Modelling teacher pedagogical readiness for STEAM: a factor analysis

Introduction . In the context of global technological transformation, which is shaping new directions for the development of educational systems, research focused on preparing teaching staff for the implementation of integrative approaches is particularly relevant. Aim. This research aims to develop and evaluate a structural model that assesses the readiness of future physics teachers to implement the STEM approach in their professional practice. Methodology and research methods. The methodological foundation was a quantitative descriptive approach, employing procedures of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The empirical basis of the study comprised the results of a survey of 408 students from three universities in East Java, Indonesia. Results . It was established that the overall level of readiness of future physics teachers to implement the STEM approach is 81.67%. Based on factor analysis, the key components of the integrative model were identified and conceptualised as Engineering, Arts, Religion, and Social components. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the theoretical justification and empirical identification of the core element of future educators’ professional training, termed “Basic Understanding”, which ensures the integrity and interconnection of these components. This facilitated the synthesis and structural representation of the evolution of integrative educational models from STEM to STEAM, STREAM, and, ultimately, to the STEAMS model proposed by the authors. Practical significance. The practical significance of this study lies in its potential to modernise the content of curricula, programmes, and pedagogical methods within the professional training system for physics teachers and other science disciplines, with the aim of enhancing their comprehensive readiness to implement interdisciplinary educational strategies.

1. Kuswantoro H., Sholihin M., Djajadikerta H.G. Exploring the implementation of sustainable development goals: a comparison between private and state-owned enterprises in Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2023;25(10):10799–10819. doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02505-1

2. Zaki I., Zusak M.B.F., Mi’raj D.A., Hasib F.F. Islamic community-based business cooperation and sustainable development goals: a case of pesantren community in Indonesia. International Journal of Ethics and Systems. 2022;38(4):621–632. doi:10.1108/IJOES-12-2021-0218

3. Burbules N.C., Fan G., Repp P. Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability. 2020;1(2):93–97. doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2020.05.001

4. Adipat S., Laksana K., Busayanon K., Asawasowan A., Adipat B. Engaging students in the learning process with game-based learning: the fundamental concepts. International Journal of Technology in Education. 2021;4(3):542–552. doi:10.46328/ijte.169

5. Muthmainnah, Seraj P.M.I., Oteir I. Playing with AI to investigate human-computer interaction technology and improving critical thinking skills to pursue 21st century age. Education Research International. 2022;2022:6468995. doi:10.1155/2022/6468995

6. Rizki I.A., Suprapto N. Project-oriented problem-based learning through SR-STEM to foster students’ critical thinking skills in renewable energy material. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2024;33(4):526–541. doi:10.1007/s10956-024-10102-2

7. Bronkhorst H., Roorda G., Suhre C., Goedhart M. Logical reasoning in formal and everyday reasoning tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2020;18(8):1673–1694. doi:10.1007/s10763-019-10039-8

8. Shanta S., Wells J.G. T/E design based learning: assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2022;32(1):267–285. doi:10.1007/s10798-020-09608-8

9. Bruggeman B., Tondeur J., Struyven K., Pynoo B., Garone A., Vanslambrouck S. Experts speaking: crucial teacher attributes for implementing blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2021;48:100772. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100772

10. Eguchi A., Okada H., Muto Y. Contextualizing AI education for K-12 students to enhance their learning of AI literacy through culturally responsive approaches. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz. 2021;35(2):153–61. doi:10.1007/s13218-021-00737-3

11. Azhari B., Fajri I. Distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: school closure in Indonesia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2022;53(7):1934–1954. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2021.1875072

12. Putera P.B., Widianingsih I., Ningrum S., Suryanto S., Rianto Y. Overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: a science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy perspective. Health Policy and Technology. 2022;11(3):100650. doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2022.100650

13. Sumarni W., Sudarmin S., Sumarti S.S., Kadarwati S. Indigenous knowledge of Indonesian traditional medicines in science teaching and learning using a science-technology-engineering-mathematics (STEM) approach. Cultural Studies of Science Education. 2022;17(2):467–510. doi:10.1007/s11422-021-10067-3

14. Baroudi S., Helder M.R. Behind the scenes: teachers’ perspectives on factors affecting the implementation of inquiry-based science instruction. Research in Science & Technological Education. 2021;39(1):68–89. doi:10.1080/02635143.2019.1651259

