Mariana Dogaru
Mirela Cristina Negreanu
Olivia Pisicǎ
Alina Florentina Pírvu- 1Department for Teaching Career and Social Sciences, National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
- 2Doctoral School of Faculty of Entrepreneurship, Engineering and Business Management (FAIMA), National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
The study focuses on the linkages among success in STEM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), individual student/teacher resilience, and organizational resilience. Based on the present literature, we investigate, above all, risk-preparedness management and adaptability in handling crises to provide threshold considerations of a resilient school. It draws attention to the responsibility of the principal of the school to build a strong environment targeted at both organizational and personal levels. The study reviews 117 papers about STEM education, student resilience, and instructor resilience. These findings imply that legislators should encourage resilience at all levels in the educational system since a strong school system could be necessary for STEM education. From the systematic review, there are direct recommendations for educators and managers on using relationships, resources, and new strategies in their programs that will temporarily promote resilience while making erroneous links between what generates inspirational endurance among STEM academics.
1 Introduction
1.1 The concept of a resilient organization
Organizations have faced unexpected events such as conflicts, economic crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic (Alexander, 2020). Strong educational institutions require resilient organizations with resilient educators and learners (Xiao and Cao, 2017; Chen, 2025; Kantur and İşeri-Say, 2012); therefore, reconnecting with nature may also benefit humans (Benessaiah and Chan, 2023). Organizational awareness is essential as it enables an organization to assess its operational environment, recognize significant changes, and implement strategies to reduce disruptions. Organizational adaptability is the ability to recognize and change its surroundings after a disruption, changing its structure, methods, and culture. A successful leader, preoccupied with organizational contextual integrity, aligns internal and external environments and, in this concern, (Kantur and İşeri-Say 2012) identified four key variables, namely, perceptual position, contextual integrity, strategic competency, and strategic action, and five principles of organizational resilience.
The five principles of organizational resilience—model and structure, effect and performance, crisis management, social responsibility, and crisis scenarios—state that organizations must adapt to external challenges to survive. Resilient organizations manage resources, adapt to change, build relationships, and improve continuously, and can overcome obstacles and achieve goals. In this view, the leader has to have strong competencies and a reasonable view about the entire organization.
Therefore, we use resilient organization definitions relevant to educational institutions. There is little specialized literature, so we drew concepts from STEM learning research based on general theory. Table 1 lists implicit and explicit definitions of resilient organizations.
Table 1. Implicit definition/emphasis of organizational resilience.
(Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) provide the most exact framework for resilient organizations, while other scholars cover other aspects, particularly in education. The ERMsec© model suggests that an organization's resilience depends on the interrelationship and coordinated operation of all systems, rather than a single element (Xenofontos and Mouroutsou, 2023). A single component failure might affect the whole system. Financial, operational, reputational, and security risks must be managed. One risk category threatens the organization more than others. The organization's strategic goals and decision-making frameworks should be integrated with security. The ERMsec model evaluates and improves an organization's security maturity. Higher maturity levels increase resilience by preparing for disruptions and change. Managing changing conditions and threats requires adaptability and flexibility. Rigid structures and inflexible reactions limit an organization's resilience. Risk management and security must be unified, purposeful, and flexible to improve an organization's resilience, considering its different processes and systems. The articles selected define characteristics of a resilient organization, structured as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of a resilient organization.
Resilient organizations only track higher education enrollment, graduation, and changes, so strong leaders handle crises well (Eliot, 2020; Förster and Duchek, 2017). It is necessary to assess how surveys affect student performance, classroom management, and organizational climate. Understanding aspects that encourage individualized learning and meet students' educational needs helps find disruptive or stationary organizational success elements. Teachers in resilient organizations must collect and analyze data to make instructional decisions and solve problems. The job must be improved and tailored for managers, colleagues, and beneficiaries, including students (Beltman, 2020). Furthermore, it is better to share best practices and development opportunities with coworkers (Beltman, 2020; Liebenberg et al., 2016). Courses, seminars, conferences, and workshops can teach students STEM, pedagogy, and more. To address STEM needs, teachers should evaluate their methods and consult experienced colleagues or management (Murphy et al., 2018). Educators should prioritize culturally sensitive and equitable inclusive learning, including respect for diverse learners, equity, social justice, student wellbeing, high standards, encouragement, cooperation, community, continuous improvement, critical thinking, and problem-solving (Chapman, 2015; Kaya and Odaci, 2024; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). There are crucial dimensions that should be enhanced, such as appreciating students' diverse backgrounds, experiences, and learning styles (James et al., 2022; Ni et al., 2016; Abrica et al., 2020; Sansone, 2019; Bryan et al., 2020). Many studies emphasize minimizing structural weaknesses and giving STEM students from all backgrounds a chance (Murphy et al., 2018; Cipollone et al., 2020; Abrica et al., 2020; Berger et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2022; Richard, 2020). In this concern were promoted mental health, relationships, and a youth-friendly classroom (Beltman, 2020; James et al., 2022; Riepenhausen et al., 2022).
2 Concepts associated with a resilient organization, the school as a resilient organization: emergent resilience, student resilience, and teacher resilience
The systematic study defines organizational resilience as the ability of an organization to forecast, adapt, and thrive in uncertainty and adversity by strategically combining security and risk management across all operations. A holistic approach that considers organizational systems and components can boost resilience. Teachers, administrators, parents, and students create a strategic development plan. Individual, relational, and contextual factors shape resilience. Our research revealed more resilience and solid organizational ideas, as seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Concepts associated with resilient organization.
The concept of “secure management” is not explicitly defined in a single, consistent way across the provided texts. However, (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) directly address this within the context of their proposed integrated security management model (ERMsec©) for organizational resilience. Dimensions that should be included in ERMsec© are risk assessment and mitigation, security governance (establishing clear policies, procedures, and responsibilities related to security, this involves developing a comprehensive security framework that aligns with organizational goals and is integrated into business processes), integration with other management systems, continuous monitoring and improvement (involves continuous monitoring of security systems and procedures, regularly reviewing performance, and making necessary adjustments to maintain an effective security posture), employee training and awareness, and incident response planning.
2.1 Students' resilience
School resilience has teachers and students with resilience. While we look at personal resilience, which results from success in trying conditions (Gundlach et al., 2024), it is crucial to understand the relationship between teachers, students, and parents' resilience and organizational resilience, that is, whether an organization with resilient members is rational. Resilient people cannot live without a resilient organization; organizational resilience is little defined, and school organizations are hardly recognized.
