ beliefs and views about STEAM education. Teachers reported increased confidence, a shift toward student-centered learning, and a deeper understanding of the value of interdisciplinary collaboration. The study also highlights the potential of design thinking as a valuable tool for educators in underprivileged contexts, empowering them to create engaging learning experiences despite resource limitations. There was a willingness amongst the teachers to allow student creativity and accept diverse solutions and perspectives instead of just correct answers.

The themes discussed above have been summarized in the following Table 1.

Table 1.

Teacher Beliefs Before and After STEAM Professional Development Intervention.

Theme	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention
Confidence in STEAM integration	Low confidence, unsure about engineering	Increased confidence, comfortable with design thinking process
Instructional strategies	Lecture-based instruction	Diverse strategies: inquiry-based learning, student-centered activities, hands-on design challenges
Collaboration among teachers	Minimal collaboration, particularly non-science teachers	Increased collaboration across disciplines
Student engagement	Focus on content delivery, minimal emphasis on student perspectives	Student-centered learning, emphasis on empathy, activities to understand student experiences
Integration of subjects	Each subject is taught in isolation	Embraced a creative and innovative approach, seeking out connections between different subjects
Interdisciplinary learning	Limited views on the benefits of interdisciplinary learning	Learning can be made more relevant, sparking curiosity and igniting a passion for lifelong learning. Course material is not limited to books.
Relevance for underprivileged context	Lack of resources to conduct activities	Equipping students with skills to adapt and innovate in resource-constrained environments.

Discussion and Conclusion

The study highlighted that changes in teacher’s classroom practices was seen as a result of the professional development trainings, where they felt themselves to be more confident, able to interlink the different disciplines, collaborate among themselves and alter their teaching strategies in class. The present study suggests that Design thinking in STEAM education can improve teacher’s self-efficacy and their teaching practice, which makes it a promising approach to improve STEAM education. Design thinking provides a unifying perspective for STEAM education and can be used as a framework for developing interdisciplinary practices related to STEAM education (Henriksen, 2017). It is a powerful approach that helps educators understand a problem from the real world perspective, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. It can be applied in a variety of areas (X. Chen et al., 2020; Nguyen, 2020; Raddaoui & Sánchez-Fernández, 2021; Wulandari & Wulandari, 2021). Teachers shared how integration of subjects helped them collaborate with each other and how collaboration made them realize how subjects can be integrated.

Literature in this study have tried to demonstrate and link together some ideas. First, how design thinking (Stanford Model) is a practical approach for teachers to redesign or remodel lesson. Second how we can move toward STEAM based learning. The trainings offered helped teachers to consider design thinking process as a framework to connect the curriculum contents with real world problems. This aspect facilitated in broadening their views about STEAM Education.

According to Buchanan (2001) multiple disciplines overlap with each other in field of design where problems are human-centered, we should also realize how real world problems that is, Human centered problems represents multiple disciplines.

As suggested by research (Boice et al., 2024; Root-Bernstein & Root-Bernstein, 1999; Trung et al., 2023), STEAM education and design can work together as they respect the chaotic, creative, interdisciplinary and real world nature of teaching.

This study revealed how the integration of Design Thinking with STEAM influenced their beliefs on teaching methods and classroom practices and how training improved teachers’, collaborative skills and ability to link curriculum with real world problems. It was assessed through observation and focus group discussions. Teachers went through phases of design thinking that is, Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test stages in the Design Thinking process which was integrated with STEAM lessons.

Recommendations and Suggestions

The findings indicate the design thinking professional development program expanded teacher beliefs on how STEAM and design thinking could be implemented in their classrooms. Similar to other recent studies, changes were seen in how the teachers approach discipline in classroom, how they are collaborative among their peers and with students, and learner-focused instructional approaches (Ananda et al., 2023; Ariesta & Suwono, 2023; Boice et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2023; Nyaaba et al., 2024; Trung et al., 2023).

Teachers reflected on how the training pushed them to reconsider curriculum through a real-world lens. This aligns with the literature positioning design thinking as a catalyst for creativity, problem-solving, and student-centered learning in STEAM education (Henriksen et al., 2019; Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Trung et al., 2023). A more robust study could be conducted, utilizing video recording of the STEAM teachers implementation of what they have learnt through PD, conducting stimulated recall interviews and in depth reflective sessions on teacher noticing (Gehrtz, 2020; Jakopovic et al,, 2023; Xu et al., 2018). Moreover, this study involved a very small sample from just one school. Additional research should explore impacts in more diverse educational contexts. Long-term studies on sustaining changed beliefs and practices would also add value.