15. Fernandes G.W.R., Rodrigues A.M., Ferreira C.A. Professional development and use of digital technologies by science teachers: a review of theoretical frameworks. Research in Science Education. 2020;50(2):673–708. doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9707-x

16. Seo K., Yoo M., Dodson S., Jin S.H. Augmented teachers: K-12 teachers’ needs for artificial intelligence’s complementary role in personalized learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2025;57(4):876–893. doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2330525

17. Kumar R., Acharya A.K. Exploring the nexus: scientific attitude, scientific interest, and problem-solving ability in science education. International Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Learning. 2025;32(1):193–211. doi:10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v32i01/193-211

18. Fombona-Pascual A., Fombona J., Vicente R. Augmented reality, a review of a way to represent and manipulate 3D chemical structures. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2022;62(8): 1863–1872. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.1c01255

19. Korkut E.H., Surer E. Visualization in virtual reality: a systematic review. Virtual Reality. 2023;27(2):1447–1480. doi:10.1007/s10055-023-00753-8

20. Anggaryani M., Fauzi A., Pradhana M.F., Mubarok H., Suprapto N.Virtual reality as experiential learning to promote STEM-DRR in tertiary education. ASM Science Journal. 2023;18:1370. doi:10.32802/asmscj.2023.1370

21. Lin M.Y., Chang Y.S. Effects of design thinking STEAM instruction on AI learning and creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2025. doi:10.1007/s10798-025-09977-y

22. Purwaningsih E., Sari U.K., Nurlaili, Sari M.S., Astra I.M., Suprapto N. Improving the problem-solving skills through the development of teaching materials with STEM-PjBL model integrated with TPACK. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020;1481(1):012133. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1481/1/012133

23. Suprapto N., Rizki I.A., Lintangesukmanjaya R.T., Sya’roni I. Wind, solar and water-powered renewable energy prototypes for STEM learning: testing their efficiency and feasibility. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. 2024;22(3):217–223.

24. Mubarok H., Safitri N.S., Adam A.S. The novelty of religion and art: should we combine with STEM education? Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education. 2020;1(3):97–103. doi:10.46627/sipose.v1i3.51

25. Perales F.J., Aróstegui J.L. The STEAM approach: implementation and education-al, social and economic consequences. Arts Education Policy Review. 2024;125(2):59–67. doi:10.1080/10632913.2021.1974997

26. Bertrand M.G., Namukasa I.K. A pedagogical model for STEAM education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning. 2023;16(2):169–191. doi:10.1108/JRIT-12-2021-0081

27. Dubek M., DeLuca C., Rickey N. Unlocking the potential of STEAM education: how exemplary teachers navigate assessment challenges. The Journal of Educational Research. 2021;114(6):513–525. doi:10.1080/00220671.2021.1990002

28. Wong J.T., Bui N.N., Fields D.T., Hughes B.S. A learning experience design approach to online professional development for teaching science through the arts: evaluation of teacher content knowledge, self-efficacy and STEAM perceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2023;34(6):593–623. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2022.2112552

29. Khadri H.O. Becoming future-proof STEM teachers for enhancing sustainable development: a proposed general framework for capacity-building programs in future studies. Prospects. 2022;52(3):421–435. doi:10.1007/s11125-021-09588-0

30. Nguyen T.P.L., Nguyen T.H., Tran T.K. STEM education in secondary schools: teachers’ perspective towards sustainable development. Sustainability. 2020;12(21):8865. doi:10.3390/su12218865

31. Belbase S., Al Mutawah M.A., Thomas L., Al Saidi R., Al Muharrami M., Al Mamari S. At the dawn of science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: prospects, priorities, processes, and problems. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 2022;53(11):2919–2955. doi:10.1080/0020739X.2021.1922943

32. DeLuca C., Searle M., Carbone K., Ge J., LaPointe-McEwan D. Toward a pedagogy for slow and significant learning about assessment in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2021;101:103316. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2021.103316

33. Romanyuk S.Z., Rusnak I.S., Dolynskiy I.V., Maftyn L.V., Onyshkiv Z.M. Competence-based readiness of future teachers to professional activity in educational institutions. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching. 2022;11(2):42–55. doi:10.5430/jct.v11n2p42

