Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach

Argyris Nipyrakis; Dimitris Stavrou; Lucy Avraamidou

doi:10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Research Article

2026, 11(1), Article No: 29

Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach

Argyris Nipyrakis ¹ ² ^* , Dimitris Stavrou ¹, Lucy Avraamidou ²

¹ University of Crete, GREECE ² University of Groningen, NETHERLANDS
^* Corresponding Author

https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Published in Volume 11 Issue 1: 16 May 2026

Download: 127

OPEN ACCESS FULL TEXT (PDF)

Abstract

Design plays a central role in integrated STEM approaches. However, there is limited knowledge of how teachers from different S-T-E-M disciplinary backgrounds practice STEM design. To address this knowledge gap, we examined the STEM design practices of a convenience sample of 26 in-service teachers who voluntarily participated in a 7-month-long STEM professional development programme, divided into 4 Learning Community (LC) groups. As part of this programme, teachers designed STEM modules in the context of Nanoscience-Nanotechnology. Qualitative analysis of the LC discussions (synchronous), forum posts (asynchronous), and the designed artefacts provided insights both in terms of ideas/themes that teachers mostly discussed, as well as the design activity of the individual teachers. Frequencies of teachers’ inductively coded design actions during the LC meetings were noted, described through design visualisations and were used to infer the centrality of ideas discussed and the centrality of members’ activity. This analysis showcased that modelling, technicalities, robotics, and sensors were some common themes discussed among the four cases. Regarding the impact of teachers’ backgrounds on the nature of their practices, it was found that STEM design centrality was not restricted to any disciplinary background. However, the activity of most mathematics teachers appeared peripheral. Finally, teachers tended to contribute to parts of the artefact that were closer to their disciplinary expertise, while a few boundary-crossing design practices were noted.

