1. Introduction
In recent years, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have become a global focus, with Goal 4 (SDG4) on quality education being particularly critical for achieving sustainable development [1]. Research indicates that innovations in teacher education, particularly through curriculum reform and the enhancement of professional development systems, can effectively advance SDG4 implementation, thereby improving educational quality and contemporary relevance [2]. Within this context, STEM teachers have garnered significant attention due to their unique role in cultivating future innovators [3]. The internal driving forces of STEM teachers have emerged as a significant research focus, with particular attention being paid to STEM teacher identity [4,5]. For example, academicians have developed conceptual models of STEM teacher identity [6] and self-efficacy [7], and pointed out that teacher identity significantly determines teaching methods, professional development approaches, and attitudes towards educational reforms [8]—all of which constitute critical factors for realizing SDG4’s vision of inclusive and equitable quality education.
Teacher identity construction is a dynamic process that involves interactions with the social environment [9,10]. In light of this notion, we may infer that communities of practice (CoPs), as typical social environments encountered by teachers, can afford teachers support for knowledge and experience sharing. A CoP has been defined as a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area through ongoing interactions [11]. Indeed, there is scientific evidence showing that CoPs promote reflection on teaching practices through interactions, fostering positive teacher identity construction [12]. Similar conclusions have been drawn within the context of STEM teacher groups. Luehmann, for instance, showcased that teachers construct their STEM teacher identity through participation in professional learning communities and reflection on teaching practices [13]. Meanwhile, other researchers have demonstrated that the interaction and learning processes within STEM teacher CoPs can enhance teacher cognition, confidence, and self-efficacy in STEM education [14], help improve their teaching [15], and promote the development of their teaching abilities and professional growth [16].
In summary, the existing research has established that CoP participation can facilitate STEM teacher identity construction, although the process by which this construction occurs remain unclear. A thorough investigation into these construction mechanisms within CoP contexts will not only elucidate the inherent patterns of teacher professional development but also provide pivotal support for advancing sustainable, high-quality STEM education.
2. Literature Review
2.1. STEM Education
In recent years, STEM education, an interdisciplinary approach that integrates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, has gained significant traction in China as part of broader educational reforms aimed at cultivating innovative and practical talents.
As noted in The White Paper on STEM Education in China (a comprehensive official report summarizing the development and concept of STEM education) [17], STEM education emphasizes the organic integration of these fields to enable students to solve real-world problems with a teacher. This approach aligns with China’s long-standing goal of quality education and innovation-driven development. It encourages students to apply knowledge from multiple disciplines cohesively, such as in project-based learning scenarios where they use scientific principles, technological tools, engineering design, and mathematical calculations simultaneously. The Compulsory Education Curriculum Plan (2022 Edition) (an official educational policy document issued by the Chinese government) [18] reflects the essence of interdisciplinary learning and practical application, which are core features of STEM education, even though it does not explicitly use the term “STEM”.
2.2. CoP
The three key dimensions of CoP are as follows: a shared domain, community and practice [11]. CoP emphasizes that identity is not fixed but rather shaped through ongoing participation and interaction within communities. Newcomers to a CoP initially engage in peripheral activities, gradually taking on more central roles as they gain expertise and recognition. Through shared experiences and discussions, members of a CoP collectively construct and refine their understanding of what it means to be a teacher.
2.3. STEM Teacher Identity
As STEM education reforms progress worldwide, teachers may develop various new professional identities to meet the demands of interdisciplinary instruction. Research suggests that STEM teachers often transition from science teaching backgrounds and that their identities differ significantly from those of teachers of other subjects [19]. Their identities seem to also vary by teacher experience and the teaching setting [20] (i.e., elementary, secondary, or higher education). Moreover, emotional exhaustion differs significantly between STEM teachers and non-STEM teachers [21], making it no wonder that research on STEM teachers’ identities has garnered attention from the scientific community.
STEM teacher identity refers to the extent to which teachers understand/accept/recognize themselves as STEM educators, and its construction involves a dynamic and evolving process resulting from interactions between personal characteristics and professional development [22]. The professional identity of these teachers is also multidimensional. An example of such multidimensionality can be found in the study by Holmlund [23], who described STEM teachers as complex amalgamations of learners, risk-takers, inquirers, curriculum designers, negotiators, collaborators, and teachers. This multidimensional nature renders the development of STEM teacher identity significantly more complex than that of single-subject teacher identity.
2.4. The Impact of CoPs on STEM Teacher Identity
Self-efficacy is considered a component of various identity-related constructs [17,18,24,25]. Consequently, this study incorporated research on STEM teachers’ self-efficacy within the scope of identity studies. Current research in this field can be categorized into three approaches according to study design, namely interpretive, quantitative, and qualitative research. Using an interpretive perspective, Luehmann posited that teacher CoPs serve as safe spaces for educators to discover, construct, and experiment with new identities [13].
Quantitative research using quasi-experimental designs have validated the impact of CoPs on STEM teachers’ self-efficacy in short-term training programs, such as ‘Teachers and Researchers Advancing Integrated Lessons’ in STEM [26] and ‘the i-STEM Summer Institute’ [27]. There are also some studies that have attempted to elucidate the influence of CoPs on teacher identity while operationalizing CoPs as teacher collaboration networks. For example, based on survey data from 165 K-12 in-service science or mathematics teachers from five universities in the United States of America, Polizzi revealed correlations between collaborative networks, teacher identity, and self-efficacy [25]. The shortcomings of these quantitative studies lie in their primary reliance on survey data to assess STEM teachers’ identity status, and their implementation of statistical methods (e.g., correlation analysis and nonparametric tests) to determine the factors influencing teacher identity.
Qualitative research has been the predominant methodology in teacher identity studies [28,29]. In STEM education, research from the perspective of teachers, and single- and multiple-case studies have been employed to elucidate STEM teacher identity characteristics [22]. There has also been research on the experiences and professional learning of in-service elementary teachers participating in STEM education programs [30]. Weinberg used interpretative phenomenology to probe into data from three STEM teacher educators with long-term involvement in interdisciplinary STEM CoPs, analyzing their identity transitions within the CoP across the following five roles: teacher educators, STEM educators, STEM subject experts, STEM education researchers, and teacher education researchers [31].
A possible conclusion here is that the extant research has predominantly attempted to validate the impact of singular STEM training programs/courses on teacher identity status while relying on outcome data collected post-program. This way, it has provided inadequate fields for capturing the longitudinal process of teacher identity development, and it has lost the opportunity to capitalize on comparative analyses of the influence of different types of CoPs on STEM teacher identity development. There is also space for inferring a generalized negligence toward the diverse and complex environments in which STEM teachers operate. Indeed, the quantitative studies thus far that have aimed to determine the factors influencing teacher identity have often reflected the researchers’ perspective, thereby providing a dearth of information on teachers’ self-interpretation and not comprehensively revealing teachers’ experiences and perceptions within CoPs.
2.5. Present Study
The literature review section highlights some gaps in the literature that make the current study warranted, with a major one being our lack of knowledge on the changes in STEM teachers’ identity status, from both the researchers’ and teachers’ perspectives, after partaking in various CoP activities.