34. Julia J., Subarjah H., Maulana M., Sujana A., Isrokatun I., Nugraha D., Rachmatin D. Readiness and competence of new teachers for career as professional teachers in primary schools. European Journal of Educational Research. 2020;9(2):655–673. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.655

35. Guyotte K.W. Toward a philosophy of STEAM in the Anthropocene. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2020;52(7):769–779. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.1690989

36. Suprapto N. Students’ attitudes towards STEM education: voices from Indonesian junior high schools. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2016;13:75–87. doi:10.36681/tused.2024.007

37. Adam A.S., Mubarok H., Suprapto N. Empowering all-in-one e-book package into guided inquiry learning: analysis of students’ learning achievement and critical thinking skill. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2025. doi:10.1007/s10956-025-10253-w

38. Suprapto N., Mursid A. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching science and their science learning at Indonesia Open University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2017;18(4):66–77. doi:10.17718/tojde.340386

39. Suprapto N. Physics education students’ understanding of the concept of epistemology, ontology, and axiology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021;1747(1):012015. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1747/1/012015

40. Suprapto N. Demographic sources as a local wisdom: potency of Indonesian physics education researchers in conducting survey research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1171(1):012003. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1171/1/012003

41. Khademi A., Wells C.S., Oliveri M.E., Villalonga-Olives E. Examining appropriacy of CFI and TLI cutoff value in multiple-group CFA test of measurement invariance to enhance accuracy of test score interpretation. SAGE Open. 2023;13(4). doi:10.1177/21582440231205354

42. Suprapto N., Ku C.H. Investigating university students’ preferences to science communication skills: a case of prospective science teacher in Indonesia. International Education Studies. 2016;9(8):19–27. doi:10.5539/ies.v9n8p19

43. Güvendir M.A., Özkan Y.Ö. Item removal strategies conducted in exploratory factor analysis: a comparative study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2022;9(1):165–180. doi:10.21449/ijate.827950

44. Zhuo X., Zhang L. Construction of data governance indicator system for manufacturing enterprises based on EFA and CFA. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering. 2024. doi:10.1177/14727978251362024

45. Nisa’ K., Suprapto N., Shofiyah N., Cheng T.H. How does ethnoscience-students’ worksheet (ESW) influence in science learning? Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn). 2024;18(2):403–412. doi:10.11591/edulearn.v18i2.21178

46. Goretzko D., Siemund K., Sterner P. Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2024;84(1):123–144. doi:10.1177/00131644231163813

47. Marsh H.W., Guo J., Dicke T., Parker P.D., Craven R.G. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and set-ESEM: optimal balance be tween goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2020;55(1):102–119. doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503

48. Suprapto N., Hidaayatullaah H.N., Arymbekov B., Hakim S.R., Yulkifli Y. Indonesian preservice teachers’ attitudes toward using ChatGPT: a structural equation model. Multidisciplinary Science Journal. 2024;7(7):2025326. doi:10.31893/multiscience.2025326

49. Suprapto N., Hakim S.R., Hidaayatullaah H.N., Dermawan D.A., Syahputra D.N.A. A bibliometric analysis of virtual reality research on critical thinking skills and student responses using PLS-SEM. In: Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2024:36–44. doi:10.1145/3678726.3678759

50. Millán M.D.C.S., Arango J.P.B. Bibliometric analysis on the STEM/STEAM approach in the training of natural sciences teachers in Colombia. Discover Education. 2025;4(1):266. doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00735-9

51. Hsiao P.W., Su C.H. A study on the impact of STEAM education for sustainable development courses and its effects on student motivation and learning. Sustainability. 2021;13(7):3772. doi:10.3390/su13073772

52. Wahono B., Lin P.L., Chang C.Y. Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education. 2020;7(1):36. doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1

53. Rukoyah S.O., Widodo A., Rochintaniawati D. The analysis of teachers’ readiness to develop science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) based teaching. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2020;1521(4):042043. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042043

54. Wu P., Yu K., Li C. How K12 teachers’ readiness influences their intention to implement STEM education: exploratory study based on decomposed theory of planned behavior. Applied Sciences. 2022;12(23):11989. doi:10.3390/app122311989

55. Lin K.Y., Wu Y., Hsu Y., Williams P.J. STEM education goals in the twenty-first century: teachers’ perceptions and experiences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2023;33(2):479–496. doi:10.1007/s10798-022-09737-2

