Lithuanian study finds STEAM success rests on people, not just equipment

A study of 831 Lithuanian early-years institutions suggests that equipment alone cannot embed STEAM learning, with staff expertise, collaboration and leadership proving equally crucial.

A new study of early childhood education institutions in Lithuania suggests that STEAM learning depends on much more than the presence of kits, tablets or laboratory equipment. Writing in Frontiers in Education, researchers found that while material provision varied widely across curriculum areas, school leaders described a broader ecosystem of staff expertise, leadership, collaboration and learning environments as central to putting science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics into everyday practice.

The study combined national survey data from 831 institutions with open-ended responses from 38 education leaders drawn from the same dataset. In the curriculum area most closely linked to exploration and experimentation, several common resources were available in more than 70% of cases, including number posters, animal- and plant-identification kits, and tools for nature investigations. But specialised STEAM laboratory kits, intended to support work on force, energy and simple machines, were available at just 30.01% of the level deemed necessary. Prism sets for studying light and colour also ranked low, at 44.37%.

That gap matters because STEAM in early childhood education is increasingly seen as a way to foster creativity, problem-solving and inquiry from an early age. The authors argue that access to equipment is only one part of the picture. They frame implementation through an organisational capacity lens, suggesting that schools need not only resources but also the ability to mobilise staff, build a shared vision and create conditions in which teachers can learn from one another and adapt practice over time.

Leaders’ responses supported that view. The most frequently mentioned resources were specialised STEAM materials and digital tools, but teachers’ understanding of the STEAM approach ranked nearly as highly. Respondents also pointed to dedicated learning spaces, open-ended natural materials, funding, partnerships with universities and museums, and the role of families and local communities. In other words, the leaders did not describe STEAM as a matter of hardware alone, but as a combination of human, material and organisational conditions.

The same pattern emerged in the section on leadership. The most common themes were peer learning, mentoring and the sharing of good practice, followed by professional development and efforts to embed STEAM into institutional strategy. Leaders said they sought to make STEAM part of routine educational work rather than an occasional add-on. Barriers, however, remained familiar: limited specialist resources, a lack of dedicated STEAM spaces, weak teacher confidence, too little time for planning and collaboration, and tight budgets. A small number of leaders said they saw no major barriers, underscoring that institutional experience varied widely.

Taken together, the findings suggest that improving STEAM in early childhood settings is likely to require more than buying equipment. The study concludes that material provision, professional learning, collaboration and leadership should be addressed together if institutions are to strengthen STEAM in a meaningful and sustainable way. For policymakers and school leaders, the message is practical: better resources matter, but so do the people, spaces and organisational habits that allow those resources to be used well.