STEM teacher identity has complex, multidimensional characteristics that involve self-efficacy, professional identity, and a sense of collective belonging [32]. Following this understanding, Hanna proposed a teacher identity model comprising the four key dimensions of motivation, self-image, self-efficacy, and task perception [33]. Galanti and Holincheck further proposed that STEM teachers possess a dual identity as both teachers and learners, which in turn subdivides into five dimensions for the teacher identity (i.e., teaching interest, self-efficacy, motivation, self-image, and task perception) and four dimensions for the learner identity (i.e., competence, performance, recognition, and content interest) [34]. Considering the practical demands of STEM education and teachers’ actual experiences, this study integrates the teacher and learner identities from Galanti and Holincheck’s model [34]. Specifically, teaching interest (teacher identity) and content interest (learner identity) are combined into the teaching interest dimension; self-efficacy (teacher identity) and competence (learner identity) are merged into the self-efficacy dimension; self-image (teacher identity) and performance (learner identity) are integrated into the self-image dimension. Consequently, six primary dimensions of STEM teacher identity were established, these being recognition, self-efficacy, task perception, self-image, teaching interest, and motivation. The meanings of each primary dimension are shown in Table 1.
The concept of participatory identity posits that teachers develop their identities through participation and engagement in social groups [35], and that individuals form their identities dynamically within specific social environments through collaborative partnerships [11,36].
This study aimed to analyze the transformation process of STEM teacher identity among teachers participating in STEM CoPs. This is specifically addressed through the following research questions: How do CoPs influence the transformation of the six dimensions of STEM teacher identity? How do these transformations occur?
The theoretical framework illustrated in Figure 1 was constructed based on the above analyses.
3. Methods
3.1. Design and Participants
Regarding design, this study employed interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), a qualitative research method developed by Smith, Flowers, and Larkin [37], which aims to examine ‘in detail how participants are making sense of their personal and social world, it attempts to explore personal experience and is concerned with an individual’s personal perception or account of an object or event’ [38]. IPA facilitates a deep exploration of the underlying meanings and significance behind the data, providing insight into people’s authentic experiences. In this study, the data stemmed from interviews with STEM teachers partaking in CoPs, allowing for the elucidation of the transformative processes across various dimensions of STEM teacher identity. IPA calls for small-sample research, with Pietkiewicz and Smith recommending a selection of 4 to 10 participants to ensure depth in the study. Accordingly, this research employed purposive sampling and selected six STEM teachers from China as interviewees [39]. Using purposive sampling, six STEM teachers from China—all engaged in various types of STEM CoPs and representing diverse disciplines, teaching experiences (range of years of experience with STEM teaching: 0.5–6 years), and school backgrounds (primary or secondary schools in Guangdong Province, China)—were selected as interviewees. Smith suggest that when the sample size is between four and eight participants, at least three interviewees’ excerpts should be included under each research theme [38]. Notably, during the selection process, our preliminary survey data (n = 535) revealed that science teachers (32.2%) and information technology teachers (30.5%) constituted the largest proportions within the STEM teacher population, while there were relatively fewer mathematics teachers. This is because mathematics, as a core foundational subject in China’s education system, places greater emphasis on theoretical calculations and exam-oriented training, resulting in a comparatively lower participation rate of math teachers in STEM education. Therefore, this study ultimately selected science and IT teachers as the primary interviewees. Information from the interviewed teachers is shown in Table 2.
3.2. Data Collection
The interview guide (see Appendix A) was developed based on the theoretical framework outlined in Figure 1. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an online conferencing system (Tencent Meeting), and with the participants’ consent, interviews were audio-recorded. One to two interviews were carried out with each participant, each lasting 40–60 min, and interview data were collected between December 2023 and January 2024.
The standardized IPA procedure for interview transcript analysis was employed [40], involving the following steps: repeated reading of interview data to identify the research theme (i.e., ‘The impact of participation in CoPs on STEM teacher identity’); identification and recording of significant themes and concepts, leading to the compilation of a list of themes; multiple readings of interview transcripts to mark passages that provided in-depth insights into teachers’ perceptions of their identity transformations; assignment of descriptive codes to marked passages (as shown in Table 3); re-reading of these passages and descriptive codes to identify connections and relationships between codes, followed by data clustering [38]; allocation of theoretical themes to the clustered data; interpretation and understanding of phenomena based on inductively derived themes; discussion of results with other researchers for feedback and validation.
To better understand the key factors influencing the transformation of STEM teacher identity, this study conducted a comparative analysis of responses from six interviewees across each dimension, aiming to identify the potential factors that affect this change.
3.3. Rigor and Research Ethics
This study employed multiple methods to ensure academic rigor. First, member-checking was conducted, where participants verified the transcribed texts to guarantee the accuracy of interview data. Simultaneously, two researchers collaboratively analyzed the interview data through discussion and consensus-building [47,48].
All six participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in this study. The research team informed the participants that the recordings would be used solely for research purposes and that their identities would be protected through the use of pseudonyms or numerical codes, with all personal information kept strictly confidential. The research project has undergone ethical review and received approval from the Institutional Research Ethics Committee at the author’s institution.
4. Results
The Impact of CoP on STEM Teacher Identity Development
To identify the factors causing changes in STEM teachers’ identity, this study quantified the interview data. The transformation degree of six interviewed teachers was quantified across six dimensions: motivation, task perception, self-image, etc. Each dimension was divided into five levels, represented by values 1–5, with higher values indicating a greater degree of transformation. Two researchers independently analyzed and assigned values to the interview data. In cases of inconsistent valuations, discussions and negotiations with a third researcher were conducted to determine the final value. The results of this valuation are presented in Table 4.
(1). In the dimension of motivation, Teacher Jiang said that ‘motivation has not changed much’ and assigned a value of 2; Teacher Lai and Yao said that ‘motivation has changed to some extent’ and assigned a value of 3; Teacher Qian and Teacher Song said that ‘they believed that teaching STEM could be a good way to develop students’ abilities in various aspects’ before participating in the community of practice, and after participating in the community of practice, they assigned a value of 4. Teacher Qian and Teacher Song said that ‘before participating in the CoP, they thought it was necessary to adapt to the new curriculum, but after participating in the CoP, they thought that teaching STEM could be a good way to cultivate students ‘abilities in various aspects’, so they assigned a value of 4 to the degree of change in motivation, and Teacher Long said that ‘after participating in the CoP, they thought that STEM not only cultivated students’ comprehensive abilities, but also promoted their personal growth and development’. Teacher Long’s opinion that ‘after participating in the CoP, she believes that STEM not only cultivates students’ comprehensive abilities but also effectively promotes personal growth and development, which makes her more engaged in teaching’ is the deepest degree of motivation change, so she assigned a value of 5.
(2). In the dimension of task perception, Teacher Jiang thinks that ‘the task is to teach subject knowledge’, which shows that she thinks she only has a single teaching task, and therefore assigns a value of 2. Teacher Lai and Yao emphasize that ‘on the basis of teaching subject knowledge, the task is also to design comprehensive examples to help students solve practical problems’, so it can be seen that these two teachers have the most profound change in their motivation. Teacher Lai and Yao emphasized that ‘on top of teaching subject knowledge, the task is also to design integrated lesson examples to help students solve practical problems’, so it can be seen that these two teachers have a deeper perception of the task and are therefore assigned a value of 3. Teacher Song and Qian’s perception of the task is expanded to ‘integrate resources from all aspects of the STEM curriculum’, and is ultimately assigned a value of 4. Teacher Long said that ‘the task is to realize the iterative optimization of the teaching mode through continuous reflection and improvement, and ultimately to form a personalized teaching style,’ reflecting a deeper level of task perception, and therefore being assigned a value of 5.
