The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project:
Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
Sara Hinterplattner
1 a
, Eva Schmidthaler
2 b
, Michaela Schwinghammer
2 c
, Jakob S. Skogø
2 d
and Corinna H
¨
ormann
2 e
1
Linz Institute of Technology, Dynatrace Austria, Linz, Austria
2
Department of STEM Education, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria
Keywords:
STEM Education, Digital Education, Digital Classrooms, Educational Robots, Talent Development.
Abstract:
This study explores the integration of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education
in Austrian elementary and secondary schools, emphasizing teachers’ experiences and challenges in delivering
STEM content. Through a survey combining questionnaires and interviews, the study highlights significant
disparities in STEM equipment and resources among schools, limited STEM-specific teacher training, and
varying degrees of STEM curriculum integration. Additionally, while some schools offer student-focused ini-
tiatives to foster interest in STEM, others face constraints due to lack of resources and support. In response,
a unique pilot project in Steyr (Upper Austria) was developed to address these gaps by providing the edu-
cational robots Ozobots, alongside extensive teacher training. Supported by the local government, a major
industry partner, and a university, this collaborative effort aims to build teacher competency, promote digital
literacy, and encourage interdisciplinary STEM learning in schools. Initial results of the project indicate im-
proved teacher confidence in delivering STEM content and increased student engagement through hands-on
learning with Ozobots. This project serves as a model for Austrian education policy, aiming to position Steyr
as a leader in Digital Education and offering a scalable framework for addressing STEM and digital education
needs across the region.
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the primary goals of education at all levels is to
foster and reinforce a lifelong disposition for learning.
While the innate desire to explore and understand the
world is evident in young children, a well-designed
curriculum is essential to cultivate their intellectual
curiosity and guide their development. Research con-
sistently demonstrates that infants and toddlers ex-
hibit a remarkable capacity for learning, forming an
astounding 700 neural connections per second during
these formative years (Buchter et al., 2017). This bi-
ological phenomenon, coupled with their inherent in-
quisitiveness, makes early childhood an ideal window
for introducing foundational scientific concepts.
Furthermore, early exposure to STEM (Science,
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9601-433X
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9633-8855
c
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7738-9953
d
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7311-7969
e
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4770-6217
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) educa-
tion offers numerous benefits beyond content knowl-
edge. STEM education not only equips learners with
critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and in-
novation but also prepares them to participate pro-
ductively in scientific practices and discourse (DeJar-
nette, 2012; Duschl et al., 2007; Erdogan et al., 2017).
Effective STEM instruction must go beyond rote
memorization, embracing inquiry-based approaches,
hands-on experiences, and opportunities for students
to engage in authentic, developmentally appropriate
scientific processes (Duschl et al., 2007; Inan, 2019).
These approaches, such as active exploration, data
collection, question formulation, and testing scientific
ideas, allow students to connect prior knowledge to
new experiences, fostering deeper understanding and
engagement (Frances et al., 2009; Eshach and Fried,
2005). Moreover, the process of scientific inquiry in
STEM education involves active exploration and par-
ticipation, allowing students to engage in hands-on
activities, interact with peers and mentors, and use
the authentic tools of science (Duschl et al., 2007;
60
Hinterplattner, S., Schmidthaler, E., Schwinghammer, M., Skogø, J. S. and Hörmann, C.
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices.
DOI: 10.5220/0013211400003932
Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 1, pages 60-71
ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026
Proceedings Copyright © 2025 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda.

Inan, 2019). Such experiences are particularly im-
pactful when they align with students’ natural inter-
ests and curiosity, fostering excitement and deeper en-
gagement with the subject matter (Inan, 2019).
Early STEM education also holds the potential to
mitigate gender-based stereotypes and reduce barri-
ers to participation in STEM fields (Davidson, 2011;
Kazakoff et al., 2013). By providing engaging and
inclusive learning experiences, educators can foster a
love of STEM in all children, regardless of their gen-
der or background.
However, despite the growing emphasis on STEM
in primary education, many teachers face challenges
in effectively integrating these concepts into their
classrooms. Insufficient training and a lack of con-
fidence often hinder their ability to deliver engaging
and effective STEM instruction (Jamil et al., 2017;
Hinterplattner et al., 2024). Research by Nugent et al.
(2010) highlights the significance of effective profes-
sional development in enhancing teacher knowledge,
attitudes, and self-efficacy in STEM education (Nu-
gent et al., 2010).
