This paper explores the integration of physical activity (PA) into STEAM education as the core focus of the Erasmus-funded STE(PA)M project: Teacher Training in Physical Activities and Embodied Learning through STEAM Education. The introduction of physical activity (PA) in classroom settings has gained increasing attention as a means of addressing sedentary behaviour while enhancing learner engagement. A recent systematic review conducted within the STE(PA)M project (Lau et al., 2025) informed the development of the PA-STE(A)M framework, which is grounded in three interconnected theoretical perspectives: (1) embodied cognition theory (Barsalou, 2008; Glenberg, 2010; Li et al., 2023; Wilson, 2002), (2) interdisciplinary learning theory (Fogarty, 1991), and (3) neurobiological research on exercise and cognition (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014; Pulvermüller, 2005). The framework is further informed by pedagogical approaches such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), which exemplifies embodied cognition principles by positioning the body as a cognitive site where understanding emerges through inquiry-based, action-oriented learning rather than traditional demonstration-practice models (Stolz & Pill, 2014). Building on this framework, the present paper examines how it can support the design of innovative, active and learner-centred teaching methodologies in educational practice.

Specifically, the paper addresses the following research questions: (i) how do pre-service teachers perceive the integration of physical activity into STEAM teaching; (ii) how can the PA-STE(A)M framework, together with the GeoGebra MOOC and practice-oriented handbook, support teachers in designing and developing integrated PA–STEAM lessons.

The study focuses primarily on a teacher education context, examining pre-service teachers’ engagement with the PA-STE(A)M framework during a Blended Intensive Programme (BIP) workshop held at Charles University. As part of the workshop, participants were introduced to a GeoGebra-based MOOC designed to support the planning and development of PA–STEAM integrated activities through curated examples, digital resources and design guidance. Within the four-quadrant PA-STE(A)M framework—which differentiates approaches based on the type of physical activity (Physical Activities vs. Physical Education) and the mode of integration (technology-assisted vs. subject-integrated)—the MOOC focuses on PA-integrated STEAM learning (Quadrant 2). It applies this approach through two complementary pedagogical design logics: a movement activation-first approach, emphasising learning through play and physical engagement, and a concept embodiment-first approach, which guides learners to physically experience and internalise abstract concepts through embodied understanding (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Varela et al., 1991).

To explore the perceptions of pre-service teachers regarding the integration of physical activity into STEAM teaching, an exploratory questionnaire, with both Likert Scale and including a limited number of open-ended questions, was conducted prior to the workshop to capture participants’ insights and willingness to integrate the PA-STE(A)M framework into their teaching.

The paper presents examples of learning activities designed by pre-service teachers during the workshop, to demonstrate how the PA-STE(A)M framework can be enacted across different learning environments. In addition, it introduces a practice-oriented handbook developed to support the application of the PA-STE(A)M framework and to facilitate the translation of research into educational practice. Rather than evaluating effectiveness or learning outcomes, the study adopts a design- and methodology-oriented perspective, focusing on pedagogical reasoning, spatial considerations and the practical enactment of an evidence-informed framework. In doing so, the paper contributes to ongoing discussions on innovative pedagogical methodologies in teacher education, examining how embodied and active learning approaches can create inclusive, spatially-responsive STEAM learning environments that support diverse learner needs, wellbeing, creativity and integrative educational practices across formal and non-formal contexts.