(3). In the dimension of self-image, Teacher Jiang thinks that she is only ‘a transmitter of subject knowledge’ and therefore assigns a value of 2, while Teacher Lai, Teacher Qian, and Teacher Yao think that their roles are richer and that they are ‘guides and inspirations for students‘ learning’ and therefore assign a value of 3; furthermore, Teacher Song thinks that she is ‘a guide and inspiration for students’ learning’ and therefore assigns a value of 3. Teacher Song perceived her role as ‘not only a facilitator of student learning but also a designer of STEM curricula’ and therefore assigned a value of 4. Teacher Long, ‘a learning facilitator, curriculum developer, interdisciplinary collaborator, and reflective practitioner’, assigned a value of 5.
(4). In the dimension of interest in teaching and learning, Teacher Song said ‘interest is not as strong as before’, which shows that after participating in the CoP, Teacher Song’s interest in STEM decreased rather than increased, so she assigned a value of 2. Teacher Yao said ‘interest in teaching and learning is increasing gradually’. Teacher Jiang and Teacher Lai both said that after participating in the CoP, they ‘actively design interdisciplinary courses, actively integrate new technologies, and are willing to participate in teacher collaboration’, i.e., their motivation and interest in teaching has increased. Teacher Long believes that after participating in CoP, she is ‘full of passion for teaching, continues to innovate the curriculum, leads the development of the team, and promotes the change of STEM education’ and therefore assigns a value of 5.
(5). In the dimension of self-efficacy, Teacher Jiang expressed that her ‘teaching ability is limited/not very good’ and assigned a value of 2. Teacher Lai, Teacher Yao, and Teacher Long believed that their ‘ability needs to be strengthened’ and assigned a value of 3. Teacher Qian and Teacher Song believed that their ‘ability to communicate and cooperate through the CoP’ was not as good as theirs’. Teacher Qian and Teacher Song thought that ‘the ability to learn through CoP communication and cooperation has been improved’, showing a strong sense of self-efficacy, and therefore assigned a value of 5.
(6). In the recognition dimension, Teacher Jiang and Teacher Yao ‘assessed themselves through students’ achievements and performance’, and this recognition, driven by students’ achievements, was assigned a value of 2. Teacher Lai, on the other hand, emphasized more on positive external evaluations, such as ‘receiving support from the school and evaluations from the CoP members’ to recognize herself, so she was assigned a value of 5. Teacher Lai, on the other hand, focused more on positive external evaluations such as ‘support from the school and evaluations from CoP members’ to recognize herself and assigned a value of 3. Teacher Qian indicated that she received recognition for her professional accomplishments such as ‘developing lesson examples and winning awards’, which demonstrated a higher level of professional self-confidence, and assigned a value of 4. Teacher Long’s source of recognition is more comprehensive, with ‘gaining appreciation from peers through participation in CoPs’ and ‘continuous self-reflection and evaluation, and developing self-growth plans’, which is a combination of self-recognition and external recognition, and is therefore assigned a value of 5.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ motivations. This theme could be categorized into three descriptive elements, as explored hereinafter. First, STEM education in response to curriculum reform requirements. For instance, Teacher Lai stated that ‘Previously, I believed it [engagement in STEM teaching] was merely about adapting to new curriculum reforms and standards’, while Teacher Song expressed,’Before participating in the CoP, I viewed STEM teaching solely as a requirement of the new curriculum reform’.
Second, STEM education fosters student skill development. Teacher Lai observed that when addressing real-life issues relevant to students, the latter’s interest and learning outcomes significantly improved, and stated that ‘The ultimate goal of STEM is to cultivate students’ interdisciplinary thinking to help them solve practical problems’. Meanwhile, Teacher Qian recognized that ‘students have many issues they need to face independently, and this process effectively develops various aspects of their abilities’.
Third, intrinsic interest in STEM teaching is important. When describing their motivations, the interviewed teachers mentioned their intrinsic interests regarding STEM teaching. Teacher Long, who had three years of experience in STEM education, actively participated in various CoPs, and recognized that CoP participation can positively influence STEM teachers’ motivations and attitudes, positing that ‘The frequent academic exchanges with colleagues have increased my interest in STEM teaching’.
A cross-sectional comparison revealed that teachers with more than three years of STEM teaching experience showed stronger motivation, and they had deeper degrees of motivational shifts. Teacher Long, Teacher Song, and Teacher Qian had motivation shift levels of 5 and 4, respectively, which they described in terms of ‘driven by intrinsic passion, effectively contributing to personal growth and development, experiencing intrinsic satisfaction, and realizing self-worth through students’ progress in STEM’. Teacher Long had the deepest degree of transformation, and she specifically emphasized her sense of responsibility in developing students’ integrative skills, interdisciplinary thinking, and creativity. Engaging in communities of practice broadens her pedagogical perspectives and enhances her teaching skills, making her a more effective STEM educator. This sense of mission drives her to be more engaged and committed to continuously improving her teaching methods, exemplifying the intrinsic motivation in STEM education.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ self-image.Table 3 shows the descriptive elements that emerged from the theme ‘Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Self-Image’. After participating in an interdisciplinary project titled ‘Why Does Severe Convective Weather Frequently Occur in Summer’, Teacher Lai started assuming a facilitator role, guiding students to raise and solve problems, and said that ‘Letting students take the lead increases their engagement and interest compared to before’. Moreover, Teacher Long collaborated with project team members in the design, development, and implementation of a school-based curriculum called ‘The Library Protection Plan’. When asked about role changes, she noted the following:
I am a guide and facilitator of the students’ growth path, not merely a knowledge transmitter…I am also a curriculum designer and developer… STEM courses integrate content from other disciplines more extensively, providing me with more opportunities for exploration and innovation.
(Teacher Long)
Comparative analysis revealed that in terms of self-image, Teacher Long (i.e., three years of STEM teaching experience) had the deepest degree of transformation, of 5, and she systematically expressed the multiple roles of a STEM teacher, whereas Teacher Jiang, who had only 0.5 years of STEM teaching experience had a degree of transformation of 2 in her self-image, which emphasized only the transformation from single-subject teaching to interdisciplinary teaching.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ task perception. The transformation of STEM teachers’ task perceptions could be categorized into two dimensions, namely student- and teacher-focused. Regarding the student-focused dimension, Teacher Long stated, ‘Prior to participating in CoPs, my primary task was to develop students’ practical skills’, whereas an initial involvement in CoPs led teachers to reportedly start to collaborate more with students in completing interdisciplinary projects. They observed that allowing students to complete tasks was independently associated with significant improvements in student interdisciplinary collaboration and communication skills. Teacher Lai stated that ‘Prior to participating in CoPs, my primary task was mainly to teach students knowledge. After participating in the CoPs, I realized that my primary task is to help students break down complex problems and guide them to solve problems on their own.’
