Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) equips students to tackle global challenges, from technological innovation to climate resilience. Yet, STEM learning environments often pose significant demands, including cognitive complexity and competitive pressures, which can undermine students’ resilience and well-being (Avedissian and Alayan, 2021). Resilience, a dynamic process of adapting to adversity through individual and contextual factors (Ungar et al., 2021), and well-being, encompassing emotional, psychological, and social dimensions (Diener, 1984; Keyes, 2002), are critical for sustained STEM engagement. Instructional leadership (IL), defined as the strategic efforts of principals and teachers to enhance teaching quality (Shaked, 2024), is increasingly recognised as a driver of these outcomes. However, the specific mechanisms by which IL influences resilience and well-being in STEM education remain underexplored, lacking a systematic synthesis to inform evidence-based practices.

Research highlights IL’s role in fostering student outcomes through teacher-student relationships and pedagogical innovation (Pietsch et al., 2023; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Studies also indicate that STEM achievement can enhance school resilience and well-being (Lillywhite and Wolbring, 2024), while well-being enhances motivation and perseverance in STEM (Vitha, 2022). Despite these insights, the literature is fragmented, with few studies integrating IL’s contributions to STEM-specific resilience and well-being. For example, Nguyen et al. (2020) describe IL’s indirect effects on student outcomes via teacher efficacy, but its application to STEM contexts is limited. Similarly, global frameworks like UNESCO’s (2023) call for inclusive STEM education emphasize equitable learning environments but lack empirical connections to IL strategies, particularly for underrepresented groups facing systemic barriers (Al Hamad et al., 2024). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual relationships among IL, resilience, well-being, and STEM learning, highlighting the mediated pathways and contextual moderators central to this review.

This systematic review addresses this gap by synthesising 80 peer-reviewed studies (2014–2024) from Clarivate, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ERIH Plus, following PRISMA guidelines. It aims to: (1) analyse IL’s role as a predictor of resilience in STEM education, (2) evaluate IL’s impact on student well-being in STEM, (3) explore the relationship between STEM success and resilience/well-being, and (4) identify IL strategies that enhance motivation and perseverance in STEM. By integrating these dimensions, this review provides a novel framework for advancing STEM education, offering actionable recommendations for educators and policymakers to foster resilient and inclusive learning environments.

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) to ensure methodological rigour, transparency, and reproducibility. The methodology was designed to address the four research questions outlined in the introduction, exploring how instructional leadership (IL) predicts resilience and well-being in STEM education. The process involved a comprehensive literature search, systematic study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and narrative synthesis.

This section presents the findings from the 80 studies included in the systematic review, synthesised narratively and thematically to address the four research questions. The results are organised into sub-sections corresponding to each question, with key findings summarised in Table 7.

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of studies by publication year, showing a growing research interest in IL and STEM education since 2018.

This study delineates the findings of the systematic review of specialised literature, which examines factors that underscore resilience as a connective element in the teacher-student dynamic and as a predictor of perseverance in effective STEM education. It also explores how success in STEM disciplines can foster resilience and well-being in educational settings, and whether the cognitive dissonance induced by STEM subjects can affect these dimensions (see Tables 8, 9).

The analysed literature leads to a significant conclusion, namely that a recent trend indicates that the success achieved by students in and through STEM disciplines can contribute to the development of resilience and well-being in school. We present in Table 10 a few selected and analysed studies in this regard.

First, the following levels and mechanisms of operation of Resilience were identified in the analysed studies:

From a psychological perspective, it is well-known that the same person exhibits different levels of resilience in different contexts. In this sense, scales for measuring psychological resilience have been developed. The tools that ensure psychological measurements of Resilience are further divided into:

The Adult Resilience Scale (Friborg et al., 2003) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) (Connor and Davidson, 2003), the Resilience Scale (Wagnild and Young, 1993) are considered to have the best psychometric properties (Windle et al., 2011).

Life Scale (SWLS) (Bai et al., 2011) was developed by Diener and his colleagues in 1985 (Diener et al., 1985).

Another scale is the Perceptions of Inclusive School Quality Scale (PISQ).