Finding elements of school resilience is challenging because we must research holism, academic self-concept, self-efficacy, science-related anxiety, and involvement. Furthermore, (James et al. 2022) found that school resilience is linked to individual traits (Murray, 2004; Gizir and Aydin, 2009; Liu and Platow, 2020; Martin, 2002). There are many voices that consider computational thinking and academic self-efficacy to raise students' resilience (Wu et al., 2024). (Denham 2019) examined emotions—both others' and one's own—using Beltman's (2020) four dimensions of obstacles and personal resources. For instance, resilience among at-risk kids from Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa (Liebenberg et al., 2016; McKeering et al., 2021; Ni et al., 2016; Saxer et al., 2024), strongly affected by teacher–student connections. (Ungar and Liebenberg 2013) report that contextual resilience is stronger. Encouragement of inclusiveness in learning depends on the classroom environment, including socio-emotional aspects (Nickolite and Doll, 2008; James et al., 2022; Ni et al., 2016; Victorino et al., 2019; Simões et al., 2021; Cocking et al., 2020). Our opinion is that the inclusion of socio-emotional aspects is significant. Because women are seen as less capable, STEM education also suffers gender prejudice, so that most importantly is teachers' and gender views of math and scientific competencies (Sansone, 2019). Therefore, participating in global STEM-oriented events or other initiatives inspiring kids to succeed and create a community for self-expression and learning can help STEM education and resilience (Daniel and Mishra, 2017; Ungar and Liebenberg, 2013). Since numerous elements are interrelated and affect one another in complex ways, resilience must be understood and developed holistically, including individual, relational, and contextual resilience.
2.2 Teacher resilience
Many authors discuss STEM teachers' traits that boost students' resilience and learning (Hillmann et al., 2018). Resilient teachers foster respectful, motivating relationships, are inclusive, helpful, and receptive to students' ideas (Liebenberg et al., 2016; Sansone, 2019), and create supportive learning environments (Beltman, 2020; Bieda et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2022; Simões et al., 2021). The papers suggest that high expectations with encouragement, personal resilience (stress management, positive attitude, and student resilience), and STEM students' resilience can indirectly improve. Principals should permit support, inclusion, trust, respect, empathy, and understanding between students and educators. Figure 1 shows that instructors' wellbeing affects and supports student success in learning.
Figure 1. The relationship between teacher wellbeing and student success.
As it is shown, from teachers' wellbeing derive support, engagement, a positive learning environment, and constructive feedback.
2.3 The principal's involvement in enhancing students' resilience, particularly in STEM education
The principal should improve instructional leadership (School Administration Manager Model, Sheng et al., 2017), but none of the selected publications examined the school principal's role. Only other institutional elements, student experiences, and teacher qualities were considered. Analysis of the context and learning environment shows the principal's role as a leader who can change these conditions. Helpful school principals cultivate respect, empower staff, make the environment pleasant, and gently encourage resilience. Thus, a wise school principal creates a school that values respect, empowers people, emphasizes teamwork, and indirectly fosters resilience. Individual, contextual, and family-school ties build resilience (Beltman, 2020; Hunter et al., 2018). In this context, student-family networking, teamwork, and communication may enhance these bonds. The selected articles argue that school leaders may boost organizational, student, and teacher resilience with various keystones. This involves creating a positive environment based on empathy, proactive behavior, celebrating successes, and anticipatory conflict resolution. Therefore, there are tools and support for educators and students to promote positive connections between teachers, students, and peers (Furrer et al., 2014). An ideal classroom uses genuine objects to help students overcome problems. The plan must prioritize student interests and needs, especially in science, to support learning and manage obstacles. The school principal should take into consideration how to encourage teacher–parent relationships to foster cooperation and community, creating learning environments where kids feel valued. Policies and practices that improve student learning, wellbeing, and instruction are crucial. Safety and support for children in STEM education and personal growth reduce bullying and discrimination. This program encourages community resiliency. In this respect, Figure 2 shows that leadership, supportive organizational climate, and wellbeing are linked and generate successful STEM learning based on student wellbeing and student resilience.
Figure 2. The relationship between leadership, wellbeing, and resilience in STEM learning.
The selected articles distinguish common factors influencing the resilience of the teacher–student–school principal, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Common factors influencing the resilience of the teacher–student–school principal, resulting from the articles studied.
What happens from a resilient business to a resilient school to resilient learning and STEM education? Thus, strong leadership and a proper learning environment promote school resilience and motivational resilience. STEM education is at risk because it requires specialized effort to master. Using the studied literature, we have tried to find concepts associated with a resilient organization that would successfully encourage STEM learning, without claiming that certain traits ensure quality STEM learning, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Concepts associated with resilient organizations present/that support STEM learning.
Resilience, a complex word, was investigated in the analyzed articles (Juncos and Bourbeau, 2022). From these, we connected this idea to robust organizational elements, including a nice climate, risk management, adaptive subsystems, close student–teacher relationships, resource availability, and data-driven decision-making. STEM education works in three parts. In recent times, STEM education has spread around the world. Those with developed competences have critical thinking fit for STEM (Fadlelmula et al., 2022). Graduates of STEM education have globally applicable intellectual, technical, and interpersonal abilities important for the labor market. Each student should be familiar with the foundations of every STEM discipline. Skills in technical and information-driven culture management are imparted (Thibaut et al., 2018). STEM people are needed for sustainable energy, healthcare, and technology development (Thibaut et al., 2018). Declared a “meta-discipline,” STEM education combines math, science, technology, and engineering (Kelley and Knowles, 2016). We agree that STEM is crucial for our technologized society. In this view, the integrated approach encourages creativity and solution development by employing modern tools and technology to handle difficult and contextual problems, so being integrated in STEM education is desirable. From the articles we have investigated how effective STEM education programs impact teacher satisfaction, there are some important issues, along with the resilience and wellbeing of the teacher (Beausaert et al., 2023; Beltman, 2020) who can foster student wellbeing, because successful learning requires effective teaching practices, a supportive learning environment, particular student characteristics, project-based learning, inclusivity, and strong parallels indicate how adjustments in school organization could enhance participant welfare and learning.
Based on the above theoretical foundations, the following systematic literature review is conducted on resilient organization elements correlated with dimensions from individual, contextual, and social perspectives in STEM learning.
3 Objectives of the study
The present systematic review aims to analyze and understand the connections created by resilience between the organization and individuals within the organization (teachers and students) and learning, especially STEM learning.
