1. Introduction
The lives of modern people have undergone significant changes in the 21st century, facilitated mainly by the widespread adoption of various intelligent devices and technologies. On the other hand, the design and production of contemporary smart gadgets require specific knowledge and skills. The skills needed for a successful career in the science field, industry, and innovative technologies in the 21st century can be divided into hard and soft skills (Holik et al., 2023; Herlinawati et al., 2024). The first category encompasses skills such as programming, specialized knowledge in the production area, cybersecurity, data analysis, and familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Soft skills encompass teamwork and communication, self-organization of time and resources, critical thinking, and practical discussion of results. The 21st-century skills foster personal and professional development, enabling individuals to make informed and effective decisions on complex issues (Stehle & Peters-Burton, 2019; Kong, 2014).
The importance of acquiring new skills necessitates modifying traditional teaching methods in today’s schools and implementing interdisciplinary STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) educational approaches to teach these subjects in a cohesive way, rather than as isolated topics, promoting critical thinking and problem-solving skills applicable to real-world challenges and including innovative, practice-oriented methods in which students play an active role (Ješková et al., 2022; Sandrone et al., 2021; Mohr-Schroeder, 2015; Yannier et al., 2020). The goal of STEM education is to provide students with an opportunity to apply knowledge from these subjects to solve a realistic problem, thereby improving their understanding. In addition, students learn to work in a team, as they are often divided into groups, and effective communication and organizational skills are essential for solving the task. Part of STEM methods includes searching for additional information from various sources, which requires developing critical thinking in students (Sutiani et al., 2021; Irwanto et al., 2022; Henriksen, 2014). In this way, innovative STEM methods support the development of skills needed in the 21st century. They successfully combine technical knowledge with the development of soft skills that are key to the successful career development of today’s adolescents (Lavi et al., 2021; Zhou & Shirazi, 2025; Hiğde & Aktamış, 2022).
A team of scientists investigated two approaches to increasing the effectiveness of STEM education in Bulgarian schools: personalization and optimization. In 2024, they launched the SHAPES (“ReSearcH on formal models for the optimizAtion and Personalization of modErn technology method of STEM education”) project, URL:
This article presents some results from the qualitative research conducted within the scope of the SHAPES project, through semi-structured interviews with school teachers who implement innovative STEM methods in their practice. The research aimed to conduct a qualitative analysis of the modern methods and best practices applied in teaching STEM subjects in Bulgaria. The authors formulated the following research questions (RQs), aiming to explore various aspects of STEM education when analyzing the data obtained, as they can help uncover insights into effective practices in Bulgarian schools: RQ1: What is the readiness to apply STEM educational methods in Bulgarian schools regarding conditions, including institutional support, technological infrastructure, availability of resources, and teachers’ competencies? RQ2: What modern teaching methods and approaches are currently being applied in STEM education in Bulgarian schools? RQ3: What is the perceived effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of STEM teaching methods and approaches according to teachers?
The article is structured as follows: after the Introduction, Section Two presents the works related to this study. It focuses on modern STEM education practices, describing methods for STEM teaching and outlining existing challenges in STEM education. The following section proposes a methodology for designing and conducting semi-structured interviews focused on the conditions for teaching STEM in schools in Bulgaria, as well as trends in their development. The section complements the methodology with a description of the collected dataset and the methods used for qualitative data analysis. Section Four presents the study’s outcomes, including results on the demographic profile of the respondents, the use of teaching methods and techniques, and the conditions for STEM education in Bulgarian schools. It also presents a qualitative assessment of STEM teaching, including important findings such as key themes and insights that emerged from the interviews. The following section discusses institutional support for STEM education, existing conditions in Bulgarian schools, and the competencies of teachers, providing answers to the research questions. Finally, the conclusion summarizes both the findings and limitations of the study and traces directions for future work in this research area.
2. Related Works
Traditionally, sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology are taught following a mono-disciplinary approach, with individually designed lessons and curriculum. However, humans have implemented subject knowledge of STEM disciplines for many years. However, humans usually combine and use the knowledge of many of these disciplines to perform creative activities to make their lives more convenient. Thus, the idea to shift the paradigm—to merge these disciplines into one subject to be taught in an integrated manner—naturally emerges. Further, in this regard, this educational paradigm shift requires new pedagogical approaches, practices, and policies (Leung, 2022). These policies and practices must adhere to national cultural and historically established traditions and values, while also adopting innovations in pedagogical methodology to implement integrative approaches to teaching STEM.
2.1. STEM Education Practices
The exponential growth of STEM education in recent years on a global scale is a result of the recognition of the importance of providing the young generation with the skills and knowledge necessary in today’s digital and technology-driven world. Bulgaria has a strong tradition in the tech sector, so it strives not to lag behind. The Bulgarian National Government Program “Building a School STEM Environment” aims to create a STEM center in every state and municipal school (STEM Centers and Innovation in Education, 2025). It is essential to note that the program encompasses not only building the infrastructure but also providing competency-based training to a large number of teachers who will teach in these STEM centers. Further, investments in adequate teacher training and the development of relevant STEM educational resources are crucial components for exploiting the full potential of STEM environments in schools.
The Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science governs the National STEM Center, which is responsible for the professional training of teachers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The center coordinates, supports, and consults on building of STEM environments in Bulgarian schools. It manages and coordinates the government program aimed at creating four types of specialized classrooms for STEM education throughout all schools in Bulgaria (STEM strategy of BMES, 2025). These classrooms will represent educational and research spaces where learning will occur by combining active and scientific methods, thus stimulating creativity, research approaches, and practically oriented knowledge acquisition. The STEM center’s activities are focused on designing a model for learning and working with research methods and tools, as well as training and qualifying STEM teachers and pedagogical specialists. The goal is to enhance STEM education and motivate students to pursue careers in this area in Bulgaria.
The government program concerning STEM education in Bulgaria has two key components: building STEM environments and building STEM centers. The classroom STEM environment is designed to provide an innovative approach to learning and teaching. It is a comprehensive solution for both physical and digital learning environments, enhanced with the appropriate technical equipment for STEM subjects. It enables the innovative and flexible organization of the learning process; adaptation of new forms of management, leadership, and interaction for school students; targeted qualification and support for school teachers, and opportunities for sharing the learning space and interactions between the local and school communities. The school STEM center is a set of learning spaces with appropriate distribution and interior design, contemporary lighting and sound, workstations, furniture, and equipment related to STEM learning activities for practical and applied training in particular science subjects, engineering, and information technologies. Further, it provides conditions for learning activities related to creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
2.2. Teaching Methods Applied in STEM
Traditional teaching methods (i.e., lectures and presentations) are usually teacher-centered, since they do not require active student involvement (Dole et al., 2016). These methods are less efficient in teaching STEM subjects. The successful implementation of STEM teaching practice requires teachers to move from a traditional, passive lecturing approach to more interactive, open-ended, and less structured learning approaches, thus enabling students to take an active role in exploring topics and encouraging them to acquire knowledge and skills through personal experiences and insights (Nikolova et al., 2018).