Teachers who engage in inquiry-based profes-
sional development programs that are well-structured
and hands-on tend to develop stronger abilities to
present authentic STEM experiences in their class-
rooms (Snow-Renner and Lauer, 2005; Silverstein,
2017; Wenglinsky and Silverstein, 2006; Loucks-
Horsley et al., 1998). These programs also help
teachers interpret children’s experiences with scien-
tific phenomena, assess their understanding, and con-
nect their observations to relevant concepts (Chalu-
four, 2010). Such training is particularly important
given the growing emphasis on STEM in primary ed-
ucation, where many teachers remain apprehensive
about their ability to engage students in meaning-
ful STEM activities (Brenneman et al., 2009; Bren-
neman et al., 2018; Clements, 2021). Additionally,
anxiety about STEM topics, especially mathematics,
is prevalent among educators, and this anxiety can
negatively influence student outcomes, particularly
for girls (Beilock et al., 2010). To address these
challenges, teacher training programs must focus on
equipping educators with the skills to adapt STEM
instruction to meet diverse student needs and interests
while fostering positive attitudes toward STEM sub-
jects (Hiebert, 1999; McClure et al., 2017).
Given the critical importance of providing high-
quality STEM education from an early age to en-
sure that children are well-prepared for future success
(Hapgood et al., 2020; Tytler, 2020), it is imperative
that teachers possess the necessary skills and knowl-
edge to effectively integrate STEM concepts into their
classrooms. This research aims to assess the extent
to which teachers are prepared to integrate STEM,
particularly in the context of digital education, and
to identify areas where additional support or training
may be needed.
2 DIGITAL EDUCATION IN
AUSTRIA’S SCHOOL SYSTEM
In Austria, formal education begins at age six and
lasts four years of primary school. Following this,
students attend four years of lower secondary school
where they can pursue either a high or middle school
education. Finally, students typically attend four or
five years of higher secondary school, where they can
choose from various school types that qualify for dif-
ferent jobs or university studies. In addition to regu-
lar schooling, children with special needs can attend a
particular school starting from grade 1. Figure 1 gives
an overview of the Austrian school system.
The subject “Digital Education” was introduced in
Austria in the 2018/2019 school year (Swertz, 2018).
However, in the first years schools could choose to
integrate this “Digital Education” into other subjects
like using a word processing program for writing es-
says. In 2022, the “Digital Education” was intro-
duced as a compulsory subject in 5th grade, with
one teaching lesson (50 minutes) per week from 5th
to 8th grade (Hinterplattner et al., 2022; H
¨
ormann
et al., 2022). Before, computer science education was
only compulsory in the 9th grade of upper secondary
schools. However, in some vocational schools, com-
puter science was offered as a specialization. Al-
though the government has taken a further step to-
wards early digital education with the subject “Digital
Education” for lower secondary schools, Austria still
tends to be trailing in global comparisons (Hinterplat-
tner et al., 2022). Depending on the type of school,
STEM education is covered with different intensities
throughout the school career.
When looking at education before school starts,
educational areas are defined for teaching in early
childhood education centers. STEM and some basic
digital education concepts are addressed within the
“Nature and Technology” and “Language and Com-
munication” educational areas, specifically within
“Nature and Technology” where “Nature and Envi-
ronment” and “Technology and Mathematics” are de-
scribed (Hinterplattner et al., 2024). Examples in Na-
ture and Environment include nature encounters, ex-
periments, and computational thinking. In the Tech-
nology area, emphasis is placed on exploring large de-
vices and machines, understanding physical-technical
laws, and handling various tools. In the mathematics
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
61

Figure 1: Overview of the Austrian school system.
domain, explicit mentions include recognizing pat-
terns and sequences, quantities and sizes, geometric
shapes and numbers, as well as mathematical precur-
sor skills. Computer science is associated with the
“Language and Communication” area, focusing on
media literacy and explicitly mentioning independent
and critical use and design of digital media. However,
even though digital education in early childhood edu-
cation centers is already intended, it will not be con-
tinued during primary school (Hinterplattner et al.,
2022).