Regarding the teacher-focused dimension, it emphasizes both the coordination of various resources and the expectation of a ‘new classroom’ approach. For example, Teacher Song, whose shift in the task perception dimension was a deeper 4, saw the need to coordinate various resources, stating that ‘Students, social resources, and the teacher team all need to be coordinated’. After engagement in CoPs, STEM teachers agreed that collaboration and communication with other educators became essential tasks. Teacher Qian frequently engaged in exchanges and learning within CoPs formed by schools from different regions, and, through a CoP, collaborated with students to develop interdisciplinary case studies and jointly complete the project named ‘Water Quality Measurement of Wutong Mountain Spring’. Teacher Qian remarked that ‘Different disciplines interact, and through deep involvement in CoPs, I’ve acquired considerable knowledge. It’s an iterative process where I began to reflect on and improve my teaching, and developed a new classroom approach with my own style’.
It can be observed that, when discussing the shifts in task perception, several teachers pointed out the impact of case development activities carried out by multidisciplinary educators in collaboration, which also consolidated the identity of these teachers with regards to the degree of the shift in task perception.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ self-efficacy. STEM teachers’ descriptions of self-efficacy could be categorized into three aspects, namely collaboratively discussing with single-subject teachers about specific themes, case sharing with other STEM teachers, and teacher–student collaborative participation.
First, discussions with single-subject teachers on specific themes helped STEM teachers better understand other disciplines’ knowledge systems and approaches to designing interdisciplinary curricula. As Teacher Qian mentioned, ‘Our STEM curriculum ultimately results in a tangible outcome. The engineering and production aspects of this materialisation process require the application of open-source hardware. The final product necessitates the involvement of the art discipline’.
Second, case sharing with peers encouraged STEM teachers to master strategies for STEM subject knowledge integration. Teacher Jiang, with only six months of STEM teaching experience, described a lack of extensive STEM project experience, but also felt that her curriculum integration skills had improved after exchanging her teaching practices with other educators through the CoP, saying that ‘When designing my lessons, I now incorporate knowledge from multiple disciplines, making them better aligned with STEM education themes’. Teacher Long also believed that her abilities were limited before participating in CoPs, but noticed significant improvements after participation, saying that ‘Through interactions and collaborations with other teachers, I learned more strategies for integrating STEM subject knowledge, and how to design more practically-meaningful projects and activities’. Meanwhile, Teacher Song, in participating in a STEM education community of the Finnish LUMA Center, could profoundly comprehend that, ‘Through continuous in-depth learning and training, I have become more confident in exploring STEM education’.
Third, through teacher–student collaborative participation, the STEM teachers experienced mutual growth with their students. For instance, in collaboration with students and teachers from other disciplines, Teacher Song investigated the traffic congestion problem in Yantian District, Shenzhen, China; through continuous refinement and the iterative design of solutions in the CoP, not only did students experience growth, but teachers also enhanced their interdisciplinary integration skills, with Teacher Song saying, ‘I have developed the ability to quickly assist others in problem-solving, supporting teachers from other disciplines in interdisciplinary integration, thereby improving my overall capacity for curriculum integration’. Teacher Yao also said ‘The feedback and performance of the students, in turn, help me better understand the effectiveness of my teaching, forming a virtuous cycle’.
Teacher Song and Qian, two science teachers, expressed a more positive sense of efficacy in STEM teaching, and therefore had the deepest degree of identity shift in the self-efficacy dimension, a degree of 5. Teacher Qian specifically mentioned that ‘as science teachers, we may have some inherent advantages. The characteristics of the science curriculum make us more suitable for STEM education practice’.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ teaching interest.Table 3 contains the main descriptions of teaching interests. Although Teacher Jiang had only six months of STEM teaching experience, her degree of transformation in the dimension of teaching interest was 4. She observed that after participating in the collaborative project, her students’ interdisciplinary learning improved significantly, which made her appreciate the charm of STEM teaching even more. She stated that ‘The peer support that occurs during the collaborative process within the community [CoP] ignites our interest in STEM teaching’. Teachers Lai and Long, both of whom had rich experiences in CoPs, unanimously agreed that support and mutual influence among community members could stimulate STEM teaching interest. Teacher Lai noted, ‘Throughout the community [CoP] participation process, other teachers also showed great interest in STEM teaching’. Teacher Long noted that ‘After participating in the CoP and engaging in exchanges and sharing with other teachers, I came to recognize the true significance and value of STEM education, and I began to take a keen interest in it’.
Additionally, we identified some issues in the dimension of STEM teachers’ teaching interest. Teacher Song (i.e., six years of STEM teaching experience) stated that ‘When I first participated in STEM teaching, my interest was very high, but after some time, it’s not as intense’. He believed that ‘STEM education development in China still has a long way to go… In China, the average class size is approximately 50 students, which makes it difficult to focus on each student’s development’. This indicates that teachers’ interest in STEM teaching may fluctuate according to one’s understanding of the practice and practical constraints.
Transformation of STEM teachers’ recognition.Table 3 shows the various key descriptors of this theme. STEM teachers have gained recognition through competitions, exhibitions, and other related activities, with an example being Teacher Long’s project design winning first prize at the International Academic Symposium on STEM Education and Project-Based Learning. This validated her value and earned her praises from leaders and peers, resulting in a recognition dimension transformation score of 5.
Meanwhile, Teacher Song led students in the design of a bird feeder case study that they presented to an international audience in Finland, which helped raise awareness of their STEM education efforts. He subsequently published related papers, describing that ‘We primarily aim to increase awareness of our STEM initiatives through sharing, publishing papers, and exchanges’. This observation demonstrates that Teacher Song achieved professional recognition through multiple integrated approaches, resulting in a transformation score of 4 in the recognition dimension.
This theme also revealed instances of self-recognition, student recognition, and parental recognition. Teacher Long noted that ‘Through collaboration and communication with others, I gained a better understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, enabling me to formulate personal growth plans’. Teacher Qian also remarked that ‘When I teach, many children inquire about my next class, expressing anticipation for the course’. Teacher Lai remarked that ‘Last year, we worked with students on the project titled ‘Why Do Severe Convective Weather Events Occur Frequently in Summer?’ Seeing the excellent results the students achieved, I felt a great sense of accomplishment’.
A comparative analysis of the six interviewees reveals that as their STEM teaching experience increased, their roles within the community of practice evolved from being seminar attendees to case study presenters, and eventually, leaders of STEM education-related project teams.
Additionally, we identified issues in the dimension of parental recognition. Both Teacher Song and Qian highlighted the conflict between parents’ emphasis on academic scores and the principles of STEM education. Teacher Song noted the following:
Many parents do not recognize the value of STEM education, believing that test scores are the most important. They view STEM activities as merely recreational, and typically, we conduct these activities in grades 3, 4, and 5. Parents of sixth graders often do not allow their children to participate.
Teacher Qian also pointed out that ‘STEM education requires home-school collaboration. Some tasks need to be completed outside the classroom, which necessitates parental support.’
5. Discussion
5.1. Question: How Do CoPs Influence the Transformation of the Six Dimensions of STEM Teachers’ Professional Identity? How Do These Transformations Occur?
Based on the STEM teacher identity model constructed in this study, we concluded that CoP participation significantly positively influenced these STEM teachers’ professional identities. This finding aligns with the evidence in previous research indicating that STEM education programs promote teachers’ professional awareness [44].
