Redefining Holistic Education: Bridging Culture and Islamic Values Through the STREM-C Curriculum Model (A Systematic Literature Review)

Redefining Holistic Education: Bridging Culture and Islamic Values Through the STREM-C Curriculum Model (A Systematic Literature Review) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Redefining Holistic Education: Bridging Culture and Islamic Values Through the STREM-C Curriculum Model (A Systematic Literature Review) Ashary Ramdhani, Anda Juanda This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Conventional STEM frameworks frequently marginalize socio-spiritual and cultural dimensions, prioritizing technocratic outcomes. This study evaluates the multidimensional STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model to redefine holistic education. Guided by the PRISMA protocol and the TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methodology) framework, this systematic literature review analyzed 48 eligible articles from the Scopus database through thematic extraction. The findings expose a profound geographic bias, indicating that 79,17% of current literature is entrenched in Western, secular-dominant systems. Conversely, pioneering research from religiously influenced contexts champions STREM-C by bridging empirical science with Islamic values and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, effectively challenging Eurocentric scientific hegemony. The synthesis demonstrates that while interdisciplinary STEM increasingly relies on digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR), to amplify cognitive engagement, these innovations remain pedagogically hollow without explicit value-based integration. Furthermore, comprehensive teacher competence—demanding simultaneous technological fluency and socio-spiritual sensitivity—emerges as the primary enabler for successful classroom implementation. This review establishes STREM-C as an emancipatory paradigm that elevates cultural heritage to a core epistemological pillar. Future scholarship must transcend cross-sectional qualitative designs by employing rigorous longitudinal methodologies, utilizing AI-driven learning analytics, and expanding empirical validations within diverse faith-based educational systems. Educational Philosophy and Theory Religious Studies STREM-C Curriculum Holistic Education Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Islamic Values STEM Integration Systematic Literature Review Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education has been a global priority for decades, equipping students to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. However, conventional STEM approaches are increasingly criticized for their lack of a holistic perspective, often marginalizing broader cultural, religious, and social dimensions. Addressing contemporary global challenges—such as educational inequality and cultural diversity—requires a multidisciplinary paradigm. Consequently, the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model has emerged as an inclusive framework that harmonizes technical competencies with cultural and spiritual values [1]. Recent educational trends demonstrate a paradigm shift from siloed disciplines toward holistic integrations, encompassing elements like the Arts (STEAM) and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) [2]. Furthermore, the rapid integration of digital technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR), has revolutionized pedagogical designs [3]. Despite these advancements, existing systematic literature reviews (SLRs) exhibit significant theoretical and contextual gaps [4]. Previous reviews successfully mapped instructional factors and theoretical principles but failed to empirically bridge these frameworks with practical classroom applications [5]. Moreover, existing literature is predominantly biased toward secular-dominant educational systems, frequently overlooking the integration of local culture and religious contexts [6]. To address these lacunae, this SLR proposes a novel, multidimensional synthesis of the STREM-C model. The scientific novelty of this research lies in constructing a conceptual framework that explicitly intertwines the epistemological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions of STEM, which previous studies have treated in isolation.[7] By introducing contemporary classifications such as "Culture-based STEM" and "AI-connected STEM," this review provides a crucial bridge between theoretical philosophy and culturally responsive education, specifically highlighting the integration of Islamic values [2]. This study aims to critically evaluate the multidimensional integration of STREM-C globally, offering actionable policy implications for designing inclusive curricula. To achieve this, the review is guided by the following research questions: RQ1: What are the research profiling trends (publication years, geographical contexts, methodological approaches, and grand theories) regarding the STREM-C educational model? RQ2: How does the STREM-C curriculum model integrate culture and Islamic values to foster holistic and culturally responsive education across diverse contexts? RQ3: What is the role of digital technologies (e.g., AI, VR) in mediating and enhancing the effectiveness of the STREM-C multidimensional framework? This article is systematically structured as follows. The Methods section details the PRISMA-guided SLR process utilizing the Scopus database. The Results section presents research profiling and thematic findings regarding the STREM-C model. The Discussion synthesizes a novel multidimensional conceptual framework, addressing existing cultural, religious, and technological gaps. Finally, the Conclusion provides practical policy implications and recommendations for future research. 2. Literature Review 2.1. The Epistemological Shift: From Siloed STEM to Holistic Integration The conceptualization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education has undergone a profound historical and epistemological transformation. Initially positioned as a pragmatic response to the increasing demand for technical competencies in the 21st century, traditional STEM frameworks often treated these disciplines as discrete entities, thereby limiting their interdisciplinary potential [4,8]. However, contemporary educational paradigms have progressively shifted toward more holistic and integrative approaches. Grounded in socio-constructivist theory[9], modern integrative STEM models emphasize social interaction, inquiry-based learning, and engineering design practices [10]. While this epistemological shift enhances student engagement and real-world relevance, its practical implementation remains constrained by rigid disciplinary boundaries embedded within conventional [4]. 2.2. Pedagogical Innovations and Technological Interventions To operationalize this interdisciplinary transformation, recent literature highlights the critical role of pedagogical and technological innovations. Empirical studies demonstrate that integrating Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and gamification significantly enhances student motivation and academic performance by transforming abstract concepts into tangible, problem-solving activities [1,11]. Furthermore, the rapid advancement of digital technologies has fundamentally reshaped STEM pedagogy. The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in personalizing learning trajectories [3], alongside the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) to simulate complex scientific phenomena, has proven highly effective in bridging theoretical knowledge with experiential learning [12,13]. Despite these advancements, a persistent challenge remains: the lack of systematic professional development for educators. Teachers frequently encounter difficulties arising from insufficient interdisciplinary knowledge, curriculum constraints, and limited technological proficiency [14,15]. 2.3. Contextualizing STEM: Bridging Culture, Community, and Religion A fundamental limitation of traditional STEM approaches lies in their detachment from the socio-cultural and spiritual realities of learners. In response, an emerging body of literature advocates for contextualized STEM education that transcends dominant Western, secular paradigms. This evolution is evident in the transition toward STEAM—incorporating the Arts—as well as the integration of humanities to enhance cultural relevance [16]. Moreover, the incorporation of local wisdom, such as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Ethno-STEM approaches, has been shown to foster environmental awareness and strengthen community engagement among students [2,17,18]. Building upon this trajectory, the integration of religious values into STEM education has gained increasing scholarly attention, leading to the emergence of the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) framework. STREM-C represents an advanced evolution of interdisciplinary education, explicitly designed to integrate empirical scientific knowledge with theological values and local cultural contexts within a unified pedagogical model. In this framework, religion serves as a moral foundation, while culture functions as a contextual identity that shapes the learning experience. Within this paradigm, instructional materials—particularly mathematics textbooks—play a pivotal role. In contemporary education, textbooks are no longer perceived merely as collections of abstract formulas that may contribute to mathematical anxiety; rather, they function as strategic pedagogical instruments that mediate curriculum transformation, enhance numeracy literacy, and systematically embed character education. Consequently, the integration of STREM-C principles into textbook design offers a significant opportunity to align cognitive development with moral and cultural formation. 2.4. Synthesis and Identified Gaps in the Literature A critical synthesis of the literature reveals a clear trajectory toward multidimensional STEM education, characterized by a shift from fragmented disciplinary instruction to technologically enhanced and socio-culturally responsive frameworks. While technological integration—such as AI and AR—has been shown to optimize cognitive engagement, and culturally grounded approaches enhance socio-emotional relevance, these domains are predominantly explored in isolation. From a historical perspective, the emergence of STREM-C reflects a gradual expansion of interdisciplinary educational paradigms. Early STEM models primarily emphasized competencies required to respond to the demands of the modern era of disruption[19]. Over time, these frameworks evolved into more contextualized approaches, including Ethno-STEM[17], which integrates local wisdom, and Q-STEM, which incorporates spiritual dimensions into technical education[20]. Subsequent developments, such as STEM-R (STEM-Religion), have demonstrated the feasibility of integrating religious values within formal education systems[21]. These fragmented yet complementary approaches have ultimately converged into the more comprehensive STREM-C framework. Recent research further indicates that emerging technological factors—such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) self-efficacy and the use of interactive multimedia—serve as significant mediators in enhancing student motivation and engagement in STEM learning environments[22,23]. Therefore, the adoption of STREM-C, which harmonizes advanced technological features, scientific disciplines, and religious and cultural values, is increasingly recognized as a forward-looking approach for educational transformation. Nevertheless, a significant gap persists in the literature. There is a lack of comprehensive, multidimensional frameworks that simultaneously integrate technological innovation, pedagogical strategies, cultural context, and Islamic values within a unified model. Furthermore, previous systematic reviews tend to exhibit geographical and contextual biases toward secular educational systems, with limited exploration of faith-based contexts. They have not systematically examined how STREM-C can function as a mediating framework that bridges epistemological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions across diverse educational settings. Accordingly, this systematic literature review seeks to address this critical gap by synthesizing fragmented studies to construct a cohesive STREM-C conceptual framework. In doing so, it aims to redefine holistic education through the integration of digital innovation, cultural context, and Islamic values. 2. Methods This study employed a systematic literature review (SLR) design guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol to ensure rigorous and transparent reporting [24] The comprehensive PRISMA flow detailing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases is depicted in Figure 1. [Figure 1 near here] During the identification phase, the research team conducted a systematic search using the Scopus database, which was selected due to its rigorous indexing standards and its ability to minimize issues such as predatory publications and excessive duplication commonly found in other search engines [25]. The search strategy used keywords including “STEM education approach,” “Culture in STEM Education,” “ethno STEM,” “integrated STEM Education,” “Islamic STEM,” and “STEAM-Integrated Learning” to capture the multidimensional aspects of the STREM-C curriculum. This initial search yielded 265 records. The screening phase involved removing 12 duplicate records, 26 articles published outside the 2016–2026 timeframe, 42 records from unranked or non-Q1–Q3 journals, and 9 records lacking abstracts, leaving 176 articles for further evaluation. Screening of titles and abstracts subsequently excluded 36 irrelevant records. In the eligibility phase, the researchers attempted to retrieve the full texts of the remaining 140 articles. However, 88 records could not be accessed due to full-text unavailability. The researchers then assessed the 52 successfully retrieved full-text articles. Further verification revealed that four articles had been updated and were no longer indexed in the Scopus database; therefore, they were excluded from the selection process. Consequently, 48 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. No additional records were identified through external sources. Ultimately, these 48 articles were finalized for comprehensive qualitative review using a thematic analysis approach to extract recurring patterns and themes relevant to the STREM-C framework. The researchers employed the Watase Uake System [26] to support and streamline this thematic extraction, maintaining a neutral and objective analytical process across interdisciplinary contexts. This rigorous methodological trajectory provides a robust, high-quality analysis of how the STREM-C model effectively harmonizes science, technology, religion, engineering, mathematics, and culture. 3. Results And Analysist The systematic literature review synthesized empirical findings and theoretical discourse from 48 meticulously selected articles to comprehensively address the formulated research questions regarding the multidimensional STREM-C framework. To provide a rigorous and transparent mapping of the existing literature, the extracted data were systematically categorized and visualized across several critical dimensions. Figure 1, located in the methodology section, details the PRISMA flow diagram. Within this analytical section, Figure 2 illustrates the chronological trajectory and year-of-publication trends, capturing the evolutionary growth of STREM-C research. Concurrently, Figure 3 maps the geographic distribution of these studies, highlighting spatial concentrations and contextual disparities. Furthermore, the thematic extractions are systematically detailed in a series of tables: Table 1 (Grand Theory Classification), Table 2 (Educational Context), Table 3 (Conceptual and Integrative Foundations), Table 4 (Curriculum Orientation), Table 5 (Educational Outcomes), Table 6 (Interdisciplinary STEM), and Table 7 (Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration). The aforementioned visual and tabular representations serve as the robust empirical foundation for addressing this study's core inquiries. Figure 2 and Figure 3 profile the macroscopic landscape of STEM literature, revealing an escalating global interest juxtaposed with distinct geographical biases toward secular-dominant educational systems. Tables 1, 3, and 4 meticulously deconstruct the theoretical frameworks and curriculum orientations underlying modern STEM. Tables 5 and 6 elucidate the mediating role of interdisciplinary structures, digital technologies, and the absolute necessity of teacher competence. Finally, Table 7 serves as the conceptual climax of this analysis, demonstrating how cultural nuances, indigenous knowledge, and Islamic values are being integrated to construct the holistic STREM-C paradigm. 3.1 Publication Trends and Temporal Development of STREM-C Analysis of chronological data (Figure 2) indicates a substantial escalation in academic discourse surrounding the STREM-C paradigm from 2018 to 2025. [Figure 2 near here] In 2018, research was predominantly localized, focusing on informal STEM and community collaboration to enhance interest among underrepresented groups [18]. The year 2020 served as a critical epistemological turning point, marked by seminal publications from Indonesia, Spain, and Thailand that expanded STEM's philosophical boundaries [4,27,28]. This period established the theoretical bedrock for subsequent multidimensional studies, shifting the focus toward integrated, real-world problems. The trajectory peaked in 2025 with 15 publications, reflecting a profound maturation of the field driven by the need for inclusive, globalized education [16,29]. This trend underscores that STREM-C is no longer an intellectual fringe but a central requisite for addressing 21st-century challenges like systemic bias and cultural marginalization. The consistent growth demonstrates an evolving consensus that technical skills must be paired with cultural and spiritual understanding to remain relevant in a complex global society. 3.2 Geographic Distribution and Global Representation The geographic mapping (Figure 3) reveals a significant North-South asymmetry in STREM-C research. [Figure 3 near here] The United States leads with 12 studies, primarily emphasizing foundational K-12 diversity and community projects [30,31]. Spain (6 studies) focuses on didactical models for primary education [1,10], while China (5 studies) champions the integration of digital technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR) [3,13]. In contrast, studies from developing nations such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Rwanda offer groundbreaking qualitative insights into the integration of religion and indigenous knowledge (IKS). While Western nations dictate technological advancements, the Global South pioneers the socio-spiritual contextualization of STEM [27,32]. This dichotomy suggests that future research must synthesize these strengths—merging Western tech-innovation with Eastern contextual depth—to forge a universally adaptable STREM-C model. 