The systematic study defines organizational resilience as the ability of an organization to forecast, adapt, and thrive in uncertainty and adversity by strategically combining security and risk management across all operations. A holistic approach that considers organizational systems and components can boost resilience. Teachers, administrators, parents, and students create a strategic development plan. Individual, relational, and contextual factors shape resilience. Our research revealed more resilience and solid organizational ideas, as seen in Table 3.

The concept of “secure management” is not explicitly defined in a single, consistent way across the provided texts. However, (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) directly address this within the context of their proposed integrated security management model (ERMsec©) for organizational resilience. Dimensions that should be included in ERMsec© are risk assessment and mitigation, security governance (establishing clear policies, procedures, and responsibilities related to security, this involves developing a comprehensive security framework that aligns with organizational goals and is integrated into business processes), integration with other management systems, continuous monitoring and improvement (involves continuous monitoring of security systems and procedures, regularly reviewing performance, and making necessary adjustments to maintain an effective security posture), employee training and awareness, and incident response planning.

The present systematic review aims to analyze and understand the connections created by resilience between the organization and individuals within the organization (teachers and students) and learning, especially STEM learning.

Thus, our study aims to:

O1. To identify the visions in the research of resilient organizations and the associated concepts

O2. To identify the elements that influence the development of resilience in learning, especially in STEM learning.

O3. To identify successful STEM projects that support learning.

This systematic review attempts to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the research perspectives on the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development of resilience in the school organization?

RQ2: What do research findings suggest about the existence of common factors that support both resilient organizations and learning?

RQ3: What are, according to studies, the inclusive strategies employed by teachers in STEM education?

To answer these questions, we chose the approach of a systematic review. We followed the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and the checklist during the review process. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 3) shows the different stages of this review, starting with the number of references initially identified, passing through the works that were excluded, and finally including the works.

The databases Clarivate, Scopus, Google Scholar, Erih Plus, and Elsevier were accessed for articles and reports from the period 2008–2024. Phrases such as “resilient organization,” “resilience and STEM learning,” “resilience” and “well-being” or “well-being,” “resilience” and “well-being” or “well-being” AND “STEM education” were introduced, and the searches returned the following results (Table 6).

Articles were excluded based on the following criteria (Table 7): Reason 1—The topic did not refer to the school environment Reason 2—The topic did not fit the research questions proposed in the systematic review Reason 3—They were rather empirical studies that did not explicitly refer to the concepts pursued, and the method of operationalization was not justified.

In summary, we conducted a meta-analysis of the selected articles referring to the sample, research methods, and research design. It is observed that the design based on quantitative methods predominates (as it is seen in Table 8).

Teachers with STEM competency boost STEM instruction. One should start STEM instruction in kindergarten. Teachers must also let go of presumptions that girls cannot succeed in STEM if we are to create and administer exceptional STEM education. Engaging students during classes is another key component of success in STEM education. The surroundings must value students‘ inclusive and cultural identities as well as provide comments and help. Important results that can enable school leaders and teachers to transform their institution into a STEM center could be that STEM education calls for teachers working on STEM learning strategies for different courses. STEM projects should be grounded in students' interests and cultural background. STEM projects teach.

RQ1: What are the research perspectives on the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development of resilience in the school organization?

The impacts on STEM education, resilient organizations, and resilience among teachers, students, and the principal were evaluated. Despite not being their main goal, the articles studied aim to uncover STEM learning facilitators in resilient organizations. There are various common aspects in resilience cultivation (Morote et al., 2020) and successful STEM education, including strong relationships, the learning environment, good pedagogy, resources, student motivation, a cohesive and engaged school community, and skilled leadership (Table 9).

School principal, teachers, and student resilience are determined by individual, relational, contextual, and role-specific factors. The investigations found parallels between teacher, student, and principal positions despite their differences. School principals and teachers who manage stress should maintain solid relationships with their students and understand the workplace. We conclude that every educational component is interconnected in a multiple system. The vulnerability of any component could undermine the whole system, whereas developing one component can help others. Its complexity and varying impact require attention to commonalities, as shown in Table 10.

Resuming, the common factors (teacher–student–principal) that influence the development in school organizations are convoluted in individual, relational, contextual, and specific to role/position.

RQ2: What do research findings suggest about the existence of common factors that support both resilient organizations and learning?

The chosen articles enhance organizational resilience and successful learning by means of strong links and relationships, adaptability and flexibility, efficient resources, integrated and holistic approaches, clear expectations, and continuous improvement measurements. Both times, clear objectives and advancement are required. (Liebenberg et al. 2016), (Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023), and (Abrica et al. 2020) claim that networks and alliances foster organizational resilience. (Murphy et al. 2018) and (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) stress adaptation, stressing resource efficiency, as do (Engberg and Wolniak 2013) and (Merisotis and Kee 2006). (Beltman 2020), (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023), and (Victorino et al. 2019) stress complete methods. (Marquez-Tejon et al. 2023) and (Sansone 2019) underline goal setting, advocating development (Merisotis and Kee, 2006; Victorino et al., 2019; Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023).