The transformation of motivation from internal to external. Teachers’ perceptions of their motivation, self-image, and self-efficacy influence their preparation for and engagement in educational work [42]. STEM teachers experienced two significant motivational shifts during their participation in CoPs; prior to participation, STEM teachers viewed integrated STEM teaching as a means of adapting to new curriculum reform. The first motivational shift occurred when teachers, after starting their engagement in STEM CoPs, observed student development and recognized the importance of fostering interdisciplinary thinking for student development. This shifted their motivation from an external drive to meet the teaching reform requirements to an external motivation focused on promoting student development. The second transformation occurred when STEM teachers engaged in deeper exchanges with peers within their CoPs, which led to the shift from external to internal motivation. These results are consistent with those from Holincheck and Galanti’s research [44], where teachers’ motivation for STEM instruction was described to be inextricably linked to student development.
Self-image transformation: from single-subject and single-pole to interdisciplinary and multipole. The literature suggests that STEM teachers should be generalists who are able to teach math, science, engineering, and other related disciplines; however, many STEM teachers are unaware of their professional roles [49,50]. The results of this study corroborate these findings regarding role ambiguity, as STEM teachers had, prior to CoP participation, vague conceptions of themselves as STEM educators. They primarily identified themselves as single-subject teachers responsible for imparting knowledge and skills about their specific disciplines, and for teaching students basic concepts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. After participating in CoPs and engaging in collaborative learning and project planning with teachers from other disciplines, they gradually began to identify themselves as integrated STEM teachers. They started to gain greater clarity on their own roles and to acknowledge the need to embody multiple roles (e.g., facilitator, mentor, and curriculum designer). That is, teachers’ self-image transformed from that of single-subject instructors to that of multifaceted interdisciplinary professionals, enhancing their sense of role identity. This finding aligns with the perspective in the study by Yang [51], which proposed that STEM teachers assume multiple identities as designers, implementers, and disseminators of integrated STEM activities.
Task perception transformation: from classroom-centric to encompassing both in- and out-of-class contexts. STEM teachers’ task perceptions expanded beyond classroom confines after participation in CoPs. They started to recognize that their responsibilities should extend beyond the classroom and include both in-class and out-of-class contexts. This expansion is evident from both student- and teacher-oriented perspectives. From the student-oriented perspective, STEM teachers’ perceptions of their teaching goals shifted from improving students’ practical skills to promoting students’ interdisciplinary collaboration and communication skills. From the teacher-oriented perspective, the transformation reflected primarily in the resources teachers perceived that they had to mobilize, which expanded from the individual teacher to include multidisciplinary educators, other STEM teachers, and societal resources. Holincheck and Galanti’s conclusions regarding STEM teachers’ task perceptions leaned more towards their experiences within STEM classrooms [44], including teachers’ beliefs about how learners should experience failure in STEM processes. In contrast, this study’s results relate more to a meso-level dimension, emphasizing student development goals and the scope of teachers’ responsibilities.
Enhancement of self-efficacy in interdisciplinary integration. Self-efficacy is crucial for teacher behavior, as the belief in the ability to achieve positive outcomes renders them more likely to repeat teaching behaviors [33]. The ‘self-efficacy’ component in the teacher identity model reveals teachers’ confidence in fostering students’ integrated STEM abilities, which can influence and motivate student learning [44]. Before participating in STEM CoPs, many teachers perceived themselves as more proficient in teaching single-subject knowledge and lacked confidence in their ability to teach STEM in an integrated way. CoP participation then enabled their interactions with other single-subject teachers, which in turn helped STEM teachers with the following: the clarification of their instructional design approaches; engagement in discussions with other STEM teachers, which enhanced STEM teacher self-efficacy in integrating STEM knowledge; the development of effective STEM teaching strategies and the proper coordination of resources; collaborative practices with students that improved teacher self-efficacy in implementing and evaluating STEM curricula. These conclusions align with the findings afforded by the studies from Kelley [7] and Nadelson [27], and affirm the positive impact of CoPs on STEM teachers’ self-efficacy.
Mutual support stimulates STEM teachers’ teaching interest. CoP participation fosters intellectual exchange and resource sharing among STEM teachers, enabling a more ingrained understanding of STEM education’s true meaning and value, thereby stimulating their interest in STEM teaching. In the initial stages of STEM education implementation, teachers often struggle to connect content from their previous coursework with the knowledge required to teach integrated STEM in the classroom [52]. However, collaborative communication and resource sharing can help teachers to continuously improve their instructional strategies, integrate knowledge, and derive satisfaction and a sense of achievement from their students’ progress, thereby igniting their passion for STEM teaching.
Recognition dimension: transition from a single form to multiple forms of recognition. How others perceive teachers and their own self-perception are crucial aspects of teacher identity [22]. STEM teachers can implement STEM instruction more effectively when they view themselves as STEM teachers and are recognized as such by others. The ‘recognition’ dimension of STEM teacher identity in this study showed a shift, after participation in CoPs, from focusing solely on recognition from leadership and peers to focusing on various forms of recognition, including self-recognition, peer recognition, student recognition, and parental recognition. This transformation in the recognition dimension correlated with changes in the motivation dimension. Peer recognition, a form of external acknowledgment, can be attributed to extrinsic motivation, whereas self-recognition can be considered to align with intrinsic motivation. Therefore, STEM teacher identity formation transitioned from external to internal factors.
5.2. Other Findings: Possible Factors Influencing the Identity Transition of STEM Teachers
The relationship between STEM teacher identity change and teaching experience. Combined with teacher development theories, beginner teachers tend to be more concerned with survival and classroom management issues, and their identities are not yet solidified; however, with the accumulation of teaching experience, teachers gradually shift from ‘focusing on the self’ ‘focusing on the effectiveness of teaching’, and their professional motivation and self-image perceptions also increase. The results of this study also indicate that as STEM teaching experience increases, STEM teachers’ identity shifts in the dimensions of motivation and self-image increase dramatically. This finding illuminates the impact of differences in teaching experience on teacher identity formation and is consistent with research evidence from Chi [6] and Feser and Haak [1]. These researchers confirmed that pre-service and in-service science teachers’ professional identities differed by teaching experience.
Major CoP activities to promote STEM teacher identity transformation. Key CoP activities promote STEM teacher identity transformation. Community of practice participation reinforces identity through socially constructed mechanisms. Wenger’s study noted that teachers’ marginal–core positional variation in CoP directly affects the strength of their professional identity [11]. This study found that teachers who were in the core position in the CoP, i.e., in roles such as facilitator, exhibited more pronounced identity shifts. The case development activities completed by multidisciplinary teachers in the practice community can help teachers to better understand their tasks as STEM teachers, and the case presentations in the practice community can help STEM teachers to develop self-recognition and recognition from others. These findings are partially corroborated by existing research, as Penuel noted that teacher participation in curriculum development and teaching practices within communities fosters the sharing of professional ideals and values that influence their professional identities [53]. At this point, it is important to emphasize that the current analysis of the relationship between CoP participation and teacher identity is based on phenomenological inference. This means that further investigation is needed to determine which CoP internal factors lead to variations in teacher identity transformations, something achievable through examining CoP characteristics, as described by Ofem [54] and Polizzi [25].
Science teachers have a higher sense of STEM teaching self-efficacy. The two science teachers in the sample demonstrated more pronounced identity transformations than the teachers of other subjects, indicating that teaching subject influences STEM teacher identity transformation. This phenomenon may be closely related to the characteristics of the subject and the professional development path, because the science subject itself emphasizes inquiry-based learning and empirical research, which makes it easier for science teachers to transfer their teaching paradigms to the interdisciplinary practice of STEM education, which is also confirmed by the longitudinal study of Luehmann and other scholars [13], who found that science teachers tended to identify more with the identities of ‘problem solvers and curriculum developers’. They found that science teachers tended to identify more as ‘problem seekers and curriculum developers’, while information technology teachers emphasized their role as ‘problem solvers’. Polizzi concluded that science teachers exhibit higher levels of identity and self-efficacy than teachers from other disciplines [25].