3.3 Theoretical Classification and Conceptual Fragmentation The theoretical classification (Table 1) demonstrates that contemporary STREM-C literature is predominantly anchored in socio-constructivist principles. [Table 1 near here] Theories propagated by Piaget, Vygotsky, Ausubel, and Bruner dominate the discourse, indicating a consensus that integrative STEM learning is fundamentally a socially mediated process requiring collaborative inquiry and experiential design [10]. This is further complemented by the widespread utilization of "Communities of Practice" [6] to understand the collaborative dynamics among educators and students in localized, practical settings. However, this theoretical saturation also reveals a conceptual fragmentation when addressing marginalized or non-secular populations. To navigate these complex socio-cultural dynamics, highly specialized frameworks such as "Intersectionality Theory" are sporadically deployed, particularly to examine the systemic challenges faced by religious women navigating STEM fields [33]. Despite these advancements, the literature exhibits a pronounced scarcity in the utilization of highly contextualized, non-Western theories, such as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). The reliance on Western socio-constructivist models often fails to capture the epistemological depth required for ethno-STEM and faith-based pedagogies [2]. Integrating localized theoretical frameworks represents a critical imperative for advancing the theoretical robustness and cultural validity of the STREM-C model. 3.4 Educational Contexts and System Orientations A critical extension of the geographic and theoretical bias is vividly reflected in the system orientations (Table 2). [Table 2 near here] Data from Table 2 reveals a pronounced contextual imbalance: “Secular-Dominant Systems” account for 79.16% of the analyzed literature (38 out of 48 studies). Within these contexts, STEM is frequently positioned as a technocratic enterprise, detached from spiritual and cultural narratives [4,6]. This dominance reflects a global tendency to prioritize industrial and economic outcomes over the holistic development of learners. In contrast, “Religiously Influenced Systems” represent only 14.58% of the total studies (7 publications), yet these contexts provide the most substantive applications of the STREM-C model. Evidence from educational settings in Thailand and Indonesia indicates that integrating religious perspectives does not compromise scientific rigor; rather, it strengthens student engagement, value internalization, and ethical reasoning [27,32]. This disparity points to a systemic gap in global STEM policy, which remains largely oriented toward secular paradigms and insufficiently responsive to faith-based educational contexts. For STREM-C to realize its holistic potential, further empirical validation across diverse religious and culturally grounded educational systems is essential, ensuring that the framework functions as an inclusive bridge rather than merely a technocratic instrument. 3.5 Conceptual and Integrative Foundations The structural foundations of these educational systems are further dissected in Table 3. [Table 3 near here] The data delineate a distinct bifurcation in focus: "Integrative STEM Dimension" constitutes 75% of the thematic focus (36 studies), while "Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration" represents a growing, yet minority, 25% niche (12 studies). The heavy skew towards the Integrative STEM Dimension underscores the academic community's primary preoccupation with overcoming the logistical and epistemological barriers of merging disparate technical disciplines [7,10]. Nevertheless, the emergence of the 25% niche indicates a vital counter-narrative. Scholars are increasingly recognizing that holistic education cannot be achieved through technical integration alone. Studies advocating for Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration highlight that embedding STEM within Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Islamic values profoundly empowers learners who have historically been marginalized by Eurocentric scientific paradigms [2,33]. Furthermore, the synthesis of STEAM (incorporating the Arts) with religious instruction has proven highly effective in cultivating ethical character alongside scientific literacy [34]. Thus, while technical integration remains the structural spine of STEM, cultural and religious integration provides the necessary contextual soul, ensuring learning is deeply anchored in the students' lived realities. 3.6 Curriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design To accommodate these multidimensional integrative ambitions, the literature highlights a massive paradigm shift in curriculum design. Analysis of Table 4 indicates that "Curriculum Innovation" (17 studies) and "Curriculum Design" (14 studies) dominate the discourse, supported by "Curriculum Reform" (9 studies), “Contextual Curriculum Framework” (4 studies) and "Holistic Curriculum Model" (4 studies). This trajectory reveals that implementing STREM-C is not a matter of superficially appending religious or cultural subjects to existing science classes. Rather, it demands a profound architectural redesign of pedagogical frameworks [6,35]. [Table 4 near here] This curriculum innovation is increasingly characterized by dynamic, fluid frameworks that explicitly embed humanistic values, ethical reasoning, and cultural sensitivity directly into scientific inquiry [17,36]. The literature suggests that a "Contextual Curriculum Framework" must operate synergistically with digital technologies to foster character development alongside technical acumen [3,4]. Ultimately, the STREM-C pedagogical design acts as an emancipatory tool, validating local cultural heritage within the universal scientific discourse and preparing students to navigate complex global challenges with localized wisdom and ethical grounding [29,37]. 3.7 Educational Outcomes and Enabling Conditions The ambitious theoretical and pedagogical designs of the STREM-C framework are fundamentally bottlenecked by practical enabling conditions. Table 5 unequivocally identifies "Teacher Competence" as the paramount variable, dominating 31.25% of the related discourse (15 studies). [Table 5 near here] The STREM-C model places unprecedented cognitive and pedagogical demands on educators. They are no longer merely transmitters of isolated scientific facts; they are expected to act as interdisciplinary orchestrators who must seamlessly weave empirical science, advanced digital tools, and profound Islamic/cultural values into cohesive lesson plans. Studies consistently highlight a critical vulnerability: teachers frequently experience severe curriculum pressure, lack interdisciplinary content knowledge, and exhibit low technological fluency [12,30,35]. Without rigorous, continuous professional development, teachers default to traditional, siloed teaching methods, rendering the STREM-C model an unrealized theoretical ideal [6,38]. In addition to teacher competence, "Curriculum Structure" (20.83%), "STEM Literacy" (10.42%) and “Character And Value Formation “ (8,33%) are highlighted as essential outcomes, emphasizing that flexible institutional policies and robust administrative support are non-negotiable prerequisites for sustaining these holistic educational interventions [18,31,39]. 3.8 Interdisciplinary STEM: Consolidation and Limitations Within the practical execution of these curricula, Table 6 highlights that "Interdisciplinary STEM" remains the consolidated core of the field (35 studies), serving as the fundamental mechanism that intertwines the discrete disciplines. [Table 6 near here] This consolidation is heavily reliant on socio-constructivist didactics, emphasizing real-world problem-solving and computational thinking [4,10]. However, the modern mechanism of interdisciplinarity has evolved significantly, heavily relying on "Technology Integration" (7 studies) to bridge complex conceptual gaps. Contemporary research underscores that digital interventions—specifically Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR)—are revolutionizing interdisciplinary instruction. For instance, the deployment of AR-based teaching systems in the Greater Bay Area of China has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to simulate complex scientific phenomena, thereby reducing the cognitive load on both students and educators [12]. Simultaneously, the concept of "STEAM Expansion" (6 studies) demonstrates the field's ongoing effort to humanize the sciences by integrating artistic and environmental narratives [16]. While these interdisciplinary and technological consolidations are robust, a profound limitation persists: technology and interdisciplinarity alone do not inherently foster ethical reasoning or cultural identity, paving the way for the ultimate evolution of the paradigm. 4.9 Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration: Toward a Holistic Paradigm Addressing the limitations of purely technocratic interdisciplinarity, the analysis culminates in Table 7, which delineates the most critical and novel dimension of the STREM-C model: "Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration". [Table 7 near here] The literature highlights three dominant sub-themes that act as counter-narratives to conventional STEM: "Value-Based Education," "Local Wisdom Integration," and "Culturally Responsive Education". These elements represent the final, necessary evolution toward a genuinely holistic paradigm. The integration of "Value-Based Education" explicitly challenges the notion of value-neutral science. Scholars argue that embedding ethical frameworks—particularly those derived from Islamic values—into the STEM curriculum is imperative for forming students' moral character in an era of rapid, often unchecked, technological advancement [10,16,31]. Concurrently, "Local Wisdom Integration" (ethno-STEM) has demonstrated high empirical efficacy. By synthesizing rigorous project-based learning with indigenous cultural wisdom, educational models in Indonesia and South Africa have successfully cultivated environmental conservation character, social responsibility, and deep community engagement among students [2,7,17]. Ultimately, "Culturally Responsive Education" ensures that scientific literacy is not acquired in a socio-spiritual vacuum. By integrating elements like Shura -based professional learning communities in Thailand or addressing the intersectional challenges of religious women in Israel, the STREM-C model proves its capacity to significantly enhance cognitive resonance and student engagement across diverse, historically marginalized demographics [6,27,38,40]. In conclusion, this systematic extraction demonstrates that redefining holistic education requires far more than merging science and technology. It requires the deliberate, architectural integration of culture and religion. The STREM-C curriculum model stands as a comprehensive paradigm shift, successfully harmonizing the empirical rigor of Western scientific traditions, the innovative capacity of digital technologies, and the profound ethical and spiritual depth of local and Islamic values. 4. Discussion 4.1. Redefining the Educational Paradigm: The Novelty of STREM-C The primary objective of this systematic literature review was to critically evaluate the multidimensional integration of the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model, addressing the profound conceptual gaps left by conventional, siloed STEM frameworks [8,41]. This review offers a novel perspective by fundamentally reconceptualizing STEM education not merely as a technocratic tool for economic and industrial advancement, but as a holistic, value-laden pedagogical ecosystem [17,34]. Unlike prior studies, this review explicitly synthesizes the often-fragmented dimensions of epistemological philosophy, advanced digital integration, and profound socio-spiritual contextualization [3,4]. While previous systematic reviews predominantly focused on the theoretical principles and relational models of interdisciplinary STEM without empirically bridging them to culturally diverse classroom realities, this study constructs a cohesive multidimensional framework [4]. By formalizing the STREM-C model, this research firmly positions cultural heritage and Islamic values not as peripheral additions, but as core epistemological pillars equal in importance to scientific and technological innovation [2,27]. 5.2. Deconstructing Interdisciplinary STEM and Technological Mediation The empirical extraction of this review confirms that the transition from isolated disciplines to interdisciplinary STEM remains the foundational consensus in modern educational research [4,10]. In line with established theoretical propositions, the thematic analysis demonstrates that interdisciplinary STEM is deeply anchored in socio-constructivist principles, requiring collaborative inquiry, problem-solving, and experiential design. However, this study adds nuance to this prevailing consensus by highlighting that the contemporary mechanism of interdisciplinarity is no longer solely dependent on pedagogical design; it is increasingly mediated by cutting-edge digital technologies. The widespread integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR) identified in the findings significantly amplifies cognitive engagement, professional support, and personalized learning trajectories [3,13]. Yet, the findings reveal an understudied aspect of this technological integration: technology alone inherently lacks the capacity to foster ethical reasoning or profound cultural identity. While specific studies successfully demonstrate the cognitive and academic benefits of digital applications, they frequently operate within a value-neutral vacuum.[42] The STREM-C framework explicitly challenges this technological determinism, arguing that digital interventions must be deliberately repurposed to serve culturally responsive pedagogical goals, ensuring that technological advancement mitigates, rather than accelerates, cultural homogenization [17,27,34]. 4.3. Bridging Culture and Islamic Values: Challenging Secular Hegemony Perhaps the most significant theoretical disruption offered by this review is its critical analysis of systemic geographic and contextual biases within the STEM discourse. The results expose that a vast majority of STEM literature (nearly 80%) is deeply entrenched in secular-dominant educational systems of the Global North. Contrary to these secular frameworks that monopolize the current academic narrative and treat science as entirely divorced from spirituality [6,10], the STREM-C model empirically proves that integrating religious and cultural contexts profoundly enriches scientific inquiry. This review extends previous findings that initiated the exploration of STEM within Islamic educational settings in Southeast Asia [27,32]. Where localized studies provided crucial empirical evidence on the efficacy of faith-based professional learning communities and religious integration, this review elevates these insights into a globally applicable conceptual model [27]. By systematically mapping sub-themes such as "Value-Based Education" and "Local Wisdom Integration," this study demonstrates that ethno-STEM and Islamic-integrated STEM cultivate critical environmental conservation character, social responsibility, and ethical scientific literacy [2,17]. The synthesis reveals that for students in religiously influenced demographics, empirical science becomes significantly more engaging and cognitively resonant when it aligns with their existing spiritual and cultural worldview [33,38]. Consequently, STREM-C acts as an emancipatory educational paradigm, validating marginalized knowledge systems and offering a robust counter-narrative to Eurocentric scientific dominance. 4.4. The Critical Role of Teacher Competence and Pedagogical Scaffolding Despite the theoretical elegance and emancipatory potential of the STREM-C model, this review critically identifies practical implementation as a severe, systemic bottleneck [4,6]. In line with emerging empirical evidence, the thematic results overwhelmingly position "Teacher Competence" as the most critical enabling factor for holistic education [14,35]. The simultaneous integration of empirical science, religious theology, advanced digital tools, and localized culture places unprecedented cognitive, structural, and pedagogical demands on educators [14]. However, this review adds nuance to the traditional discourse on teacher professional development. Conventional literature frequently suggests that educators primarily require upskilling in technical content knowledge or computational thinking to succeed in integrated STEM [6]. The STREM-C paradigm dictates that mere technical upskilling is grossly insufficient. Teachers must evolve into interdisciplinary orchestrators equipped with profound cultural sensitivity and theological tact. Without systemic institutional support, flexible curriculum structures, and culturally aligned professional learning communities—such as the Shura -based models observed in Thailand [27]—teachers will inevitably succumb to curriculum pressure and revert to siloed teaching methods, rendering the STREM-C curriculum a theoretical illusion rather than a sustained classroom reality. 4.5. Theoretical Implications To systematically articulate the broader academic impact of this review, the theoretical and practical implications are explicitly delineated. Theoretically, this study mandates a radical broadening of the foundational theories governing STEM education. While classical socio-constructivist theories (Piaget, Vygotsky) remain necessary for framing collaborative inquiry [10], they are no longer sufficient for multidimensional, cross-cultural frameworks. This review expands the theoretical boundaries by advocating for the formal integration of Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) [2] and Intersectionality Theory [33] as core epistemological components of global STEM. This theoretical expansion empowers scholars to critically analyze how systemic biases affect religious minorities and diverse cultural groups in STEM, thereby constructing a truly inclusive pedagogical theory. Contextually, the theoretical implication calls for a decisive shift in research funding and focus. Global scholars must urgently de-center Western, secular contexts and prioritize theoretical modeling within the Global South—particularly in religiously influenced systems across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—to ensure global educational equity. 