Interactive teaching methods are those that involve students actively in the learning process and even allow them to set their own pace (Keiler, 2018). These methods follow the constructivist theory for fostering meaningful and active learning and are considered student-centered (Akkus et al., 2007). Further, these methods have been proven to be engaging for students, so they are often applied in different subjects, including in STEM education. Most frequently utilized interactive methods, such as problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, practice-based learning, and flipped classroom, promote students’ engagement and learning through experience. A short description is given in the following: Problem-based learning is a focused, experiential learning approach in which students collaborate in small groups to investigate, explain, and solve meaningful problems, with the teacher facilitating and guiding them (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). It involves students with real-world problems whose solutions require the application of STEM-related knowledge (LaForce et al., 2017). Inquiry-based learning refers to approaches where learners are required to discover new information and ideas instead of simply memorizing facts and knowledge provided by teachers (Cairns & Areepattamannil, 2019). In this approach, students are encouraged to ask questions when investigating natural phenomena, thus discovering STEM concepts through research and experimentation (Stender et al., 2018). Project-based learning is an active, student-centered approach that can be considered a form of inquiry-based learning, in which students autonomously set goals, conduct constructive investigations, collaborate, and use their creativity to present their work to an audience; it typically extends over several weeks (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). It is typically implemented in interdisciplinary projects that require the use of STEM-related knowledge during the planning, research, design, and achievement of specific project goals (Capraro et al., 2013). Practice-based learning is related to learning in a real professional environment and involves both scientific knowledge and practice to develop skills and competencies. It is often used in the context of engineering practice when students seek to develop professional skills by providing them with opportunities to study and work simultaneously (Mohr-Schroeder, 2015; Mann et al., 2020). The flipped classroom approach puts students in the place of teachers; they acquire knowledge on a new topic from different sources before classes and present and discuss it with classmates. It is a dynamic and efficient learning approach that engages students in STEM matters (Gong et al., 2024). The flipped approach allows using the class time for significant STEM activities like analysis, discussions, and evaluation, instead of passively taking notes. The students can focus on deepening their understanding through practice and interact with experiments or design challenges during class. They also develop skills to independently acquire and review knowledge, which is important for STEM fields (Fung et al., 2022). Jigsaw learning is a type of collaborative learning where students are divided into so-called jigsaw groups, and the subject task is separated into parts; each student in a jigsaw group is responsible for one segment of the task and performs part of the joint assignment (Karacop, 2017). The engineering design approach involves a series of steps for determining requirements and constraints, studying the problem and possible solutions, choosing a solution, and creating, testing, evaluating, and improving the prototype (Shahali et al., 2016). In game-based learning, the educational content and related tasks are presented as an educational game that students play to acquire specific knowledge or skills. However, the effectiveness of this approach appeared to vary depending on the type of games and the learning outcomes, as well as the subject matter (Gui et al., 2023). Gamification is a similar approach that utilizes individual game elements in a learning context to improve student engagement, understanding of the learning content, and enhance learning performance. Numerous studies demonstrate that gamification can significantly improve students’ STEM abilities (Kalogiannakis et al., 2021; Ortiz-Rojas et al., 2025). In an integrated approach, knowledge from different subjects is applied when examining properties of objects and phenomena. The goal is to involve students in authentic experiences and demonstrate integration between the disciplines at the conceptual level (Roehrig et al., 2021).
Recently, several innovative approaches have emerged that are intensively applied in STEM education practices. Among them are virtual laboratories that enable various remote or virtual laboratory experiments related to a wide variety of science, engineering, and mathematics topics. The Go-Lab portal provides access to a rich repository of online labs and allows teachers to choose and use appropriate online labs in their lessons. Thus, students can acquire scientific skills while performing experiments within these labs (Govaerts et al., 2013). Robotics is also applied in STEM teaching in various forms (e.g., integrated within project-based learning, engineering approach), mainly in K-12 schools. LEGO and Arduino are among the most used tools, enabling students to develop technological skills, computational thinking strategies, and a deep understanding of interdisciplinary phenomena through applying the knowledge learned across STEM disciplines (Darmawansah et al., 2023). The utilization of versatile technologies, such as augmented, virtual, and mixed reality, across different educational stages, subjects, and topics in STEM teaching enables immersive learning approaches that allow for engaging students and stimulating their creativity, thus motivating them to develop research abilities and supporting practical skill acquisition (Osadchyi et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2024). Generative artificial intelligence has become widely used in STEM education for intelligent tutoring, automated assessment, data mining, learning prediction, and learning analytics to improve the quality of instruction and learning (Xu & Ouyang, 2022; Ivanova et al., 2024).
All the active teaching methods stimulate students’ critical thinking and collaboration, teach them research skills, and develop their understanding of STEM concepts (Freeman et al., 2014). Modern STEM education prioritizes active engagement, technological fluency, and inclusivity, moving beyond traditional lectures to foster creativity and problem-solving. In general, all the above-described approaches promote establishing links among STEM disciplines and also encourage exploring connections between STEM-related knowledge and real-life problems.
2.3. Challenges in STEM Education
STEM education is a contemporary area that integrates advanced pedagogical strategies and technologies. Recent years have demonstrated significant progress in the area. However, many challenges still persist, particularly for educators. This overview comprehensively analyzes current innovations, global perspectives, challenges, and possible solutions, together with some theoretical insights.
Among the most widespread challenges often discussed is the resistance to change within educational institutions (Lomba-Portela et al., 2022). Some schools or districts are still slow in adopting new STEM methods, despite evidence of their effectiveness. Bureaucratic burdens, funding issues, or resistance from staff or parents are also obstacles. Many educators lack preparation for emerging technologies and innovative teaching methods, which leads to slow adoption of interdisciplinary STEM teaching approaches. There is a need for continuous development of teacher competence. A flexible and adaptable competence framework for developing teacher competence in inquiry-based learning in STEM is proposed in (Stefanova et al., 2019).
Integrated approaches to STEM education enable the development of skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving. While these approaches are considered most useful and related to finding solutions to real-world problems by utilizing concepts across all STEM disciplines, they remain challenging for teachers, since most teachers have received training in only one discipline; additionally, in school classes at all levels, teaching is usually still carried out via separate lessons for each STEM subject. The curricula and government policies have not been reformed and still do not recommend such teaching approaches despite the intensive development of STEM centers in schools. It is a significant challenge for school administrators to promote integrated STEM education. Moreover, even teachers interested in such innovative teaching approaches still need instructional support and additional time to work together with colleagues from different STEM subject areas to develop appropriate content and tasks for integrative teaching (Shernoff et al., 2017).
While challenges like equity and teacher training have continued to persist for the last 15 years, innovations like artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and virtual laboratories are reshaping STEM teaching and learning globally. AI and VR challenge STEM education globally and in the Bulgarian context regarding several issues: Access, equity, and inclusion—AI and VR require modern and compatible technical infrastructure and institutional licensing, which can widen the gap between well-resourced and underfunded schools, especially in small towns and villages, and re-expose the need for national or regional funding models. Pedagogical redesign and teacher roles—effective AI/VR integration demands new pedagogical approaches such as active learning and inquiry-based tasks. Therefore, STEM teachers will need more time to integrate AI-driven or VR-based activities into their curriculum. Curriculum alignment—AI/VR activities must be aligned to existing STEM learning objectives for achieving clear instructional added value. Data privacy, security, and ethics—as far as AI systems and VR tools collect various student data (performance, behavior, biometric data from sensors, etc.), the protection of privacy and ensuring compliance with GDPR and national education data policies are crucial.