Issues that require special attention. Two key issues emerged from the interviews. First, teachers with more years of experience reported a decline in their personal interest in teaching, which aligns with the moderate levels of occupational burnout among STEM teachers noted by Farhi and Rubinsten [55]. Second, there were concerns about parental recognition. Research, such as that by Simunovic [56], underscores the crucial role of parents in STEM education, highlighting their ability to convey the practical value of STEM and the importance of promoting STEM-related values at home. Analysis revealed that both issues are related to China’s current education system.
5.3. Theoretical and Practical Contributions
This study empirically validates the impact of CoPs on STEM teachers’ professional identity transformation and systematically elucidates its manifestations across six identity dimensions. These findings not only advance theoretical frameworks for STEM teacher development but also make significant contributions to achieving quality STEM education under SDG4, thereby providing sustained momentum toward inclusive and equitable quality education as advocated by SDG4.
The findings of the study have important guiding value for building a sustainable community of practice for STEM education, as reflected in the following: (1). Within the community of practice, the development of motivation level, among the other dimensions, including task cognition, should be effectively enhanced through collaboration between novice and senior teachers, which is the basis for guaranteeing sustainable improvements in the quality of STEAM education. (2). Given the unique role of science subject teachers in enhancing the self-efficacy of community members, it is recommended that science teachers take the lead in conducting CoPs activities to promote the overall professional growth of the STEM teaching force. (3). By organizing cross-community or cross-school joint case development and presentation activities, teachers’ sense of professional identity and level of task awareness can be significantly enhanced, and the co-construction and sharing of quality STEM teaching resources can be promoted. (4). Special attention needs to be paid to the potential burnout of STEM teachers and the change in parents’ attitudes towards STEM education, so as to provide a guarantee for the sustainable development of STEM education.
5.4. Limitations and Future Directions
This study had several limitations that warrant further future investigations. First, the data analysis relied primarily on retrospective interviews from multiple cases, and participants’ interpretations of their experiences through recollection may have introduced certain biases. Future research should employ single-case methodologies to highlight longitudinal developmental processes. Second, the factors influencing STEM teacher identity development were inferred based on phenomenological interpretation, highlighting the need for future quantitative research to validate the results. Third, while the initial STEM teacher identity model considered both educator and learner roles, during data collection, teachers’ responses regarding the ‘learner’ role were often ambiguous, and they instead predominantly expressed perceptions of the ‘educator’ role. Consequently, this study omitted data regarding the ‘learner’ role. Future research should continue to explore STEM teachers’ role as ‘STEM learners’. Fourth, this study is limited by the lack of longitudinal tracking data and insufficient interview rounds. Future research will adopt a three-phase longitudinal design and extend the interview process to address these limitations.
Conceptualization, P.W. and L.Y.; methodology, P.W. and L.Y.; investigation, X.Y. and X.X.; formal analysis, X.Y. and X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Y. and X.X.; writing—review and editing, P.W. and L.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Guangzhou University (Approval Code: GDU-SEC[2025]091, Approval Date: 22 April 2024).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
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.
Figure 1 The theoretical framework of this study [
STEM teacher identity model.
| Primary Dimensions | Specific Connotations | |
|---|---|---|
| STEM teacher identity model | Recognition | How am I recognized by others and myself? |
| Self-efficacy | How capable do I believe I am to teach integrated STEM? | |
| Task perception | What is my task as an integrated STEM teacher? | |
| Self-image | How do I see myself as a STEM program teacher? | |
| Teaching interest | How much do I think about and understand STEM teaching? | |
| Motivation | Why am I teaching integrated STEM? |
Information from the interviewed teachers.
| Interviewed Teacher | Gender | Years of STEM Teaching Experience (Years) | Teaching Level | Subject Taught | Most Common CoP Activities | Specific Activities | Participation Cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher Jiang | Female | 0.5 | Primary School | Information Technology | STEM education symposium | Discussing and presenting STEM teaching cases with CoP member | None |
| Teacher Lai | Female | 2 | Primary School | Information Technology | STEM education symposium; case presentation | STEM-themed lectures; sharing real or simulated STEM education practice cases | Why Do Severe Convective Weather Events Frequently Occur in Summer? |
| Teacher Yao | Female | 2 | Junior High School | Information Technology | Case presentation; STEM education-related research group | Sharing STEM instructional design cases; co-authoring STEM-related books with CoP peers | STEM Course Design and Application Based on Shatoujiao Fish Lantern Dance |
| Teacher Long | Female | 3 | Junior High School | Information Technology | Case presentation; case development; STEM education-related research group | Attending online/offline regional STEM education seminars; developing STEM teaching cases; participating in STEM teacher professional development training | Library Protection Plan |
| Teacher Song | Male | 5 | Primary School | Science | Case presentation; case development; STEM education-related research group | Participating in workshops by Chaihuo Maker Space; developing STEM teaching cases; collecting data, and writing and publishing papers | Bird Feeder Case, The Growth Code of Coastal Plants in Yantian—AI Exploration and Conservation Journey |
| Teacher Qian | Male | 6 | Junior High School | Chemistry | Case presentation; case development; STEM education-related research group | Attending regional STEM-themed seminars; participating in STEM teacher professional development training; developing STEM teaching cases | Water Quality Study of Wutong Mountain Spring Water |
The impact of participation in CoPs on STEM teacher identity.
| Theme | Definition | References | Descriptive Codes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Motivations | Teaching motivation encompasses both internal and external factors that drive teachers to engage in their work. | Ryan & Deci, 2000 [ | ‘Adapting to the requirements of new curriculum reforms and standards’, ‘A form of curriculum reform’, ‘To cultivate students’ knowledge and skills’, ‘Developing students’ comprehensive abilities’, ‘Fostering students’ problem-solving skills’. |
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ | A teacher’s self-image is the integrated understanding and perception of their role, abilities, and value, shaped by their past teaching experiences, reflective practice, and professional awareness. | Nevgi & Löfström, 2015 [ | ‘Single-subject teacher’, ‘Knowledge transmitter’, ‘Facilitator’, ‘Observer’, ‘Practitioner’, ‘Curriculum designer’. |
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Task Perception | Teachers’ task perception is the understanding and awareness of their teaching responsibilities, goals, and the significance of their practice, developed through continuous reflection and experience. | Nevgi & Löfström, 2015 [ | ‘Developing students’ practical skills’, ‘Guiding student learning’, ‘Accomplishing interdisciplinary collaboration and communication tasks’, ‘Learning to collaborate with other teachers’, ‘Coordinating diverse resources, including students, social resources, and teaching teams’. |
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Self-Efficacy | Teachers’ self-efficacy refers to the belief and confidence in one’s ability to accomplish specific teaching tasks, achieve educational goals, and overcome teaching challenges. | Kelley et al., 2022 [ | ‘Insufficient competence’, ‘Limited proficiency’, ‘Average capability’, ‘Restricted abilities’, ‘Improved overall competence’, ‘Significant room for improvement in capabilities’, ‘Enhanced teaching skills’, ‘Improved proficiency in curriculum integration and instructional design’. |
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Teaching Interest | Teachers’ teaching interest refers to the intrinsic enthusiasm, curiosity, and continuous motivation that teachers display toward teaching activities in their practice. | Holincheck & Galanti, 2023 [ | ‘Highly profound’, ‘Demonstrates a degree of enthusiasm’, ‘Developed a keen interest’, ‘Remains at a superficial conceptual level’, ‘Maintains consistent interest in STEM courses’, ‘Highly engaging’, ‘Facilitates substantial knowledge acquisition’. |
| Transformation of STEM Teachers’ Recognition | Recognition encompasses both external recognition, which involves the evaluation of a teacher’s professional role, competence, and value by external groups such as peers and students, and internal recognition, which is the teacher’s own reflective understanding of the significance and value of their professional identity. | Hazari et al., 2010 [ | ‘Publication of research papers’, ‘Participation in interdisciplinary conferences’,‘Completion of practical projects and assignments’, ‘Reflection and self-assessment’, ‘Parental recognition and support’, ‘Open lessons and published research topics’, ‘Student performance and achieved outcomes’, ‘Peer evaluation among educators’. |
Transformation of identity dimensions among interviewed teachers.