4.6. Practical Implications Practically, the findings necessitate a profound architectural redesign of curriculum development and educational policy. Educational practitioners, policymakers, and curriculum developers must transition from traditional STEM to the contextual STREM-C model by formally embedding Islamic ethical frameworks, local cultural narratives, and humanistic values directly into state and institutional curricula. Practically, this involves designing project-based learning modules where technological solutions (e.g., utilizing AI for environmental monitoring) are explicitly tied to religious stewardship and local community empowerment [17]. Furthermore, practical implementation requires university-level teacher education programs to overhaul their training matrices. Pre-service teachers must be evaluated not solely on scientific literacy and technological fluency [12] but equally on culturally responsive pedagogy and ethical integration [40]. 4.7. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions While this systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the multidimensional STREM-C framework, several methodological limitations within the existing body of literature must be acknowledged to rigorously guide future scholarship. First, the current literature is heavily dominated by qualitative methodologies, thematic analyses, and cross-sectional case studies [14,27]. While these approaches are invaluable for capturing complex socio-cultural nuances and educator perceptions, there is a conspicuous scarcity of robust, large-scale quantitative and longitudinal experimental designs. Consequently, the long-term impact of integrating Islamic values and culture on sustained academic performance and lifelong STEM career trajectories remains under-quantified. Furthermore, the findings reveal an understudied aspect of technological methodology. Although the literature frequently advocates for the deployment of AI and AR within classrooms, the research methodologies utilized to evaluate these advanced tools remain highly traditional (e.g., standard interviews and classroom observations). Future research must leverage advanced learning analytics, Big Data, and AI-driven assessment mechanisms to precisely and objectively quantify the complex cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes of the STREM-C model. Finally, future longitudinal studies must explicitly test the STREM-C relational models across contrasting geographical contexts—comparing outcomes between secular-dominant and religiously influenced nations—to empirically validate the universal adaptability of this holistic curriculum paradigm. Through these future endeavors, STREM-C can definitively transition from a conceptual framework into a global standard for inclusive, culturally resonant education. 5. Conclusion And Future Research Direction This systematic literature review redefines holistic education by formalizing the STREM-C curriculum model as an alternative to conventional technocratic STEM frameworks. The primary academic contribution of this study lies in its multidimensional synthesis that bridges epistemological theories, digital innovation, and socio-spiritual dimensions. By employing the TCCM (Theory–Context–Characteristics–Methodology) framework, this review systematically maps the intellectual development of STREM-C research while revealing structural biases that have historically marginalized non-Western knowledge systems. From a theoretical perspective (T), the literature remains largely grounded in socio-constructivist principles and Communities of Practice, which support collaborative and interdisciplinary learning. However, the dominance of secular Western-centric paradigms limits the inclusivity of global science education. This review therefore highlights the importance of integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Islamic ethical perspectives as central epistemological foundations within STEM-related learning. Contextually (C), existing studies demonstrate a strong concentration in secular-dominant educational environments, particularly within the Global North. To enhance the broader applicability of the STREM-C framework, future research should expand into religiously influenced educational contexts, especially within the Global South, where cultural and spiritual dimensions play a significant role in educational practice. Regarding Characteristics (C), the literature indicates a paradigm shift toward holistic curriculum innovation through the integration of interdisciplinary learning and emerging digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR). However, effective implementation depends on culturally responsive teacher competence that integrates technological literacy with socio-spiritual sensitivity. Methodologically (M), the field continues to rely heavily on qualitative thematic analyses and cross-sectional case studies. Although mixed-method approaches are emerging, there remains a lack of rigorous quantitative and longitudinal designs capable of measuring the long-term cognitive and socio-moral impacts of value-integrated STEM education. Future research should therefore employ longitudinal studies, advanced learning analytics, and AI-driven educational assessment to strengthen empirical validation of the STREM-C model. Ultimately, the STREM-C framework represents a transformative paradigm for contemporary education. By harmonizing the empirical rigor of modern science with digital innovation and the ethical depth of cultural and Islamic values, education systems can cultivate learners who are technologically proficient and morally grounded to address the complex challenges of the twenty-first century. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editorial team for their valuable comments and constructive feedback, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. Declaration of Interest Statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request. Declaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing During the preparation of this manuscript, generative AI tools were used to support the systematic literature review (SLR). DeepSeek and a proprietary black-box AI system assisted in identifying and classifying relevant articles under the authors’ supervision, with all outputs critically evaluated to ensure methodological rigor. ChatGPT and Notebooklm was used to enhance linguistic clarity and coherence. All AI-assisted content was reviewed, revised, and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript. Author Contributions The author was responsible for all aspects of the study, including conceptualization, methodology, data collection, analysis, writing, and revision of the manuscript. The author has read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Funding This research received no external funding. Competing Interests The author declares no competing interests. References Portillo-Blanco, A., Guisasola, J. & Zuza, K. Integrated STEM education: addressing theoretical ambiguities and practical applications. Front. Educ. 10 , 1568885 (2025). Matindike, F. & Ramdhany, V. Incorporating indigenous knowledge perspectives in integrated STEM education: a systematic review. Research in Science & Technological Education 43 , 1022–1042 (2025). Zhao, Y. Integrated and Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Technologies for STEM Education. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9 , 20242326 (2024). Ortiz-Revilla, J., Adúriz-Bravo, A. & Greca, I. M. A Framework for Epistemological Discussion on Integrated STEM Education. Sci & Educ 29 , 857–880 (2020). Kozan, K., Caskurlu, S. & Guzey, S. S. Factors Influencing Student Outcomes in K-12 Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 13 , (2023). Han, J., Kelley, T. & Knowles, J. G. Building a sustainable model of integrated stem education: investigating secondary school STEM classes after an integrated STEM project. Int J Technol Des Educ 33 , 1499–1523 (2023). Ortiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M. & Arriassecq, I. A Theoretical Framework for Integrated STEM Education. Sci & Educ 31 , 383–404 (2022). Psycharis, S. The Impact of Computational Experiment and Formative Assessment in Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning Approach in STEM Education. J Sci Educ Technol 25 , 316–326 (2016). Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes . (Harvard University Press, 1980). doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4. Toma, R. B., Yánez-Pérez, I. & Meneses-Villagrá, J. Á. Towards a Socio-Constructivist Didactic Model for Integrated STEM Education. Interchange 55 , 75–91 (2024). Moral-Sánchez, S. N., Sánchez-Compaña, M. a T. & Romero, I. Geometry with a STEM and Gamification Approach: A Didactic Experience in Secondary Education. Mathematics 10 , 3252 (2022). Lin, X.-F. et al. Teacher learning community for AR-integrated STEM education. Teaching and Teacher Education 141 , 104490 (2024). Cui (崔允漷), Y. et al. A “Chinese Approach” to STEM Education Innovation and Development. ECNU Review of Education 9 , 20965311251394054 (2026). Giffney, S. & Lane, D. Towards an integrated model of STEM education in secondary schools: perspectives of practicing teachers in Ireland. Int J Technol Des Educ 35 , 1805–1824 (2025). Delahunty, T., Prendergast, M. & Ní Ríordáin, M. Teachers’ Perspectives on Achieving an Integrated Curricular Model of Primary STEM Education in Ireland: Authentic or Utopian Ideology? Front. Educ. 6 , 666608 (2021). Clark, Q. M. A pedagogical approach: toward leveraging mathematical modeling and AI to support integrating humanities into STEM education. Front. Educ. 9 , 1396104 (2025). Sudarmin, S. et al. Chemistry project-based learning for secondary metabolite course with ethno-STEM approach to improve students’ conservation and entrepreneurial character in the 21st century. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 13 , 393 (2023). Burrows, A., Lockwood, M., Borowczak, M., Janak, E. & Barber, B. Integrated STEM: Focus on Informal Education and Community Collaboration through Engineering. Education Sciences 8 , 4 (2018). Prebreza, R., Beqiraj, B., Prebreza, B., Krypa, A. & Krypa, M. Factors influencing the lower number of women in STEM compared to men: A case study from Kosovo. steme 5 , 19–40 (2025). Ramli, A. A. & Ibrahim, N. H. Q-STEM Module Promotes Al-Quran Appreciation in Teaching STEM. in 2017 7th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF) 623–627 (IEEE, Kuala Lumpur, 2017). doi:10.1109/WEEF.2017.8466968. Sarwi, S., Marwoto, P., Susilaningsih, E., Lathif, Y. F. & Winarto, W. Science learning STEM-R approach: A study of students’ reflective and critical thinking. EduLearn 18 , 462–470 (2024). Lotey, E. K., Boateng, F. O. & Ofosua, B. AI Self‐Efficacy, Motivation, and Engagement Among STEM Learners: Mediating and Moderating Pathways to Perceived Mathematics Performance in Ghanaian Higher Education. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 2026 , 8637455 (2026). Zwart, D. P., Van Luit, J. E. H., Noroozi, O. & Goei, S. L. The effects of digital learning material on students’ mathematics learning in vocational education. Cogent Education 4 , 1313581 (2017). Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M. & Hedges, L. V. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70 , 747–770 (2019). Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics 12 , 1160–1177 (2018). Wahyudi, L. Watase Uake: Research Collaboration Tools. Computer software]. https://www. watase. web. id (2024). Vasinayanuwatana, T., Teo, T. W. & Ketsing, J. Shura-infused STEM professional learning community in an Islamic School in Thailand. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 16 , 109–139 (2021). Hasani, A., Juansah, D. E., Sari, I. J. & El Islami, R. A. Z. Conceptual Frameworks on How to Teach STEM Concepts in Bahasa Indonesia Subject as Integrated Learning in Grades 1–3 at Elementary School in the Curriculum 2013 to Contribute to Sustainability Education. Sustainability 13 , 173 (2020). Scherer, H. H. & Azano, A. P. Storying the FEW Nexus: A Framework for Cultivating Place-Based Integrated STEM Education in Rural Schools. Education Sciences 15 , 744 (2025). Cheek, L. R., Carter, V., Daugherty, M. K. & Goering, C. Z. Key Practices in P-6 Integrated STEM Education: Delphi Panel Insights. The Teacher Educator 60 , 433–460 (2025). Santangelo, J. et al. The (STEM)2 Network: a multi-institution, multidisciplinary approach to transforming undergraduate STEM education. IJ STEM Ed 8 , 3 (2021). Iskandar, I., Abu Bakar, A. Y., Defrianti, D. & Setiawan, M. E. Emotion regulation and gender as the key predictors of academic stress among STEM students in Islamic universities. Cogent Psychology 11 , 2406640 (2024). Lissitsa, S., Ben-Zamara, R.-T. & Chachashvili-Bolotin, S. Gender and/or Religiosity? – Intersectional approach to the challenges of religious women in STEM fields. International Journal of Educational Development 96 , 102709 (2023). Hosic, R. et al. STEAM-Integrated Interfaith Learning Through Maker Education: A Framework for Innovative Religious Learning. Religious Education 120 , 239–258 (2025). Fitzpatrick, M. & Leavy, A. Reciprocal interplays in becoming STEM learners and teachers: preservice teachers’ evolving understandings of integrated STEM education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 1–30 (2025) doi:10.1080/0020739X.2025.2472260. Abu Khurma, O., Al Darayseh, A. & Alramamneh, Y. A Framework for Incorporating the “Learning How to Learn” Approach in Teaching STEM Education. Education Sciences 13 , 1 (2022). Hallström, J. & Ankiewicz, P. Design as the basis for integrated STEM education: A philosophical framework. Front. Educ. 8 , 1078313 (2023). Kim, K. & Kwon, K. From co-design to co-teaching: a comprehensive approach to an integrated AI curriculum in middle school STEM education. Smart Learn. Environ. 12 , 57 (2025). Fan, W. A transformer based approach to STEAM integrated english course design in high schools under deep learning. Sci Rep 15 , 42062 (2025). Stevenson, E. & Thompson, P. Teacher leadership for integrated STEM education: Identifying what effective leaders need to know and do. School Sci & Mathematics 125 , 318–329 (2025). Portillo-Blanco, A., Deprez, H., De Cock, M., Guisasola, J. & Zuza, K. A Systematic Literature Review of Integrated STEM Education: Uncovering Consensus and Diversity in Principles and Characteristics. Education Sciences 14 , 1028 (2024). Shurygin, V., Anisimova, T., Orazbekova, R. & Pronkin, N. Modern approaches to teaching future teachers of mathematics: the use of mobile applications and their impact on students’ motivation and academic success in the context of STEM education. Interactive Learning Environments 1–15 (2023) doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2162548. Kier, M. W. & Johnson, L. L. Exploring How Secondary STEM Teachers and Undergraduate Mentors Adapt Digital Technologies to Promote Culturally Relevant Education during COVID-19. Education Sciences 12 , 48 (2022). Li, E. et al. DIY liquid handling robots for integrated STEM education and life science research. PLoS ONE 17 , e0275688 (2022). Duncan, V. L., Holt, E. A. & Keenan, S. M. Creating an equitable and inclusive STEM classroom: a qualitative meta-synthesis of approaches and practices in higher education. Front. Educ. 8 , 1154652 (2023). Brahic, B. A. M., Miao, S., Webb, S. J. & Harvey, A. G. Reflexive, relevant and interactive: a STEM student-centred pedagogical approach for responsible research and innovation (RRI) training in higher education. Research in Science & Technological Education 43 , 456–475 (2025). Costa, M. C., Domingos, A. M. D., Teodoro, V. D. & Vinhas, É. M. R. G. Teacher Professional Development in STEM Education: An Integrated Approach with Real-World Scenarios in Portugal. Mathematics 10 , 3944 (2022). Sepúlveda-Albornoz, M., Vergara-Gómez, A., Aravena-Díaz, M. D. & Díaz-Levicoy, D. Percepciones de los docentes de instituciones de educación superior técnico profesional frente a la implementación del enfoque STEM (ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería, y matemáticas). Form. Univ. 18 , 189–202 (2025). Solyst, J. et al. Understanding Instructors’ Cultivation of Connectedness in K-12 Online Synchronous Culturally Responsive STEM and Computing Education. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6 , 1–19 (2022). Tan, Y. L. K. & Subramaniam, R. Promoting integrated STEM education among students via fabrication of interactive exhibit. Front. Educ. 9 , 1423158 (2024). Del Cerro Velázquez, F. & Lozano Rivas, F. Education for Sustainable Development in STEM (Technical Drawing): Learning Approach and Method for SDG 11 in Classrooms. Sustainability 12 , 2706 (2020). Tezer, M., Orekhovskaya, N. A., Shaleeva, E. F., Knyazeva, S. A. & Krokhina, J. A. The Effectiveness of STEM Education Applied with a Distance Education Approach. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 16 , 180 (2021). Wang, P. PLS-SEM Model of Integrated Stem Education Concept and Network Teaching Model of Architectural Engineering Course. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2022 , 1–10 (2022). Wilson-Kennedy, Z. S. & Payton-Steward, F. Leveraging adaptive approaches to tackle opportunity gaps in STEM higher education. Front. Educ. 10 , 1593337 (2025). Fante, C., Ravicchio, F. & Manganello, F. Navigating the Evolution of Game-Based Educational Approaches in Secondary STEM Education: A Decade of Innovations and Challenges. Education Sciences 14 , 662 (2024). Gatera, E., Muhirwa, A. & Mugemanyi, S. Education gender gap in STEM fields at Integrated Polytechnic Regional College (IPRC) Tumba (2007–2020). International Journal of Inclusive Education 1–16 (2025) doi:10.1080/13603116.2024.2427144. Guncaga, J., Korenova, L., Záhorec, J. & Ostradicky, P. Innovative Approach on Teaching and Learning with Technical Aids for STEM Education at the Primary Level. Education Sciences 14 , 682 (2024). Tables Table 1. Grand Theory No Theory Citation Total Article Authors 1 NA 47 2 Sudarmin et al., 2023; Costa et al., 2022 2 Interpretivist paradigm 2 1 Giffney and Lane, 2025 3 The Four-Frame Model by Bolman and Deal is used as a grand theory. 