Further work should be carried out on interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical aspects of AI integration, and policies that bridge resource gaps. In line with this, UNESCO has initiated a project (Revitalizing STEM Education, 2025) that aims to promote STEM education in Europe by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and best practices, and closing the digital and gender gap in STEM education by providing innovative educational solutions and increasing professional capabilities.
3. Methodology
This section presents the methodology for designing and creating, as well as conducting, a semi-structured interview dedicated to studying the conditions for teaching STEM in schools in Bulgaria and the trends in their development. For the goals of this research, a semi-structured interview was designed to explore the opinions of experienced teachers in the field of STEM education in the primary and secondary stages of school education, and the views of these teachers on the current state of STEM education. This interview also aimed to investigate the directions in which STEM education in Bulgaria is likely to develop. The researchers established the criteria for selecting this target group based on the assumption that these teachers would possess the necessary experience (more than 5 years) and a well-formed professional opinion on the conditions for teaching through innovative methods, such as STEM methods and their application in teaching.
3.1. Interview Design
Three main research questions that underpin the design and creation of the semi-structured interview are set out. For this reason, the SHAPES project team designed and created a total of 41 thematic questions to explore the state-of-the-art of STEM education in Bulgarian schools. These questions were divided into five main areas (presented in Appendix A) following the study’s objectives. The first part of the semi-structured interview consists of a total of nine questions. These questions were designed to elicit information critical to the study from participants, such as professional teaching experience in a particular school and type of school, subjects taught (e.g., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and information technology), and the number of students. The second part contains a total of 14 questions formulated to extract meaningful information for the study of conditions for STEM education. The next part consists of two questions exploring information about the application of innovative teaching methods in Bulgarian schools. The fourth part of the semi-structured interview consists of five questions. They were designed to extract information about the possibilities for personalizing innovative teaching methods used in STEM education. The last part contains seven questions designed to extract information on opportunities for optimizing STEM education.
To complete the interview, the project team designed two open-ended questions related to extracting the opinions of STEM teacher specialists on the future development and prospects of innovative methods of STEM education in Bulgaria and STEM education in general. From what has been declared so far in the previous paragraphs, the answer to Research Question 1 can be extracted from the results obtained from the semi-structured interview questions in Parts 1, 2, and 3. RQ1 relates to the readiness of Bulgarian schools to apply STEM educational methods, considering institutional support, school conditions, and teachers’ competencies. Research Question 2 relates to modern teaching methods and approaches currently being applied in STEM education in Bulgarian schools. The answer to this research question is provided by the results of the semi-structured interview questions in Part 3. The answer to Research Question 3 can be extracted from the results obtained from the semi-structured interview questions in Parts 4 and 5. RQ3 concerns the perceived effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of STEM teaching methods and approaches, as reported by the teachers. The information obtained from the answers to the questions from Parts 4 and 5 concerns the personalizing innovative teaching methods used in STEM education in Bulgarian schools and the future development and prospects of innovative STEM methods and STEM education in general, according to the teachers.
3.2. Data Collection
The semi-structured interview was conducted by members of the SHAPES project research team on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria in the period from July 2024 to December 2024. The authors announced the campaign among more than 100 teachers during several thematic events dedicated to STEM education (conferences, workshops, training courses) held in the capital and other cities in Bulgaria. Thirty-two of them agreed to participate in this survey. The interviews lasted about 30 min, with the following interview formats for STEM teacher specialists: Physical connection/communication—individual physical meetings with the interview participants at an agreed location (hall), where a member of the team conducts the scientific research by interviewing the STEM teacher specialist; Online connection/communication—conducting an online meeting in a specific virtual environment (after an agreed meeting by email with the participant), in which the interview is conducted live with a camera and microphone included in a virtual environment, or; Telephone connection/communication—conducting the semi-structured interview with the interviewer and the participant connected only by a live telephone connection.
All results from the semi-structured interviews were reflected in a structured form (following the interview questions) in the research database and stored on the SHAPES project’s cloud online space.
3.3. Data Analysis
This article presents a summary analysis of data obtained from scientific research conducted using content analysis and thematic analysis to examine the availability of conditions for teaching through STEM methods in Bulgarian schools. A three-point Likert scale was applied, because the study aims to employ qualitative analysis. The authors processed all data in this study manually without using specialized software for data processing. Content analyses were applied to identify relationships and extract important concepts to answer the research questions. In addition to this purpose, thematic analysis was also employed as a qualitative method for analyzing the information, extracting essential themes, and summarizing them.
4. Results
4.1. Participant Profiles
For the survey, the authors interviewed thirty-two school teachers who are experienced in STEM education. Six of them were men, and twenty-six were reported to be women. Fourteen participants had more than 20 years of teaching experience, while only eight reported having less than 10 years of experience as teachers. Seven of our respondents (i.e., around ¼ of them) were from cities and towns in the country, and the others were from the capital; hence, the respondents’ distribution provided a general overview of the country’s schools, including those in rural areas, small towns, and the capital.
Figure 1 presents a pie chart of the answers to the question “What type of school do you teach at?”. Fourteen of the respondents reported teaching in schools for general education, while the rest answered that they taught in profiled schools: three in language schools, four in vocational schools, and one in profiled schools for students with special needs (namely, for children with hearing impairments).
The position a teacher currently holds at the school represents an important characteristic of the participant profile. Fourteen of the participants appear to work as teachers, fifteen as senior teachers, and two as deputy directors or heads of the department. Next, the participants reported teaching various subjects, as shown in Figure 2. About 60% of teachers reported teaching more than one subject. The shares of subjects taught at schools are presented in Figure 3, where mathematics and informatics form circa 80% of the answers, while chemistry, physics, and biology have a share of about 44%. These subjects were taught at different grade levels, as presented in Figure 3. The sum of all the numbers is greater than 100%, because many teachers reported teaching at more than one grade level (most frequently at the next grade level).
When asked “What grade levels do you teach?”, 3/8 of our respondents shared that they teach at more than one grade level. Additionally, 40.63% of the teachers reported teaching primary school (1st–4th grade), while 68.75% reported teaching secondary school (5th–7th grade) and only 21.88% responded that they teach high school (8th–12th grade).
Next, teachers were asked, “What is the average number of students in the class?”. Fifteen of the respondents answered that the average number of students in their class exceeds twenty, while fifteen teachers reported having classes with up to twenty students, and two others classes with up to ten students.