Thus, our study aims to:
O1. To identify the visions in the research of resilient organizations and the associated concepts
O2. To identify the elements that influence the development of resilience in learning, especially in STEM learning.
O3. To identify successful STEM projects that support learning.
This systematic review attempts to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the research perspectives on the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development of resilience in the school organization?
RQ2: What do research findings suggest about the existence of common factors that support both resilient organizations and learning?
RQ3: What are, according to studies, the inclusive strategies employed by teachers in STEM education?
4 Methods
To answer these questions, we chose the approach of a systematic review. We followed the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and the checklist during the review process. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 3) shows the different stages of this review, starting with the number of references initially identified, passing through the works that were excluded, and finally including the works.
Figure 3. PRISMA flow diagram.
The databases Clarivate, Scopus, Google Scholar, Erih Plus, and Elsevier were accessed for articles and reports from the period 2008–2024. Phrases such as “resilient organization,” “resilience and STEM learning,” “resilience” and “well-being” or “well-being,” “resilience” and “well-being” or “well-being” AND “STEM education” were introduced, and the searches returned the following results (Table 6).
Table 6. Articles returned according to phrases introduced.
Articles were excluded based on the following criteria (Table 7): Reason 1—The topic did not refer to the school environment Reason 2—The topic did not fit the research questions proposed in the systematic review Reason 3—They were rather empirical studies that did not explicitly refer to the concepts pursued, and the method of operationalization was not justified.
Table 7. The rationale for the exclusion of articles.
In summary, we conducted a meta-analysis of the selected articles referring to the sample, research methods, and research design. It is observed that the design based on quantitative methods predominates (as it is seen in Table 8).
Table 8. Synthesis of the analyzed articles from the perspective of research design.
Teachers with STEM competency boost STEM instruction. One should start STEM instruction in kindergarten. Teachers must also let go of presumptions that girls cannot succeed in STEM if we are to create and administer exceptional STEM education. Engaging students during classes is another key component of success in STEM education. The surroundings must value students‘ inclusive and cultural identities as well as provide comments and help. Important results that can enable school leaders and teachers to transform their institution into a STEM center could be that STEM education calls for teachers working on STEM learning strategies for different courses. STEM projects should be grounded in students' interests and cultural background. STEM projects teach.
RQ1: What are the research perspectives on the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development of resilience in the school organization?
The impacts on STEM education, resilient organizations, and resilience among teachers, students, and the principal were evaluated. Despite not being their main goal, the articles studied aim to uncover STEM learning facilitators in resilient organizations. There are various common aspects in resilience cultivation (Morote et al., 2020) and successful STEM education, including strong relationships, the learning environment, good pedagogy, resources, student motivation, a cohesive and engaged school community, and skilled leadership (Table 9).
Table 9. Common factors influencing STEM learning and resilient organization.
School principal, teachers, and student resilience are determined by individual, relational, contextual, and role-specific factors. The investigations found parallels between teacher, student, and principal positions despite their differences. School principals and teachers who manage stress should maintain solid relationships with their students and understand the workplace. We conclude that every educational component is interconnected in a multiple system. The vulnerability of any component could undermine the whole system, whereas developing one component can help others. Its complexity and varying impact require attention to commonalities, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Common factors ensuring the resilience of teacher–students and the school principal.
Resuming, the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development in school organizations are convoluted in individual, relational, contextual, and specific to role/position.
RQ2: What do research findings suggest about the existence of common factors that support both resilient organizations and learning?
The chosen articles enhance organizational resilience and successful learning by means of strong links and relationships, adaptability and flexibility, efficient resources, integrated and holistic approaches, clear expectations, and continuous improvement measurements. Both times, clear objectives and advancement are required. (Liebenberg et al. 2016), (Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023), and (Abrica et al. 2020) claim that networks and alliances foster organizational resilience. (Murphy et al. 2018) and (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) stress adaptation, stressing resource efficiency, as do (Engberg and Wolniak 2013) and (Merisotis and Kee 2006). (Beltman 2020), (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023), and (Victorino et al. 2019) stress complete methods. (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) and (Sansone 2019) underline goal setting, advocating development (Merisotis and Kee, 2006; Victorino et al., 2019; Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023).
Effective STEM education calls for first-rate teacher–student and peer relationships, close ties between schools, and flexible learning strategies. Furthermore, significant resources are required. Student learning and wellbeing stated that learning goals and continuous assessment are crucial. Usually speaking of learning, we refer to students. Under this cooperation, the teacher drives development, resilience, and learning. Therefore, it is crucial to stress teachers' teaching practices, particularly given some authors' point of view on cultural difficulties teachers must take into account while preparing lessons. Articles highlighted the advantages of inclusive STEM learning strategies. This improves involvement, project-based learning, and critical thinking. Articles might highlight students' skills from classroom exercises and STEM education initiatives. The educational approach is student-centered. By means of metacognitive strategies, technology integration, and strong relationships in a conducive learning environment that reduces stress and fosters belonging, the inclusive approach to quality STEM learning empowers students.
In our opinion, there are multiple directions that we found in the selected articles that support resilient organization and learning. This should be analyzed more deeply to underline the common aspects of fostering and reflecting on dimensions for resilient organization and learning.
RQ3: What are, according to studies, the inclusive strategies employed by teachers in STEM education?
If we want all students to achieve, the inclusive learning environment must include their capacities, cultural differences, obstacles, and learning pace. Happy occurrences affect college adaptation (Haktanir et al., 2021). Teachers must adapt their methods and techniques according to student needs. This seems like a cliché, but it has tremendous importance. Though we found elements promoting inclusive STEM education in others, few directly address it. In STEM success, there are misconceptions that girls are not adept at STEM learning, which requires interventions like female STEM teachers, role models, or minority students. If we want inclusive teaching and learning, teachers require training to identify students' needs and find answers. Table 11 summarizes STEM inclusion instructor strategies.
Table 11. Teachers' strategic elements for STEM inclusivity.
(Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Sansone 2019), (James et al. 2022), and (Victorino et al. 2019) recommend a positive classroom climate, strong teacher–student relationships, positive peer relationships, a sense of community, socio-emotional needs, gender stereotypes, and a culturally affirming environment to support learning. (Murphy et al. 2018), (Xu and Jack 2022), (Daniel and Mishra 2017), (Sansone 2019), and (Murphy et al. 2018) recommend inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, service, culturally sensitive teaching, effective feedback, self-regulated learning, and technology efficiency. Are teachers capable of including all these strategies?