Figure 1. Design visualisation example

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S., Makarsu, M., Johnston, A., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. Research in Science Education, 50(2), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2014). Teacher design research: An emerging paradigm for teachers' professional development. In A. E. Kelly, R. A. Lesh, & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education (pp. 264–280). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759593-24
Barelli, E., Barquero, B., Romero, O., Aguada, M. R., Giménez, J., Pipitone, C., Sala-Sebastià, G., Nipyrakis, A., Kokolaki, A., Metaxas, I., Michailidi, E., Stavrou, D., Bartzia, E., Lodi, M., Sbaraglia, M., Modeste, S., Martini, S., Durand-Guerrier, V., Satanassi, S., Fantini, P., Bagaglini, V., Kapon, S., Branchetti, L., & Levrini, O. (2022, August 30–September 3). Disciplinary identities in interdisciplinary topics: Challenges and opportunities for teacher education [Symposium]. Proceedings of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference, 934–943.
Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4
Billiar, K., Hubelbank, J., Oliva, T., & Camesano, T. (2014). Teaching STEM by design. Advances in Engineering Education, 4(1), Article n1. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25856
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2009). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 4324/9780203224342
Couso, D. (2016). Participatory approaches to curriculum design from a design research perspective. In D. Psillos & P. Kariotoglou (Eds.), Iterative design of teaching-learning sequences (pp. 47–71). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7808-5_4
Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03057267.2016.1161701
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Council Recommendation on blended learning for high quality and inclusive primary and secondary education. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ ?uri=CELEX:52021DC0455&from=EN
Geelan, D. (2012). Teacher explanations. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 987–999). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_65
Grimalt-Álvaro, C., López-Simó, V., & Tena, È. (2024). How do secondary-school teachers design STEM teaching–learning sequences? A mixed methods study for identifying design profiles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10457-3
Kelley, T., & Sung, E. (2017). Examining elementary school students' transfer of learning through engineering design using think-aloud protocol analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.5
Kim, M. S. (2021). A systematic review of the design work of STEM teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1682988
Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005). Mathematics education as a design science. ZDM, 37(6), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02655858
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z
Manou, L., Spyrtou, A., Hatzikraniotis, E., & Kariotoglou, P. (2022). What does "Nanoscience–Nanotechnology" mean to primary school teachers? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(6), 1269–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10199-6
Martín-Páez, T., Aguilera, D., Perales-Palacios, F. J., & Vílchez-González, J. M. (2019). What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Science Education, 103(4), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21522
Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 365–380). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13
McComas, W. F., & Burgin, S. R. (2020). A critique of "STEM" education. Science & Education, 29(4), 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2
Murphy, M., Chance, S., & Conlon, E. (2015). Designing the identities of engineers. In M. Murphy, B. Nolan, & C. Dara-Abrams (Eds.), Engineering identities, epistemologies and values (pp. 41–64). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16172-3_3
Nathan, M. J., Srisurichan, R., Walkington, C., Wolfgram, M., Williams, C., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 77–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20000
National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612
Nipyrakis, A., & Stavrou, D. (2022). Integration of ICT in science education laboratories by primary student teachers. In S. Papadakis & M. Kalogiannakis (Eds.), STEM, robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education: Technology to promote teaching and learning (pp. 55–78). Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-981-19-0568-1_4
Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., & Avraamidou, L. (2024a). Designing technology-enhanced science experiments in elementary teacher preparation: The role of learning communities. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(4), 889–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2202386
Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., & Avraamidou, L. (2024b). Examining S-T-E-M teachers' design of integrated STEM lesson plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(5). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10763-024-10474-2
Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., & Avraamidou, L. (2024c). In-service teachers' views about STEM integration: A case study. Research in Integrated STEM Education, 2(2), 85–119. https://doi.org/10.1163/27726673-bja00021
Pulsawad, W., Tong-on, A., Ladachart, L., & Ladachart, L. (2024). Examining disciplinary specificity of preservice mathematics and science teachers' professional identities. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10486-y
Ring-Whalen, E., Dare, E., Roehrig, G., Titu, P., & Crotty, E. (2018). From conception to curricula: The role of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in integrated STEM units. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(1), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.18404/ ijemst.440338
Sevian, H., & Talanquer, V. (2014). Rethinking chemistry: A learning progression on chemical thinking. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00111c
Suchman, L. (1993). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00749282
Torres-Olave, B., & Bravo González, P. (2021). Facing neoliberalism through dialogic spaces as sites of hope in science education: Experiences of two self-organised communities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 16(4), 1047–1067.
Tzanakis, C. (2016, July). Mathematics & physics: An innermost relationship. Didactical implications for their teaching & learning. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01349231/document
Vossen, T. E., Henze, I., Rippe, R. C. A., Van Driel, J. H., & De Vries, M. J. (2018). Attitudes of secondary school students towards doing research and design activities. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1629–1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1494395
Waight, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of technology: Implications for design, development, and enactment of technological tools in school science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(18), 2875–2905. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.698763
Wittmann, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a 'design science'. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01273911
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108
Zhang, L., Lin, Y., & Oon, P. T. (2024). The implementation of engineering design-based STEM learning and its impact on primary students' scientific creativity. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2309907
Zhou, D., Gomez, R., Wright, N., Rittenbruch, M., & Davis, J. (2022). A design-led conceptual framework for developing school integrated STEM programs: The Australian context. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09619-5

APA 7th edition

In-text citation: (Nipyrakis et al., 2026)
Reference: Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., & Avraamidou, L. (2026). Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach. European Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), Article 29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

AMA 10th edition

In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Nipyrakis A, Stavrou D, Avraamidou L. Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach. European Journal of STEM Education. 2026;11(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Chicago

In-text citation: (Nipyrakis et al., 2026)
Reference: Nipyrakis, Argyris, Dimitris Stavrou, and Lucy Avraamidou. "Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach". European Journal of STEM Education 2026 11 no. 1 (2026): 29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Harvard

In-text citation: (Nipyrakis et al., 2026)
Reference: Nipyrakis, A., Stavrou, D., and Avraamidou, L. (2026). Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach. European Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

MLA

In-text citation: (Nipyrakis et al., 2026)
Reference: Nipyrakis, Argyris et al. "Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach". European Journal of STEM Education, vol. 11, no. 1, 2026, 29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Vancouver

In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Nipyrakis A, Stavrou D, Avraamidou L. Supporting in-service teachers’ STEM design practices: A learning community approach. European Journal of STEM Education. 2026;11(1):29. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/18305

Keywords

STEM design, integrated STEM, learning communities, STEM artefacts, design visualisations, multiple case study, nanotechnology

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Submit My Manuscript