4.2. State-of-the-Art of STEM Education in Bulgarian Schools
The authors started the thematic part of the survey with questions about the availability of STEM centers (classrooms) in the school where the teacher teaches. Figure 4 depicts a pie chart of the results. Only 5 teachers reported having a STEM center (more than one classroom) built at their school, while eleven participants shared that such a center is under construction. Eight other teachers reported having a STEM classroom, while five teachers answered that they had neither a STEM center nor a classroom. Therefore, about 84% of the interviewed teachers reported having no STEM center at their schools. As a consequence, 5/8 of the interviewed answered they do not have a STEM center or classroom at their school, while only ¼ shared that they use it every day. Teachers who have no STEM center available said that their daily training is conducted in the specialized classrooms at their school.
Next, teachers were asked how often their STEM centers or classrooms are used by other teachers. Figure 5 provides a pie chart diagram of the results. When the STEM center is completed, specialized training and laboratory classes in STEM subjects will be conducted there according to a weekly schedule. Work in extracurricular activities is also conducted according to a weekly schedule in STEM classrooms and, if available, in multifunctional STEM centers. The profile of teachers who use the STEM center (classroom) at their school, in terms of subjects taught, appeared to be similar to that presented in Figure 2. At the same time, three teachers shared that they use a STEM center or classroom at another school, and another seven stated that they would use it if they had access to it. Furthermore, they explained that the majority of their colleagues (independent of their experience) desire to use such STEM centers or classrooms, if available at their school, such as STEAME teachers in science, mathematics, entrepreneurship, technology, and art, as well as elementary teachers in their work in mandatory and elective STEM subjects and extracurricular activities.
Within the interview, the teachers were asked about the availability of conditions for teaching through STEM methods in Bulgarian schools. Table 1 summarizes the received opinions by matching each answer regarding the availability of a specific condition to a value on a three-point Likert scale (Yes, No, or Partially). Most interviewees reported that the Internet connection in classrooms was excellent, while about two-thirds agreed that modern computer equipment was available at their school. However, the most significant problem appeared to be that insufficienttime was allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods; less than one-fifth of the teachers reported having enough scheduled time for teaching through STEM methods.
On the other hand, only half of the teachers reported the availability of integrative learning resources (learning resources incorporating knowledge from several subjects) and other specialized learning resources (including multimedia). In contrast, many of these resources did not appear to be as helpful as expected. For example, interactive whiteboards are not particularly popular among teachers; they are rarely used, while projectors are used more frequently. Additionally, more than two-thirds of them stated that there are neither enough qualified STEM teachers nor an equipped laboratory for relevant STEM subjects. Twenty of them needed specialized training for applying STEM methods in the classroom, while nine needed methodological courses, and ten also required additional general training for working with innovative technologies. The impact of training is further summarized in Section 5.
4.3. Use of Teaching Methods and Techniques for STEM Education
The main goal of the interview was to reveal the level of usage of contemporary teaching methods in STEM education. Figure 6 summarizes the shares of respondents who reported usage of specific methods while teaching STEM subjects. The interviewees opted for multiple-choice methods; thus, about two-thirds of them explained that they apply problem-based and project-based learning, while less than one-third shared that they use game-based learning and engineering design when teaching STEM. Unexpectedly, the number of teachers using gamification were about twice as frequent as those applying game-based learning. At the same time, teachers reported using other methods such as STEAM days and science weeks; teamwork (with each student in the team being assigned a role and tasks to complete) and interdisciplinary projects that are carried out in different subjects; furniture modeling; speech and subject activity (speech is developed through modeling or musical stimulation or through rhythmic physical training); and project work with colleagues from other countries.
Next, teachers were asked about using various teaching techniques and tools in their STEM courses, as presented in Figure 7. They shared that they use gamification at the same level as digital tools and Internet searches. Approximately four-fifths of them reported using practical assignments, such as projects, essays, and tasks, and two-thirds stated that they apply group training and presentation forms of teaching. On the other hand, simulations and workshops were used by fewer than 1/3 of the interviewees, while robotics and role-playing were used by 1/8 and 1/15 of them, respectively.
4.4. Qualitative Assessment of STEM Teaching
In the last section of the interview, teachers were asked about their vision for the qualities of STEM education. Table 2 summarizes the received responses by matching each answer regarding the presence of a specific STEM teaching feature to a value on a three-point Likert scale (Yes, No, or Partially). Then, 18 qualities were grouped in six divisions (by selecting 3 qualities per division). This article presents the first three divisions as follows: Effectiveness (rated positively by 64.58% of teachers)—includes achievement in STEM subjects, development of STEM competencies, and students’ interest in STEM; Engagement (rated positively by 70.83%)—hands-on activities, interaction, and use of technology; Applicability (rated positively only by 45.83%)—curriculum relevance, time and resources, and teacher support.
Note that the applicability of STEM methods was rated lowest. A senior teacher revealed that “Implementation depends on the preparation of the teacher; there is no 100% guarantee of success in using the methods. Success increases with their repeated use by a teacher”. Teachers were pessimistic about the time and resources allocated for STEM teaching; one shared that the methods are unrealisticto implement within the given time frame, school resources, and teacher qualifications, because “realistically it takes not 45, but 60 min”. Additionally, they stated that the methods are not easy for teachers to understand and apply, without requiring excessive preparation or resources—“age is not a factor, but it requires a lot of time and planning, as well as having seen this type of teaching”.
4.5. Key Themes and Insights That Emerged from the Interviews
Several key themes and teacher statements (from S1 to S15) were found by conducting the thematic analysis, as follows.
Need for the creation of STEM centers and classrooms at each school—found in answers such as S1: “In a few years, every school will have a STEM center. Let it not turn into a modern classroom. It depends on the direction that the management decides to follow”. S2: “I think that there should be STEM centers in every school because the children feel freer to learn and create”. S3: “Every school should have STEM classrooms and, above all, well-prepared teachers in a methodological aspect, and with more ideas”.
Implementation of new electronic platforms and innovations, together with the inclusion of AI in STEAM education: S4: “Use of Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, robotics. These technologies will enable students to design, create, be creative, and acquire practical skills”. S5: “Including the development of technology will contribute significantly to the development of innovative and diverse methods that will keep pace with students’ needs for modern learning”.
Need for more time and effort: S6: “… preparing for such lessons requires a lot of time and resources. This is an obstacle for teachers and is one of the reasons why they do not apply these useful methods”. S7: “Over the next 5 years, STEM education is likely to undergo significant transformations, including the integration of artificial intelligence and automation, which will personalize education and provide opportunities for learning new technologies. The emphasis will be on creativity, real-world problem solving, and interdisciplinary approaches, with a focus on diversity”.
Development of 21st-century skills, such as critical thinking and collaboration: S8: “…it will be a major focus, using new pedagogical methods, including virtual realities, to prepare students for future industry demands”. S9: “STEM education will help students develop important skills such as critical thinking, innovation, and teamwork, which are essential for the professions of the future”.
Positive trends for steady improvement: S10: “We are trying to improve the application of STEM without going too far”. S11: “It is desirable that STEM lessons be held more often in all schools. In the next 5 years, I assume that STEM education will be even more intensive”. S12: “I hope that work in STEM will be implemented at all stages of education, creating an optimal material base for the development of STEM in school”. S13: “STEM education will become the main type of education—integrated subjects, education in smaller groups, more differentiation according to the interests of students so that they can progress in education at their own pace”. S14: “This education has a great future in Bulgarian schools”. S15: “Every beginning is difficult. I hope that the results in the long term will be good”.