0 1 Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025 4 Socio-constructivist principles by Piaget, Vygotsky, Ausubel, and Bruner 18 1 Toma et al., 2024 5 Social Cognitive Career Theory 23 1 Abu et al., 2022 6 Situated cognition theory 14 1 Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024 7 Research-Practice Partnerships (RPP) and Design-Based Approach 0 1 Kim and Kwon, 2025 8 Mitcham’s Fourfold Philosophical Framework of Technology 24 1 Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023 9 Larry Laudan's Reticular Problem Solving Model & Triadic Network of Justification,Gérard Vergnaud's Theory of Conceptual Fields, Jean-Louis Martinand's Objective-Obstacle Notion 66 1 Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021 10 Intersectionality theory 5 1 Lissitsa et al., 2023 11 Interfaith Learning and Development Framework (Mayhew & Rockenbach, 2021) 1 1 Hosic et al., 2025 12 Critical Pedagogy of Place, Socio-Ecological Systems Thinking, Rural Cultural Wealth 0 1 Scherer and Azano, 2025 13 Constructivism and Constructionism 1 1 Pernaa et al., 2025 14 Connected learning theory 15 1 [43] 15 Community of Practice 27 1 Han et al., 2022 16 Communities of Transformation, systems design for organizational change, and emergent outcomes for the diffusion of innovations in STEM education 24 1 Santangelo et al., 2021 17 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) 2 1 Clark, 2025 Table 2. Educational Context No Educational Context Country Count Authors 1 Secular-Dominant Systems Portugal , United States , Australia, Austria, Chile, China, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States 38 Burrows et al., 2018; Del and Lozano, 2020; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Solyst et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; [44]; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Abu et al., 2022; [45]; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; [46]; Lin et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Hosic et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Fan, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Sepúlveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Clark, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025 2 Religiously Influenced Systems Indonesia, Israel, Rwanda, South Africa, Thailand 7 Hasani et al., 2020; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Iskandar et al., 2024; Gatera et al., 2025 3 Cross-National/Global Studies Finland and Slovenia, Global, Sweden, South Africa 3 Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023; Pernaa et al., 2025 Table 3. Conceptual and Integrative Foundations No Conceptual and Integrative Foundations Country Count Authors 1 Integrative STEM Dimension Portugal, United States, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Global, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States 36 Burrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Del and Lozano, 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Han et al., 2022; [47]; Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Duncan et al., 2023; Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Fan, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; [48]; Pernaa et al., 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Clark, 2025 2 Religious And Cultural Contextual Integration Austria, Indonesia, Israel, Rwanda, South Africa, Thailand, United States 12 Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Hasani et al., 2020; Kier and Johnson, 2022; [49]; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Iskandar et al., 2024; Hosic et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025 Table 4. Curriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design No Curriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design Country Count Authors 1 Curriculum Innovation Portugal, United States, China, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, Thailand, United States 17 Burrows et al., 2018; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Tezer et al., 2021; Solyst et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Fan, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Clark, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025 2 Curriculum Design Australia, China, Finland and Slovenia, Indonesia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, United States 14 Hasani et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Wang, 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; [50]; Toma et al., 2024; Zhao, 2024; Pernaa et al., 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025 3 Curriculum Reform Chile, China, Ireland, Israel, Rwanda, Spain, United Kingdom, United States 9 Del and Lozano, 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Sepúlveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025 4 Contextual Curriculum Framework Indonesia, South Africa, United States 4 Sudarmin et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025 5 Holistic Curriculum Model Austria, Global, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates 4 Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Abu et al., 2022; Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023; Hosic et al., 2025 Tabel 5. Educational Outcomes and Enabling Factors No Educational Outcomes and Enabling Factors Country Count Authors 1 Teacher Competence Portugal, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Ireland, Slovakia, Thailand, United States 15 Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Delahunty et al., 2021; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Guncaga et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Sepúlveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025 2 Curriculum Structure China, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United States 10 Hasani et al., 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025 3 STEM Literacy China, Global, Singapore, Spain, United States 5 Burrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Cui et al., 2025 4 Character And Value Formation Austria, Indonesia, Israel, Spain 4 [51]; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Hosic et al., 2025 5 Academic Achievement Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain 3 [52]; Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023 6 Technological Infrast China, United States 3 Li et al., 2022; Zhao, 2024; Fan, 2025 7 Meaningful Contextual Learning United States 2 Solyst et al., 2022; Scherer and Azano, 2025 8 Socio-Cultural Environment United Kingdom, United States 2 Brahic et al., 2024; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025 9 Student Characteristics Indonesia, Rwanda 2 Iskandar et al., 2024; Gatera et al., 2025 10 Student Engagement United States, Italy 2 Fante et al., 2024; Clark, 2025 Tabel 6 Interdisciplinary STEM No Interdisciplinary STEM Country Count Authors 1 Interdisciplinary STEM Portugal, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Global, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Rwanda, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States 35 Burrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Hasani et al., 2020; Del and Lozano, 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; [53]; Costa et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Kozan et al., 2023; Duncan et al., 2023; Hallström and Ankiewicz, 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Sepúlveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; [54]; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024 2 Technology Integration China, Italy, Russia, United States 7 Solyst et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024 3 STEAM Expansion United States, Austria, China, Indonesia, Slovakia, Spain 6 Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Guncaga et al., 2024; Fan, 2025; Hosic et al., 2025; Clark, 2025 Table 7 Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration No Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration Country Count Authors 1 Moral And Character Education Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United States 11 Burrows et al., 2018; Tezer et al., 2021; Moral-Sánchez et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; [55]; Cheek et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025 2 Value-Based Education United States, China, Spain, United Kingdom, United States 10 Del and Lozano, 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Brahic et al., 2024; Clark, 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025; Fan, 2025 3 Culturally Responsive Education Australia, Chile, China, Rwanda, Singapore, United States 9 Solyst et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Han et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Sepúlveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; [56]; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025 4 Local Wisdom Integration Austria, China, Finland and Slovenia, Indonesia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, United States 9 Hasani et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Sudarmin et al., 2023; [57]; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Cui et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Hosic et al., 2025 5 Socio-Cultural Contextualization Global, Indonesia, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United States 5 Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; [37]; Kozan et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024 6 Religious Integration In Curriculum Ireland, Israel, Thailand 4 Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; [15]; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Giffney and Lane, 2025 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9391094","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621565302,"identity":"81aeb4ea-a6a1-4be4-bd7e-d538f53aaf16","order_by":0,"name":"Ashary Ramdhani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Riyadul Ulum Islamic College","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ashary","middleName":"","lastName":"Ramdhani","suffix":""},{"id":621565303,"identity":"6b72bfdb-a783-4e24-8503-1c2bedd1424f","order_by":1,"name":"Anda Juanda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sheikh Nurjati Cyber University Cirebon","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anda","middleName":"","lastName":"Juanda","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-12 02:04:47","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106961139,"identity":"e3ffd662-032c-4e16-8df9-6004994b0780","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:24:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":125751,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlt Text : PRISMA flow diagram showing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion process, resulting in 48 studies included in the systematic literature review.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9391094/v1/30a1c18df35f7a50fe371e3b.jpg"},{"id":106960841,"identity":"f0e081ec-9015-4054-bec1-adbaf15ed6c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:23:22","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31922,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eYear Article Publication\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtl Text : Bar chart showing the increasing number of STREM-C related publications from 2018 to 2025, with the highest number of articles (15) published in 2025.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9391094/v1/ede5e0cb173c560e76ed2a8d.jpg"},{"id":106859377,"identity":"c9d68fcf-43e3-4b97-ab94-3c1cdc5c3bee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-14 08:04:32","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":62160,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCountry Classification\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlt Text : Bar chart of country classification showing the \u003cstrong\u003eUnited States (12)\u003c/strong\u003e as the largest contributor, followed by \u003cstrong\u003eSpain (6)\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eChina (5)\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003eIndonesia\u003c/strong\u003eand \u003cstrong\u003eIreland\u003c/strong\u003e each have \u003cstrong\u003e3 studies\u003c/strong\u003e, while several other countries contribute \u003cstrong\u003e1 study each\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9391094/v1/5f28c4dad8d26335e6537a1c.jpg"},{"id":106964711,"identity":"d875a99b-58f3-44a5-aa62-7d3f693d8e51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:51:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1810278,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9391094/v1/9e63d781-921b-45ff-b7ef-b9435c250c7d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRedefining Holistic Education: Bridging Culture and Islamic Values Through the STREM-C Curriculum Model (A Systematic Literature Review)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eScience, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education has been a global priority for decades, equipping students to navigate the complexities of the 21st century. However, conventional STEM approaches are increasingly criticized for their lack of a holistic perspective, often marginalizing broader cultural, religious, and social dimensions. Addressing contemporary global challenges\u0026mdash;such as educational inequality and cultural diversity\u0026mdash;requires a multidisciplinary paradigm. Consequently, the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model has emerged as an inclusive framework that harmonizes technical competencies with cultural and spiritual values [1].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent educational trends demonstrate a paradigm shift from siloed disciplines toward holistic integrations, encompassing elements like the Arts (STEAM) and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) [2]. Furthermore, the rapid integration of digital technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR), has revolutionized pedagogical designs [3]. Despite these advancements, existing systematic literature reviews (SLRs) exhibit significant theoretical and contextual gaps [4]. Previous reviews successfully mapped instructional factors and theoretical principles but failed to empirically bridge these frameworks with practical classroom applications [5]. Moreover, existing literature is predominantly biased toward secular-dominant educational systems, frequently overlooking the integration of local culture and religious contexts [6].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address these lacunae, this SLR proposes a novel, multidimensional synthesis of the STREM-C model. The scientific novelty of this research lies in constructing a conceptual framework that explicitly intertwines the epistemological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions of STEM, which previous studies have treated in isolation.[7] By introducing contemporary classifications such as \u0026quot;Culture-based STEM\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;AI-connected STEM,\u0026quot; this review provides a crucial bridge between theoretical philosophy and culturally responsive education, specifically highlighting the integration of Islamic values [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to critically evaluate the multidimensional integration of STREM-C globally, offering actionable policy implications for designing inclusive curricula. To achieve this, the review is guided by the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ1: What are the research profiling trends (publication years, geographical contexts, methodological approaches, and grand theories) regarding the STREM-C educational model?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ2: How does the STREM-C curriculum model integrate culture and Islamic values to foster holistic and culturally responsive education across diverse contexts?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRQ3: What is the role of digital technologies (e.g., AI, VR) in mediating and enhancing the effectiveness of the STREM-C multidimensional framework?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis article is systematically structured as follows. The \u003cem\u003eMethods\u003c/em\u003e section details the PRISMA-guided SLR process utilizing the Scopus database. The \u003cem\u003eResults\u003c/em\u003e section presents research profiling and thematic findings regarding the STREM-C model. The \u003cem\u003eDiscussion\u003c/em\u003e synthesizes a novel multidimensional conceptual framework, addressing existing cultural, religious, and technological gaps. Finally, the \u003cem\u003eConclusion\u003c/em\u003e provides practical policy implications and recommendations for future research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1. The Epistemological Shift: From Siloed STEM to Holistic Integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptualization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education has undergone a profound historical and epistemological transformation. Initially positioned as a pragmatic response to the increasing demand for technical competencies in the 21st century, traditional STEM frameworks often treated these disciplines as discrete entities, thereby limiting their interdisciplinary potential [4,8]. However, contemporary educational paradigms have progressively shifted toward more holistic and integrative approaches. Grounded in socio-constructivist theory[9], modern integrative STEM models emphasize social interaction, inquiry-based learning, and engineering design practices [10]. While this epistemological shift enhances student engagement and real-world relevance, its practical implementation remains constrained by rigid disciplinary boundaries embedded within conventional [4].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2. Pedagogical Innovations and Technological Interventions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo operationalize this interdisciplinary transformation, recent literature highlights the critical role of pedagogical and technological innovations. Empirical studies demonstrate that integrating Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and gamification significantly enhances student motivation and academic performance by transforming abstract concepts into tangible, problem-solving activities [1,11].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the rapid advancement of digital technologies has fundamentally reshaped STEM pedagogy. The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in personalizing learning trajectories [3], alongside the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) to simulate complex scientific phenomena, has proven highly effective in bridging theoretical knowledge with experiential learning [12,13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these advancements, a persistent challenge remains: the lack of systematic professional development for educators. Teachers frequently encounter difficulties arising from insufficient interdisciplinary knowledge, curriculum constraints, and limited technological proficiency [14,15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3. Contextualizing STEM: Bridging Culture, Community, and Religion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA fundamental limitation of traditional STEM approaches lies in their detachment from the socio-cultural and spiritual realities of learners. In response, an emerging body of literature advocates for contextualized STEM education that transcends dominant Western, secular paradigms. This evolution is evident in the transition toward STEAM—incorporating the Arts—as well as the integration of humanities to enhance cultural relevance [16]. Moreover, the incorporation of local wisdom, such as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Ethno-STEM approaches, has been shown to foster environmental awareness and strengthen community engagement among students [2,17,18].