Overall, intentionally designed professional development can be instrumental in shifting teacher beliefs and practices toward the integration of design thinking and STEAM principles. Further examination of teacher training models is needed to provide educators with the supports necessary to reimagine instruction and empower students with 21st century skills.

The present study suggests that Design thinking in STEAM education can improve teacher’s self-efficacy and their teaching practice, making it a promising approach to improve STEAM education. The study suggests incorporating design thinking principles into teacher education to equip them with the skills and ability needed to foster innovative and student-centered learning environments. There should be provision of ongoing professional development for the teachers for enhancing their knowledge and skills in design thinking and STEAM education.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Asma Shahid Kazi

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Lahore College for Women University Research Ethics Institutional Research Board (approval no. ORIC/LCWU/21/234) on April 04, 2021.

Informed Consent Statements

Written Informed Consent from the research participants were taken prior to conduct of the study and for publication of the study findings. The participants’ identity was anonymized.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Aflatoony

Wakkary

Neustaedter

(2018). Becoming a design thinker: Assessing the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 438–453.

Aguilera

Lupiáñez

J. L.

Perales-Palacios

F. J.

Vílchez-González

J. M.

(2024). IDEARR model for STEM education—A framework proposal. Education Sciences, 14(6), Article 638. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060638

Alashwal

(2020). Design thinking in STEM education: A review. International Research in Higher Education, 5(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v5n1p18

Ananda

L. R.

Rahmawati

Kairi

(2023). Critical thinking skills of chemistry students by integrating design thinking with STEAM-PjBL. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 13(1), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1938

Ariesta

A. R.

Suwono

(2023). The implementation of design thinking in STEAM learning to improve students’ critical thinking skills and biology learning outcomes. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2614, Article 020017. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0126060

Baran

Canbazoğlu-Bilici

Mesutoğlu

(2017). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik (FeTeMM) spotu geliştirme etkinliği [Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) public service announcement (PSA) development activity]. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 5(2), 60–69.

Bati

Yetişir

M. I.

Çalişkan

Güneş

Gül Saçan

(2018). Teaching the concept of time: A steam-based program on computational thinking in science education. Cogent Education, 5(1), Article 1507306. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1507306

Bencze

J. L.

Bowen

G. M.

(2009). Student-teachers’ dialectically developed motivation for promoting student-led science projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 133–159.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811.

10.

Boice

K. L.

Alemdar

Jackson

J. R.

Kessler

T. C.

Choi

Grossman

Usselman

(2024). Exploring teachers’ understanding and implementation of STEAM: One size does not fit all. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1401191. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1401191.

11.

Boice

K. L.

Jackson

J. R.

Alemdar

Rao

A. E.

Grossman

Usselman

(2021). Supporting teachers on their STEAM journey: A collaborative STEAM teacher training program. Education Sciences, 11(3), Article 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030105

12.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

13.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352.

14.

Brown

(2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

15.

Buchanan

(2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183–206.

16.

Chase

(2017). Enhanced member checks: Reflections and insights from a participant-researcher collaboration. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2689–2703. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2957

17.

Chen

(2022). Facilitating teacher learning in professional learning communities through action research: A qualitative case study in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, Article 103875.

18.

Chen

Wang

Chen

(2020). Design thinking in financial education for college students: A case study of Shandong University. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(5), 1–11.

19.

Cohen

Mccabe

E. M.

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 111(1), 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108

20.

Cook

K. L.

Bush

S. B.

(2018). Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268

21.

Cropley

D. H.

(2016). Creativity in engineering. In Corazza

G. E.

Agnoli

(Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). Springer.

22.

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Wiley.

23.

DeJarnette

N. K.

(2018). Implementing STEAM in the early childhood classroom. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3878

24.

Dertli

Z. G.

Yıldız

(2024). An engineering design-based mathematics activity example based on STEM approach in middle school: Cold storage design. Science Activities, 62(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2024.2378842

25.

Desimone

L. M.

(2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71.

26.

Enderle

Dentzau

Roseler

Southerland

S. A.

(2014). Examining the influence of RETs on science teacher beliefs and practice. Science Education, 98(6), 1077–1108.

27.

Floerke

(2021). Amplifying the “A” in STEAM education. Murray State University. Murray’s State Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/honorstheses/110/

28.

Ganira

(2022). Adopting STEAM development strategies in early years education in Nairobi City County, Kenya: Implication for 21st century skills. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 4(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijrse.v4i2.1174

29.