5. Discussion
Regarding the readiness to apply STEM educational methods in Bulgarian schools, specifically in terms of institutional support, school conditions, and teachers’ competencies (RQ1), the authors identified three key issues as follows.
Institutional support: The conditions for teaching using STEM methods vary significantly across Bulgarian schools, as indicated by the teachers’ responses (Figure 4). Many schools already have STEM centers or STEM classrooms, while others are currently under construction or are about to be built in the next few years (see S1, S2, and S3). The reason for this is the Ministry of Education’s program for the phased construction of STEM centers in all municipal schools nationwide (STEM Centers and Innovation in Education, 2025). In addition to this program, numerous training sessions for teachers on applying STEM methods are being organized (STEM Courses for Educators, 2025), and a sufficient number of appropriate integrative educational resources are being created (Creating Methodology and Resources for STEM Education in a STEM Environment, 2025). The results demonstrate significant institutional support from the Ministry of Education and the National STEM Center for the implementation of innovative teaching methods in Bulgarian schools.
Conditions in schools: Several conditions are necessary to implement STEM methods successfully in schools, and respondents indicated the extent to which these conditions are available in their schools (Table 1). All teachers reported having an Internet connection in their classrooms, with only 6.25% experiencing issues with signal quality. For two-thirds of the interviewees, the available computer equipment is sufficient; less than 10% claim they do not have accessible computers in the classrooms. More than half of the respondents have sufficient integrative and specialized learning resources, while a large part of the rest claim to have such resources, but they are insufficient or inappropriate.
According to the teachers interviewed, other necessary conditions are available to a significantly lesser extent. This fact is particularly relevant to the time allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods. Only 18.75% believe it is sufficient, and less than half claim that time is allocated, but it is not enough. According to one-third of the respondents, no time is allocated for STEM lessons. Respondents believe that the majority of teachers lack experience in teaching through STEM methods, and there is also a need to improve the laboratory equipment for relevant STEM subjects. The educational authorities must take measures to improve these three conditions.
Teachers’ competencies: Most schools with a STEM center or classroom are used daily or almost every day (Figure 5). However, according to one of the respondents, “The STEM center in the school is used daily, but as a well-equipped classroom, and STEM methods are rarely applied”. The study results show that the reason is a lack of training among most teachers. In total, 78% of the respondents indicated that they require additional training or qualification to teach effectively using STEM methods, with the majority (62.5%) seeking specialized training, followed by general (31.3%) and methodological (28%) training. On the other hand, respondents who do not have a STEM center in their school are willing to use one even in another school (see Section 4). In addition, preparing for STEM lessons requires a lot of time and resources, which is one of the reasons why teachers do not apply these methods more often (see S6). This obstacle can be mitigated by training for teachers and supporting them with a variety of appropriate learning resources. The interviewees believe that contemporary technologies like artificial intelligence, Internet of Things, and robotics will be implemented in STEM education in a few years. They will allow students to be more creative and acquire practical skills. They will also influence new educational methods that reflect the students’ needs for modern learning (see S4, S5, S7). Many teachers need specialized training to apply modern technologies more confidently in the classroom.
The modern teaching methods and approaches that are currently being applied in STEM education in Bulgarian schools (RQ2) can be summarized from the results illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The majority of respondents apply problem-based learning (68.75%), project-based learning (65.63%) and gamification methods (59.38%) as the most popular modern teaching methods in teaching STEM subjects in Bulgaria. According to the respondents, it is essential to note that practical assignments (78.13%) are the most frequently used technique for teaching STEM in Bulgarian schools. More than half of the respondents answered that practice-based learning (53.13%) and inquiry-based learning (53.13%) are methods they use daily in teaching students. Approximately 40% of respondents indicate that flipped classrooms are among the methods also employed in STEM education in Bulgaria. The same percentage (37.5%) of respondents use integrated learning and jigsaw learning methods. Less popular among respondents are game-based learning (31.25%) and engineering design (28.13%) as methods used in teaching STEM subjects in Bulgarian schools.
It is important to note here that, in addition to the most popular (practical assignments—78.13%) according to respondents, other frequently applied tools and techniques for teaching STEM subjects in Bulgaria are group training (68.7%) and presentation of teaching (65.63%); additionally, 59.38% of respondents state that they use game elements (gamification), digitalization (use of digital tools), research/internet search and laboratory exercises (46.86%) in their teaching of STEM subjects. Techniques and tools such as simulation, workshops, robotics, and role-playing are rarely used in STEM education in Bulgarian schools.
Regarding the perceived effectiveness, engagement, and applicability of STEM teaching methods and approaches (RQ3), the interviewed teachers rated them on three aspects for each criterion (see Table 2). Teachers gave the most positive responses for engagement (rated positively on average by 70.83% of respondents). According to them, students feel engaged due to the implementation of practical activities (75%), interaction between students and teachers (68.75%), and use of modern technologies (68.75%). In this way, they are motivated to study the relevant STEM subjects both theoretically and practically. The effectiveness of STEM education was positively rated on average by 64.58% of teachers, with the highest importance given to the development of STEM competencies (68.75%), followed by achievement in STEM subjects (65.63%), and finally, students’ interest in STEM (59.38%). This is a key criterion, as STEM promotes and provides a solid foundation for developing many essential skills needed in this century. The lowest rating was given by teachers to the applicability of STEM methods and teaching approaches, which was assessed positively by only 45.83%. Aspects of this criterion include relevance of the curriculum (53.13%), availability of sufficient time and resources (46.88%), and support for teachers (37.5%). These results indicate that, according to teachers, additional measures are necessary to make STEM teaching methods more accessible and effective. These measures include, in particular, additional qualifications (courses) for teachers and allocating the necessary time in the curriculum.
Despite the obstacles, respondents prefer to apply the STEM method because it enables them to prepare students for future careers, developing important skills essential for emerging professions such as Health Informatics Specialist, Sustainability Consultant, and Renewable Energy Engineer (S8, S9). These facts motivate teachers to improve the application of STEM methods at all educational stages (S10, S12). Improvements in the technology equipment will allow for the more intensive application of these methods, which will become the predominant type of education (S11, S12, S13). The interviewed teachers state that it is difficult to start STEM education in Bulgarian schools, but it will have a great future, and the results in the long term will be significant (S14, S15).
The findings of the study can impact teaching practices and policy in STEM education in several directions, as follows: According to the interviewed teachers, some of the available STEM classrooms are not used entirely. Teachers who do not apply STEM educational methods tend to prefer using specialized classrooms as more equipped spaces for teaching students through traditional approaches. Most teachers still need additional qualifications to apply STEM methods effectively. In this way, they would be more confident and would use the available resources and STEM classrooms more often, applying modern technology-enhanced teaching approaches. The quantity and variety of integrated learning resources are lacking. The creation of such resources would motivate teachers to implement different STEM educational methods in their practices and would encourage students to acquire significant 21st-century skills. There is no separate time in the curriculum dedicated to STEM lessons. Educational stakeholders must provide additional time dedicated to STEM education and encourage teachers to develop STEM lessons for their students.