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding upon this trajectory, the integration of religious values into STEM education has gained increasing scholarly attention, leading to the emergence of the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) framework. STREM-C represents an advanced evolution of interdisciplinary education, explicitly designed to integrate empirical scientific knowledge with theological values and local cultural contexts within a unified pedagogical model. In this framework, religion serves as a moral foundation, while culture functions as a contextual identity that shapes the learning experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this paradigm, instructional materials—particularly mathematics textbooks—play a pivotal role. In contemporary education, textbooks are no longer perceived merely as collections of abstract formulas that may contribute to mathematical anxiety; rather, they function as strategic pedagogical instruments that mediate curriculum transformation, enhance numeracy literacy, and systematically embed character education. Consequently, the integration of STREM-C principles into textbook design offers a significant opportunity to align cognitive development with moral and cultural formation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4. Synthesis and Identified Gaps in the Literature\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical synthesis of the literature reveals a clear trajectory toward multidimensional STEM education, characterized by a shift from fragmented disciplinary instruction to technologically enhanced and socio-culturally responsive frameworks. While technological integration—such as AI and AR—has been shown to optimize cognitive engagement, and culturally grounded approaches enhance socio-emotional relevance, these domains are predominantly explored in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a historical perspective, the emergence of STREM-C reflects a gradual expansion of interdisciplinary educational paradigms. Early STEM models primarily emphasized competencies required to respond to the demands of the modern era of disruption[19]. Over time, these frameworks evolved into more contextualized approaches, including Ethno-STEM[17], which integrates local wisdom, and Q-STEM, which incorporates spiritual dimensions into technical education[20]. Subsequent developments, such as STEM-R (STEM-Religion), have demonstrated the feasibility of integrating religious values within formal education systems[21]. These fragmented yet complementary approaches have ultimately converged into the more comprehensive STREM-C framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research further indicates that emerging technological factors—such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) self-efficacy and the use of interactive multimedia—serve as significant mediators in enhancing student motivation and engagement in STEM learning environments[22,23]. Therefore, the adoption of STREM-C, which harmonizes advanced technological features, scientific disciplines, and religious and cultural values, is increasingly recognized as a forward-looking approach for educational transformation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, a significant gap persists in the literature. There is a lack of comprehensive, multidimensional frameworks that simultaneously integrate technological innovation, pedagogical strategies, cultural context, and Islamic values within a unified model. Furthermore, previous systematic reviews tend to exhibit geographical and contextual biases toward secular educational systems, with limited exploration of faith-based contexts. They have not systematically examined how STREM-C can function as a mediating framework that bridges epistemological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions across diverse educational settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, this systematic literature review seeks to address this critical gap by synthesizing fragmented studies to construct a cohesive STREM-C conceptual framework. In doing so, it aims to redefine holistic education through the integration of digital innovation, cultural context, and Islamic values.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a systematic literature review (SLR) design guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol to ensure rigorous and transparent reporting [24] The comprehensive PRISMA flow detailing the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases is depicted in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Figure 1 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the identification phase, the research team conducted a systematic search using the Scopus database, which was selected due to its rigorous indexing standards and its ability to minimize issues such as predatory publications and excessive duplication commonly found in other search engines [25]. The search strategy used keywords including \u0026ldquo;STEM education approach,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Culture in STEM Education,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;ethno STEM,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;integrated STEM Education,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Islamic STEM,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;STEAM-Integrated Learning\u0026rdquo; to capture the multidimensional aspects of the STREM-C curriculum. This initial search yielded 265 records.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe screening phase involved removing 12 duplicate records, 26 articles published outside the 2016\u0026ndash;2026 timeframe, 42 records from unranked or non-Q1\u0026ndash;Q3 journals, and 9 records lacking abstracts, leaving 176 articles for further evaluation. Screening of titles and abstracts subsequently excluded 36 irrelevant records.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the eligibility phase, the researchers attempted to retrieve the full texts of the remaining 140 articles. However, 88 records could not be accessed due to full-text unavailability. The researchers then assessed the 52 successfully retrieved full-text articles. Further verification revealed that four articles had been updated and were no longer indexed in the Scopus database; therefore, they were excluded from the selection process. Consequently, 48 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. No additional records were identified through external sources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, these 48 articles were finalized for comprehensive qualitative review using a \u003cstrong\u003ethematic analysis\u003c/strong\u003e approach to extract recurring patterns and themes relevant to the STREM-C framework. The researchers employed the Watase Uake System [26] to support and streamline this thematic extraction, maintaining a neutral and objective analytical process across interdisciplinary contexts. This rigorous methodological trajectory provides a robust, high-quality analysis of how the STREM-C model effectively harmonizes science, technology, religion, engineering, mathematics, and culture.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results And Analysist ","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe systematic literature review synthesized empirical findings and theoretical discourse from 48 meticulously selected articles to comprehensively address the formulated research questions regarding the multidimensional STREM-C framework. To provide a rigorous and transparent mapping of the existing literature, the extracted data were systematically categorized and visualized across several critical dimensions. Figure 1, located in the methodology section, details the PRISMA flow diagram. Within this analytical section, Figure 2 illustrates the chronological trajectory and year-of-publication trends, capturing the evolutionary growth of STREM-C research. Concurrently, Figure 3 maps the geographic distribution of these studies, highlighting spatial concentrations and contextual disparities. Furthermore, the thematic extractions are systematically detailed in a series of tables: Table 1 (Grand Theory Classification), Table 2 (Educational Context), Table 3 (Conceptual and Integrative Foundations), Table 4 (Curriculum Orientation), Table 5 (Educational Outcomes), Table 6 (Interdisciplinary STEM), and Table 7 (Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe aforementioned visual and tabular representations serve as the robust empirical foundation for addressing this study's core inquiries. Figure 2 and Figure 3 profile the macroscopic landscape of STEM literature, revealing an escalating global interest juxtaposed with distinct geographical biases toward secular-dominant educational systems. Tables 1, 3, and 4 meticulously deconstruct the theoretical frameworks and curriculum orientations underlying modern STEM. Tables 5 and 6 elucidate the mediating role of interdisciplinary structures, digital technologies, and the absolute necessity of teacher competence. Finally, Table 7 serves as the conceptual climax of this analysis, demonstrating how cultural nuances, indigenous knowledge, and Islamic values are being integrated to construct the holistic STREM-C paradigm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Publication Trends and Temporal Development of STREM-C \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of chronological data (Figure 2) indicates a substantial escalation in academic discourse surrounding the STREM-C paradigm from 2018 to 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Figure 2 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2018, research was predominantly localized, focusing on informal STEM and community collaboration to enhance interest among underrepresented groups [18]. The year 2020 served as a critical epistemological turning point, marked by seminal publications from Indonesia, Spain, and Thailand that expanded STEM's philosophical boundaries [4,27,28]. This period established the theoretical bedrock for subsequent multidimensional studies, shifting the focus toward integrated, real-world problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe trajectory peaked in 2025 with 15 publications, reflecting a profound maturation of the field driven by the need for inclusive, globalized education [16,29]. This trend underscores that STREM-C is no longer an intellectual fringe but a central requisite for addressing 21st-century challenges like systemic bias and cultural marginalization. The consistent growth demonstrates an evolving consensus that technical skills must be paired with cultural and spiritual understanding to remain relevant in a complex global society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Geographic Distribution and Global Representation \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe geographic mapping (Figure 3) reveals a significant North-South asymmetry in STREM-C research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Figure 3 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe United States leads with 12 studies, primarily emphasizing foundational K-12 diversity and community projects [30,31]. Spain (6 studies) focuses on didactical models for primary education [1,10], while China (5 studies) champions the integration of digital technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR) [3,13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, studies from developing nations such as Indonesia, Thailand, and Rwanda offer groundbreaking qualitative insights into the integration of religion and indigenous knowledge (IKS). While Western nations dictate technological advancements, the Global South pioneers the socio-spiritual contextualization of STEM [27,32]. This dichotomy suggests that future research must synthesize these strengths—merging Western tech-innovation with Eastern contextual depth—to forge a universally adaptable STREM-C model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.3 Theoretical Classification and Conceptual Fragmentation \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical classification (Table 1) demonstrates that contemporary STREM-C literature is predominantly anchored in socio-constructivist principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 1 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheories propagated by Piaget, Vygotsky, Ausubel, and Bruner dominate the discourse, indicating a consensus that integrative STEM learning is fundamentally a socially mediated process requiring collaborative inquiry and experiential design [10]. This is further complemented by the widespread utilization of \"Communities of Practice\" [6] to understand the collaborative dynamics among educators and students in localized, practical settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this theoretical saturation also reveals a conceptual fragmentation when addressing marginalized or non-secular populations. To navigate these complex socio-cultural dynamics, highly specialized frameworks such as \"Intersectionality Theory\" are sporadically deployed, particularly to examine the systemic challenges faced by religious women navigating STEM fields [33]. Despite these advancements, the literature exhibits a pronounced scarcity in the utilization of highly contextualized, non-Western theories, such as Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS). The reliance on Western socio-constructivist models often fails to capture the epistemological depth required for ethno-STEM and faith-based pedagogies [2]. Integrating localized theoretical frameworks represents a critical imperative for advancing the theoretical robustness and cultural validity of the STREM-C model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Educational Contexts and System Orientations \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical extension of the geographic and theoretical bias is vividly reflected in the system orientations (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 2 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData from Table 2 reveals a pronounced contextual imbalance: “Secular-Dominant Systems” account for 79.16% of the analyzed literature (38 out of 48 studies). Within these contexts, STEM is frequently positioned as a technocratic enterprise, detached from spiritual and cultural narratives [4,6]. This dominance reflects a global tendency to prioritize industrial and economic outcomes over the holistic development of learners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, “Religiously Influenced Systems” represent only 14.58% of the total studies (7 publications), yet these contexts provide the most substantive applications of the STREM-C model. Evidence from educational settings in Thailand and Indonesia indicates that integrating religious perspectives does not compromise scientific rigor; rather, it strengthens student engagement, value internalization, and ethical reasoning [27,32].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis disparity points to a systemic gap in global STEM policy, which remains largely oriented toward secular paradigms and insufficiently responsive to faith-based educational contexts. For STREM-C to realize its holistic potential, further empirical validation across diverse religious and culturally grounded educational systems is essential, ensuring that the framework functions as an inclusive bridge rather than merely a technocratic instrument.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Conceptual and Integrative Foundations \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structural foundations of these educational systems are further dissected in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 3 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data delineate a distinct bifurcation in focus: \"Integrative STEM Dimension\" constitutes 75% of the thematic focus (36 studies), while \"Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration\" represents a growing, yet minority, 25% niche (12 studies). The heavy skew towards the Integrative STEM Dimension underscores the academic community's primary preoccupation with overcoming the logistical and epistemological barriers of merging disparate technical disciplines [7,10].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, the emergence of the 25% niche indicates a vital counter-narrative. Scholars are increasingly recognizing that holistic education cannot be achieved through technical integration alone. Studies advocating for Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration highlight that embedding STEM within Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) and Islamic values profoundly empowers learners who have historically been marginalized by Eurocentric scientific paradigms [2,33]. Furthermore, the synthesis of STEAM (incorporating the Arts) with religious instruction has proven highly effective in cultivating ethical character alongside scientific literacy [34]. Thus, while technical integration remains the structural spine of STEM, cultural and religious integration provides the necessary contextual soul, ensuring learning is deeply anchored in the students' lived realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.6 Curriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo accommodate these multidimensional integrative ambitions, the literature highlights a massive paradigm shift in curriculum design. Analysis of Table 4 indicates that \"Curriculum Innovation\" (17 studies) and \"Curriculum Design\" (14 studies) dominate the discourse, supported by \"Curriculum Reform\" (9 studies), “Contextual Curriculum Framework” (4 studies) and \"Holistic Curriculum Model\" (4 studies). This trajectory reveals that implementing STREM-C is not a matter of superficially appending religious or cultural subjects to existing science classes. Rather, it demands a profound architectural redesign of pedagogical frameworks [6,35].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 4 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis curriculum innovation is increasingly characterized by dynamic, fluid frameworks that explicitly embed humanistic values, ethical reasoning, and cultural sensitivity directly into scientific inquiry [17,36]. The literature suggests that a \"Contextual Curriculum Framework\" must operate synergistically with digital technologies to foster character development alongside technical acumen [3,4]. Ultimately, the STREM-C pedagogical design acts as an emancipatory tool, validating local cultural heritage within the universal scientific discourse and preparing students to navigate complex global challenges with localized wisdom and ethical grounding [29,37].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.7 Educational Outcomes and Enabling Conditions \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ambitious theoretical and pedagogical designs of the STREM-C framework are fundamentally bottlenecked by practical enabling conditions. Table 5 unequivocally identifies \"Teacher Competence\" as the paramount variable, dominating 31.25% of the related discourse (15 studies).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 5 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe STREM-C model places unprecedented cognitive and pedagogical demands on educators. They are no longer merely transmitters of isolated scientific facts; they are expected to act as interdisciplinary orchestrators who must seamlessly weave empirical science, advanced digital tools, and profound Islamic/cultural values into cohesive lesson plans.