Regarding the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) with 6 items, derived from Carver’s research, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) with 4 items, theoretically based on Polk’s research.

To have a clear definition of what it resilience means, we synthesised the definitions from the articles:

There are perspectives that highlight that resilience can be a linking factor in the teacher-student relationship and a predictor of perseverance in effective STEM learning, and that the cognitive conflict generated in STEM learning can influence these aspects.

In the articles’ studies, we found the relation between resilience and well-being, as presented in Table 11.

The second issue that arises, however, is as follows: how does the field of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) link with the multidimensionality of the ideas of resilience and well-being in the classroom? What are the elements that determine success in this context? What is the role of the teacher? A framework for rethinking academic growth in STEM contexts is proposed by the papers that were reviewed and given in Table 10. This framework proposes that professional learning should be understood as an extension of critical conversations with colleagues in STEM fields, for example (Winberg et al., 2018). According to Lauermann and König (2016), the level of professional competence possessed by teachers “is a critical predictor of teachers’ professional well-being”:

We continue to investigate the connections among well-being, resilience, and students’ achievement in STEM fields. Additionally, the role of motivation in STEM learning is investigated, as well as how students’ well-being may influence it. Given the various characteristics of well-being, which encompass five domains, it will be vital for many sectors to come together to support the common objective of increasing students’ well-being by adhering to a shared set of definitions, ideas, and indicators. Therefore, to establish a conceptual framework for student well-being, it is necessary to provide precise definitions and descriptions of the five domains under consideration (Avedissian and Alayan, 2021).

The studies that were chosen for this systematic review demonstrate that proper guidance and student commitement in learning STEM subjects significantly contribute to the improvement of student well-being, which we highlighted in the first part of this review. This can be seen by analyzing the relationship between well-being and resilience, as well as the success of students in STEM subjects. At the same time, the reciprocal link is also valid, especially when it comes to the fact that ensuring the well-being of students can be a favorable background for success in STEM courses. But how exactly is this accomplishable? Several studies are presented that highlight context, methods of ensuring well-being, and the relationship with success in STEM disciplines. The emphasis is placed on the significance of counseling, emotional intelligence, and addressing barriers to success, particularly for underrepresented groups. To overcome barriers in STEM education, it is necessary to address socio-emotional factors in addition to academic ones. In addition to improving academic achievement in STEM fields, personalized support provided by counseling tools also contributes to general well-being. Creating learning contexts, discovery-based research, problem-based learning, and project-based learning are all examples of planned approaches that have the potential to have a positive effect on students’ creativity. These approaches can also improve students’ problem-solving skills, critical thinking, active learning, and communication skills (Al Hamad et al., 2024). Creativity in STEM fields is an extremely important aspect (Othman et al., 2022).

To successfully navigate the demanding nature of STEM education, emotional intelligence is necessary. It is emphasized that there is a connection between a person’s emotional well-being and their academic success, which draws attention to the necessity of having complete support systems. When it comes to the development of flexible professionals in the STEM fields, the incorporation of counseling strategies and emotional intelligence is an absolute necessity. Ayeni et al. (2024) individualized academic planning, time management, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, career exploration, mentoring, peer support, team-building, and emotional intelligence courses which are some of the specific counseling modalities that are available. A sense of belonging in STEM fields is essential for the success of students and develops via a series of phases that are referred to as “adaptation,” “integration,” “continuation,” and “transition.” To achieve this sense of belonging, social support, diversity, and inclusion are all necessary components, according to the Dost (2024). Many people know women are underrepresented in STEM fields, particularly in the field of physics. Women are less likely to specialize in STEM subjects than men are, and they are also more likely to leave STEM professions altogether. Seyranian et al. (2018) has been determined that vital support networks for the mental health of students include university counselling facilities, faculty and staff, friends, and parents at the university.

We study instructional and educational leadership, analyzing its role as a predictor of resiliency and well-being in the context of STEM education. One of the topics that is explored is the effect that instructional and educational leadership has on the relationships between teachers and students, as well as how it can positively influence motivation and perseverance in STEM learning.