6. Conclusions
Although the number of respondents is relatively small (N = 32), the study is qualitative and the number of teachers interviewed is sufficient for this purpose. This study presents a comprehensive view of the state-of-the-art of STEM education in Bulgaria, considering experienced STEM teachers’ views. It provides a detailed picture of the challenges and trends in the initial stage of the government program for establishing STEM centers in all the country’s schools. The importance of the study is in its exhaustive scope, and its findings can benefit authorities for further amendments and improvements in the process of developing STEM education in Bulgaria. The presented outcomes have practical and scientific value for the STEM teacher community. The authors systematized the STEM educational methods and explored their practical applications in school settings.
Limitations: As the first of several planned project studies, this study is subject to several limitations. When analyzing the data, it is important to consider that the respondents are teachers with experience applying STEM teaching methods in their practices, and the results may not be relevant to other teachers and schools. Almost ¾ of the interviewees teach in schools located in the capital city; therefore, the findings primarily concern schools in the capital (Sofia). However, they are partially applicable to those in other cities and villages. On the other hand, the study is not balanced, neither concerning gender balance (only 18.75% of the respondents were men) nor educational levels (approximately 22% reported teaching at high schools), which largely corresponds to the official statistics for the country. In Bulgaria, most teachers are female, with women comprising approximately 85.4% of all teachers as of December 2023 (Bulgarian NSI, 2025), which presents an objective limitation for studies focused on school teachers. Another limitation is that the survey respondents do not cover all STEM subjects taught in Bulgarian schools. Finally, the study is focused only on teachers from Bulgarian schools, and the results and analyses may not be relevant to teachers in other countries. Various scholars (Cairns & Areepattamannil, 2019; Irwanto et al., 2022; Xu & Ouyang, 2022) are developing similar studies in other countries. After obtaining the necessary quantitative data, the studies will be compared with those from different countries, and the results will be analyzed. In this way, the study’s findings outline several challenges in the Bulgarian context of STEM education, which should be addressed by future research in the area.
Future work: The authors of the present article plan future work in the following directions: (1) Based on this pilot study, a comprehensive survey will be conducted among STEM teachers, covering all subjects and regions in Bulgaria. It will aim to collect national representative quantitative data on the research area. Questions about applying innovative technologies, such as AR/VR, robotics, play-based learning, AI generation, and virtual labs, will be added. (2) The authors also intend to research optimization approaches, characteristics of applied technology-based STEM methods, and possibilities for their quantitative assessment. The researchers aim to derive formal models, define an optimization problem, and evaluate the application of teaching methods in STEM subjects. (3) The project team plans to research and analyze appropriate methods for personalizing modern STEM teaching methods, aiming to derive different scenarios and guidelines for their differentiated application according to the educational context. (4) A fourth direction of the planned study will be to conduct a survey specifically among students and analyze their opinions on the STEM teaching methods applied in their education. (5) Finally, the researchers will validate the results of the previous steps by surveying teachers and assessing their subjective perceptions of the proposed approaches for personalizing and optimizing modern STEM teaching methods. In this way, researchers can propose more effective approaches to STEM education, which would allow teachers to personalize and optimize their teaching methods.
Conceptualization, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; methodology, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; software, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; validation, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; formal analysis, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; investigation, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; resources, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; data curation, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; writing—review and editing, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; visualization, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; supervision, E.P.-H., B.B., V.T. and Y.D.; project administration, E.P.-H.; funding acquisition, E.P.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval are not required for this study, as it exclusively involves the analysis of properly anonymized datasets obtained from semi-structured interviews through voluntary participation. This research poses no risk of harm to the interviewees. All data are handled with the utmost confidentiality and in compliance with the ethical standards embedded in the Bulgarian Personal Data Protection Law, URL:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to ethical reasons.
The authors express their gratitude to all the experienced teachers who shared their opinions during the interviews.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| AR/VR | Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality |
| RQ | Research Question |
| SHAPES | reSearcH on formal models for the optimizAtion and Personalization of modErn technology method of STEM education |
| STEAME | Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics, and Entrepreneurship |
| STEM | Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics |
| UNESCO | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization |
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 type of schools where the teacher teaches.
Figure 2 Subjects taught at school.
Figure 3 Grade levels.
Figure 4 Availability of STEM centers and classrooms.
Figure 5 Usage of STEM centers and classrooms.
Figure 6 Percentage of teachers using innovative methods in STEM subjects.
Figure 7 Usage of teaching techniques and tools in STEM subjects.
Availability of conditions for teaching through STEM methods in Bulgarian schools.
| Condition | Yes | No | Partially |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modern computer equipment | 68.74% | 9.38% | 21.88% |
| Integrative learning resources | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
| Other specialized learning resources | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
| Internet connection in classrooms | 93.74% | 0.00% | 6.25% |
| Time allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods | 18.74% | 34.38% | 46.88% |
| Teachers with STEM qualifications | 28.12% | 37.50% | 34.38% |
| Equipped laboratory for relevant STEM subjects | 28.12% | 50.00% | 21.88% |
Presence of features of STEM teaching.
