Research Article

STREAM role models 4 ALL: A project supported by Scientix STE(A)M Partnership Education Resilience in Europe

Paraskevi Efstratiou Foti 1 * , Matthaios Patrinopoulos 1 , Paraskevi Iatrou 2 , Maria Rellia 3
More Detail
1 Regional Center for Educational Planning, Attica, GREECE2 School of Pedagogical and Technological Education, Socialinnov, GREECE3 Ralleia Experimental Primary Schools of Piraeus, Piraeus, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4(1), 2024, 13-18,
Published: 26 April 2024
OPEN ACCESS   657 Views   509 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)


STREAM role models 4 ALL project serves as a comprehensive guide for educators aiming to integrate STEM education into their classrooms. Emphasizing the incorporation of art into STEM education, the project advocates for a STEAM approach that fosters students’ exploration, discovery, and engagement in innovative engineering skills. It underscores the benefits of employing pedagogical methods such as inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning to cultivate active learning, deeper knowledge, and critical thinking skills. Furthermore, the project underscores the significance of computational thinking in shaping problems and expressing solutions in a manner conducive to efficient computer execution. Addressing the challenges encountered by schools when implementing STEM approaches, including the necessity for teacher training, access to resources, and the creation of a supportive classroom climate, the project offers valuable insights. Overall, STREAM role models 4 ALL project provides a valuable resource for educators seeking to promote STEM education and equip students with the skills to address global challenges through exploration, discovery, and creative problem-solving.


Foti, P. E., Patrinopoulos, M., Iatrou, P., & Rellia, M. (2024). STREAM role models 4 ALL: A project supported by Scientix STE(A)M Partnership Education Resilience in Europe. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education, 4(1), 13-18.


  1. Asunda, P. A. (2014). A conceptual framework for STEM integration into curriculum through career and technical education. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 4.
  2. Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 112-128.
  3. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In W. H. Gijselaers (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning (pp. 3-11). Jossey-Bass.
  4. Boon, M., & Van Baalen, S. (2019). Epistemology for interdisciplinary research–shifting philosophical paradigms of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9, 16.
  5. Chesloff, J. (2013). STEM education must start in early childhood. Education Week, 32(23), 27-32.
  6. Falik, O., Eylon, B., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact free-choice PBL in science and technology (PBLSAT): Effects of a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 565-591.
  7. Foti, P. (2021a). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ views on STEAM education and educational robotics: Dilemmas, possibilities, limitations. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 82-95.
  8. Foti, P. (2021b). The ST(R)E(A)M methodology in kindergarten: A teaching proposal for exploratory and discovery learning. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 2(1), 1-6.
  9. Foti, P. (2022). Cultivating preschool students’ digital competence through developmentally appropriate software. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 7(2), 1-10.
  10. Foti, P. (2023). Educational robotics and computational thinking in early childhood–Linking theory to practice with ST(R)EAM learning scenarios. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies, 8(1), 111-128.
  11. Foti, P., & Rellia, M. (2020). ST(R)EAM and educational robotics. Grigoris Editions.
  12. Foti, P., & Rellia, M. (2023). Creativity and innovation. ST(R)EAM learning scenarios and skills labs. Grigoris Editions.
  13. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 11(23), 8410-8415.
  14. Gredler, M. E. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late? Educational Psychology Review, 24, 113-131.
  15. Lyons, C. D., & Tredwell, C. T. (2015). Steps to implementing technology in inclusive early childhood programs. Computers in the Schools, 32(2), 152-166.
  16. Nunes, S., Oliveira, T. A., & Oliveira, A. (2017, July). Problem based learning–a brief review. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 1863, No. 1). AIP Publishing.
  17. Patrinopoulos, M., & Iatrou, P. (2019). Implementation of STEM tinkering approaches in primary school education in Greece. Sino-US English Teaching, 16(12), 510-516.
  18. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
  19. Psycharis, S., Iatrou, P., Kalovrektis, K., & Xenakis, A. (2022). The impact of the computational pedagogy STEAM model on prospective teachers’ computational thinking practices and computational experiment capacities. A case study in a training program. In M. E. Auer, W. Pachatz, & T. Rüütmann (Eds.), Learning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition. ICL 2022. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems (vol 634, pp. 400-411). Springer, Cham.
  20. Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., & Xenakis, A. (2020). A conceptual framework for computational pedagogy in STEAM education: Determinants and perspectives. Hellenic Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 17-32.
  21. Psycharis, S., & Kotzampasaki, E. (2019). The impact of a STEM inquiry game learning scenario on computational thinking and computer self-confidence. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4), em1689.
  22. Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 410-426.
  23. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Teacher Technology, 68, 20-26.
  24. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1).
  25. Swartz, J. R., Costa, L., A., Beyer, K., Reagan, R., & Kallick, B. (2010). Thinking-based learning: Promoting quality student achievement in the 21st century. Teachers College Press.
  26. Tindall, T., & Hamil, B. (2004). Gender disparity in science education: The causes, consequences, and solutions. Education, 125(2), 282-295.
  27. Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. Intermediate Unit, 1, 11-17.
  28. Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. Social Issues in Computing.
  29. Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the US as a practical educational framework for Korea. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(6), 1072-1086.