The topic of curriculum integration has existed for more than 100 years and can be traced back to John Dewey and constructivist learning theory [2] . Dewey (1916, 1938) believed knowledge is constructed through investigation and social interaction in real-world interdisciplinary contexts [3] [4] . Curriculum integration approaches, such as STEM integration, address these contexts and use students’ prior knowledge as starting points for investigation [24] - [26] . Curriculum integrators stress active learning regardless of the approach. Bonwell and Eison (1991) state that anything involving pupils practicing and analyzing tasks is considered active learning [27] . all involve students working in groups to optimize its benefits. Curriculum integration encourages active learning [25] . Honey et al. (2014) define problem-based learning as an experiential educational technique that engages students in loosely organized challenges that mimic real-life circumstances to stimulate active learning [28] .

Situated learning theory, often referred to as situated cognition theory, holds that contexts, which include the social and physical elements of a learning activity, are essential to the learning process [9] [29] [30] . Consequently, the knowledge acquired is linked to the circumstances or context in which it was acquired [31] . Thus, while introducing knowledge to students, it is best to employ authentic settings, circumstances, or experiences they can relate to [32] . Curriculum integration techniques place students in a context that blends pertinent activity within a collaborative environment, making learning authentic ( Figure 1 ).

Social development theory stresses the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of cognition [33] . According to the theory, learning is a social process through student interaction whereby students negotiate for meaning and internalize it into their cognitive structures. This theory asserts three significant themes regarding social interaction: 1) learning occurs firstly due to social interaction, after which students internalize learning on an individual level; 2) all individuals can learn from a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). The MKO is someone with a higher skill level than the learner. The MKO can be a teacher, a parent, a peer, or an electronic device; and 3) learning occurs in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the point the learner is capable of reaching under the guidance of an MKO, which may include use of the scaffolding strategy [34] .

Integrated STEM education has many definitions, but modern approaches have specific traits [35] - [37] . According to Moore et al. (2014), STEM integration involves integrating all or part of the four disciplines into a single lesson, unit, or class that addresses real-world concerns [38] . It is a method of teaching STEM courses that span two or more STEM domains and are limited by STEM practices in the real world to improve student learning [9] . Table 1 shows how educators might use these two theories together as it combines Moore et al.’s (2014) six tenets and eight fundamental features [38] with LaForce et al.’s (2016) 76 critical STEM school qualities [39] ( Table 2 ). Framework linkages drove data analysis.

From LaForce et al. (2016). 76 characteristics of successful schools.

No curriculum integration framework exists, yet diverse designs or approaches have similarities. Kelley & Knowles (2016) use Vasquez, Sneider, and Comer’s (2013) three-stage structure to integrate multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary techniques [9] [40] ( Figure 2 ). This three-stage continuum’s disciplines become more interdependent [9] .

“True” or “pure” curriculum integration is issue-based education or curriculum negotiation. It assumes disciplines are social constructs, making distinctions meaningless. Gun control, climate change, social justice, and personal development are covered this way. Beane and Fraser propose transdisciplinary curricular integration as a democratic pedagogy that prepares students for global citizenship. Teachers must alter their planning and draw from their collective discipline knowledge to introduce curriculum objectives instead of scheduled individual sessions. The transdisciplinary method is based on constructivism, a psychology and human development model emphasizing active learning. It values learners’ experiences and perspectives and promotes multidisciplinary collaboration. It values learners’ experiences and perspectives and promotes multidisciplinary collaboration ( Figure 3 ).

STEM integration refers to teaching STEM subjects in a real-world setting, where the content from many STEM domains is combined to promote student learning. This approach aims to connect different disciplines and improve the educational experience for students [9] [37] . STEM integration initiatives aim to align closely with a transdisciplinary approach to curriculum integration. However, the actual implementation may resemble either multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approaches, depending on the extent to which thematic or authentic (real-world problems) elements are incorporated [9] [40] [41] .

Additionally, STEM integration aims to generate interest in STEM careers. Furthermore, the implementation of STEM integration and its student-centered collaborative practices is being seen as a means to promote greater participation of females in post-secondary STEM programs, therefore aiding in the reduction of the gender disparity in STEM employment [41] - [43] . The increase in interest in STEM education has resulted in the development of diverse implementation and investigative frameworks to guide instructors in properly integrating STEM courses ( Table 2 ).