Instructional leadership, also known as I. L., is a method of school leadership that is regarded as having a primary focus on raising the quality of the teaching and learning process (Shaked, 2024). This method is a crucial component for improving academic achievement (Shaked and Benoliel, 2020). The potential contributions of systemic thinking in instructional leadership were investigated in a specialized study. The study focused on the role that systemic thinking plays in promoting professional learning communities, data analysis, and evidence-based decision-making about instructional leadership. To examine the perceptions of principals regarding the accent of systemic thinking to instructional leadership, this study sought to measure those perceptions. The findings appear to provide an overview of new dimensions and highlight the significance of instructional leadership from the following points of view: (1) the enhancement of the school curriculum; (2) the development of professional learning communities; and (3) the interpretation of performance data (Shaked and Schechter, 2017).

Probably the most up-to-date definition and supporting framework for defining instructional leadership is supplied by authors Wenner and Campbell (2017). They define teacher leaders as those instructors who are effective both in the classroom and beyond, taking on a variety of tasks and responsibilities. This definition is probably the most complete and accurate definition of instructional leadership.

Specialized literature has been significantly enriched in recent times regarding the instructional leadership of teachers. This has been accomplished by identifying predictors such as school climate, school structure, and teachers’ personality traits (Bellibaş et al., 2020).

Additionally, with the results of teachers’ leadership, we mention the improvement of collegial relationships (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Although we have made illuminating contributions, there is no definition that can be used as a reference framework for educators, as well as for research and professional programs. Only 35% of the publications that were published between the years 2004 and 2013 have their own working definition, according to Wenner and Campbell (2017), who conducted a comprehensive analysis of the relevant literature. The concept of “teacher leader” is also not very well defined, and it can take on a variety of roles depending on the circumstances. Formal roles include positions as managers and coaches (Bellibaş et al., 2020), while informal roles include teachers who engage in leadership positions for specific situations (Wenner and Campbell, 2017; York-Barr and Duke, 2004; Ingersoll et al., 2018).

In another specialized work that focuses on the same issue, Teacher Leadership: A Review of Literature on the Conceptualization and Outcomes of Teacher Leadership (Aliu et al., 2024), the authors demonstrate through a literature review that we do not have a well-established framework for a common definition of instructional leadership. This is a problem that must be addressed. It is necessary to have a shared understanding of the phrase to fulfil the system’s requirement for teachers who are adequately prepared (Aliu et al., 2024). Not only does leadership possess the ability to exert influence, but it also possesses the capacity to motivate, which is a vital component of this process. According to Gegenfurtner et al. (2009), if there is no desire to engage in the application of newly acquired skills, those skills will never be put into practice.

It has been established through specialized research that instructional leadership can have a significant effect on the process, and implicitly on the outcomes (Anderson et al., 2023).

In their study, Goddard et al. (2015) investigated the relationships among IL, teacher collaboration, and each individual teacher’s efficacy. In their opinion, instructional leaders possess two qualities: first, they have a deep understanding of the best practices for teaching in the classroom, and second, they foster an environment that is conducive to learning. According to other findings, teachers in their early careers have a less positive perspective of the urban school climate, whereas teachers in their primary school years have a better perception of the environment. The implications that have arisen consequently are connected to the significance of leadership, connections, and care in the process of enhancing the atmosphere of the school. The most important aspects are those that pertain to the interpersonal interactions that exist within the institution. The strengthening of these ties in an urban setting has the potential to increase the level of commitment that rookie teachers have to their career and to encourage them to remain in the profession (Messmann et al., 2010).

Donohoo et al. (2020) developed an instrument called the “Scaling Enabling Conditions for Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (EC-CTES)” to measure the collective efficacy of teachers, an efficacy that could effect student outcomes. The authors believe that to measure the collective efficacy of teachers, we must refer to five dimensions (the scale was created based on the first two dimensions):

There are authors who have concluded, following the application of statistical analyses, that high levels of collective teacher efficacy exert a significant influence on student learning, with an overall effect size of 1.57 (Eells et al., 2011). If we present the statistical data, it means that high levels of collective teacher efficacy can influence student learning at a rate up to three times the growth a child would experience in a typical year (Hattie, 2016).