56. Morrison J., Frost J., Gotch C., McDuffie A.R., Austin B., French B. Teachers’ role in students’ learning at a project-based STEM high school: implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2021;19(6):1103–1123. doi:10.1007/s10763-020-10108-3

57. Handayani S., Hussin M., Norman H. Evaluating teaching readiness using the TPACK model: factor, reliability and validity analyses for Indonesian economics teacher candidates. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2024;(2):679–698. doi:10.32744/pse.2024.2.41

58. Wang X., Zhu G., Wang Y., Wang K., Wang P. Developing and validating an Interdisciplinary Teaching Readiness Scale (ITRS) for pre-service teachers in China. PloS One. 2024;19(12):e0315723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315723

59. Park W., Cho H. The interaction of history and STEM learning goals in teacher-developed curriculum materials: opportunities and challenges for STEAM education. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2022;23(3):457–474. doi:10.1007/s12564-022-09741-0

60. Lavicza Z., Fenyvesi K., Lieban D., Park H., Hohenwarter M., Mantecon J.D. Developing and evaluating educational innovations for STEAM education in rapidly changing digital technology environments. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7237. doi:10.3390/su14127237

61. Bajuri M.R., Abdul Rahim S.S., Mohd Shahali E.H., Maat S.M. Influence of spirituality in the career and STEM-based research approach of scientists for sustainable development: a study on the perspective of scientists from a public research university in Malaysia. Sustainability. 2021;13(20):11161. doi:10.3390/su132011161

62. Ortiz-Revilla J., Adúriz-Bravo A., Greca I.M. A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Science & Education. 2020;29(4):857–880. doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00131-9

63. Suprapto N., Prahani B.K., Cheng T.H. Indonesian curriculum reform in policy and local wisdom: perspectives from science education. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 2021;10(1):69–80. doi:10.15294/jpii.v10i1.28438

64. Sulaeman N., Efwinda S., Putra P.D.A. Teacher readiness in STEM education: voices of Indonesian physics teachers. Journal of Technology and Science Education. 2022;12(1):68–82. doi:10.3926/jotse.1191

65. Hughes B.S., Corrigan M.W., Grove D., Andersen S.B., Wong J.T. Integrating arts with STEM and leading with STEAM to increase science learning with equity for emerging bilingual learners in the United States. International Journal of STEM Education. 2022;9(1):58. doi:10.1186/s40594-022-00375-7

66. Wells J.G., Van de Velde D. Technology education pedagogy: enhancing STEM learning. In: Williams P.J., Barlex D., eds. Pedagogy for Technology Education in Secondary Schools: Research Informed Perspectives for Classroom Teachers. Cham: Springer; 2020:219–244. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41548-8_12

67. Zhan Z., Niu S. Subject integration and theme evolution of STEM education in K-12 and higher education research. Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering. 2023;10(1):781. doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02303-8

68. Conradty C., Bogner F.X. STEAM teaching professional development works: effects on students’ creativity and motivation. Smart Learning Environments. 2020;7(1):26. doi:10.1186/s40561-020-00132-9

69. Ozkan G., Topsakal U.U. Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2021;31(1):95–116. doi:10.1007/s10798-019-09547-z

70. Suprapto N., Rizki I.A., Kholiq A. Exploring the cultural fabric: a study on Indonesia’s unique architectural marvels for Ethno-STEAM education system. TEM Journal. 2024;13(3):2249–2258. doi:10.18421/TEM133-51

71. Zulkifli H., Aliza A., Mohamed S., Abdullah N., Madzlan N.A. Designing the content of religious education learning in creating sustainability among children with learning disabilities: a fuzzy Delphi analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:1036806. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036806

72. Fatimah M., Aly A. Religious culture development in community school: a case study of boyolali middle school, central Java, Indonesia. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews. 2020;8(2):381–388. doi:10.18510/hssr.2020.8243

73. Taja N., Nurdin E., Kosasih A., Suresman E., Supriyadi T. Character education in the pandemic era: a religious ethical learning model through Islamic education. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2021;20(11):132–153. doi:10.26803/ijlter.20.11.8

74. Hakim S.R., Hariyanto D., Suprapto N., Yulkifli Y., Fahmi H.Z., Nisa’ K., Rizki I.A. Design and implementation of VR lato-lato STEAM in engineering education science. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 2025;14(4):2749–2761. doi:10.11591/ijere.v14i4.32206