| Group | Features | Yes | No | Partially |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Effectiveness | 1.1. Achievement in STEM subjects: Do the methods improve students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding in STEM fields? | 65.62% | 3.13% | 31.25% |
| 1.2. Development of STEM competencies: Do the methods develop key STEM competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
| 1.3. Interest in STEM: Do the methods stimulate students’ interest in STEM disciplines and careers? | 59.37% | 3.13% | 37.50% | |
| 2. Engagement | 2.1. Hands-on activities: Do the methods include hands-on activities, experiments, projects, and simulations that engage students? | 75.00% | 3.12% | 21.88% |
| 2.2. Interaction: Do the methods encourage active participation, discussions, teamwork, and peer learning? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
| 2.3. Use of technology: Do the methods integrate appropriate STEM technologies that motivate and engage students? | 68.74% | 3.13% | 28.13% | |
| 3. Applicability | 3.1. Curriculum relevance: Are the methods aligned with the goals and content of the STEM curriculum? | 53.12% | 6.25% | 40.63% |
| 3.2. Time and resources: Are the methods realistic to implement within the time frame, school resources, and teacher qualifications? | 46.87% | 9.38% | 43.75% | |
| 3.3. Teacher support: Are the methods easy for teachers to understand and implement without requiring excessive preparation or resources? | 37.50% | 12.50% | 50.00% |
Appendix A. Translation of Interview Questions
Part 1: Teachers’ Profile What is your teaching experience in years? Up to 5 years Up to 10 years Up to 20 years More than 20 years What position do you currently hold at the school? (for instance, teacher, senior teacher, deputy director, head of the department, etc.) What is your gender? Female Male I don’t want to specify. Which school subjects do you teach? Mathematics Informatics Physics Chemistry Biology IT Engineering subjects Arts Other What educational levels do you teach? Primary school (1st—4th grade) Secondary school (5th—7th grade) High school (8th—12th grade) Other What is the average number of students in the class? Up to 10 students Up to 20 students More than 20 students What type of school do you teach at? General education Profiled school: Mathematical school Language school Vocational school School for learners with SEN Other
Part 2: Conditions for STEM Education in Bulgarian Schools: Is there a STEM center (classroom) in your school? No There is a STEM center (more than one classroom) built at the school The STEM center is under construction There is a STEM classroom built at the school The STEM classroom is under construction How often do you use the STEM center (classroom) in the school? Every day Several times a week Several times a month Never/Almost never How often is the STEM center (classroom) used by other teachers? Every day Several times a week Several times a month Never/Almost never Do you or your colleagues use a STEM center (classroom) at another school? Yes No I would use it if I had access to it How many teachers use the STEM center (classroom) at your school? I don’t know Up to 5 Up to 10 More than 10 What is the profile of the teachers who use the STEM center (classroom) at your school? (in terms of subjects taught, years of experience, students’ age, etc.) Are the following conditions for teaching through STEM methods available at your school?—three-point Likert scale (Yes, No, Partially) Modern computer equipment Integrative learning resources Other specialized learning resources Internet connection in classrooms Time allocated in the curriculum for teaching through STEM methods Teachers with STEM qualifications Equipped laboratory for relevant STEM subjects Other Do you need additional training and further qualification to teach effectively using STEM methods? No Yes Methodological courses Specialized STEM training Other Other
Part 3: Innovative Educational Methods
Which contemporary teaching methods in STEM education do you use? Project-Based Learning Problem-based learning Inquiry-based learning Flipped classroom Practice-based learning Jigsaw learning Engineering design Game-based learning Gamification Integrated learning Other
Which techniques and tools do you use for teaching? Presentations Group training Laboratory practice Practical assignments (projects, essays, and tasks) Simulations Robotics Internet search Workshops Gamification Digitalization (use of digital tools) Other
Part 4. Personalization of STEM Education
Do you apply personalization in STEM teaching? No Sometimes No, but I plan to do it Yes
Please share in what situations you apply personalization in STEM teaching:
Which of the following personalization strategies do you implement? Group personalization Individual personalization Personal personalization Flexible grouping Introducing knowledge according to the learning style Other
Which personalization techniques do you apply? Feedback Individual assistance Outdoor education Game-based teaching Competitive approach Forming assessment Independent use of digital platforms Differentiated assignments Synchronous and asynchronous activities Other
Part 5. Optimization of STEM education
Effectiveness Achievement in STEM subjects: Do the methods improve students’ knowledge, skills, and understanding in STEM fields? Development of STEM competencies: Do the methods develop key STEM competencies, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration? Interest in STEM: Do the methods stimulate students’ interest in STEM disciplines and careers?
Engagement Hands-on activities: Do the methods include hands-on activities, experiments, projects, and simulations that engage students? Interaction: Do the methods encourage active participation, discussions, teamwork, and peer learning? Use of technologies: Do the methods integrate appropriate STEM technologies that motivate and engage students?
Applicability Curriculum relevance: Are the methods aligned with the goals and content of the STEM curriculum? Time and resources: Are the methods realistic to implement within the time frame, school resources, and teacher qualifications? Teacher support: Are the methods easy for teachers to understand and implement without requiring excessive preparation or resources?
Flexibility: Adaptability: Can the methods be adapted to different levels of knowledge, interests, and abilities of students? Differentiation: Do the methods offer opportunities for differentiation of learning and support for students with different needs? Integration: Can the methods be integrated with other methods and approaches in STEM education?
Validity: Science-based: Are the methods based on research evidence and proven practices in STEM education? Relevance to trends: Are the methods in line with current trends and innovations in STEM education? Evidence of effectiveness: Is there empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the methods in different contexts?
Accessibility: Accessibility: Are the methods accessible to all students, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or physical abilities? Diversity of resources: Do the methods offer a variety of resources and materials that are appropriate for different learning styles? Ensuring equal opportunity: Do the methods create barriers for students with disabilities or from vulnerable groups?
Do you have comments on the questions in the current section?
Part 6. Concluding Comments
Please share other good methods, practices, and techniques that you or your colleagues apply:
Is there anything else you would like to add? What prospects for development in STEM education do you see in the next 5 years?
Aberšek, B.; Aberšek, M. K.; Dolenc, K. Modernization, optimization and development of STEM education. The 11th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics (DIVAI 2016); Šturovo, Slovakia, May 2–4; 2016; pp. 45-54.
Akkus, R.; Gunel, M.; Hand, B. Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences?. International Journal of Science Education; 2007; 29,
Ángel-Uribe, I.; Cano-Vásquez, L.; López-Molina, G. Characteristics of educational experiences in STEM education in Medellin. Journal of Technology and Science Education; 2024; 14,
Bulgarian National Statistical Institute. Teaching staff in general schools by teaching level and sex; 2025; Available online: https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3464/teaching-staff-general-schools-teaching-level-and-sex (accessed on 30 June 2025).
Cairns, D.; Areepattamannil, S. Exploring the relations of inquiry-based teaching to science achievement and dispositions in 54 countries. Research in Science Education; 2019; 49, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9639-x]
Capraro, R. M.; Capraro, M. M.; Morgan, J. STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach; 2nd ed. Sense Publishers: 2013.
Creating methodology and resources for STEM education in a STEM environment; 2025; Available online: https://stem.mon.bg/project-methodology-stem-resources-description/ (accessed on 30 June 2025).
Darmawansah, D.; Hwang, G. J.; Chen, M. R. A.; Liang, J. C. Trends and research foci of robotics-based STEM education: A systematic review from diverse angles based on the technology-based learning model. International Journal of STEM Education; 2023; 10,
Dole, S.; Bloom, L.; Kowalske, K. Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning; 2016; 10,
Freeman, S.; Eddy, S. L.; McDonough, M.; Smith, M. K.; Okoroafor, N.; Jordt, H.; Wenderoth, M. P. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 2014; 111,
Fung, C.-H.; Poon, K.-K.; Ng, S.-P. Fostering student teachers’ 21st century skills by using flipped learning by teaching in STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education; 2022; 18,
Gong, J.; Cai, S.; Cheng, M. Exploring the effectiveness of flipped classroom on STEM student achievement: A meta-analysis. Technology, Knowledge and Learning; 2024; 29, pp. 1129-1150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09700-7]
Govaerts, S.; Cao, Y.; Vozniuk, A.; Holzer, A.; Zutin, D. G.; Ruiz, E. S. C.; Bollen, L.; Manske, S.; Faltin, N.; Salzmann, C.; Tsourlidaki, E. Wang, J. F.; Lau, R. Towards an online lab portal for inquiry-based STEM learning at school. Advances in web-based learning—ICWL 2013. ICWL 2013. Lecture notes in computer science; Springer: 2013; Vol. 8167, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41175-5_25]
Gui, Y.; Cai, Z.; Yang, Y.; Kong, L.; Fan, X.; Tai, R. H. Effectiveness of digital educational game and game design in stem learning: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of STEM Education; 2023; 10,
Henriksen, D. Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal; 2014; 1,
Herlinawati, H.; Marwa, M.; Noriah, I.; Junaidi,; Ledya, O. L.; Dominikus, D. B. S. The integration of 21st century skills in the curriculum of education. Heliyon; 2024; 10,
Hiğde, E.; Aktamış, H. The effects of STEM activities on students’ STEM career interests, motivation, science process skills, science achievement and views. Thinking Skills and Creativity; 2022; 43, 101000. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101000]
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology Review; 2004; 16, pp. 235-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3]
Holik, I.; Sanda, I. D.; Molnár, G. The necessity of developing soft skills in STEM areas in higher education, with special focus on engineering training. Athens Journal of Technology and Engineering; 2023; 10,
Investment project of ministry of education and science of Bulgaria “STEM centers and innovation in education”; 2025; Available online: https://sf.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=549&lang=en (accessed on 30 June 2025).