Research Design The study adopts an exploratory, qualitative-oriented research design with emphasis on pedagogical design and methodological enactment. Rather than evaluating learning outcomes or intervention effectiveness, it examines how the PA-STE(A)M framework is interpreted and implemented in teaching practice. This design-oriented approach explores how pre-service teachers approach pedagogical reasoning, design choices, and learning environments in PA–STEAM integration. Context and Participants The primary empirical context was a Blended Intensive Programme (BIP) workshop conducted within the STEPAM project, co-funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ Programme (Grant No. 2023-1-RS01-KA220-HED-000166894) at Charles University, Czech Republic. The workshop involved 26 pre-service teachers (8 males, 18 females) from Finland, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Philippines, and Indonesia, with backgrounds in mathematics, physics, and chemistry education. Ethical considerations were maintained throughout: participants were informed of the research purpose and voluntary nature of their participation, all identifying information was anonymized, and data was securely stored. Learning, Design and Intervention The workshop focused on introducing participants to embodied and active approaches to STEAM teaching. Participants engaged with the PA-STE(A)M framework through guided design activities supported by a GeoGebra-based MOOC developed within the STE(PA)M project. The MOOC provides 36 exemplar lessons with videos, digital resources, and gamified educational apps, supporting educators in developing PA–STEAM activities that integrate movement with data collection, measurement, and exploration of physical and scientific variables. The workshop focused on Quadrant 2 of the PA-STE(A)M framework—PA-integrated STEAM learning—encouraging participants to design activities following either a movement activation-first or concept embodiment-first pedagogical logic. The design process considered spatial affordances, movement intensity levels, and how physical, digital, and hybrid learning spaces could be blended to support embodied STEAM learning. Data Sources and Analysis Data sources consisted of (a) pre-workshop questionnaire responses containing open-ended questions on participants' perceptions of integrating physical activity into STEAM teaching, and (b) PA–STEAM learning activities designed during the workshop. Data analysis followed inductive thematic content analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006). The thematic analysis framework includes identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns or themes within the dataset. This approach offers a systematic yet flexible process for examining the underlying meanings and structures embedded in textual or visual data. The PA-STE(A)M framework served as an analytical lens to examine how physical activity, pedagogical intent, and learning environments were represented in the designed activities, with analysis aimed at identifying patterns and design orientations across contexts.

The results are exploratory and illustrative, capturing pre-service teachers' perceptions and design approaches when engaging with the PA-STE(A)M framework. Of the 26 participants, response rates varied by question; analysis focuses on recurring ideas, not frequency counts. Responses to the first question (n = 18) revealed positive perceptions of PA–STEAM integration. Four main themes emerged: Perceived cognitive and learning benefits were most prominent: participants associating PA with improved concentration (e.g., "the brain works better with oxygen"). Support for embodied and diverse learning approaches was evident: participants emphasised that some learners "learn better through movement" and that PA adds variety to sedentary practices—addressing diverse cognitive preferences. Engagement and classroom dynamics described PA as motivating, though with conditional usefulness ("for some kids it's useful for motivation"). Finally, uncertainty and conditional acceptance emerged, with some participants reporting difficulty imagining how PA could be meaningfully integrated into STEM lessons. Responses to the second question (n = 13) focused on implementation, revealing three approaches alongside notable uncertainty. Organisational strategies included scheduling and movement breaks; curriculum-based integration proposed aligning STEM content with body or movement topics; open-ended approaches suggested project-based activities. Several participants reported lacking concrete ideas, reinforcing the gap between perceived value and enactment. During the workshop, participants designed PA–STE(A)M activities using movement activation-first or concept embodiment-first approaches. One group designed “States of Matter”, where bodily movement represented solid, liquid and gaseous states through variations in proximity, and freedom of movement, demonstrating how embodied methodologies make abstract concepts accessible while transforming traditional spaces into active learning environments. Overall, the findings suggest openness to PA–STEAM methodologies, highlighting the importance of structured frameworks and exemplars to enact embodied learning across diverse educational contexts. The MOOC and handbook provide such methodological support. A limitation of this study is the small sample size; future research should involve larger numbers and greater diversity.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Chaddock-Heyman, L., Erickson, K. I., Holtrop, J. L., Voss, M. W., Pontifex, M. B., Raine, L. B., Hillman, C. H., & Kramer, A. F. (2014). Aerobic fitness is associated with greater white matter integrity in children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 584. Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61–65. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal literacy. Peter Lang. Lau, J., Ignjatovic, A., Fenyvesi, K., Cekic-Jovanovic, O., Da Cruz, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2025, September 10–13). A systematic review on integration of physical activities in STEAM education – Trends and best practices [Paper presentation]. European Conference on Educational Research (ECER 2025), Belgrade, Serbia. https://eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/30/contribution/61193 Li, J., Bezerianos, A., Thakor, N.V. (2023). Cognitive State Analysis, Understanding, and Decoding from the Perspective of Brain Connectivity. In: Thakor, N.V. (eds) Handbook of Neuroengineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5540-1_77 Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 576–582. doi: 10.1038/nrn1706 Stolz, S. A., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36–71. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.