(Xu and Jack 2022) and (Sansone 2019) recommend individualized education, specialized support, addressing learning differences and disabilities, adapting to many learning contexts, and a growth mindset to meet student needs. Thus, student participation, equality, and inclusion are encouraged. (Merisotis and Kee 2006) and (Victorino et al. 2019) studied data-driven student learning, instructional decisions, and strategy changes. Metacognitive approaches help students self-regulate, succeed, and think critically, according to (Geiger et al. 2023). Technology integration is the successful use of technology to increase engagement, personalize learning, access to information, cooperation, and involvement, according to (Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Sansone 2019), (Liebenberg et al. 2016), and (Geiger et al. 2023).
(Daniel and Mishra 2017), (Xu and Jack 2022), and (Geiger et al. 2023) recommend good teacher-student and peer relationships to boost motivation and engagement. Project-based and service learning apply learning to community needs and improve skills, motivating and engaging students, and encouraging civic engagement. We found several successful STEM learning program models in the publications evaluated. In this data synthesis, every effort can affect STEM learning and should be developed in the classroom and extracurricular activities. The selected articles' effective STEM projects (Table 12) demonstrate the need for extracurricular activities to supplement STEM training.
Table 12. Successful STEM projects described.
The selected articles reveal characteristics pertinent to fostering students' autonomy in learning, achievable by choosing learning activity projects aligned with their interests and employing methodologies that impart self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. Instruct students on SRL strategies, including goal setting, planning, progress monitoring, and self-assessment. Facilitate opportunities for practice through constructive feedback that fosters reflection on their strengths and areas for improvement, thereby cultivating a growth mindset and encouraging the development of respectful and collaborative relationships among peers (Xu and Jack, 2022; Murphy et al., 2018; Daniel and Mishra, 2017; Sansone, 2019).
5 Limitations
The systematic review analyses 117 papers, highlighting the scarcity of specialized literature on resilient schools and drawing from general organizational resilience theories (e.g., Kantur and İşeri-Say, 2012; Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023). It critiques gaps, such as the lack of focus on principals' roles and gender biases in STEM (Sansone, 2019). However, the predominance of quantitative studies may limit exploration of qualitative aspects, like personal narratives or cultural contexts, which are crucial for understanding resilience.
According to the selected articles, there is no clear specification about how many people from staff organizations should be resilient in order to consider having a resilient organization. Additionally, (Svane et al. 2019) highlight a disconnect between the theoretical benefits of resilience interventions and their practical implementation, indicating a gap between rhetoric and reality in schools.
In this regard, there are several gaps in the literature:
• Limited research on principals' roles in fostering resilience, despite their importance in shaping school climates.
• Insufficient focus on non-educational factors, like socio-economic barriers and family involvement, impacting STEM success.
• Temporal relevance issues, as older studies (2008–2024) may be less applicable given recent changes like the COVID-19 pandemic.
6 Results and discussion
STEM classes should inspire students. Therefore, customizing STEM and data programs for students is necessary. School leaders should boost STEM funding and resilience (Morote et al., 2022). They have a huge role in discussing student accomplishment strategies with other districts and colleges and in boosting student achievement (Payne et al., 2006). Minority STEM success needs inclusive schools. Some levels disregard crucial non-educational variables. Resilient personnel who boost STEM education through wellbeing are indirect and collateral factors that increase organizational resilience. This statement tackles STEM education resilience and quality holistically and humanistically. It offers evidence-based advice for educators, leaders, and the educational ecosystem to establish inclusive, supportive learning environments that value academic performance and student wellbeing. Studies show that practical STEM education challenges and encourages all students. For an inclusive classroom, it must promote positive feedback, teamwork, development, and bias-overcoming. Supporting female STEM students requires fighting gender preconceptions. To increase schoolwide support and inclusion, principals should apply for evidence-based resilience programs like SEL and resilience-oriented teacher professional development.
Family-community and teacher-student relations are essential for all students, especially for the underprivileged. Quality resources, great teachers, and fun extracurriculars support STEM careers because STEM is essential for all. Our analysis implies institutional impediments hinder STEM education outside of classrooms. Fair resource allocation, STEM integration across disciplines, STEM student assistance (including career counseling and mentorship), active program monitoring and assessment, and legislative advocacy increase STEM education availability. Research shows that families, communities, governments, the STEM generation, and higher education have a crucial role in STEM learning. The results should be replicated in every school because STEM education becomes the most important aspect of education in a society based on technology. Models like ERMsec© (Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023) and Beltman's (2020) dimensions are discussed; they are part of the literature review, but we cannot integrate into a cohesive theory.
In summary, we can design a conceptual framework that would provide a theoretical model explaining how individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management and student self-efficacy), relational factors (e.g., teacher–student relationships), and contextual factors (e.g., supportive school climate) interrelate with organizational resilience and STEM education outcomes. While it draws on models such as the ERMsec© model (Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023) for organizational resilience, which emphasizes integrated risk and security management, and Beltman's (2020) dimensions for teacher and student resilience, this gap is particularly notable given the complexity of the topic, as it could clarify how these dimensions dynamically interact to foster STEM success.
In response to Research Question 1, the following strategies focus on common factors influencing resilience across teachers, students, and principals. Findings are organized into individual, relational, contextual, and role-specific factors, as detailed in Table 4, and synthesized using thematic analysis. The review uses tables to categorize these factors, ensuring a structured approach to data synthesis. However, it lacks a conceptual framework to theoretically link these factors, which could clarify how individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management, student self-efficacy) interacts with organizational resilience to support STEM education outcomes. A significant contradiction is the tension between individual and organizational resilience. The document states that resilient people cannot live without a resilient organization, and organizational resilience is little defined, and school organizations are hardly recognized (Section 2.1). This suggests that while individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management and student self-efficacy) is crucial, it may be insufficient without a supportive organizational structure, yet some studies imply that personal resilience can compensate for organizational weaknesses (Gundlach et al., 2024). This contradiction highlights the need for a clearer understanding of their bidirectional relationship.
Common factors influencing resilience are individual (from teachers, students, and principals), findings are organized into themes such as relationships, adaptability, resources, and integrated approaches (Tables 9, 10). The review critically evaluates the literature by identifying shared factors across resilient organizations and learning, such as strong relationships (Liebenberg et al., 2016) and adaptability (Evenseth et al., 2022). It critiques the disconnect between theoretical resilience models and their practical implementation, as noted by (Svane et al. 2019). The review also highlights the need for more studies on how organizational resilience directly supports STEM learning, indicating a gap in direct causal analysis.