3 DIGITALIZATION PROJECT IN
STEYR
The city of Steyr has initiated a digitalization project
to enhance the educational landscape across its 16
public schools: Nine primary schools, six middle
schools, and one polytechnical school. This initiative
comes with a dedicated budget for acquiring digital
equipment to be used in the classrooms. Notably, the
budget is conditioned upon the stipulation that it be al-
located for digital tools that the city is not obligated to
provide, such as projectors or PCs. This strategic ap-
proach ensures that the funds are directed toward in-
novative solutions that genuinely enhance the learning
environment (Steyr News, 2024). To spearhead this
project, the responsible authorities employed a STEM
education researcher who has become the project
leader. In this capacity, she formed a collaborative
team that includes the global tech company Dyna-
trace and Johannes Kepler University Linz. Both
project partners were chosen because they have ini-
tiated programs aimed at sparking interest in STEM
subjects from an early age, promoting gender equal-
ity, and developing the digital skills essential for the
future (Johannes Kepler University, 2024; Dynatrace,
2024). This collaboration makes this project unique
in Austria and exemplifies how cities, private com-
panies, and research institutions can work together to
drive future-oriented education (Steyr News, 2024).
As part of their commitment to the project, Dyna-
trace and the university calculated over 1,100 work-
ing hours that they will invest without any financial
benefit, offering this support free of charge entirely.
The partnership aims are multifaceted but primarily
focus on enhancing digital education’s role in foster-
ing critical skills among students. Key objectives in-
clude: (1) Promoting Digital Literacy: Ensuring stu-
dents acquire essential digital skills that are increas-
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
62

ingly vital in the modern workforce. (2) Enhancing
Engagement: Utilizing digital tools to create more in-
teractive and engaging learning experiences that res-
onate with today’s learners. (3) Fostering Collabo-
ration: Encouraging collaborative learning through
digital platforms prepares students for teamwork in
professional settings. (4) Supporting Differentiated
Learning: Leveraging technology to cater to diverse
learning styles and needs, thus promoting inclusive
education. (5) Ensuring Equal Accessibility for All
Students: This project must reach all primary and sec-
ondary school students, including those who might
otherwise miss out on these experiences due to their
backgrounds or surroundings. By implementing the
program across all compulsory schools, the project
aims to provide equal access to digital resources and
opportunities for every primary and secondary school
student. A critical consideration for the scientific re-
search team was ensuring that the allocated budget
would be spent on something other than equipment
that would ultimately go unused due to teachers’ lack
of implementation knowledge. To address this, it was
decided that at least two teachers from each partici-
pating school must attend training focused on effec-
tively integrating STEM and digital education into
their teaching practices. Throughout the project, par-
ticipating schools and their teachers must complete
two modules. The first module (Module 1) presets
the Ozobots and how they can be programmed using
color codes. In the second module (Module 2), the fo-
cus is on block-based programming with Ozobots. In
addition, after each module, further teacher training
at the schools and student workshops are offered op-
tionally to deepen the content further and strengthen
teachers’ competencies in integrating digital educa-
tion. Furthermore, upon completion of Module 1,
schools will receive their digital equipment and have
the opportunity to invite the project team to conduct
workshops with their students. These workshops are
designed to facilitate the practical implementation of
the newly acquired tools and provide firsthand ex-
perience of how these digital resources can enhance
student learning. The workflow of the Steyr project
(overview of the project stages can be found in Figure
2) aims to ensure the quality of instruction and to re-
inforce best practices in using technology and digital
education effectively in the classroom.
Moreover, part of the project involves develop-
ing digital teaching materials tailored for all grades,
which will be offered free of charge. This ensures that
not only the schools participating in the project but
also other schools can benefit from the materials, po-
tentially spreading the impact of this initiative beyond
Steyr. The collaboration in Steyr is a potential model
for other cities across Austria. It should demonstrate
how investing in education and technology today is
an investment in the future and inspire other cities to
commit to similar initiatives and expand the benefits
of digital education.
The entire process will be accompanied by ongo-
ing research, which will inform both the planning and
implementation of the project. This initial research
phase, focusing on teachers’ training, is essential
for assessing teachers’ existing knowledge in STEM,
evaluating how well-prepared schools are for STEM
integration, and determining what training would be
most effective. By understanding these foundational
aspects, the project can be tailored to meet the spe-
cific needs of the educators and ultimately enhance
the quality of STEM education in Steyr’s schools.
Therefore, this paper highlights the necessity of
quality teacher preparation as a foundational element
in promoting strong STEM education from the start
and investigates the following research questions:
• STEM Resources and Teacher Preparation (RQ1):
How well-equipped are schools in terms of STEM
resources, digital tools, and specialized spaces,
and how adequately prepared are teachers in terms
of their qualifications, professional development,
and support structures for effective STEM instruc-
tion?