Gehrtz

(2020). STEM instructors’ noticing and responding to student thinking. In Sacristán

A. I.

Cortés-Zavala

J. C.

Ruiz-Arias

P. M.

(Eds.), Mathematics education across cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 2027–2076). Cinvestav/AMIUTEM/PME-NA. https://doi.org/10.51272/pmena.42.2020-348

30.

Graham

M. A.

(2021). The disciplinary borderlands of education: Art and STEAM education [Los límites disciplinares de la educación: arte y educación STEAM]. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 44(4), 769–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2021.1926163

31.

Gruber

De Leon

George

Thompson

(2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7.

32.

Guskey

(2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512

33.

Helmane

Briška

(2017). What is developing integrated or interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary education in school? Signum Temporis, 9(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/sigtem-2017-0010

34.

Henriksen

(2017). Creating STEAM with design thinking: Beyond STEM and arts integration. The STEAM Journal, 3(1), Article 11.

35.

Henriksen

Mehta

(2019). Design thinking gives STEAM to teaching: A framework that breaks disciplinary boundaries. In STEAM education: Theory and practice, pp. 57–78. Springer.

36.

C. T.

(2022). The application of STEAM teaching: A case study of STEAM teachers’ beliefs and practice at secondary schools in Ho Chi Minh city. VNUHCM Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(SI), 42–51.

37.

Jagodzinski

(2012). The terror of creativity: Art education after postmodernism. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 32, 14–28.

38.

Jakopovic

Lemke

Karpf

Stamatis

(2023). Reflecting on practice: Using video to promote preservice teacher development of professional noticing and ambitious pedagogy. The Teacher Educator, 59(1), 140–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2023.2270948

39.

Jones

A. G.

Risku

M. T.

(2015). The butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker: John Dewey's philosophy of art experience saving twenty-first-century art education from limbo. Education and Culture, 31(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.31.1.77

40.

Kalantzis

Cope

(2010). Learning by design. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 198–199. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2010.7.3.198

41.

Kalin

N. M.

(2019). Decreating entrepreneurialized art education. Art Education, 72(6), 44–45.

42.

Kartini

F. S.

Widodo

Winarno

Astuti

(2021). Promoting student’s problem-solving skills through STEM project-based learning in earth layer and disasters topic. Journal of Science Learning, 4(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.27555

43.

Kelley

(2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Currency.

44.

Khan

M. A.

Kazi

A. S.

Butt

A. I

. (2023). Influence of design thinking in integrated STEAM inquiry based learning on primary school students’ empathy and confidence. Global Sociological Review, 8(1), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.31703/gsr.2023(VIII-I).32

45.

Kim

Bolger

(2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 587–605.

46.

Kirschner

P. A.

(2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322.

47.

Koehler

M. J.

Mishra

Akcaoglu

Rosenberg

J. M.

(2013). The technological pedagogical content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators. In Panigrahi

M. R.

(Ed.), ICT integrated teacher education: A resource book (pp. 20–30). Commonwealth Education Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA).

48.

Koerich

M. S.

Backes

de Sousa

F. G. M.

Erdmann

A. L.

Alburquerque

G. L.

(2009). Pesquisa-ação: ferramenta metodológica para a pesquisa qualitativa [Action-research: A methodological tool for qualitative research]. Revista Eletrônica de Enfermagem, 11(3), 717–723.

49.

Lee

(2022). Am I a STEAM Teacher? Professional identity and PCK through STEAM project-based learning professional preparation. School Mathematics, 24, 147–171. https://doi.org/10.29275/sm.2022.3.24.1.147

50.

Macdonald

(2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37

51.

Marín-Marín

J.-A.

Moreno-Guerrero

A.-J.

Dúo-Terrón

López-Belmonte

(2021). STEAM in education: A bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00296-x

52.

Milner-Bolotin

Kotlicki

Rieger

G. W.

(2013). Can students learn from lecture demonstrations? The role and place of interactive lecture experiments in large introductory science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(4), 45–49.

53.

Milner-Bolotin

Kotlicki

Rieger

G. W.

(2016). Active learning in STEM: Strategies for integrating innovative pedagogies into teacher training programs. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 4(1), 523–542. https://journals.helsinki.fi/lumat/article/download/1088/1081/3537

54.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

55.

Moghal

Kazi

A. S.

Usman

Saeed

M. A.

(2020). Transforming the teaching of early years science and mathematics through the integration of STEAM education: What in-service teachers think? Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 2336–2344.

56.

Nadelson

L. S.

Callahan

Pyke

Hay

Dance

Pfiester

(2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014

57.

Nguyen

T. H.

(2020). Design thinking and financial education for children. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(12), 509–517.