Irwanto, I.; Saputro, A. D.; Widiyanti, W.; Ramadhan, M. F.; Lukman, I. R. Research trends in STEM education from 2011 to 2020: A systematic review of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies; 2022; 16,
Ivanova, M.; Grosseck, G.; Holotescu, C. Unveiling insights: A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence in teaching. Informatics; 2024; 11, 10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/informatics11010010]
Ješková, Z.; Lukáč, S.; Šnajder, Ľ.; Guniš, J.; Klein, D.; Kireš, M. Active learning in STEM education with regard to the development of inquiry skills. Education Sciences; 2022; 12,
Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S.; Zourmpakis, A.-I. Gamification in science education. A systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences; 2021; 11, 22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010022]
Karacop, A. The effects of using jigsaw method based on cooperative learning model in the undergraduate science laboratory practices. Universal Journal of Educational Research; 2017; 5,
Keiler, L. S. Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education; 2018; 5, 34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6]
Kong, S. C. Developing information literacy and critical thinking skills through domain knowledge learning in digital classrooms: An experience of practicing flipped classroom strategy. Computers & Education; 2014; 78, pp. 160-173. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.009]
Krajcik, S.; Shin, N. Sawyer, R. K. Project-based learning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences; Cambridge University Press: 2014; pp. 275-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.018]
LaForce, M.; Noble, E.; Blackwell, C. Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs. Education Sciences; 2017; 7, 92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040092]
Lavi, R.; Tal, M.; Dori, Y. J. Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation; 2021; 70, 101002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002]
Leung, J. S. C. Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific Issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2022; 20, pp. 659-682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34025331]
Lomba-Portela, L.; Domínguez-Lloria, S.; Pino-Juste, M. R. Resistances to educational change: Teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences; 2022; 12, 359. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050359]
Mann, L.; Chang, R.; Chandrasekaran, S.; Coddington, A.; Daniel, S.; Cook, E.; Crossin, E.; Cosson, B.; Turner, J.; Mazzurco, A.; Dohaney, J. From problem-based learning to practice-based education: A framework for shaping future engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education; 2020; 46,
Mohr-Schroeder, M. A. Practice-based model of STEM teaching/STEM students on the stage (SOS); Sahin A. Sense Publishers: 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-019-2]
Nikolova, N.; Stefanova, E.; Mihnev, P.; Stefanov, K. Rocha, Á.; Adeli, H.; Reis, L.; Costanzo, S. Opportunities and challenges for efficient and effective stem teachers’ competence development. Trends and advances in information systems and technologies. WorldCIST’18 2018. Advances in intelligent systems and computing; Springer: 2018; Vol. 746, pp. 1367-1377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77712-2_131]
Nite, S.; Capraro, M.; Capraro, R.; Bicer, A. Explicating the characteristics of STEM teaching and learning: A metasynthesis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education; 2017; 52,
Ortiz-Rojas, M.; Chiluiza, K.; Valcke, M.; Bolanos-Mendoza, C. How gamification boosts learning in STEM higher education: A mixed methods study. International Journal of STEM Education; 2025; 12, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00521-3]
Osadchyi, V. V.; Valko, N. V.; Kuzmich, L. V. Using augmented reality technologies for stem education organization. Journal of Physics: Conference Series; 2021; 1840,
Revitalizing STEM education to equip next generations with STEM competency; 2025; Available online: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/revitalizing-stem-education-equip-next-generations-stem-competency (accessed on 30 June 2025).
Roehrig, G. H.; Dare, E. A.; Ring-Whalen, E.; Wieselmann, J. R. Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education; 2021; 8, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00259-8]
Sandrone, S.; Scott, G.; Anderson, W. J.; Musunuru, K. Active learning-based STEM education for in-person and online learning. Cell; 2021; 184,
Shahali, E. H. M.; Halim, L.; Rasul, M. S.; Osman, K.; Zulkifeli, M. A. STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education; 2016; 13,
Shernoff, D. J.; Sinha, S.; Bressler, D. M.; Ginsburg, L. Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education; 2017; 4, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1]
Stefanova, E.; Nikolova, N.; Zafirova-Malcheva, T.; Mihnev, P.; Georgiev, A.; Antonova, A. Participatory model for identifying and measuring teachers’ competences for open and inquiry-based learning in STEM: Field experience. EPiC Series in Education Science, Proceedings of Learning Innovations and Quality (LINQ); 2019; 2, pp. 28-39.
Stehle, S. M.; Peters-Burton, E. E. Developing student 21st Century skills in selected exemplary inclusive STEM high schools. International Journal of STEM Education; 2019; 6, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0192-1]
STEM courses for educators; 2025; Available online: https://edutechflag.eu/training (accessed on 30 June 2025).
STEM strategy of Bulgarian ministry of education and science; 2025; Available online: https://www.mon.bg/bg/683 (accessed on 30 June 2025).
Stender, A.; Schwichow, M.; Zimmerman, C.; Härtig, H. Making inquiry-based science learning visible: The influence of CVS and cognitive skills on content knowledge learning in guided inquiry. International Journal of Science Education; 2018; 40,
Sutiani, A.; Situmorang, M.; Silalahi, A. Implementation of an inquiry learning model with science literacy to improve student critical thinking skills. International Journal of Instruction; 2021; 14,
Voutchkov, I.; Keane, A. Tenne, Y.; Goh, C. K. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Surrogates. Computational Intelligence in Optimization. Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization; Springer: 2010; vol. 7, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12775-5_7]
Xu, W.; Ouyang, F. The application of AI technologies in STEM education: A systematic review from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of STEM Education; 2022; 9,
Yannier, N.; Hudson, S.; Koedinger, K. Active learning is about more than hands-on: A mixed-reality AI system to support STEM education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education; 2020; 30, pp. 74-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40593-020-00194-3]
Zhang, Y.; Feijoo-Garcia, M. A.; Gu, Y.; Popescu, V.; Benes, B.; Magana, A. J. Virtual and augmented reality in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: An umbrella review. Information; 2024; 15, 515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info15090515]
Zhou, Y.; Shirazi, S. Factors influencing young people’s STEM career aspirations and career choices: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education; 2025; Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10763-025-10552-z (accessed on 31 August 2025).
© 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
; Bontchev Boyan 2
; Terzieva Valentina 1
; Dankov Yavor 2
1 Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. Georgi Bonchev Str., Bl. 2, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; [email protected]
2 Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 5 James Bourchier Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria; [email protected]