Effective STEM education calls for first-rate teacher–student and peer relationships, close ties between schools, and flexible learning strategies. Furthermore, significant resources are required. Student learning and wellbeing stated that learning goals and continuous assessment are crucial. Usually speaking of learning, we refer to students. Under this cooperation, the teacher drives development, resilience, and learning. Therefore, it is crucial to stress teachers' teaching practices, particularly given some authors' point of view on cultural difficulties teachers must take into account while preparing lessons. Articles highlighted the advantages of inclusive STEM learning strategies. This improves involvement, project-based learning, and critical thinking. Articles might highlight students' skills from classroom exercises and STEM education initiatives. The educational approach is student-centered. By means of metacognitive strategies, technology integration, and strong relationships in a conducive learning environment that reduces stress and fosters belonging, the inclusive approach to quality STEM learning empowers students.

In our opinion, there are multiple directions that we found in the selected articles that support resilient organization and learning. This should be analyzed more deeply to underline the common aspects of fostering and reflecting on dimensions for resilient organization and learning.

RQ3: What are, according to studies, the inclusive strategies employed by teachers in STEM education?

If we want all students to achieve, the inclusive learning environment must include their capacities, cultural differences, obstacles, and learning pace. Happy occurrences affect college adaptation (Haktanir et al., 2021). Teachers must adapt their methods and techniques according to student needs. This seems like a cliché, but it has tremendous importance. Though we found elements promoting inclusive STEM education in others, few directly address it. In STEM success, there are misconceptions that girls are not adept at STEM learning, which requires interventions like female STEM teachers, role models, or minority students. If we want inclusive teaching and learning, teachers require training to identify students' needs and find answers. Table 11 summarizes STEM inclusion instructor strategies.

(Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Sansone 2019), (James et al. 2022), and (Victorino et al. 2019) recommend a positive classroom climate, strong teacher–student relationships, positive peer relationships, a sense of community, socio-emotional needs, gender stereotypes, and a culturally affirming environment to support learning. (Murphy et al. 2018), (Xu and Jack 2022), (Daniel and Mishra 2017), (Sansone 2019), and (Murphy et al. 2018) recommend inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, service, culturally sensitive teaching, effective feedback, self-regulated learning, and technology efficiency. Are teachers capable of including all these strategies?

(Xu and Jack 2022) and (Sansone 2019) recommend individualized education, specialized support, addressing learning differences and disabilities, adapting to many learning contexts, and a growth mindset to meet student needs. Thus, student participation, equality, and inclusion are encouraged. (Merisotis and Kee 2006) and (Victorino et al. 2019) studied data-driven student learning, instructional decisions, and strategy changes. Metacognitive approaches help students self-regulate, succeed, and think critically, according to (Geiger et al. 2023). Technology integration is the successful use of technology to increase engagement, personalize learning, access to information, cooperation, and involvement, according to (Nickolite and Doll 2008), (Sansone 2019), (Liebenberg et al. 2016), and (Geiger et al. 2023).

(Daniel and Mishra 2017), (Xu and Jack 2022), and (Geiger et al. 2023) recommend good teacher-student and peer relationships to boost motivation and engagement. Project-based and service learning apply learning to community needs and improve skills, motivating and engaging students, and encouraging civic engagement. We found several successful STEM learning program models in the publications evaluated. In this data synthesis, every effort can affect STEM learning and should be developed in the classroom and extracurricular activities. The selected articles' effective STEM projects (Table 12) demonstrate the need for extracurricular activities to supplement STEM training.

The selected articles reveal characteristics pertinent to fostering students' autonomy in learning, achievable by choosing learning activity projects aligned with their interests and employing methodologies that impart self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. Instruct students on SRL strategies, including goal setting, planning, progress monitoring, and self-assessment. Facilitate opportunities for practice through constructive feedback that fosters reflection on their strengths and areas for improvement, thereby cultivating a growth mindset and encouraging the development of respectful and collaborative relationships among peers (Xu and Jack, 2022; Murphy et al., 2018; Daniel and Mishra, 2017; Sansone, 2019).

The systematic review analyses 117 papers, highlighting the scarcity of specialized literature on resilient schools and drawing from general organizational resilience theories (e.g., Kantur and İşeri-Say, 2012; Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023). It critiques gaps, such as the lack of focus on principals' roles and gender biases in STEM (Sansone, 2019). However, the predominance of quantitative studies may limit exploration of qualitative aspects, like personal narratives or cultural contexts, which are crucial for understanding resilience.

According to the selected articles, there is no clear specification about how many people from staff organizations should be resilient in order to consider having a resilient organization. Additionally, (Svane et al. 2019) highlight a disconnect between the theoretical benefits of resilience interventions and their practical implementation, indicating a gap between rhetoric and reality in schools.