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies consistently highlight a critical vulnerability: teachers frequently experience severe curriculum pressure, lack interdisciplinary content knowledge, and exhibit low technological fluency [12,30,35]. Without rigorous, continuous professional development, teachers default to traditional, siloed teaching methods, rendering the STREM-C model an unrealized theoretical ideal [6,38]. In addition to teacher competence, \"Curriculum Structure\" (20.83%), \"STEM Literacy\" (10.42%) and “Character And Value Formation “ (8,33%) are highlighted as essential outcomes, emphasizing that flexible institutional policies and robust administrative support are non-negotiable prerequisites for sustaining these holistic educational interventions [18,31,39].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.8 Interdisciplinary STEM: Consolidation and Limitations \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the practical execution of these curricula, Table 6 highlights that \"Interdisciplinary STEM\" remains the consolidated core of the field (35 studies), serving as the fundamental mechanism that intertwines the discrete disciplines. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 6 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis consolidation is heavily reliant on socio-constructivist didactics, emphasizing real-world problem-solving and computational thinking [4,10]. However, the modern mechanism of interdisciplinarity has evolved significantly, heavily relying on \"Technology Integration\" (7 studies) to bridge complex conceptual gaps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContemporary research underscores that digital interventions—specifically Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR)—are revolutionizing interdisciplinary instruction. For instance, the deployment of AR-based teaching systems in the Greater Bay Area of China has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to simulate complex scientific phenomena, thereby reducing the cognitive load on both students and educators [12]. Simultaneously, the concept of \"STEAM Expansion\" (6 studies) demonstrates the field's ongoing effort to humanize the sciences by integrating artistic and environmental narratives [16]. While these interdisciplinary and technological consolidations are robust, a profound limitation persists: technology and interdisciplinarity alone do not inherently foster ethical reasoning or cultural identity, paving the way for the ultimate evolution of the paradigm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.9 Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration: Toward a Holistic Paradigm \u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAddressing the limitations of purely technocratic interdisciplinarity, the analysis culminates in Table 7, which delineates the most critical and novel dimension of the STREM-C model: \"Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration\".\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Table 7 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe literature highlights three dominant sub-themes that act as counter-narratives to conventional STEM: \"Value-Based Education,\" \"Local Wisdom Integration,\" and \"Culturally Responsive Education\". These elements represent the final, necessary evolution toward a genuinely holistic paradigm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe integration of \"Value-Based Education\" explicitly challenges the notion of value-neutral science. Scholars argue that embedding ethical frameworks—particularly those derived from Islamic values—into the STEM curriculum is imperative for forming students' moral character in an era of rapid, often unchecked, technological advancement [10,16,31]. Concurrently, \"Local Wisdom Integration\" (ethno-STEM) has demonstrated high empirical efficacy. By synthesizing rigorous project-based learning with indigenous cultural wisdom, educational models in Indonesia and South Africa have successfully cultivated environmental conservation character, social responsibility, and deep community engagement among students [2,7,17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, \"Culturally Responsive Education\" ensures that scientific literacy is not acquired in a socio-spiritual vacuum. By integrating elements like \u003cem\u003eShura\u003c/em\u003e-based professional learning communities in Thailand or addressing the intersectional challenges of religious women in Israel, the STREM-C model proves its capacity to significantly enhance cognitive resonance and student engagement across diverse, historically marginalized demographics [6,27,38,40].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this systematic extraction demonstrates that redefining holistic education requires far more than merging science and technology. It requires the deliberate, architectural integration of culture and religion. The STREM-C curriculum model stands as a comprehensive paradigm shift, successfully harmonizing the empirical rigor of Western scientific traditions, the innovative capacity of digital technologies, and the profound ethical and spiritual depth of local and Islamic values.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Redefining the Educational Paradigm: The Novelty of STREM-C\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe primary objective of this systematic literature review was to critically evaluate the multidimensional integration of the STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model, addressing the profound conceptual gaps left by conventional, siloed STEM frameworks [8,41]. This review offers a novel perspective by fundamentally reconceptualizing STEM education not merely as a technocratic tool for economic and industrial advancement, but as a holistic, value-laden pedagogical ecosystem [17,34].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike prior studies, this review explicitly synthesizes the often-fragmented dimensions of epistemological philosophy, advanced digital integration, and profound socio-spiritual contextualization [3,4]. While previous systematic reviews predominantly focused on the theoretical principles and relational models of interdisciplinary STEM without empirically bridging them to culturally diverse classroom realities, this study constructs a cohesive multidimensional framework [4]. By formalizing the STREM-C model, this research firmly positions cultural heritage and Islamic values not as peripheral additions, but as core epistemological pillars equal in importance to scientific and technological innovation [2,27].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Deconstructing Interdisciplinary STEM and Technological Mediation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe empirical extraction of this review confirms that the transition from isolated disciplines to interdisciplinary STEM remains the foundational consensus in modern educational research [4,10]. In line with established theoretical propositions, the thematic analysis demonstrates that interdisciplinary STEM is deeply anchored in socio-constructivist principles, requiring collaborative inquiry, problem-solving, and experiential design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this study adds nuance to this prevailing consensus by highlighting that the contemporary mechanism of interdisciplinarity is no longer solely dependent on pedagogical design; it is increasingly mediated by cutting-edge digital technologies. The widespread integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR) identified in the findings significantly amplifies cognitive engagement, professional support, and personalized learning trajectories [3,13].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYet, the findings reveal an understudied aspect of this technological integration: technology alone inherently lacks the capacity to foster ethical reasoning or profound cultural identity. While specific studies successfully demonstrate the cognitive and academic benefits of digital applications, they frequently operate within a value-neutral vacuum.[42] The STREM-C framework explicitly challenges this technological determinism, arguing that digital interventions must be deliberately repurposed to serve culturally responsive pedagogical goals, ensuring that technological advancement mitigates, rather than accelerates, cultural homogenization [17,27,34].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Bridging Culture and Islamic Values: Challenging Secular Hegemony\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most significant theoretical disruption offered by this review is its critical analysis of systemic geographic and contextual biases within the STEM discourse. The results expose that a vast majority of STEM literature (nearly 80%) is deeply entrenched in secular-dominant educational systems of the Global North.\u0026nbsp;Contrary to\u0026nbsp;these secular frameworks that monopolize the current academic narrative and treat science as entirely divorced from spirituality [6,10], the STREM-C model empirically proves that integrating religious and cultural contexts profoundly enriches scientific inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review extends previous findings that initiated the exploration of STEM within Islamic educational settings in Southeast Asia [27,32]. Where localized studies provided crucial empirical evidence on the efficacy of faith-based professional learning communities and religious integration, this review elevates these insights into a globally applicable conceptual model [27]. By systematically mapping sub-themes such as \"Value-Based Education\" and \"Local Wisdom Integration,\" this study demonstrates that ethno-STEM and Islamic-integrated STEM cultivate critical environmental conservation character, social responsibility, and ethical scientific literacy [2,17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe synthesis reveals that for students in religiously influenced demographics, empirical science becomes significantly more engaging and cognitively resonant when it aligns with their existing spiritual and cultural worldview [33,38]. Consequently, STREM-C acts as an emancipatory educational paradigm, validating marginalized knowledge systems and offering a robust counter-narrative to Eurocentric scientific dominance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.4. The Critical Role of Teacher Competence and Pedagogical Scaffolding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the theoretical elegance and emancipatory potential of the STREM-C model, this review critically identifies practical implementation as a severe, systemic bottleneck [4,6]. In line with emerging empirical evidence, the thematic results overwhelmingly position \"Teacher Competence\" as the most critical enabling factor for holistic education [14,35]. The simultaneous integration of empirical science, religious theology, advanced digital tools, and localized culture places unprecedented cognitive, structural, and pedagogical demands on educators [14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, this review adds nuance to the traditional discourse on teacher professional development. Conventional literature frequently suggests that educators primarily require upskilling in technical content knowledge or computational thinking to succeed in integrated STEM [6]. The STREM-C paradigm dictates that mere technical upskilling is grossly insufficient. Teachers must evolve into interdisciplinary orchestrators equipped with profound cultural sensitivity and theological tact. Without systemic institutional support, flexible curriculum structures, and culturally aligned professional learning communities—such as the \u003cem\u003eShura\u003c/em\u003e-based models observed in Thailand [27]—teachers will inevitably succumb to curriculum pressure and revert to siloed teaching methods, rendering the STREM-C curriculum a theoretical illusion rather than a sustained classroom reality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.5. Theoretical Implications\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo systematically articulate the broader academic impact of this review, the theoretical and practical implications are explicitly delineated. Theoretically, this study mandates a radical broadening of the foundational theories governing STEM education. While classical socio-constructivist theories (Piaget, Vygotsky) remain necessary for framing collaborative inquiry [10], they are no longer sufficient for multidimensional, cross-cultural frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis review expands the theoretical boundaries by advocating for the formal integration of \u003cem\u003eIndigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2] and \u003cem\u003eIntersectionality Theory\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[33]\u0026nbsp;as core epistemological components of global STEM. This theoretical expansion empowers scholars to critically analyze how systemic biases affect religious minorities and diverse cultural groups in STEM, thereby constructing a truly inclusive pedagogical theory. Contextually, the theoretical implication calls for a decisive shift in research funding and focus. Global scholars must urgently de-center Western, secular contexts and prioritize theoretical modeling within the Global South—particularly in religiously influenced systems across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—to ensure global educational equity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.6. Practical Implications\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractically, the findings necessitate a profound architectural redesign of curriculum development and educational policy. Educational practitioners, policymakers, and curriculum developers must transition from traditional STEM to the contextual STREM-C model by formally embedding Islamic ethical frameworks, local cultural narratives, and humanistic values directly into state and institutional curricula. Practically, this involves designing project-based learning modules where technological solutions (e.g., utilizing AI for environmental monitoring) are explicitly tied to religious stewardship and local community empowerment [17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, practical implementation requires university-level teacher education programs to overhaul their training matrices. Pre-service teachers must be evaluated not solely on scientific literacy and technological fluency [12] but equally on culturally responsive pedagogy and ethical integration [40].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.7. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the multidimensional STREM-C framework, several methodological limitations within the existing body of literature must be acknowledged to rigorously guide future scholarship. First, the current literature is heavily dominated by qualitative methodologies, thematic analyses, and cross-sectional case studies [14,27]. While these approaches are invaluable for capturing complex socio-cultural nuances and educator perceptions, there is a conspicuous scarcity of robust, large-scale quantitative and longitudinal experimental designs. Consequently, the long-term impact of integrating Islamic values and culture on sustained academic performance and lifelong STEM career trajectories remains under-quantified.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the findings reveal an understudied aspect of technological methodology. Although the literature frequently advocates for the deployment of AI and AR within classrooms, the research \u003cem\u003emethodologies\u003c/em\u003e utilized to evaluate these advanced tools remain highly traditional (e.g., standard interviews and classroom observations). Future research must leverage advanced learning analytics, Big Data, and AI-driven assessment mechanisms to precisely and objectively quantify the complex cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes of the STREM-C model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, future longitudinal studies must explicitly test the STREM-C relational models across contrasting geographical contexts—comparing outcomes between secular-dominant and religiously influenced nations—to empirically validate the universal adaptability of this holistic curriculum paradigm. Through these future endeavors, STREM-C can definitively transition from a conceptual framework into a global standard for inclusive, culturally resonant education.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion And Future Research Direction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic literature review redefines holistic education by formalizing the STREM-C curriculum model as an alternative to conventional technocratic STEM frameworks. The primary academic contribution of this study lies in its multidimensional synthesis that bridges epistemological theories, digital innovation, and socio-spiritual dimensions. By employing the TCCM (Theory\u0026ndash;Context\u0026ndash;Characteristics\u0026ndash;Methodology) framework, this review systematically maps the intellectual development of STREM-C research while revealing structural biases that have historically marginalized non-Western knowledge systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective (T), the literature remains largely grounded in socio-constructivist principles and Communities of Practice, which support collaborative and interdisciplinary learning. However, the dominance of secular Western-centric paradigms limits the inclusivity of global science education. This review therefore highlights the importance of integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Islamic ethical perspectives as central epistemological foundations within STEM-related learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContextually (C), existing studies demonstrate a strong concentration in secular-dominant educational environments, particularly within the Global North. To enhance the broader applicability of the STREM-C framework, future research should expand into religiously influenced educational contexts, especially within the Global South, where cultural and spiritual dimensions play a significant role in educational practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding Characteristics (C), the literature indicates a paradigm shift toward holistic curriculum innovation through the integration of interdisciplinary learning and emerging digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR). However, effective implementation depends on culturally responsive teacher competence that integrates technological literacy with socio-spiritual sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodologically (M), the field continues to rely heavily on qualitative thematic analyses and cross-sectional case studies. Although mixed-method approaches are emerging, there remains a lack of rigorous quantitative and longitudinal designs capable of measuring the long-term cognitive and socio-moral impacts of value-integrated STEM education. Future research should therefore employ longitudinal studies, advanced learning analytics, and AI-driven educational assessment to strengthen empirical validation of the STREM-C model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, the STREM-C framework represents a transformative paradigm for contemporary education. By harmonizing the empirical rigor of modern science with digital innovation and the ethical depth of cultural and Islamic values, education systems can cultivate learners who are technologically proficient and morally grounded to address the complex challenges of the twenty-first century.