| Interviewed Teacher | Motivation | Task Perception | Self-Image | Teaching Interest | Self-Efficacy | Recognition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher Jiang | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| Teacher Lai | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Teacher Yao | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Teacher Long | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Teacher Qian | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Teacher Song | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
Appendix A
| STEM Teacher Interview Guide | ||||||||
| Site | Time | Duration | Interviewer | |||||
| suffer | gender | age | length of service as a teacher | STEM teaching age | ||||
| professional title | post | academic degree | Professional background | |||||
| Subjects currently taught | ||||||||
| Subjects taught before | ||||||||
| Interview questions | ||||||||
| What communities of practice have you participated in about STEM? What activities have you participated in in these communities? What kind of activities do you think are most helpful for you to become a STEM teacher? Where is it embodied? Why do you think comprehensive STEM should be taught before joining the STEM community of practice? What about after the participation? What caused the change? What is the specific process? What do you think of your role as a STEM teacher after participating in the STEM community of practice? What changes have been made compared with before joining the community? What are the specific events that caused you to make these changes? Can you elaborate? What do you think of your ability to teach comprehensive STEM before participating in the STEM community of practice? What about after the participation? What happened to change your opinion? What are your tasks as a STEM comprehensive teacher before participating in the STEM community of practice? What about after the participation? What happened to trigger your change? What is the difference between your interest in STEM teaching and your previous interest in STEM practice community? What events have you encountered in this process that have changed you? As a STEM learner, what do you think of your ability to complete STEM tasks by participating in the STEM community of practice? As a STEM learner, how do you think you are able to understand STEM content by participating in the STEM community of practice? As a STEM learner, how are you recognized by others and yourself by participating in the STEM community of practice? As a STEM learner, how did your interest in STEM content change before and after you joined the STEM community of practice? What happened to cause these changes? What is your biggest gain in participating in the STEM community of practice? Can you give an example? What are your plans and expectations for participating in the STEM community of practice in the future? What challenges do you think STEM teachers may face in participating in the STEM community of practice? How to solve these challenges? | ||||||||
1. Nhamo, G.; Mjimba, V. The Context: SDGs and Institutions of Higher Education. Sustainable Development Goals and Institutions of Higher Education; Nhamo, G.; Mjimba, V. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26157-3_1]
2. Silo, N.; Ketlhoilwe, M.J. Environmental Sustainability Education: Driving Towards Achieving SDG 4 Through Teacher Education. Sustainability in Developing Countries; Keitumetse, S.O.; Hens, L.; Norris, D. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 167-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48351-7_10]
3. Funa, A.A.; Roleda, L.S.; Prudente, M.S. Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics-Problem-Based Learning-Education for Sustainable Development (I-STEM-PBL-ESD) Framework. A Diversity of Pathways Through Science Education; Ong, Y.S.; Tan, T.T.M.; Lee, Y.J. Springer: Singapore, 2024; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2607-3_9]
4. Rauf, R.A.A.; Sathasivam, R.; Rahim, S.S.A. STEM education in schools: Teachers’ readiness to change. J. Eng. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 14, pp. 34-42. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85069148944&partnerID=40&md5=d445fc6a76566c2b77ca6f1688c07edb (accessed on 12 August 2024).
5. Thibaut, L.; Knipprath, H.; Dehaene, W.; Depaepe, F. How school context and personal factors relate to teachers’ attitudes toward teaching integrated STEM. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2018; 28, pp. 631-651. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9416-1]
6. Chi, H.J. Development and Examination of a Model of Science Teacher Identity (STI). Ph.D. Thesis; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2009.
7. Kelley, T.R.; Knowles, J.G.; Holland, J.D.; Han, J. Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2020; 7, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00211-w]
8. Beijaard, D.; Meijer, P.C.; Verloop, N. Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 2004; 20, pp. 107-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001]
9. Leigh, L. “Of course I have changed!”: A narrative inquiry of foreign teachers’ professional identities in Shenzhen, China. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 2019; 86, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102905]
10. Prabjandee, D. Narratives of learning to become English teachers in Thailand: Developing identity through a teacher education program. Teach. Dev.; 2020; 24, pp. 71-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2019.1699155]
11. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998.