Eight Essential Elements of Inclusive STEM High Schools (LaForce et al., 2016).

To improve student learning of math and science by using an engineering design-based approach for integrated STEM, Dare et al. (2018) conducted a multiple-case study of nine American middle school science teachers to learn more about these teachers’ experiences in developing and implementing integrated STEM curricular units in their science classrooms [9] [38] . The results of this study show that, to differing degrees, the participants found it challenging to relate arithmetic, science, and engineering explicitly. The majority concentrated on teaching science, then math, and finally attempted to incorporate engineering or real-world elements.

The UAE has teamed up with international organizations and educational institutions to use the best practices in STEM education. These partnerships use foreign knowledge and experiences to raise the standard of STEM education in the nation. There have been initiatives to raise public awareness of the importance of STEM education. Campaigns and community outreach initiatives aim to inform parents, students, and the general public about the benefits of STEM fields and their potential for employment [6] [10] [41] [44] .

Several studies describe the benefits to student learning when teachers employ a curriculum integration approach [45] [46] . One of the most commonly cited benefits of integration is that by encouraging teachers to connect multiple subject areas in a unified manner, curriculum integration makes learning relevant and engaging [9] [36] [47] . On the other hand, other studies find that increases in achievement are more focused [45] [46] [48] . These studies note that the achievement of African American, Hispanic, female, and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, in particular, benefit from STEM integration, while the achievement of white socioeconomically stable students shows marginal improvement.

Since the study generally aims to comprehend people and how they make sense of the world [50] [53] , a qualitative approach to inquiry was selected. More precisely, the study focuses on investigating and comprehending the perspectives and beliefs of teachers [50] . Semi-structured interviews were conducted using six open-ended questions pertinent to the study’s objectives to collect qualitative data. The researcher interviewed four high school teachers, who asked them to discuss their opinions and ideas regarding STEM integration. After that, the participants’ opinions are gathered by documenting their responses to open-ended questions [49] ( Table 3 ).

Improving teaching and professional learning to support learning better is, according to policymakers and educational leaders, the key to reforming education for prosperity in the United Arab Emirates. In Dubai, United Arab Emirates, at a K–12 American school, the study was carried out.

Four individuals indicated their willingness to participate in the study: two educators from the mathematics department and two from the science department. This study employed a purposive sampling strategy to select information-rich cases [49] . The goal of this exploratory study was gaining an in-depth understanding of the experiences of teachers actively engaged in STEM integration. The four participants were selected specifically because they were identified by school leadership as pioneers of STEM integration within their departments. While small, this sample size was appropriate for the study’s scope, as thematic saturation was approached during the analysis; recurring patterns in teacher beliefs, implementation strategies (PBL), and perceived benefits began to emerge across the four interviews, suggesting that additional participants from this specific context would yield diminishing returns in terms of novel themes.

Six open-ended questions relevant to the study’s goal were used in semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative data.

Semi-structured interviews should assess teachers’ responses to the research phenomena. When objective rather than personal information regarding an event or occurrence is provided, semi-structured interviews are somewhat in-depth [54] . Their interview agenda included central and follow-up questions. These questions needed to be open-ended to encourage spontaneous responses and conversation.

Teacher Interviews. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were scheduled at each teacher’s convenience. The interviewing process adhered to Merriam’s (2009) criteria [55] , with pre-planned questions that allowed for flexible questions to elicit fresh insights and a combination of semi-structured and specific questions to which specific data were sought. During the interview, preliminary information was gathered, and the participants:

1) Background in education, teaching, and other pertinent experiences.

2) Present comprehension of the nature of STEM integration.

3) An explanation of their approach to curriculum integration in the classroom.

4) Views of the impact of STEM integration on students’ education.

The study’s qualitative data analysis adhered to the guidelines provided by Braun and Clarke (2013) for identifying and deciphering meanings present in qualitative data [56] .