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editorial team for their valuable comments and constructive feedback, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Interest Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Generative AI in Scientific Writing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the preparation of this manuscript, generative AI tools were used to support the systematic literature review (SLR). DeepSeek and a proprietary black-box AI system assisted in identifying and classifying relevant articles under the authors’ supervision, with all outputs critically evaluated to ensure methodological rigor. ChatGPT and Notebooklm was used to enhance linguistic clarity and coherence. All AI-assisted content was reviewed, revised, and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author was responsible for all aspects of the study, including conceptualization, methodology, data collection, analysis, writing, and revision of the manuscript. The author has read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePortillo-Blanco, A., Guisasola, J. \u0026amp; Zuza, K. Integrated STEM education: addressing theoretical ambiguities and practical applications. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 1568885 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatindike, F. \u0026amp; Ramdhany, V. Incorporating indigenous knowledge perspectives in integrated STEM education: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Science \u0026amp; Technological Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 1022\u0026ndash;1042 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, Y. Integrated and Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Technologies for STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eApplied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 20242326 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtiz-Revilla, J., Ad\u0026uacute;riz-Bravo, A. \u0026amp; Greca, I. M. A Framework for Epistemological Discussion on Integrated STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eSci \u0026amp; Educ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e, 857\u0026ndash;880 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKozan, K., Caskurlu, S. \u0026amp; Guzey, S. S. Factors Influencing Student Outcomes in K-12 Integrated STEM Education: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan, J., Kelley, T. \u0026amp; Knowles, J. G. Building a sustainable model of integrated stem education: investigating secondary school STEM classes after an integrated STEM project. \u003cem\u003eInt J Technol Des Educ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 1499\u0026ndash;1523 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtiz-Revilla, J., Greca, I. M. \u0026amp; Arriassecq, I. A Theoretical Framework for Integrated STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eSci \u0026amp; Educ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 383\u0026ndash;404 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePsycharis, S. The Impact of Computational Experiment and Formative Assessment in Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning Approach in STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eJ Sci Educ Technol\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 316\u0026ndash;326 (2016).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVygotsky, L. S. \u003cem\u003eMind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes\u003c/em\u003e. (Harvard University Press, 1980). doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToma, R. B., Y\u0026aacute;nez-P\u0026eacute;rez, I. \u0026amp; Meneses-Villagr\u0026aacute;, J. \u0026Aacute;. Towards a Socio-Constructivist Didactic Model for Integrated STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eInterchange\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e, 75\u0026ndash;91 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoral-S\u0026aacute;nchez, S. N., S\u0026aacute;nchez-Compa\u0026ntilde;a, M. \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e T. \u0026amp; Romero, I. Geometry with a STEM and Gamification Approach: A Didactic Experience in Secondary Education. \u003cem\u003eMathematics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 3252 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X.-F. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Teacher learning community for AR-integrated STEM education. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e141\u003c/strong\u003e, 104490 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCui (崔允漷), Y. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e A \u0026ldquo;Chinese Approach\u0026rdquo; to STEM Education Innovation and Development. \u003cem\u003eECNU Review of Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 20965311251394054 (2026).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiffney, S. \u0026amp; Lane, D. Towards an integrated model of STEM education in secondary schools: perspectives of practicing teachers in Ireland. \u003cem\u003eInt J Technol Des Educ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e, 1805\u0026ndash;1824 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelahunty, T., Prendergast, M. \u0026amp; N\u0026iacute; R\u0026iacute;ord\u0026aacute;in, M. Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perspectives on Achieving an Integrated Curricular Model of Primary STEM Education in Ireland: Authentic or Utopian Ideology? \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 666608 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClark, Q. M. A pedagogical approach: toward leveraging mathematical modeling and AI to support integrating humanities into STEM education. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 1396104 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSudarmin, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Chemistry project-based learning for secondary metabolite course with ethno-STEM approach to improve students\u0026rsquo; conservation and entrepreneurial character in the 21st century. \u003cem\u003eJ. Technol. Sci. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 393 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurrows, A., Lockwood, M., Borowczak, M., Janak, E. \u0026amp; Barber, B. Integrated STEM: Focus on Informal Education and Community Collaboration through Engineering. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 4 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrebreza, R., Beqiraj, B., Prebreza, B., Krypa, A. \u0026amp; Krypa, M. Factors influencing the lower number of women in STEM compared to men: A case study from Kosovo. \u003cem\u003esteme\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 19\u0026ndash;40 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRamli, A. A. \u0026amp; Ibrahim, N. H. Q-STEM Module Promotes Al-Quran Appreciation in Teaching STEM. in \u003cem\u003e2017 7th World Engineering Education Forum (WEEF)\u003c/em\u003e 623\u0026ndash;627 (IEEE, Kuala Lumpur, 2017). doi:10.1109/WEEF.2017.8466968.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarwi, S., Marwoto, P., Susilaningsih, E., Lathif, Y. F. \u0026amp; Winarto, W. Science learning STEM-R approach: A study of students\u0026rsquo; reflective and critical thinking. \u003cem\u003eEduLearn\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 462\u0026ndash;470 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLotey, E. K., Boateng, F. O. \u0026amp; Ofosua, B. AI Self‐Efficacy, Motivation, and Engagement Among STEM Learners: Mediating and Moderating Pathways to Perceived Mathematics Performance in Ghanaian Higher Education. \u003cem\u003eHuman Behavior and Emerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2026\u003c/strong\u003e, 8637455 (2026).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZwart, D. P., Van Luit, J. E. H., Noroozi, O. \u0026amp; Goei, S. L. The effects of digital learning material on students\u0026rsquo; mathematics learning in vocational education. \u003cem\u003eCogent Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 1313581 (2017).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M. \u0026amp; Hedges, L. V. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e, 747\u0026ndash;770 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;n-Mart\u0026iacute;n, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M. \u0026amp; Delgado L\u0026oacute;pez-C\u0026oacute;zar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Informetrics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 1160\u0026ndash;1177 (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWahyudi, L. Watase Uake: Research Collaboration Tools. \u003cem\u003eComputer software]. https://www. watase. web. id\u003c/em\u003e (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVasinayanuwatana, T., Teo, T. W. \u0026amp; Ketsing, J. Shura-infused STEM professional learning community in an Islamic School in Thailand. \u003cem\u003eCult Stud of Sci Educ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 109\u0026ndash;139 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasani, A., Juansah, D. E., Sari, I. J. \u0026amp; El Islami, R. A. Z. Conceptual Frameworks on How to Teach STEM Concepts in Bahasa Indonesia Subject as Integrated Learning in Grades 1\u0026ndash;3 at Elementary School in the Curriculum 2013 to Contribute to Sustainability Education. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 173 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScherer, H. H. \u0026amp; Azano, A. P. Storying the FEW Nexus: A Framework for Cultivating Place-Based Integrated STEM Education in Rural Schools. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 744 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheek, L. R., Carter, V., Daugherty, M. K. \u0026amp; Goering, C. Z. Key Practices in P-6 Integrated STEM Education: Delphi Panel Insights. \u003cem\u003eThe Teacher Educator\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e60\u003c/strong\u003e, 433\u0026ndash;460 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantangelo, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The (STEM)2 Network: a multi-institution, multidisciplinary approach to transforming undergraduate STEM education. \u003cem\u003eIJ STEM Ed\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 3 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIskandar, I., Abu Bakar, A. Y., Defrianti, D. \u0026amp; Setiawan, M. E. Emotion regulation and gender as the key predictors of academic stress among STEM students in Islamic universities. \u003cem\u003eCogent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e, 2406640 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLissitsa, S., Ben-Zamara, R.-T. \u0026amp; Chachashvili-Bolotin, S. Gender and/or Religiosity? \u0026ndash; Intersectional approach to the challenges of religious women in STEM fields. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Development\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e96\u003c/strong\u003e, 102709 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHosic, R. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e STEAM-Integrated Interfaith Learning Through Maker Education: A Framework for Innovative Religious Learning. \u003cem\u003eReligious Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e120\u003c/strong\u003e, 239\u0026ndash;258 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFitzpatrick, M. \u0026amp; Leavy, A. Reciprocal interplays in becoming STEM learners and teachers: preservice teachers\u0026rsquo; evolving understandings of integrated STEM education. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;30 (2025) doi:10.1080/0020739X.2025.2472260.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbu Khurma, O., Al Darayseh, A. \u0026amp; Alramamneh, Y. A Framework for Incorporating the \u0026ldquo;Learning How to Learn\u0026rdquo; Approach in Teaching STEM Education. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 1 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallstr\u0026ouml;m, J. \u0026amp; Ankiewicz, P. Design as the basis for integrated STEM education: A philosophical framework. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1078313 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, K. \u0026amp; Kwon, K. From co-design to co-teaching: a comprehensive approach to an integrated AI curriculum in middle school STEM education. \u003cem\u003eSmart Learn. Environ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 57 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFan, W. A transformer based approach to STEAM integrated english course design in high schools under deep learning. \u003cem\u003eSci Rep\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 42062 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStevenson, E. \u0026amp; Thompson, P. Teacher leadership for integrated STEM education: Identifying what effective leaders need to know and do. \u003cem\u003eSchool Sci \u0026amp; Mathematics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e125\u003c/strong\u003e, 318\u0026ndash;329 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePortillo-Blanco, A., Deprez, H., De Cock, M., Guisasola, J. \u0026amp; Zuza, K. A Systematic Literature Review of Integrated STEM Education: Uncovering Consensus and Diversity in Principles and Characteristics. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 1028 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShurygin, V., Anisimova, T., Orazbekova, R. \u0026amp; Pronkin, N. Modern approaches to teaching future teachers of mathematics: the use of mobile applications and their impact on students\u0026rsquo; motivation and academic success in the context of STEM education. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Learning Environments\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;15 (2023) doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2162548.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKier, M. W. \u0026amp; Johnson, L. L. Exploring How Secondary STEM Teachers and Undergraduate Mentors Adapt Digital Technologies to Promote Culturally Relevant Education during COVID-19. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 48 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, E. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e DIY liquid handling robots for integrated STEM education and life science research. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, e0275688 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuncan, V. L., Holt, E. A. \u0026amp; Keenan, S. M. Creating an equitable and inclusive STEM classroom: a qualitative meta-synthesis of approaches and practices in higher education. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 1154652 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrahic, B. A. M., Miao, S., Webb, S. J. \u0026amp; Harvey, A. G. Reflexive, relevant and interactive: a STEM student-centred pedagogical approach for responsible research and innovation (RRI) training in higher education. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Science \u0026amp; Technological Education\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e, 456\u0026ndash;475 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta, M. C., Domingos, A. M. D., Teodoro, V. D. \u0026amp; Vinhas, \u0026Eacute;. M. R. G. Teacher Professional Development in STEM Education: An Integrated Approach with Real-World Scenarios in Portugal. \u003cem\u003eMathematics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 3944 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz, M., Vergara-G\u0026oacute;mez, A., Aravena-D\u0026iacute;az, M. D. \u0026amp; D\u0026iacute;az-Levicoy, D. Percepciones de los docentes de instituciones de educaci\u0026oacute;n superior t\u0026eacute;cnico profesional frente a la implementaci\u0026oacute;n del enfoque STEM (ciencia, tecnolog\u0026iacute;a, ingenier\u0026iacute;a, y matem\u0026aacute;ticas). \u003cem\u003eForm. Univ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 189\u0026ndash;202 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSolyst, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Understanding Instructors\u0026rsquo; Cultivation of Connectedness in K-12 Online Synchronous Culturally Responsive STEM and Computing Education. \u003cem\u003eProc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;19 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan, Y. L. K. \u0026amp; Subramaniam, R. Promoting integrated STEM education among students via fabrication of interactive exhibit. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 1423158 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDel Cerro Vel\u0026aacute;zquez, F. \u0026amp; Lozano Rivas, F. Education for Sustainable Development in STEM (Technical Drawing): Learning Approach and Method for SDG 11 in Classrooms. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 2706 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTezer, M., Orekhovskaya, N. A., Shaleeva, E. F., Knyazeva, S. A. \u0026amp; Krokhina, J. A. The Effectiveness of STEM Education Applied with a Distance Education Approach. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 180 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, P. PLS-SEM Model of Integrated Stem Education Concept and Network Teaching Model of Architectural Engineering Course. \u003cem\u003eMathematical Problems in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2022\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;10 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson-Kennedy, Z. S. \u0026amp; Payton-Steward, F. Leveraging adaptive approaches to tackle opportunity gaps in STEM higher education. \u003cem\u003eFront. Educ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 1593337 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFante, C., Ravicchio, F. \u0026amp; Manganello, F. Navigating the Evolution of Game-Based Educational Approaches in Secondary STEM Education: A Decade of Innovations and Challenges. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 662 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGatera, E., Muhirwa, A. \u0026amp; Mugemanyi, S. Education gender gap in STEM fields at Integrated Polytechnic Regional College (IPRC) Tumba (2007\u0026ndash;2020). \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Inclusive Education\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026ndash;16 (2025) doi:10.1080/13603116.2024.2427144.