12. Vangrieken, K.; Meredith, C.; Packer, T.; Kyndt, E. Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 2017; 61, pp. 47-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001]
13. Luehmann, A.L. Identity development as a lens to science teacher preparation. Sci. Educ.; 2007; 91, pp. 822-839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20209]
14. Pappa, C.I.; Georgiou, D.; Pittich, D. Technology education in primary schools: Addressing teachers’ perceptions, perceived barriers, and needs. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2023; 34, pp. 485-503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09828-8]
15. Castro-Felix, E.; Daniels, H. The social construction of a teacher support team: An experience of university lecturers’ professional development in STEM. J. Educ. Teach.; 2018; 44, pp. 14-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1422610]
16. Aster, E.M.; Gearhart, J.B.; Fisher, K.Q. Contextualizing communities in an instructional improvement initiative: Exploring STEM faculty engagement in teaching-related conversations. Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res.; 2021; 3, pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00038-7]
17. Canrinus, E.T.; Helms-Lorenz, M.; Beijaard, D.; Buitink, J.; Hofman, A. Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ.; 2012; 27, pp. 115-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2]
18. Canrinus, E.T.; Helms-Lorenz, M.; Beijaard, D.; Buitink, J.; Hofman, A. Profiling teachers’ sense of professional identity. Educ. Stud.; 2011; 37, pp. 593-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539857]
19. Tripp, J.N.; Liu, X. Towards Defining STEM Professional Identity: A Qualitative Survey Study. J. STEM Educ. Res.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41979-024-00131-2]
20. Feser, M.S.; Haak, I. Key features of teacher identity: A systematic meta-review study with special focus on teachers of science or science related subjects. Stud. Sci. Educ.; 2023; 59, pp. 287-320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2108644]
21. Chang, Y.F.; Chien, W.C. Constructing a model of the emotional labour process of junior high school teachers. Teach. Teach.; 2023; 31, pp. 31-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2265822]
22. Elnagdi, M.; Leammukda, F.; Roehrig, G. Developing identities of STEM teachers at emerging STEM schools. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2018; 5, 36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0136-1]
23. Holmlund, T.; Lesseig, K.; Slavit, D. Making sense of “STEM education” in K-12 contexts. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2018; 5, 32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0127-2]
24. Berger, J.L.; Lê Van, K. Teacher professional identity as multidimensional: Mapping its components and examining their associations with general pedagogical beliefs. Educ. Stud.; 2018; 45, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1446324]
25. Polizzi, S.J.; Yicong, Z.; Reid, J.W.; Brandon, O.; Salisbury, S.; Beeth, M.; Rushton, G.T. Science and mathematics teacher communities of practice: Social influences on discipline-based identity and self-efficacy beliefs. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2021; 8, 30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00275-2]
26. Kelley, T.R.; Sung, E.; Han, J.; Knowles, J. Impacting secondary students’ STEM knowledge through collaborative STEM teacher partnerships. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ.; 2022; 33, pp. 1563-1584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09783-w]
27. Nadelson, L.; Seifert, A.; Moll, A.; Coats, B. i-STEM summer institute: An integrated approach to teacher professional development in STEM. J. STEM Educ.; 2012; 13, pp. 69-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7233/jksc.2012.62.4.069]
28. Zhai, Y.; Tripp, J.; Liu, X. Science teacher identity research: A scoping literature review. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2024; 11, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00481-8]
29. Naidoo, K. Capturing the transformation and dynamic nature of an elementary teacher candidate’s identity development as a teacher of science. Res. Sci. Educ.; 2017; 47, pp. 1331-1355. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9550-x]
30. Hamilton, M.; O’Dwyer, A.; Leavy, A.; Hourigan, M.; Carroll, C.; Corry, E. A case study exploring primary teachers’ experiences of a STEM education school-university partnership. Teach. Teach.; 2021; 27, pp. 17-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.1920906]
31. Weinberg, A.E.; Balgopal, M.M.; Sample McMeeking, L.B. Professional growth and identity development of STEM teacher educators in a community of practice. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.; 2021; 19, pp. 99-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10148-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33584160]
32. van Aalderen-Smeets, S.I.; van der Molen, J.H.W.; Asma, L.J.F. Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Sci. Educ.; 2012; 96, pp. 158-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20467]
33. Hanna, F.; Oostdam, R.; Severiens, S.E.; Zijlstra, B.J.H. Assessing the professional identity of primary student teachers: Design and validation of the Teacher Identity Measurement Scale. Stud. Educ. Eval.; 2020; 64, 100822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100822]
34. Galanti, T.M.; Holincheck, N. Beyond content and curriculum in elementary classrooms: Conceptualizing the cultivation of integrated STEM teacher identity. Int. J. STEM Educ.; 2022; 9, 43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00358-8]
35. Darragh, L. Identity research in mathematics education. Educ. Stud. Math.; 2016; 93, pp. 19-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9696-5]
36. Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991.
37. Nizza, I.E.; Farr, J.; Smith, J.A. Achieving excellence in interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): Four markers of high quality. Qual. Res. Psychol.; 2021; 18, pp. 369-386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1854404]
38. Smith, J.A.; Osborn, M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods; Smith, J.A. Sage Publications: London, UK, 2003; pp. 53-80.
39. Pietkiewicz, I.; Smith, J.A. A Practical Guide to Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in Qualitative Research Psychology. Psychol. J.; 2014; 20, pp. 7-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.20.1.7]
40. Larkin, M.; Thompson, A.R. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners; Harper, D.; Thompson, A.R. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 99-116.
41. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.; 2000; 25, pp. 54-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10620381]
42. Zhang, Y.; Hawk, S.T.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, H. Chinese preservice teachers’ professional identity links with education program performance: The roles of task value belief and learning motivations. Front. Psychol.; 2016; 7, 573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00573] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199810]
43. Nevgi, A.; Löfström, E. The development of academics’ teacher identity: Enhancing reflection and task perception through a university teacher development programme. Stud. Educ. Eval.; 2015; 46, pp. 53-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.01.003]
44. Holincheck, N.M.; Galanti, T.M. Applying a model of integrated STEM teacher identity to understand change in elementary teachers’ STEM self-efficacy and career awareness. Sch. Sci. Math.; 2023; 123, pp. 234-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12610]
45. Hazari, Z.; Sonnert, G.; Sadler, P.M.; Shanahan, M.C. Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2010; 47, pp. 978-1003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363]
46. Grimalt-Álvaro, C.; Couso, D.; Boixadera-Planas, E.; Godec, S. “I see myself as a STEM person”: Exploring high school students’ self-identification with STEM. J. Res. Sci. Teach.; 2022; 59, pp. 720-745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21742]
47. Cheng, F.K. Dilemmas of Chinese Lesbian Youths in Contemporary Mainland China. Sex. Cult.; 2018; 22, pp. 190-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9460-8]
48. Liu, J.; McMahon, M.; Watson, M. Parental Influence on Child Career Development in Mainland China: A Qualitative Study. Career Dev. Q.; 2015; 63, pp. 74-87. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2015.00096.x]
49. Karaolis, A.; Philippou, G.N. Teachers’ professional identity. Affect and Mathematics Education; Hannula, M.; Leder, G.; Morselli, F.; Vollstedt, M.; Zhang, Q. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 397-417.
50. Chen, J.L.; Mensah, F.M. Teaching Contexts That Influence Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Teacher and Science Teacher Identity Development. J. Sci. Teach. Educ.; 2018; 29, pp. 420-439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1469187]
51. Yang, K.L.; Wu, H.K.; Yeh, Y.F.; Lin, K.Y.; Wu, J.Y.; Hsu, Y.S. Implementers, designers, and disseminators of integrated STEM activities: Self-efficacy and commitment. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ.; 2023; 41, pp. 1433-1451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.2008343]
52. Johnson, T.M.; Byrd, K.O.; Allison, E.R. The impact of integrated STEM modeling on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction: A co-teaching approach. Sch. Sci. Math.; 2020; 121, pp. 25-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12443]
53. Penuel, W.R.; Allen, A.R.; Deverel-Rico, C.; Singleton, C.; Pazera, C. How Teachers’ Knowledge of Curriculum Supports Partnering with Students in Their Science Learning. J. Sci. Teach. Educ.; 2023; 34, pp. 861-882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2167508]
54. Ofem, B.; Polizzi, S.J.; Rushton, G.T.; Beeth, M.; Couch, B.; Doering, J.; Konz,; Mohr-Schroeder, M.; Roehrig, G.; Sheppard, K. Looking at our STEM teacher workforce: How to model self-efficacy. Econ. Dev. Q.; 2021; 35, pp. 40-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891242420973758]
55. Farhi, M.; Rubinsten, O. Emotion regulation skills as a mediator of STEM teachers’ stress, well-being, and burnout. Sci. Rep.; 2024; 14, 15615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63228-z]
56. Simunovic, M.; Ercegovac, I.R.; Burusic, J. How Important Is It to My Parents? Transmission of STEM Academic Values: The Role of Parents’ Values and Practices and Children’s Perceptions of Parental Influences. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2018; 40, pp. 977-995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1460696]
© 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/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Yin Xuerou 3 ; Xu, Xueqi 3 1 Center of Network and Modern Educational Technology, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China; [email protected]
2 School of Information Technology in Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China; [email protected]
3 School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China; [email protected]