In response to Research Question 3, inclusive STEM strategies are proposed, categorizing them into active learning, culturally responsive teaching, differentiated instruction, metacognitive strategies, technology integration, and relationship-building (as shown in Table 11). These strategies are analyzed to understand their impact on student engagement and achievement. The lack of a conceptual framework hinders the integration of these strategies into a cohesive model for STEM education resilience. The review critically engages by synthesizing inclusive strategies from studies like (Murphy et al. 2018) and (Xu and Jack 2022), emphasizing their role in addressing diverse student needs. However, there are a limited number of studies directly addressing inclusive STEM strategies, particularly for underrepresented groups, and calls for more research on implementation challenges. The review highlights a contradiction between gender biases in STEM (e.g., perceptions that girls are less capable) and the goal of inclusive education (Sansone, 2019).
While inclusive strategies are theoretically sound, their practical application is challenging in resource-constrained settings, creating a gap between advocacy and reality.
Author contributions
MD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MN: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. OP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by a grant from PubArt supported by National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Romania.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abrica, E. J., Lane, T. B., Zobac, S., and Collins, E. (2020). Sense of belonging and community building within a STEM intervention program: a focus on latino male undergraduates' experiences. J. Hispanic High. Educ. 21, 228–242. doi: 10.1177/1538192720974884
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Fozdar, F., Ala'i, K., Earnest, J., and Afari, E. (2016). Students' perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity. Improv. Schls. 19, 5–26. doi: 10.1177/1365480215612616
Alexander, P. A. (2020). methodological guidance paper: the art and science of quality systematic reviews. Rev. Educ. Res. 90, 6–23. doi: 10.3102/0034654319854352
Anderson, L. B., and Jones-Bodie, A. (2022). Facing adversity together: toward a genre of organization-stakeholder resilience discourse. Manag. Commun. Quart. 37, 144–170. doi: 10.1177/08933189221112045
Areljung, S., and Günther-Hanssen, A. (2021). STEAM education: an opportunity to transcend gender and disciplinary norms in early childhood? Contemp. Issues Early Childh. 23, 500–503. doi: 10.1177/14639491211051434
Bagheri, S., Ridley, G., and Williams, B. (2023). Organisational cyber resilience: management perspectives. Austral. J. Inform. Syst. 27, 1–20. doi: 10.3127/ajis.v27i0.4183
Barasa, E., Mbau, R., and Gilson, L. (2018). What is resilience and how can it be nurtured? A systematic review of empirical literature on organizational resilience. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 7, 491–503. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.06
Beausaert, S., Froehlich, D. E., Riley, P., and Gallant, A. (2023). What about school principals' well-being? The role of social capital. Educ. Manag. Administr. Leadersh. 51, 405–421. doi: 10.1177/1741143221991853
Beltman, S. (2020). “Understanding and examining teacher resilience from multiple perspectives,” in Cultivating Teacher Resilience, ed. C. F. Mansfield (Singapore: Springer), 11–26. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-5963-1_2
Benessaiah, K., and Chan, K. M. (2023). Why reconnect to nature in times of crisis? Ecosystem contributions to the resilience and well-being of people going back to the land in Greece. People Nat. 5, 2026–2047. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10546
Berger, R., Benatov, J., Cuadros, R., VanNattan, J., and Gelkopf, M. (2018). Enhancing resiliency and promoting prosocial behavior among tanzanian primary-school students: a school-based intervention. Transcult. Psychiatry 55, 821–845. doi: 10.1177/1363461518793749
Bieda, K. N., Sela, H., and Chazan, D. (2014). You are learning well my dear. J. Teach. Educ. 66, 1–10. doi: 10.1177/0022487114560645
Blitz, L. V., Yull, D., and Clauhs, M. (2020). Bringing sanctuary to school: assessing school climate as a foundation for culturally responsive trauma-informed approaches for urban schools. Urban Educ. 55, 95–124. doi: 10.1177/0042085916651323
Bonell, C., Humphrey, N., Fletcher, A., Moore, L., Anderson, R., and Campbell, R. (2014). Why schools should promote students' health and wellbeing. BMJ 348:g3078. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3078
Bryan, J., Williams, J. M., and Griffin, D. (2020). Fostering educational resilience and opportunities in urban schools through equity-focused school–family–community partnerships. Prof. Schl. Counsel. 23(1_part_2):2156759X1989917. doi: 10.1177/2156759X19899179
Brykman, K. M., and King, D. D. (2021). A resource model of team resilience capacity and learning. Group Organiz. Manag. 46, 737–772. doi: 10.1177/10596011211018008
Chapman, A. (2015). “Wellbeing and schools: exploring the normative dimensions,” in Rethinking Youth Wellbeing: Critical Perspectives, eds. K. Wright and J. McLeod (Singapore: Springer), 143–159. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-188-6_9
Chen, J. (2025). Conceptualising principal resilience: development and validation of the principal resilience inventory. Educ. Manag. Administr. Leadersh. 53, 561–581. doi: 10.1177/17411432231186294
Choi, Y., and Sung, J. (2024). Do key predictors of academic resilience differ across cultures? Evidence from Korea and the US. Youth Soc. 56, 1237–1262. doi: 10.1177/0044118X241227563
Cipollone, K., Stich, A. E., and Weis, L. (2020). STEM for all: student identities and the paradox of STEM democratization. Teach. Coll. Rec. 122, 1–23. doi: 10.1177/016146812012200212
Cocking, C., Sherriff, N., Aranda, K., and Zeeman, L. (2020). Exploring young people's emotional well-being and resilience in educational contexts: a resilient space?. Health: Interdiscipl. J. 24, 241–258. doi: 10.1177/1363459318800162
Daniel, K. L., and Mishra, C. (2017). Student outcomes from participating in an international STEM service-learning course. Sage Open 7, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/2158244017697155
Denham, S. A. (2019). “Emotional competence during childhood and adolescence,” in Handbook of Emotional Development, eds. V. LoBue, K. Pérez-Edgar, and K. A. Buss (Singapore: Springer), 493–541. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-17332-6_20
Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen, Z., and Saar, L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 40, 1198–1220. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351
Eliot, J. L. (2020). Resilient leadership: the impact of a servant leader on the resilience of their followers. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 22, 404–418. doi: 10.1177/1523422320945237
Ellison, D. W., and Woods, A. M. (2019). Physical education teacher resilience in high-poverty school environments. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 25, 1110–1127. doi: 10.1177/1356336X18800091
Emery, N., Maher, J. M., and Ebert-May, D. (2021). environmental influences and individual characteristics that affect learner-centered teaching practices. PLoS ONE 16:e0250760. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250760
Engberg, M. E., and Wolniak, G. C. (2013). College student pathways to the STEM disciplines. Teach. Coll. Rec. 115, 1–27. doi: 10.1177/016146811311500102
Ersan, O., and Rodriguez, M. C. (2020). Socioeconomic status and beyond: a multilevel analysis of TIMSS mathematics achievement given student and school context in TURKEY. Large-Scale Assess. Educ. 8:15. doi: 10.1186/s40536-020-00093-y
Evenseth, L. L., Sydnes, M., and Gausdal, A. H. (2022). Building organizational resilience through organizational learning: a systematic review. Front. Commun. 7:837386. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.837386
Fadlelmula, K., Sellami, A., Abdelkader, N., and Umer, S. (2022). A systematic review of STEM education research in the GCC countries: trends, gaps and barriers. Int. J. STEM Educ. 9:2. doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00319-7
Felder, R. M. (2021). STEM education: a tale of two paradigms. J. Food Sci. Educ. 20, 8–15. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12219
Förster, C., and Duchek, S. (2017). What makes leaders resilient? An exploratory interview study. Germ. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 31, 281–306. doi: 10.1177/2397002217709400
Furrer, C. J., Skinner, E. A., and Pitzer, J. R. (2014). The influence of teacher and peer relationships on students' classroom engagement and everyday motivational resilience. Teach. Coll. Rec. 116, 101–123. doi: 10.1177/016146811411601319
Geertshuis, S. A. (2019). Slaves to our emotions: examining the predictive relationship between emotional well-being and academic outcomes. Active Learn. High. Educ. 20, 153–166. doi: 10.1177/1469787418808932
Geiger, V., Beswick, K., Fraser, S., and Holland-Twining, B. (2023). A model for principals' STEM leadership capability. Br. Educ. Res. J. 49, 900–924. doi: 10.1002/berj.3873
Gizir, C. A., and Aydin, G. (2009). Protective factors contributing to the academic resilience of students living in poverty in Turkey. Profess. Schl. Counsel. 13, 1–10. doi: 10.5330/PSC.n.2010-13.38
Goldschmidt, C. C., Paiva, K. C. M., and Irigary, H. A. R. (2019). Organizational resilience: proposition for an integrated model and research agenda. Tour. Manag. Stud. 15, 37–46. doi: 10.18089/tms.2019.150304
Gray, C., Wilcox, G., and Nordstokke, D. (2017). Teacher mental health, school climate, inclusive education and student learning: a review. Can. Psychol. 58, 203–210. doi: 10.1037/cap0000117
Gundlach, H. A. D., Slemp, G. R., and Hattie, J. (2024). A meta-analysis of the antecedents of teacher turnover and retention. Educ. Res. Rev. 44:100606. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100606
Haktanir, A., Watson, J. C., Ermis-Demirtas, H., Karaman, M. A., Freeman, P. D., Kumaran, A., et al. (2021). Resilience, academic self-concept, and college adjustment among first-year students. J. Coll. Stud. Retent. 23, 161–178. doi: 10.1177/1521025118810666
Halevi, L., and Schechter, C. (2023). Resilient leaders: resilient determinants when entering principalship. NASSP Bull. 107, 60–86. doi: 10.1177/01926365231159070
Hascher, T., Beltman, S., and Mansfield, C. (2021). Teacher wellbeing and resilience: towards an integrative model. Educ. Res. 63, 416–439. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2021.1980416
Hascher, T., and Waber, J. (2021). Teacher well-being: a systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000–2019. Educ. Res. Rev. 34:100411. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
Hillmann, J., Duchek, S., Meyr, J., and Guenther, E. (2018). Educating future managers for developing resilient organizations: the role of scenario planning. J. Manag. Educ. 42, 461–495. doi: 10.1177/1052562918766350
Hollands, L., Haensse, L., and Lin-Hi, N. (2024). The how and why of organizational resilience: a mixed-methods study on facilitators and consequences of organizational resilience throughout a crisis. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 60, 449–493. doi: 10.1177/00218863231165785
Hoyle, R. H., and Weeks, M. S. (2021). The student resilience and well-being project: opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned. Int. J. Commun. Well-Being 4, 669–690. doi: 10.1007/s42413-021-00138-2
Hunter, R. G., Gray, J. D., and McEwen, B. S. (2018). The neuroscience of resilience. J. Soc. Social Work Res. 9, 305–339. doi: 10.1086/697956
James, J. M., Wandix-White, D., Waxman, H., Rivera, H., and Harmon, W. C. (2022). Remixing resilience: a critical examination of urban middle school learning environments among resilient African American learners. Urban Educ. 57, 432–462. doi: 10.1177/0042085921991632
Juncos, A. E., and Bourbeau, P. (2022). Resilience, gender, and conflict: thinking about resilience in a multidimensional way. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 25, 861–878. doi: 10.1057/s41268-022-00279-7
Kajabadi, P., HajiMohammad, R., and Pahlavani, P. (2016). The relationship between EFL learners' resilience and autonomous learning. Int. J. Appl. Ling. Engl. Literat. 5, 163–169. doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.4p.163
Kantur, D., and İşeri-Say, A. (2012). Organizational resilience: a conceptual integrative framework. J. Manag. Organiz. 18, 762–773. doi: 10.5172/jmo.2012.18.6.762
Kaya, F., and Odaci, H. (2024). Subjective well-being: self-forgiveness, coping self-efficacy, mindfulness, and the role of resilience? Br. J. Guid. Counsell. 52, 628–644. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2024.2350400
Keiler, L. S. (2018). Teachers' roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International J. STEM Educ. 5:34. doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6