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuncaga, J., Korenova, L., Z\u0026aacute;horec, J. \u0026amp; Ostradicky, P. Innovative Approach on Teaching and Learning with Technical Aids for STEM Education at the Primary Level. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 682 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003ch3\u003eTable 1. Grand Theory\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCitation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Article\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSudarmin et al., 2023; Costa et al., 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretivist paradigm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGiffney and Lane, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Four-Frame Model by Bolman and Deal is used as a grand theory.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-constructivist principles by Piaget, Vygotsky, Ausubel, and Bruner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eToma et al., 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Cognitive Career Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbu et al., 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSituated cognition theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatindike and Ramdhany, 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch-Practice Partnerships (RPP) and Design-Based Approach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKim and Kwon, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMitcham\u0026rsquo;s Fourfold Philosophical Framework of Technology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarry Laudan\u0026apos;s Reticular Problem Solving Model \u0026amp; Triadic Network of Justification,G\u0026eacute;rard Vergnaud\u0026apos;s Theory of Conceptual Fields, Jean-Louis Martinand\u0026apos;s Objective-Obstacle Notion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrtiz-Revilla et al., 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntersectionality theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLissitsa et al., 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterfaith Learning and Development Framework (Mayhew \u0026amp; Rockenbach, 2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHosic et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical Pedagogy of Place, Socio-Ecological Systems Thinking, Rural Cultural Wealth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScherer and Azano, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructivism and Constructionism\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePernaa et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConnected learning theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[43]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunity of Practice\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHan et al., 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunities of Transformation, systems design for organizational change, and emergent outcomes for the diffusion of innovations in STEM education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSantangelo et al., 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Determination Theory (SDT)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClark, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTable 2. Educational Context\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"592\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCount\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 279px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSecular-Dominant Systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal , United States , Australia, Austria, Chile, China, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 279px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Del and Lozano, 2020; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Solyst et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Moral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; [44]; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Abu et al., 2022; [45]; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; [46]; Lin et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Hosic et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Fan, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Clark, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligiously Influenced Systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndonesia, Israel, Rwanda, South Africa, Thailand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 279px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHasani et al., 2020; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Iskandar et al., 2024; Gatera et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 25px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 105px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCross-National/Global Studies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 139px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinland and Slovenia, Global, Sweden, South Africa\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 279px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrtiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Hallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023; Pernaa et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTable 3. Conceptual and Integrative Foundations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual and Integrative Foundations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 268px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntegrative STEM Dimension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal, United States, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Global, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 268px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Del and Lozano, 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Han et al., 2022; [47]; Moral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Duncan et al., 2023; Hallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Fan, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; [48]; Pernaa et al., 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Clark, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious And Cultural Contextual Integration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 110px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustria, Indonesia, Israel, Rwanda, South Africa, Thailand, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 268px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Hasani et al., 2020; Kier and Johnson, 2022; [49]; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Iskandar et al., 2024; Hosic et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTable 4. Curriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"557\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCurriculum Orientation and Pedagogical Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurriculum Innovation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal, United States, China, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, Thailand, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Tezer et al., 2021; Solyst et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Fan, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Clark, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurriculum Design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustralia, China, Finland and Slovenia, Indonesia, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHasani et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Moral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Wang, 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2024; Guncaga et al., 2024; [50]; Toma et al., 2024; Zhao, 2024; Pernaa et al., 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurriculum Reform\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChile, China, Ireland, Israel, Rwanda, Spain, United Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDel and Lozano, 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eContextual Curriculum Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndonesia, South Africa, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSudarmin et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHolistic Curriculum Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustria, Global, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 247px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrtiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Abu et al., 2022; Hallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023; Hosic et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTabel 5. Educational Outcomes and Enabling Factors\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational Outcomes and Enabling Factors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher Competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Ireland, Slovakia, Thailand, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Delahunty et al., 2021; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Guncaga et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCurriculum Structure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHasani et al., 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Hallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023; Kozan et al., 2023; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTEM Literacy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina, Global, Singapore, Spain, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Cui et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacter And Value Formation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustria, Indonesia, Israel, Spain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[51]; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Hosic et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcademic Achievement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKazakhstan, Russia, Spain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[52]; Moral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnological Infrast\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLi et al., 2022; Zhao, 2024; Fan, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeaningful Contextual Learning\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolyst et al., 2022; Scherer and Azano, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-Cultural Environment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrahic et al., 2024; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndonesia, Rwanda\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIskandar et al., 2024; Gatera et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 121px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudent Engagement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 118px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited States, Italy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 236px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFante et al., 2024; Clark, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTabel 6 Interdisciplinary STEM\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"567\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterdisciplinary STEM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterdisciplinary STEM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal, Australia, Chile, China, Finland and Slovenia, Global, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Rwanda, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Vasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; Hasani et al., 2020; Del and Lozano, 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Tezer et al., 2021; Delahunty et al., 2021; Santangelo et al., 2021; [53]; Costa et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Kozan et al., 2023; Duncan et al., 2023; Hallstr\u0026ouml;m and Ankiewicz, 2023; Brahic et al., 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Giffney and Lane, 2025; Gatera et al., 2025; Cheek et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; [54]; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025; Cui et al., 2025; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnology Integration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChina, Italy, Russia, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolyst et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Lin et al., 2024; Fante et al., 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSTEAM Expansion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 103px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited States, Austria, China, Indonesia, Slovakia, Spain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; Sudarmin et al., 2023; Guncaga et al., 2024; Fan, 2025; Hosic et al., 2025; Clark, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTable 7 Religious and Cultural Contextual Integration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"576\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReligious and Cultural Contextual Integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCountry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCount\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMoral And Character Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePortugal, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, United Arab Emirates, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBurrows et al., 2018; Tezer et al., 2021; Moral-S\u0026Atilde;\u0026iexcl;nchez et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2022; Abu et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Shurygin et al., 2023; [55]; Cheek et al., 2025; Fitzpatrick and Leavy, 2025; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValue-Based Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnited States, China, Spain, United Kingdom, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDel and Lozano, 2020; Santangelo et al., 2021; Wang, 2022; Duncan et al., 2023; Zhao, 2024; Toma et al., 2024; Brahic et al., 2024; Clark, 2025; Wilson-Kennedy and Payton-Steward, 2025; Fan, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCulturally Responsive Education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustralia, Chile, China, Rwanda, Singapore, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolyst et al., 2022; Kier and Johnson, 2022; Han et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2024; Tan and Subramaniam, 2024; Sep\u0026uacute;lveda-Albornoz et al., 2025; [56]; Stevenson and Thompson, 2025; Kim and Kwon, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal Wisdom Integration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustria, China, Finland and Slovenia, Indonesia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHasani et al., 2020; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2021; Sudarmin et al., 2023; [57]; Matindike and Ramdhany, 2024; Cui et al., 2025; Scherer and Azano, 2025; Pernaa et al., 2025; Hosic et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocio-Cultural Contextualization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal, Indonesia, Spain, Sweden, South Africa, United States\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrtiz-Revilla et al., 2020; [37]; Kozan et al., 2023; Iskandar et al., 2024; Portillo-Blanco et al., 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 34px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 171px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReligious Integration In Curriculum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIreland, Israel, Thailand\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 221px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVasinayanuwatana et al., 2020; [15]; Lissitsa et al., 2023; Giffney and Lane, 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Riyadul Ulum Islamic College","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"STREM-C Curriculum, Holistic Education, Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, Islamic Values, STEM Integration, Systematic Literature Review","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eConventional STEM frameworks frequently marginalize socio-spiritual and cultural dimensions, prioritizing technocratic outcomes. This study evaluates the multidimensional STREM-C (Science, Technology, Religion, Engineering, Mathematics, and Culture) curriculum model to redefine holistic education. Guided by the PRISMA protocol and the TCCM (Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methodology) framework, this systematic literature review analyzed 48 eligible articles from the Scopus database through thematic extraction. The findings expose a profound geographic bias, indicating that 79,17% of current literature is entrenched in Western, secular-dominant systems. Conversely, pioneering research from religiously influenced contexts champions STREM-C by bridging empirical science with Islamic values and Indigenous Knowledge Systems, effectively challenging Eurocentric scientific hegemony. The synthesis demonstrates that while interdisciplinary STEM increasingly relies on digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Augmented Reality (AR), to amplify cognitive engagement, these innovations remain pedagogically hollow without explicit value-based integration. Furthermore, comprehensive teacher competence—demanding simultaneous technological fluency and socio-spiritual sensitivity—emerges as the primary enabler for successful classroom implementation. This review establishes STREM-C as an emancipatory paradigm that elevates cultural heritage to a core epistemological pillar. Future scholarship must transcend cross-sectional qualitative designs by employing rigorous longitudinal methodologies, utilizing AI-driven learning analytics, and expanding empirical validations within diverse faith-based educational systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Redefining Holistic Education: Bridging Culture and Islamic Values Through the STREM-C Curriculum Model (A Systematic Literature Review)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-14 08:04:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9391094/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b54b1771-5a53-4aa9-b3cf-c59b7be00a62","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 14th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":66147197,"name":"Educational Philosophy and Theory"},{"id":66147198,"name":"Religious Studies"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-18T04:54:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-14 08:04:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9391094","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9391094","identity":"rs-9391094","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}