Education specialists have continuously sought new solutions and methods to support and form teacher working groups to enhance teachers’ collective effectiveness (Donohoo et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2023).

The instructional leadership of the principal influences the instructional leadership of the teachers. Most often, we will find the instructional leadership of principals defined as the sum of behaviors and practices with an emphasis on the teaching and learning process in schools (Liu et al., 2020). The instructional leadership of principals leaves its mark on: the approach to the school curriculum and the influence on teaching and assessment. Thus, it becomes essential to measure the level of instructional leadership of principals and to propose new ways to enhance and improve it (Lai and Lien, 2023).

The formulation of clearly articulated educational goals, the planning of curricula, and the evaluation of teaching and, implicitly, of teachers are all necessary components of instructional leadership. According to Day et al. (2016), the primary goal of instructional leaders is to ensure that the quality of learning and instruction in the classroom is consistent and continuously improved. Common values and traits: responsiveness, clarity of vision courage of conviction, openness, strong moral and ethical values, clearly articulated (Day et al., 2016; Emery et al., 2021; Shaked and Schechter, 2017) are the main characteristics, in addition to effect on school climate, curriculum management, instruction, and monitoring of student progress (Agirdag and Muijs, 2023; Anderson et al., 2023; Bellibaş et al., 2020; Shaked and Benoliel, 2020; Zuckerman and O’Shea, 2021; Ma and Marion, 2021; Lai and Lien, 2023) and support and collaboration (Aliu et al., 2024; Anderson et al., 2023; Agirdag and Muijs, 2023; Jimerson and Quebec Fuentes, 2021).

As we have seen previously, instructional leadership has a direct effect on the feelings, attitudes, and beliefs that instructors have (Bellibaş and Liu, 2017). It is also possible for us to talk about the effect that instructional leadership can have on the enhancement of the well-being of students. It is necessary to consider both individual and organisational elements when dealing with organisational contexts. Some examples of these aspects include the working circumstances of teachers, the learning surroundings of students, the regulations that are implemented, and how they are viewed. Research indicates that teachers’ impressions of the organizational climate—leadership, student belonging, instructional surroundings, and interactions with families—have a major effect on job satisfaction, dedication, trust in the organisation, and teacher retention and retention rates (Bartanen et al., 2019; Bendixen et al., 2023).

We investigate the particulars of STEM learning, specifically focusing on how the organization of learning based on the STEM construct might contribute to the development of well-being and resilience within the context of the educational process. A further topic of discussion is the influence that students’ well-being has on their level of motivation and achievement in STEM fields.

Receiving additional support from family members, teachers, and even peers is an important part of the learning process. Learning is a complex process that requires a series of secondary processes linked to student motivation, beliefs, and self-efficacy, as well as the utilization of learning strategies when necessary. Another phenomenon that involves the interaction of many of the same psychological or environmental actions is career coaching. This phenomenon is like the one described above. A study was conducted with the purpose of developing and testing a model of factors that contribute to learning STEM, as well as career orientation. The participants in the study were students between the ages of 10 and 14, and they participated in a variety of robotics camps held in the United States. These camps included hands-on activities that involved the construction and programming of robots using STEM knowledge and skills. In addition, the research investigated the intricate pathways and connections that exist between the social, motivational, and educational elements that play a role in the successful performance of students. Self-efficacy, students’ expectations for their future jobs, and students’ enthusiasm in STEM fields were the primary factors that were evaluated in this study. In addition, the effects of the knowledge that students had previously gained, problem-solving skills, learning methodologies, as well as the support and influence of instructors, peers, and family members, were also evaluated. After the data were analyzed, the higher coefficients demonstrated the relative strength of family relationships, as well as that of teachers, students’ enthusiasm in the STEM sector, and the enhanced influence of prior information. Additionally, the increased effect of prior knowledge was also demonstrated. The professors are the ones who have the most influence, which is a clear indication that their position is crucial in the growth of students and in the promotion of STEM fields. In addition, the support of one’s family is a significant factor that plays a more significant role than the influence of one’s peers. It was also shown that students’ interest in STEM subjects was a significant predictor, and there was a direct connection between that interest and students’ performance. In contrast, the students’ perceptions of their own abilities did not have a substantial effect on their performance (Nugent et al., 2015).