This phase involved transcribing qualitative data and evaluating to using it through thematic analysis. Individual interviews were fully transcribed using an AI program, and it was crucial to balance the transcription’s accuracy, and the amount of time allotted for analysis [57] . The researcher paid more attention to the substance than to accurately translating every emotion heard in the audio recording; for example, the researcher left out the words “mmmm” and “hmm” [58] . The researcher read the transcripts multiple times to ensure they were accurate, and that the researcher was not assuming anything about the facts or what the researcher knew [59] . According to Hyde, Ryan, and Woodside (2013), transcription made it possible to comprehend the context and substance of each interview better and helped uncover some early trends [60] . There were no objections noted. A thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. An inductive approach was used to identify emergent themes directly from the data, then deductive layer of analysis was conducted. The emergent themes were systematically mapped against the key tenets of the conceptual framework, specifically the “Six Tenets” of Moore et al. (2014) and the “Core-Instructional Elements” of LaForce et al. (2016). For example, codes related to hands-on activities and student motivation were analyzed through the lens of Moore et al.’s “Motivating and Engaging Context”, while codes concerning teacher collaboration and beliefs were connected to LaForce et al.’s “Staff Foundations” and “Essential Factors”. This two-step process ensured that the analysis was grounded in the participants’ unique experiences and structured by established theoretical constructs, strengthening the connection between the data and the conceptual framework ( Table 4 ).

Validity and reliability tests for research tools are essential [49] . According to Johnson & Christensen (2017), a question’s validity is determined by how well it measures the intended outcome to extrapolate the results. The validity of inquiries, format validity, and content measures are examples of validity testing [50] . A university professor approved the interview questions used in the qualitative section and the exam used in the quantitative section. The professor proposed altering a few elements to guarantee the validity of the instruments employed in this study.

Always examine research ethics before starting [61] . Gajjar (2013) states that ethical research practices validate objectives, including originality, reliability, and anomaly avoidance [62] . The researcher encouraged the high school’s science head and vice principal to apply moral principles to the probe. The researcher briefly presented the study’s goals and methods at their school meeting. The British University in Dubai sent the school’s management a letter requesting permission to undertake this research. The researcher kept student identities anonymous. The school’s name persuaded the administrators that the material would be kept private and used for research [49] . The school admission participants were told they could exit the research without penalty. The volunteers can exit this experiment at any moment if they feel comfortable. They also heard that their trust and honesty would be valued. We considered all suggested ethical standards during our evaluation, stressing any flaws the school management has acknowledged. Data analysis and findings follow data gathering in the next chapter.

A science teacher prefaces her explanation of STEM integration, suggesting that it is “rudimentary” and based upon limited professional development opportunities. She encapsulates her understanding of STEM integration through an example: The natural reasoning process occurs among some or all subjects [science, mathematics, and technology] when someone investigates a phenomenon or issue like climate change. You cannot investigate climate change without diving into science or biology and using some relevant mathematics to do this. Then, in many ways, you may look at emerging technologies to help mitigate pollution. So, this is all connected, and that is how I see STEM.

Another teacher describes himself as having a powerful command of mathematics yet little experience integrating science, technology, and mathematics. He explains that he sees STEM integration as the “combination of science, technology, and mathematics...or at least any two of these in one semester or school year.” He believes that STEM integration can lead to a more in-depth and connected understanding of various scientific phenomena than the narrower subject-specific approach to learning with which many educators are more familiar. The teacher states:

I see all the connections and the benefits of going more profound or broader instead of just focusing on the math skills or, in the case of science, just doing the science behind it. So, can we connect them? Yes, I would like to see more of that.

The third teacher says that he understands STEM integration as both an avenue for more comprehensive learning and for greater engagement of students. He adds that it is not only the students who may benefit from an integrated approach to instruction but teachers as well, saying: “I think that [STEM integration] would be a way for me to keep the interest in integration and teaching in general, learning to present material in a new way which may benefit all of us.”

On many occasions, one of the teachers refers to himself as a “problem-solver” with a passion for developing solutions to novel problems. He sees STEM integration as an opportunity for teachers to implement a realistic approach to learning that investigates real-life problems using a systematic and logical method. This method is based upon the engineering design process that incorporates all of the STEM disciplines, enabling people to define and divide a project or problem into steps. Curtis enthusiastically explains: “I love to take a problem and break it down into manageable steps, that is what I do... and I see that [problems] everywhere, just all sorts of opportunities to improve things”.