In this regard, there are several gaps in the literature:

STEM classes should inspire students. Therefore, customizing STEM and data programs for students is necessary. School leaders should boost STEM funding and resilience (Morote et al., 2022). They have a huge role in discussing student accomplishment strategies with other districts and colleges and in boosting student achievement (Payne et al., 2006). Minority STEM success needs inclusive schools. Some levels disregard crucial non-educational variables. Resilient personnel who boost STEM education through wellbeing are indirect and collateral factors that increase organizational resilience. This statement tackles STEM education resilience and quality holistically and humanistically. It offers evidence-based advice for educators, leaders, and the educational ecosystem to establish inclusive, supportive learning environments that value academic performance and student wellbeing. Studies show that practical STEM education challenges and encourages all students. For an inclusive classroom, it must promote positive feedback, teamwork, development, and bias-overcoming. Supporting female STEM students requires fighting gender preconceptions. To increase schoolwide support and inclusion, principals should apply for evidence-based resilience programs like SEL and resilience-oriented teacher professional development.

Family-community and teacher-student relations are essential for all students, especially for the underprivileged. Quality resources, great teachers, and fun extracurriculars support STEM careers because STEM is essential for all. Our analysis implies institutional impediments hinder STEM education outside of classrooms. Fair resource allocation, STEM integration across disciplines, STEM student assistance (including career counseling and mentorship), active program monitoring and assessment, and legislative advocacy increase STEM education availability. Research shows that families, communities, governments, the STEM generation, and higher education have a crucial role in STEM learning. The results should be replicated in every school because STEM education becomes the most important aspect of education in a society based on technology. Models like ERMsec© (Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023) and Beltman's (2020) dimensions are discussed; they are part of the literature review, but we cannot integrate into a cohesive theory.

In summary, we can design a conceptual framework that would provide a theoretical model explaining how individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management and student self-efficacy), relational factors (e.g., teacher–student relationships), and contextual factors (e.g., supportive school climate) interrelate with organizational resilience and STEM education outcomes. While it draws on models such as the ERMsec© model (Marquez-Tejon et al., 2023) for organizational resilience, which emphasizes integrated risk and security management, and Beltman's (2020) dimensions for teacher and student resilience, this gap is particularly notable given the complexity of the topic, as it could clarify how these dimensions dynamically interact to foster STEM success.

In response to Research Question 1, the following strategies focus on common factors influencing resilience across teachers, students, and principals. Findings are organized into individual, relational, contextual, and role-specific factors, as detailed in Table 4, and synthesized using thematic analysis. The review uses tables to categorize these factors, ensuring a structured approach to data synthesis. However, it lacks a conceptual framework to theoretically link these factors, which could clarify how individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management, student self-efficacy) interacts with organizational resilience to support STEM education outcomes. A significant contradiction is the tension between individual and organizational resilience. The document states that resilient people cannot live without a resilient organization, and organizational resilience is little defined, and school organizations are hardly recognized (Section 2.1). This suggests that while individual resilience (e.g., teacher stress management and student self-efficacy) is crucial, it may be insufficient without a supportive organizational structure, yet some studies imply that personal resilience can compensate for organizational weaknesses (Gundlach et al., 2024). This contradiction highlights the need for a clearer understanding of their bidirectional relationship.

Common factors influencing resilience are individual (from teachers, students, and principals), findings are organized into themes such as relationships, adaptability, resources, and integrated approaches (Tables 9, 10). The review critically evaluates the literature by identifying shared factors across resilient organizations and learning, such as strong relationships (Liebenberg et al., 2016) and adaptability (Evenseth et al., 2022). It critiques the disconnect between theoretical resilience models and their practical implementation, as noted by (Svane et al. 2019). The review also highlights the need for more studies on how organizational resilience directly supports STEM learning, indicating a gap in direct causal analysis.

In response to Research Question 3, inclusive STEM strategies are proposed, categorizing them into active learning, culturally responsive teaching, differentiated instruction, metacognitive strategies, technology integration, and relationship-building (as shown in Table 11). These strategies are analyzed to understand their impact on student engagement and achievement. The lack of a conceptual framework hinders the integration of these strategies into a cohesive model for STEM education resilience. The review critically engages by synthesizing inclusive strategies from studies like (Murphy et al. 2018) and (Xu and Jack 2022), emphasizing their role in addressing diverse student needs. However, there are a limited number of studies directly addressing inclusive STEM strategies, particularly for underrepresented groups, and calls for more research on implementation challenges. The review highlights a contradiction between gender biases in STEM (e.g., perceptions that girls are less capable) and the goal of inclusive education (Sansone, 2019).

While inclusive strategies are theoretically sound, their practical application is challenging in resource-constrained settings, creating a gap between advocacy and reality.