Kelley, T. R., and Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 3:11. doi: 10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Ledesma, J. (2014). Conceptual frameworks and research models on resilience in leadership. SAGE Open 4:215824401454546. doi: 10.1177/2158244014545464
Lewis, E. B., Baker, D. R., and Helding, B. A. (2015). Science teaching reform through professional development: teachers' use of a scientific classroom discourse community model. Sci. Educ. 99, 896–931. doi: 10.1002/sce.21170
Li, Q., Zhang, X., and Zhang, W. (2023). Organizational resilience and configurational conditions from the perspective of emergency: a fsQCA approach. SAGE Open 13:21582440231158057. doi: 10.1177/21582440231158057
Liebenberg, L., Theron, L., Sanders, J., Munford, R., Van Rensburg, A., Rothmann, S., et al. (2016). Bolstering resilience through teacher-student interaction: lessons for school psychologists. Sch. Psychol. Int. 37, 140–154. doi: 10.1177/0143034315614689
Lightsey, O. R. (2006). Resilience, meaning, and well-being. Couns. Psychol. 34, 96–107. doi: 10.1177/0011000005282369
Lilly, S., McAlister, A. M., Fick, S. J., and Chiu, J. L. (2023). A comparison of elementary teachers' verbal supports for students in inclusive and general classroom contexts. Sci. Educ. 107, 853–883. doi: 10.1002/sce.21788
Lim, M. L., and Chue, K. L. (2023). Academic resilience and test anxiety: the moderating role of achievement goals. Sch. Psychol. Int. 44, 668–687. doi: 10.1177/01430343231162876
Liu, B., and Platow, M. J. (2020). Chinese adolescents' belief in a just world and academic resilience. Sch. Psychol. Int. 41, 239–256. doi: 10.1177/0143034320908001
Marquez-Tejon, J., Partearroyo, M., and Osorio, D. (2023). Integrated security management model: a proposal applied to organisational resilience. Sec. J. 37, 1–24. doi: 10.1057/s41284-023-00381-6
Martin, A. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: developing a model for student enhancement. Austral. J. Educ. 46, 34–49. doi: 10.1177/000494410204600104
Martin, A. J., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., and Liem, G. A. D. (2014). Boarding school, academic motivation and engagement, and psychological well-being. Am. Educ. Res. J. 51, 1007–1049. doi: 10.3102/0002831214532164
Martínez-León, I. M., Olmedo-Cifuentes, I., and Soria-García, J. (2024). Could you love your job again? Teach. Teach. Educ. 144:104580. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2024.104580
McKeering, P., Hwang, Y.-S., and Ng, C. (2021). A study into wellbeing, student engagement and resilience in early-adolescent international school students. J. Res. Int. Educ. 20, 69–92. doi: 10.1177/14752409211006650
Merisotis, J. P., and Kee, A. M. (2006). A model of success: the model institutions for excellence program's decade of leadership in STEM education. J. Hispanic High. Educ. 5, 288–308. doi: 10.1177/1538192706288422
Montero-Hernandez, V., Levin, J., and Diaz-Castillo, M. (2014). Academic resilience and achievement: self-motivational resources that guide faculty participation. J. Hispanic High. Educ. 13, 334–358. doi: 10.1177/1538192714546748
Moreira, A. L., Yunes, M. A. M., Nascimento, C. R. R., and Bedin, L. M. (2021). Children's subjective well-being, peer relationships and resilience: an integrative literature review. Child Indic. Res. 14, 1723–1742. doi: 10.1007/s12187-021-09843-y
Morote, R., Anyan, F., Las Hayas, C., Gabrielli, S., Zwiefka, A., Gudmundsdottir, D. G., et al. (2020). Development and validation of the theory-driven school resilience scale for adults. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 119:105589. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105589
Morote, R., Las Hayas, C., Izco-Basurko, I., Anyan, F., Fullaondo, A., Donisi, V., et al. (2022). Co-creation and regional adaptation of a resilience-based universal whole-school program. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 21, 138–164. doi: 10.1177/1474904120947890
Murphy, S., MacDonald, A., Danaia, L., and Wang, C. (2018). An analysis of Australian STEM education strategies. Policy Fut. Educ. 17, 122–139. doi: 10.1177/1478210318774190
Murray, J. A. (2004). Making sense of resilience: a useful step on the road to creating and maintaining resilient students. Austral. J. Guid. Counsell. 14, 1–15. doi: 10.1017/S1037291100002636
Myat Zaw, A. M., Win, N. Z., and Thepthien, B. (2022). adolescents' academic achievement, mental health, and adverse behaviors. Sch. Psychol. Int. 43, 516–536. doi: 10.1177/01430343221107114
Nguyen, N. N., Nham, T. P., and Takahashi, Y. (2022). Relationship between emotional intelligence and resilience among university students during crisis. Policy Fut. Educ. 21, 486–502. doi: 10.1177/14782103221139620
Ni, H., Li, C., and Wang, C. (2016). Students' perceptions of resilience promoting factors in chinese and american middle schools. Sch. Psychol. Int. 37, 435–455. doi: 10.1177/0143034316664391
Nickolite, A., and Doll, B. (2008). Resilience applied in school: strengthening classroom environments for learning. Can. J. Schl. Psychol. 23, 94–113. doi: 10.1177/0829573508316596
Noltemeyer, A. L., and Bush, K. R. (2013). Adversity and resilience: a synthesis of international research. Sch. Psychol. Int. 34, 474–487. doi: 10.1177/0143034312472758
Nugraha, M. F., and Loscalzo, Y. (2024). Heavy study investment in indonesian college students: do studyholism and study engagement predict academic resilience? Sage Open 14:21582440241255510. doi: 10.1177/21582440241255510
Parsons, S., Kruijt, A.-W., and Fox, E. (2016). A cognitive model of psychological resilience. J. Exp. Psychopathol. 7, 296–310. doi: 10.5127/jep.053415
Payne, D. G., Briel, J. B., Hawthorn, J., and Riedeburg, K. (2006). A GRE test for the STEM disciplines: developing an assessment of and for learning. J. Hispanic High. Educ. 5, 238–257. doi: 10.1177/1538192706288423
Pitzer, J., and Skinner, E. (2017). Predictors of changes in students' motivational resilience over the school year. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 41, 15–29. doi: 10.1177/0165025416642051
Portia, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, M., and Muthukumar, V. (2022). Crochet: engaging secondary school girls in art for STEAM's sake. Sci. Educ. Int. 33, 392–399. doi: 10.33828/sei.v33.i4.6
Prince-Embury, S. (2015). Assessing personal resiliency in school settings. J. Psychol. Counsell. Schls. 25, 55–65. doi: 10.1017/jgc.2014.22
Raetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., and Kirkman, B. L. (2021). Resilience in organizations: an integrative multilevel review. Group Organiz. Manag. 46, 607–656. doi: 10.1177/10596011211032129