An additional study was carried out in 2021 with the purpose of determining the factors that influence STEM learning and determining whether self-efficacy and the outputs expected by teachers influence the attitudes and accomplishments of students (see Figures 6, 7).

An assessment test known as the D-BAIT was utilized in the process of determining the level of STEM knowledge possessed by students. The students’ knowledge was evaluated both before and after the administration of this test, which consists of twenty questions spanning the fields of engineering design, biology, and physics. The evaluation was carried out by a research team (see Tables 12–15).

When it comes to the first research question, the findings of the study indicate that there are relatively large direct implications of students’ performance in STEM subjects. The acquisition of information in STEM fields among students has been strongly impacted by attitudes about STEM fields. The findings that were collected in response to the second study indicate that the expectations of teachers have had a direct effect on the attitudes that students have towards STEM programs. In addition, the self-efficacy of instructors influences the process of students being aware of the possibility of pursuing a career in the STEM area (Messmann et al., 2010), but it also has an indirect effect on the students’ attitudes toward this field through indirect effects. The self-efficacy of teachers and their expectations regarding the outcomes of their students’ work did not have a significant effect on the skills that students have in the 21st century environment.

The conceptual framework for STEM schools was the subject of another study that was carried out in the year 2015. Now, these educational institutions are regarded as one-of-a-kind environments because they offer a sophisticated curriculum, highly qualified instructors, and a wide range of internship and immersion opportunities. According to the specialist literature, researchers have divided them into three categories: schools that are selective in STEM fields, schools that are inclusive in STEM fields, and schools that are centred on STEM-based technical and career education.

In this new generation of schools, the focus is on preparing children for college and careers, as well as minimizing gaps among groups that are underrepresented in the educational system. The goals of these specialized STEM schools are accomplished through the following strategies: encouraging women to participate in STEM-based extracurricular activities; encouraging a larger number of students from underrepresented groups to enroll in the school; and working together with role models from minority groups. These kinds of institutions are referred to as inclusive STEM schools, and its primary objective is to reduce gaps among minority groups that are underrepresented in the workforce. The findings that were acquired by researchers from the examination of studies that were focused on the process of preparing students for college and careers for students who attended these schools revealed that the students who attended these schools performed marginally better in mathematics and science when compared to kids who attended traditional schools. In addition, studies provide evidence that kids who attend specialized schools that focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are more enthusiastic about this topic, more ready to participate in classes, and have a greater likelihood of passing national examinations and winning degrees from universities (Erdogan and Stuessy, 2015).

It is vital for various types of leaders (principals, teachers, and instructors) to play the function of instructional leadership in STEM learning in order to guide and encourage educational progress in these domains. This is because the role of instructional leadership is essential. The interdisciplinarity of some subjects, creative teaching methods, contemporary technologies, and learning communities are some of the ways in which it generates instructional strategies. Continual professional development for educators promotes the establishment of a useful foundation for the implementation of innovative teaching approaches that encourage students to develop their creative and competent abilities. If we take all the information presented above into consideration, we can conclude that a STEM instructional leader needs to be a good mentor and visionary to become the catalyst for the integration and learning of kids in a technologically advanced environment. Several publications have been studied by specialized studies, such as the work done by Hitt and Tucker (2016), to discover and extract leadership behaviors and how they directly influence student performance. The authors concluded that leadership practice pursued five different domains: establishing and communicating a vision, facilitating high-quality learning experiences for students, building professional capacity, developing a learning organization that is supportive, and establishing relationships with external partners (Hitt and Tucker, 2016). Regarding the development of instructional leadership in STEM areas, we can say that the only direct link between the fields is the growth of professional competence and the facilitation of high-quality learning experiences for students. According to Cunningham and Lochmiller (2019), it is the role of the directors to demonstrate direct involvement in the supervision of activities to properly deliver feedback that is both accurate and helpful. It is necessary to have domain-specific instructional leadership components to achieve STEM leadership. When it comes to subject matter areas, instructional leadership provides the leader with additional authority, allowing them to more effectively direct resources to enhance training. To teach STEM subjects (Cobb and Jackson, 2011), adopt a smart curriculum for mathematics and science (Casey et al., 2012), engage in continuous development that is specific to areas of interest, and establish learning communities that support instruction (Cunningham and Lochmiller, 2019), it is necessary to establish a clear vision. According to Cunningham and Lochmiller (2019), as well as Lochmiller (2016), supporting the teaching of mathematics and science can be accomplished through the provision of feedback that is content-focused.