• Integration of STEM into the Curriculum and Stu-
dent Engagement (RQ2): How is STEM inte-
grated into the school curriculum, and how are in-
dividual student strengths and interests in STEM
promoted through projects, competitions, and in-
terdisciplinary teaching?
• Collaboration and Networking in STEM Edu-
cation (RQ3): What partnerships exist between
schools and external STEM organizations, and
how do these collaborations contribute to interdis-
ciplinary learning and the pursuit of STEM certi-
fications?
4 METHODOLOGY
The study involved questionnaires to teachers across
all 16 schools participating in the project, capturing
a range of perspectives from educators in both pri-
mary and secondary settings. After completing the
questionnaires, teachers participated in follow-up in-
terviews where they were invited to discuss their re-
sponses in greater depth. These interviews provided
an opportunity for teachers to elaborate on their ex-
periences, clarify points from the survey, and offer
additional context to their responses. This two-step
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
63

Figure 2: Overview of the project plan and its stages of the digitalization project in Steyr.
approach – using both questionnaires and follow-up
interviews – allowed for a comprehensive understand-
ing of the teachers’ perspectives, ensuring that both
quantitative data and qualitative insights contributed
to the findings.
4.1 Participants
The survey involved a total of 36 participants, all
of whom were teachers. The distribution of their
teaching roles is as follows: Eighteen teachers work
in primary schools; one teacher works in a special
school; five teachers work in both primary and special
schools; eleven teachers work in secondary schools;
and one teacher works in both primary and secondary
schools. This diverse group of educators represents
a range of teaching environments, from primary and
special education to secondary schools.
4.2 Study Design
The survey was designed to allow participants to pro-
vide open-ended responses to all questions. This ap-
proach enabled respondents to freely express their
views without the constraints of predefined answer
options, ensuring a more detailed and qualitative un-
derstanding of their opinions. The questions covered
various topics relevant to the study, and participants
were encouraged to elaborate on their answers when
possible. The first section of the survey focused on
STEM equipment in the schools and consisted of the
following questions:
1. How would you describe the current STEM
equipment at your school, and what resources and
materials are available to teachers for STEM in-
struction?
2. What digital tools, devices, or software are used
in STEM classes?
3. What special classrooms or laboratories for
STEM subjects are at your school?
The second section focused on teachers’ qualifica-
tions and support:
4. To what extent was STEM a topic in your educa-
tion?
5. What STEM-related further education have you
already attended/are you attending?
6. How would you rate your skills and knowledge in
the STEM field?
7. Which support structures or resources for teachers
to improve STEM teaching do you know?
The third section focused on the integration of STEM
into the curriculum:
8. How is STEM incorporated into the existing cur-
riculum?
9. Which STEM areas are particularly promoted?
Are there areas that receive less attention?
10. What is your interest in integrating STEM into
your teaching?
11. How do you connect different STEM subjects in
your teaching?
The fourth section focused on the student participa-
tion and interest:
12. What special opportunities, projects, or competi-
tions are offered at your school to spark and pro-
mote interest in STEM?
13. How are the individual strengths and interests of
students in the STEM field considered and pro-
moted?
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
64

The fifth section focused on cooperation and network-
ing:
14. Which partnerships do you have with universities,
research institutions, companies, or experts from
the STEM field?
15. How is the cooperation between science subjects
and other subjects promoted?
16. Does the school have STEM certificates, or is it
aiming for them?
The follow-up interviews were structured follow-
ing the survey questions, but participants were en-
couraged to elaborate and discuss additional relevant
points.
4.3 Data Analysis
A mixed-methods approach was employed for the
data analysis to ensure a comprehensive understand-
ing of quantitative and qualitative insights from the
survey and follow-up interviews. The analysis was
conducted in two phases: first, the quantitative data
from the survey was processed, and second, the qual-
itative data from the interviews was analyzed to con-
textualize and deepen the findings. The quantitative
data, collected through structured survey questions,
was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequen-
cies, percentages, and arithmetic mean, where ap-
propriate, are calculated to summarize the teachers’
responses. The results were presented through var-
ious figures to represent trends and patterns in the
responses visually. The qualitative data, gathered
from open-ended survey questions and follow-up in-
terviews, was analyzed using thematic analysis. Each
response was reviewed, and recurring themes were
identified, such as barriers to interdisciplinary teach-
ing, challenges with STEM integration, or the lack of
resources. Responses were coded manually to cate-
gorize these themes, and illustrative quotes from par-
ticipants were selected to provide context to the quan-
titative findings. The integration of both data types
allowed triangulate the findings, ensuring that quan-
titative trends were supported and enriched by the
teachers’ lived experiences and descriptions of their
circumstances. However, this paper’s primary focus
is on the quantitative data analysis, with qualitative
insights used mainly to provide additional context.