Richard, E. M. (2020). Developing employee resilience: the role of leader-facilitated emotion management. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 22, 387–403. doi: 10.1177/1523422320949143
Riepenhausen, A., Wackerhagen, C., Reppmann, Z. C., Deter, H.-C., Kalisch, R., Veer, I. M., et al. (2022). Positive cognitive reappraisal in stress resilience, mental health, and well-being. Emot. Rev. 14, 310–331. doi: 10.1177/17540739221114642
Riva, E., Freeman, R., Schrock, L., Jelicic, V., Ozer, C.-T., and Caleb, R. (2020). Student wellbeing in the teaching and learning environment. High. Educ. Stud. 10, 103–115. doi: 10.5539/hes.v10n4p103
Ross, J. M., Scanes, E., and Locke, W. (2023). Stress adaptation and resilience of teachers in higher education. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 24, 457–471. doi: 10.1007/s12564-023-09829-1
Sansone, D. (2019). Teacher characteristics, student beliefs, and the gender gap in STEM fields. Educ. Eval. J. Policy Anal. 41, 127–144. doi: 10.3102/0162373718819830
Saxer, J., Schnell, J., Mori, J., and Hascher, T. (2024). The role of teacher–student relationships and student–student relationships for secondary school students' well-being in Switzerland. Int. J. Educ. 6:100318. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100318
Scherer, S., Talley, C. P., and Fife, J. E. (2017). How personal factors influence academic behavior and GPA in African American STEM students. Sage Open 7, 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2158244017704686
Sheng, Z., Wolff, L., Kilmer, L., and Yager, S. (2017). School administration manager: redefining the principal's role as an instructional leader. J. Schl. Leadersh. 27, 119–142. doi: 10.1177/105268461702700105
Simões, C., Santos, A. C., Lebre, P., Daniel, J. R., Branquinho, C., Gaspar, T., et al. (2021). Assessing the impact of the European resilience curriculum in preschool, early and late primary school children. Schl. Psychol. Int. 42, 539–569. doi: 10.1177/01430343211025075
Skinner, E. A., Graham, J. P., Brule, H., Brule, J. P., Rickert, N., and Kindermann, T. A. (2020). Promoting motivational resilience in school. Int. J. Behav. Dev. Res. 44, 290–300. doi: 10.1177/0165025419873731
Solanki, S. M., and Xu, D. (2018). Looking beyond academic performance: the influence of gender on student motivation in STEM fields. Am. Educ. Res. J. 55, 801–835. doi: 10.3102/0002831218759034
Struck Jannini, A. V., Akdemir, Z., and Menekse, M. (2024). Achievement goal theory in STEM education: a systematic review. J. Eng. Educ. doi: 10.1002/jee.20585
Svane, D., Evans, N., and Carter, M.-A. (2019). Wicked wellbeing: examining the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of wellbeing interventions in schools. Austral. J. Educ. 63, 209–231. doi: 10.1177/0004944119843144
Sverdlik, A., Rahimi, S., and Vallerand, R. J. (2021). Examining mental health of students' academic emotions, academic self-efficacy and resilience. J. Adult Contin. Educ. 28, 587–607. doi: 10.1177/14779714211037359
Tamah, S. M., and Wirjawan, J. V. (2022). Teachers' response to a challenge to change: a portrait of professional teacher resilience to a professional development program. Power Educ. 14, 17–34. doi: 10.1177/17577438211052647
Tatlow-Golden, M., O'Farrelly, C., Booth, A., O'Rourke, C., O'Rourke, O., and Doyle, O. (2016). ‘Look, I have my ears open': resilience and early childhood education among children ‘at risk' in an economically disadvantaged suburban area in Ireland. Schl. Psychol. Int. 37, 104–120. doi: 10.1177/0143034315613777
Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., et al. (2018). Integrated parental education: a systematic review of instructional practices in secondary school education. Eur. J. STEM Educ. 3:2. doi: 10.20897/ejsteme/85525
Thompson, R., Thornton, E., O'Byrne, R., and Lumley, M. N. (2023). A qualitative study of everyday resilience in kindergarten children. J. Child Fam. Stud. 32, 3947–3959. doi: 10.1007/s10826-023-02660-7
Ungar, M., and Liebenberg, L. (2013). Ethnocultural factors, resilience, and school engagement. Schl. Psychol. Int. 34, 514–526. doi: 10.1177/0143034312472761
Victorino, C., Denson, N., Ing, M., and Nylund-Gibson, K. (2019). Comparing STEM majors by examining the relationship between student perceptions of campus climate and classroom engagement. J. Hisp. High. Educ. 21, 33–48. doi: 10.1177/1538192719896343
Vineesha, M., Monteiro, R., and Prasad, V. (2024). Well-being and resilience among undergraduate students at a selected university. J. Health Allied Sci. 14, 248–252. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1770069
Wenner, J. A., and Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: a review of the literature. Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 134–171. doi: 10.3102/0034654316653478
Williams, A., Whiteman, G., and Kennedy, S. (2021). Cross-scale systemic resilience: implications for organization studies. Business Soc. 60, 95–124. doi: 10.1177/0007650319825870
Wu, T.-T., Silitonga, L. M., Dharmawan, B., and Murti, A. T. (2024). Empowering students to thrive: the role of CT and self-efficacy in building academic resilience. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 62, 816–845. doi: 10.1177/07356331231225468
Xenofontos, C., and Mouroutsou, S. (2023). Resilience in mathematics education research: a systematic review of empirical studies. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 67, 1041–1055. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2022.2115132
Xiao, L., and Cao, H. (2017). Organizational resilience: the theoretical model and research implication. ITM Web Conf. 12:04021. doi: 10.1051/itmconf/20171204021
Xu, T., and Jack, L. (2022). Redefining engineering for early childhood educators through professional development. Contemp. Issues Early Childh. 25, 36–47. doi: 10.1177/14639491221116907
Keywords: STEM education, resilient organization, resilience, teachers' resilience, students' resilience
Citation: Dogaru M, Negreanu MC, Pisicǎ O and Pírvu AF (2026) STEM education resilience in resilient organizations: a systematic review. Front. Educ. 10:1611163. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1611163
Received: 13 April 2025; Revised: 08 October 2025;
Accepted: 17 November 2025; Published: 08 January 2026.
Edited by:
Vanda Santos, University of Aveiro, PortugalReviewed by:
Chia Pin Kao, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, TaiwanZerrin Mercan, Bartin University, Türkiye
Copyright © 2026 Dogaru, Negreanu, Pisicǎ and Pírvu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mariana Dogaru, bWFyaWFuYS5kb2dhcnVAdXBiLnJv