Quaisley et al. (2023) explore how STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) teachers build their leadership identities in the K–12 educational environment. The study is based on a model called “Cannot-to-Becoming-to-Being,” which describes the formation of teachers’ leadership identities in four distinct phases:

Cannot – the initial feeling of helplessness in acting as a leader.

Can – the realization that I can contribute and take on leadership roles.

Should – the awareness of the responsibilities that leadership entails.

Being – the complete assumption of the role of a leader.

The accent of participating in professional training programs plays a critical role in the development of leadership identity. In addition, there are factors that can accelerate or hinder this process. Moreover, outside the school environment, teachers may have the favorable circumstances to temporarily assume leadership roles, which stimulates their desire to develop this identity within education (Quaisley et al., 2023).

Geiger et al. (2023) lay the foundation for an effective leadership model in STEM that has the potential to structure professional learning programs and projects. The proposed model follows five dimensions of STEM leaders’ capacity:

The model can influence the course and direction of leadership by structuring professional learning programs for all leaders involved in the process (Geiger et al., 2023).

Gravel and Puckett (2023) investigate the factors that shape teachers’ implementation of a school STEM reform, particularly the creation of a makerspace for high school. It was found that teachers’ efforts can be grouped into 4 pillars: sets of competencies and distributed expertise, physical space, disciplinary learning, and structural factors (Pang and Marton, 2013). The study concludes on the decision-making by teachers regarding the creation of the learning experience for students, as well as how the dynamics of the roles played by the teacher can be the general framework for a STEM reform.

Several limitations need to be mentioned. It is difficult to explain conceptual relationships because of chameleon concepts, which gain varied shades of meaning depending on the context of study. This is the primary limitation that is defined by the current conceptual adaptability of the concepts that are being analyzed. The analysis of the characteristics of the dataset that was chosen for the systematic review is one of them; the articles that were evaluated were limited, at least for some of the questions that were already present, which may have an effect on the process of generalization based on the findings. In the second place, the findings may be influenced by the constraints imposed by the digital and automated search engines that were utilized to search the databases that were researched (Clarivate, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ERIH Plus). The authors of this study collaborated to design and validate the search and selection criteria for the articles to be included in this analysis. However, it is important to note that their subjectivity, which is influenced by personal vision and prejudices, can be taken into consideration and may influence the results of the selection and analysis.

At the same time, every single study that is carried out has an exclusive contribution to make, along with the formulation of conclusions that can be multiplied. As a result, the repetitive aspects that are stated in diverse parts of the systematic review have not been eliminated because, by incorporating them, trends in the field can be identified more accurately. Therefore, it is possible that the results will be skewed because of this technique. To properly analyze the data and conclusions that were drawn, it is important to take into consideration these limitations.

Considering the fact that there is a wide range of research on the analyzed concepts: Resilience, STEM Education and Learning, Well-being, and Educational Leadership, this study is an integrated systematic review, a puzzle-construction type that has brought together typical and recent perspectives of conceptual and operational analysis and identified a variety of corespondences, interpretations, and perspectives to facilitate a coherent interpretative vision, namely a deep discernening of how instructional/educational leadership can support and enhance students’ resilience and well-being in STEM learning, thereby improving educational performance and the overall learning experience of students.