5 RESULTS
The results of the survey and the interviews are pre-
sented combined in the following subsections.
5.1 STEM Equipment in Schools
In the first section of the survey and follow-up inter-
views, we examined the availability of STEM equip-
ment in schools. Two participants did not answer the
question regarding the equipment available for stu-
dents and teachers. The remaining participants could
identify between four and eleven different types of
equipment, with an arithmetic mean of 6.62 (N=34).
The most commonly mentioned equipment included:
different experiment boxes (n=31), projectors or TVs
(n=22), laptops (n=22) ranging from 1 (n=10) to
20 (n=3), tablets (n=26) ranging from one per class
(n=1) to all students (n=12), robots (n=22), additional
tools for computational thinking (n=10), books (12),
PCs (n=12), additional programming tools (n=6), and
magnifying glasses (n=6). Additionally, many partici-
pants mentioned various apps used for learning across
all subjects, highlighting the widespread use of digital
tools among students.
Most teachers rated the availability of STEM
equipment as “good” or “enough”. However, many
highlighted that the equipment needed to be updated
to be used effectively in the classroom. In secondary
schools, all students reportedly had their tablets or
laptops. In contrast, in primary schools, the availabil-
ity of these devices varied significantly—from none
at all to sufficient numbers for a single class.
In secondary schools, each classroom was
equipped with a fixed PC and either a projector or TV.
In contrast, in primary schools, not all classrooms had
projectors or TVs, and no fixed PCs were available.
One participant described the challenging situation in
their school, noting that there were only “2 PCs for 27
teachers”. This illustrates the significant disparity in
equipment availability between different schools and
grade levels.
Five participants did not answer the question re-
garding special classrooms and laboratories. The
others reported between zero and three specialized
rooms, with an arithmetic mean of 1.03 (n=31).
These included no specialized rooms at all, com-
puter rooms, physics rooms, combined chemistry and
physics rooms, handicraft rooms, talent rooms, and
material storage rooms. No primary schools reported
having dedicated computer rooms. This data indi-
cates significant variation in the provision of spe-
cialized STEM facilities, with some schools needing
more dedicated spaces for hands-on STEM learning
entirely.
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
65

5.2 Teachers’ Qualifications
The second section of the survey and follow-up in-
terviews examined teachers’ qualifications for STEM
education. When asked about their initial teacher
studies to become educators, all participants an-
swered this question, and the most common response
was that they did not receive any formal STEM train-
ing (n=14). An additional ten participants indicated
they had only minimal exposure to STEM during their
teacher studies. In contrast, seven teachers reported
receiving full STEM training, and five participants
mentioned completing specialized digital education
training. Figure 3 shows an overview of these re-
sponses.
Figure 3: Overview of the teachers’ training in STEM.
Ten participants reported not pursuing any further
education in STEM after their teacher training, while
another ten completed longer, more comprehensive
training. The remaining 16 teachers participated in
smaller, shorter workshops focused on STEM topics.
All the participants answered this question. Figure 4
shows a breakdown of these responses.
Figure 4: Overview of teachers’ further education in STEM.
Teachers were also asked to rate their knowledge
and skills in STEM. Again, all of the participants an-
swered the question. The results were as follows:
Eleven teachers rated themselves as having medium
knowledge and skills in STEM, eight reported good
knowledge and skills, eight noted that they had less
knowledge, adding that their knowledge and skills
could be improved, with one teacher stating, “There
is still potential for growth.” Five indicated no knowl-
edge and skills, and four described themselves as hav-
ing very good knowledge and skills. These ratings
provide insight into the varied levels of confidence
among the teachers in their STEM knowledge. Fig-
ure 5 shows an overview of this data.
Figure 5: Perceived teachers’ knowledge and skills in
STEM.
When asked about the availability of support
structures or resources to help improve their STEM
teaching, 22 teachers reported that no support was
available in their school, with one, for example, stat-
ing, “There is no money for this”. Eleven teachers
said that further education opportunities were avail-
able, two mentioned they could seek help from col-
leagues within the school, and one participant noted
that their school had an IT team available to assist
them. Again, no participants answered the question.
Figure 6 shows an overview of these responses.