58.

Nowell

L. S.

Norris

J. M.

White

D. E.

Moules

N. J.

(2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

59.

Norton

Hathaway

(2015). Teachers' online experience: Is there a covert curriculum in online professional development? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(4), 509–533.

60.

Nyaaba

Akanzire

B. N.

Mohammed

S. H.

(2024). Prioritizing STEAM education from the start: The path to inclusive and sustainable STEAM education. International Journal of STEM Education for Sustainability, 4(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.53889/ijses.v4i1.322

61.

Peltokorpi

E.-L.

Määttä

Uusiautti

(2012). How to ensure ethicality of action research in the classroom? World Journal of Education, 2(3), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n3p32

62.

Peterson

D. S.

Taylor

B. M.

Burnham

Schock

(2009). Reflective coaching conversations: A missing piece. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 500–509.

63.

Pignato

J. M.

(2010). An analysis of practical challenges posed by teaching improvisation: Case studies in New York State schools. Boston University.

64.

Plattner

Meinel

Leifer

(2010). Design thinking: Understand-improve-apply. Springer.

65.

Quigley

C. F.

Herro

(2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9602-z

66.

Raddaoui

Sánchez-Fernández

(2021). Design thinking in financial education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 26(1), 5–20.

67.

Randolph

B. L.

(2010). Reculturing: Changing the culture of practice. Fielding Graduate University.

68.

Razzouk

Shute

(2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429

69.

Rodrigues-Silva

Alsina

. (2023). Conceptualising and framing STEAM education: What is (and what is not) this educational approach? Texto Livre, 16, Article e44946.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-3652.2023.44946

70.

Roehrig

G. H.

Dare

E. A.

Ring-Whalen

Wieselmann

J. R.

(2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8

71.

Ronen

I. K.

(2020). Action research as a methodology for professional development in leading an educational process. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, Article 100826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100826

72.

Root-Bernstein

(1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Houghton Miffin.

73.

Sansom

D. W.

(2019). Investigating processes of change in beliefs and practice following professional development: Multiple change models among in-service teachers in China. Professional Development in Education, 46(3), 467–481.

74.

Shultz

Nissen

Van Dusen

(2022). The role of epistemological beliefs in STEM faculty’s decisions to use culturally relevant pedagogy at Hispanic-Serving Institutions. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00349-9

75.

Sprick

Knight

Reinke

McKale

(2006). Coaching classroom management: Strategies and tools for administrators and coaches. Pacific Northwest Publishing.

76.

Stichter

J. P.

Lewis

T. J.

Richter

Johnson

N. W.

Bradley

(2006). Assessing antecedent variables: The effects of instructional variables on student outcomes through in-service and peer coaching professional development models. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 665–692

77.

Stillman

(2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180.

78.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Sage.

79.

Stringer

E. T.

(2014). Action research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

80.

Syah

M. N. S.

(2016). Classroom action research as professional development of teachers in Indonesia. Tarbawi: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.34001/tarbawi.v13i1.526

81.

Thompson

M. T.

Marchant

Anderson

Prater

M. A.

Gibb

(2012). Effects of tiered training on general educators’ use of specific praise. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(4), 521–546.

82.

Trung

T. T.

Khoa

T. H. A.

Nga

N. T.

(2023). Students’ design thinking competency expressed through empathetic problem-solving in STEAM education. TNU Journal of Science and Technology, 228(4), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.7569

83.

Wang

H. H.

Moore

T. J.

Roehrig

G. H.

Park

M. S.

(2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1041

84.

Webb

D. L.

LoFaro

K. P.

(2020) Sources of engineering teaching self-efficacy in a STEAM methods course for elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 120(4), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12403

85.

C. H.

Liu

C. H.

Huang

Y. M.

(2022). The exploration of continuous learning intention in STEAM education through attitude, motivation, and cognitive load. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00346-y

86.

Wulandari

(2021). Design thinking in financial education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1784(1), Article 012078.

87.

Widjaja

Ferguson

(2018). Seeing through the eyes of the teacher? Investigating primary school teachers’ professional noticing through a video-based research methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(5), 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1499016

88.

Yıldız

(2017). Disiplinlerarası Öğretim Yaklaşımı: Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme ve FeTeMM [Interdisciplinary teaching approach: Computational thinking and STEM]. In Gülbahar

(Ed.), Bilgi işlemsel düşünmeden programlamaya (pp. 318–336). Pegem Akademi.

89.

Zheng

(2013). The dynamic interactive relationship between Chinese secondary school EFL teachers’ beliefs and practice. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 192–204.