First, our review illustrates the significant heterogeneity of the approaches, hence the need to find a consensus on the fundamental elements of the analyzed concepts. We also suggest that through a deeper understanding of the construction of instructional/educational leadership, an authentic teaching approach can be achieved that contributes to the resilience and well-being of students in the field of STEM learning, where specific aspects of the teaching profession are important, such as the teacher-student relationship, counseling, and continuous professional development. The four pillars of constructing this study are:

Secondly, the authors found that resilience can be an implicit factor in the teacher-student relationship and a predictor of perseverance in effective STEM learning. It is also noted that success in STEM subjects can contribute to the development of resilience and well-being in school, with cognitive conflict generated by STEM learning being an important contributor to this development. Future research can delve deeper into this topic, as well as the effects of these correspondences, which have so far been poorly or unilaterally investigated. By doing so, it might also be pertinent to intensify research on the mediating processes and predictors of resilience and well-being development in school. The classification of correlates and predictors in this review could help facilitate and better understand the complex model of variables related to resilience, school well-being, effective STEM learning, and the teacher-student relationship.

Thirdly, our review shows that although most of the studies reviewed were based on unidirectional theoretical and methodological horizons, resulting in many findings from a single perspective, research in social sciences recommends multi-source approaches (Ham et al., 2015) to improve the validity of the findings. Therefore, the multiperspective approach can add consistency in interpreting the categorical and deterministic causal/factorial corespondences and interdependence between the analyzed concepts and translating the conclusions from the micro level to the macrosystemic level.

Thus, for example, our examination of the relationship between well-being and resilience and the direct corespondences between well-being and student failure in STEM subjects, besides the role of motivation in STEM learning and how it can be influenced by students’ well-being, can gain new interpretations and validations if the principle stated above is applied.

Fourthly, this systematic review indicates that the topic of instructional leadership is an important, interesting, and growing field of research. However, the enormous heterogeneity of approaches and the diversity of studies require a coherent interpretation regarding the understanding of the construct, including the associated operationalizations and the links with well-being, resilience, and STEM learning. In addition, the favorable circumstances to organize learning based on the STEM construct, which can generate well-being and resilience in the educational process, as well as the effect of motivation and success in STEM on students’ well-being, is also being analyzed. Additionally, the instructional leadership strategies that can be analyzed and developed are:

For STEM leadership, we need specific elements of instructional leadership. In specific content areas, instructional leadership further holds the leader accountable, as they must efficiently direct resources to improve instruction. Establishing a clear vision is absolutely necessary for teaching STEM (Cobb and Jackson, 2011), adopting a smart curriculum for mathematics and science (Casey et al., 2012), continuous development specific to areas of interest, and creating learning communities that support instruction (Cunningham and Lochmiller, 2019).

This systematic review highlighted the crucial role of instructional leadership in the context of STEM education. Educational leaders, both principals and teachers, play an essential role in creating a learning environment that supports the development of resilience and student well-being (Shaked, 2024; Wenner and Campbell, 2017); resilience is not a static trait but a dynamic process that develops through the interaction between the student, the environment, and adaptive strategies (Murray, 2004; Liebenberg et al., 2015). Teachers can contribute to the development of resilience through positive relationships with students and by creating a supportive environment.

The analyzed studies suggest that success in STEM subjects can contribute to the development of resilience and well-being in school. Additionally, the emotional and psychological well-being of students is a favorable factor for success in STEM (Avedissian and Alayan, 2021; Martinez-Garcia, 2022); motivation is strongly influenced by students’ well-being. Programs that promote mindfulness and emotional literacy can have a positive effect on students’ motivation in STEM learning (Vitha, 2022).

To support the evolution of students in the STEM field, a holistic approach is essential, which includes not only academic aspects but also emotional, social, and counseling ones. Teachers need to be prepared to address all these aspects (Al Hamad et al., 2024; Othman et al., 2022), as counseling in STEM education is not just a support mechanism, but a catalyst for change. Counseling programs can strengthen study skills, time management, and organizational strategies.

The continuous training of teachers in the fields of resilience, emotional intelligence, and adapted pedagogical methods is essential for creating an effective and favorable learning environment (Huang et al., 2022).