The teacher’s approach to integration is founded upon their belief that learning is a social activity and that “interdependence at a young age is essential for their student’s learning.” Elaborating on this idea, teachers explained that, throughout their teaching careers, they have gradually promoted more and more group work based on the notion that collaboration among students is a valuable learning component. They mentioned that because most of what they have learned about integration has involved group work and students working in teams, they became increasingly enthusiastic about implementing some form of integration in their classroom. They explained that, ideally, they would like to implement an entirely project-based form of STEM integration; however, because they found it difficult to develop relevant curriculum-linked activities, they have had to rely on a mixture of textbooks and collaboratively developed problem- and project-based activities for their students. The projects they have created revolve around central themes based on mathematical and scientific concepts and most closely align with a project-based interdisciplinary approach to integration. Project-based learning has the unique ability to spark and sustain a lifelong interest in STEM. When students see the impact of their projects and understand the relevance of STEM concepts in their lives, they are more likely to pursue further education and careers in STEM fields. This approach lays the foundation for future innovators and problem solvers.”

In the 21st century, thinking critically, working with others, and adjusting to new situations are very important. Project-based learning fits these skills perfectly for the 21st century. We prepare students for STEM jobs and the needs of a constantly changing world by giving them projects like real-life problem-solving situations.

Teachers believe that the STEM integration approach has resulted in several benefits to student learning and achievement; they associate these benefits with the projects the students participate in and attribute this to the relevant and real-life contexts for learning.

Math and science teachers believe integrating science and mathematics through real-life problems and projects benefits students by promoting engagement and motivation. Jacob explains that motivating and engaging mathematics and science students at the applied level of grades 9 and 10 is often challenging. Relevant, real-life projects that include computer research, group work, and hands-on activities “allow them to make connections between classwork and real-life experiences.” In doing so, “students see a better reason for learning math and science...which I find engages and motivates them on a far higher level than our regular [subject specific] classes might” and “STEM integration improves student achievement by contextualizing learning. When students see how science, technology, engineering, and math concepts apply to real-world problems through hands-on projects, they gain a deeper understanding. This practical application enhances retention and comprehension, improving academic performance.”

The study question addressed semi-structured interviews and journal entry findings. These conversations cited STEM integration literature. Where applicable, the findings will be related to Moore et al.’s (2014) six central pillars for successful STEM education [38] and LaForce et al.’s (2016) eight critical features of inclusive STEM high schools [39] . Next will be a discussion of the findings’ implications and research suggestions. The chapter ends with some reflections.

Provincial and board-supported professional development for administrators should include an overview of STEM integration approaches like PBL, options for adjusting and offering flexible timetabling to permit the coordination of integrated courses and participant teachers, information on how to provide the best additional resources that STEM programs may require, like additional field trips, and time for collaborative experiences. This will raise school administrators’ awareness of how to support the best teachers who wish to implement a STEM integration approach in their schools.

Time constraints hampered data gathering and processing in this study. Due to these constraints, the study’s scope limited its ability to capture long-term changes. Future studies should have a longer-term view to overcome this barrier and explore more deeply. Using elementary, middle, or high school levels limits the study’s relevance to other educational levels. This emphasis must be examined to determine how it affects the findings’ applicability to education. Discussions should also address how the study’s findings apply to similar educational situations and suggest further research across educational levels. Examining teachers’ attitudes requires careful examination of school rules and resources. Describing the study’s context is essential for outcome applicability. Explore how findings might be generalized to similar situations and suggest further research in varied settings to understand contextual influences better. The study’s findings are context-specific and should be interpreted with caution regarding generalizability. The research was conducted in a single, private international school in Dubai, a setting with distinct characteristics that may not be representative of other educational environments, such as public schools within the UAE or schools in different countries. Factors unique to this context include potential access to greater financial and technological resources, a higher degree of curricular autonomy compared to state-regulated public schools, and a diverse student body often from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds. The facilitators (e.g., flexible scheduling for PBL) and barriers identified by these teachers may differ significantly from those experienced by educators in more resource-constrained or bureaucratically rigid systems. Future research should explore teacher views on STEM integration in public schools to provide a comparative perspective. A thorough review of how this constraint affects the study’s external validity is needed. Encourage future research to use more extensive and diverse samples to improve generalizability and robustness.

Also, this study depends on self-reported data from teacher interviews which is effective for capturing teacher views, beliefs, and perceptions, but it is subject to potential self-report bias. There can be a discrepancy between what practitioners say they do (espoused theory) and their actual classroom practices (theory-in-use). The findings reflect the teachers’ understanding and interpretation of their work, but do not include objective measures of classroom implementation or student outcomes. To build upon these findings, future research could employ a mixed-methods approach that triangulates interview data with classroom observations, analysis of curricular materials, and student achievement data to provide a more holistic and validated account of STEM integration in practice.