5.3 Integration of STEM
The integration of STEM into the curriculum was ex-
plored through several questions in the survey and
follow-up interviews. All participants responded
when asked how STEM is incorporated into the ex-
isting curriculum. The majority (n=20) indicated that
they follow the respective curriculum, with one elab-
orating on their school’s new digital focus and others
highlighting that STEM is part of their school’s de-
velopment and quality measures. However, nine par-
ticipants stated that they do not incorporate STEM at
all, with one noting, “I am not doing this at all; we do
not have enough equipment or rooms for that”. Ad-
ditionally, seven teachers said they rarely incorporate
STEM.
When asked which STEM areas are mainly pro-
moted and which areas receive less attention, 16 par-
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
66

Figure 6: Availability of support structures in participants’
schools.
ticipants reported that no specific STEM area was
emphasized. Among those who did specify a fo-
cus, mathematics was the most frequently mentioned
(n=13), followed by IT (n=6), biology (n=1), general
science (n=1), and technics (n=1). Several respon-
dents commented that promoting STEM is challeng-
ing due to a lack of resources, such as laptops and
teaching staff. One participant pointed out that teach-
ers are often required to teach subjects they have not
specialized in, a common issue in Austria because
they lack qualified teachers. There was also a call for
more focus on digital education. Figure 7 provides
an overview of these results. Twenty-one participants
stated that all STEM areas receive too little attention,
with particular emphasis on IT (n=7), with one per-
son noting that “You only learn the basics”. Other
responses indicated that Natural Sciences (n=4), Geo-
metric Drawing (n=2), and Handicrafts (n=2) are also
neglected.
In response to the question about their interest in
integrating STEM into their teaching, 14 participants
indicated they were interested. At the same time,
13 reported being very interested, leading to a total
of 75% expressing interest or strong interest. Eight
teachers said they were not interested at all, and one
reported only a slight interest. Several participants ex-
pressed the desire to integrate more STEM but cited
barriers such as lack of time, support, or equipment.
For instance, one participant said, “For the children,
it is exciting. I would like to do it, but we do not
even have a laptop for every child; how should I do
this?” Another teacher mentioned, “I know too little
about this and don’t know how to integrate it.” Figure
8 provides an overview of these responses.
Figure 7: Promoted STEM areas in participants’ schools.
Figure 8: Interest in integrating STEM into teaching.
When asked how they connect different STEM
subjects in their teaching, the most common answer
(n=16) was that they do not do so. Twelve participants
indicated that they regularly combine STEM subjects,
citing examples such as integrating digital education
with English, General Science, German, Mathemat-
ics, and Social Learning. Others noted that teaching
interdisciplinary is a requirement in primary school,
particularly in subjects like Handicrafts and General
Science. Six participants reported they sometimes
make these connections, while two said they rarely
do so. Examples provided included using tablets in
multiple subjects. Once again, it was mentioned that
the lack of adequate devices is a barrier in schools.
An overview of responses can be found in Figure 9.
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
67

Figure 9: Connecting different STEM subjects.
5.4 Student Participation and Interest
In the fourth part of the survey, focusing on stu-
dent participation and interest in STEM, the first
question asked teachers what exceptional opportu-
nities, projects, or competitions are offered at their
schools to spark and promote interest in STEM. Ten
respondents stated that no such initiatives are cur-
rently offered. However, the remaining 26 teach-
ers reported various opportunities, including special
classes designed for talented and interested children
(mentioned by 18 participants), experiments in regu-
lar classes (n=7), digital education (n=7), robotics ac-
tivities (n=5), and the use of learning apps (n=2). De-
spite these offerings, some teachers highlighted a lack
of available staff in this field, with one remarking,
“We have too few teachers who know these things;
how should we do this?” There were also mentions
of a desire for more training and workshops similar
to those offered in the project at the center of this re-
search. An overview of these findings can be seen in
Figure 10.
The second question explored how individual
strengths and interests of students in STEM are con-
sidered and promoted. Fourteen respondents men-
tioned special classes for talented and interested stu-
dents, while nine reported using various learning and
teaching strategies to foster these interests. These
strategies included collaborative learning (n=1), ex-
perimental learning (n=1), interdisciplinary teach-
ing (n=1), inquiry-based learning (1), project-based
learning (n=1), and self-directed learning (n=5). Ad-
ditionally, two teachers referenced programs after or
outside regular school hours.
Figure 10: Special opportunities, projects, or competitions
offered at participants’ schools.
5.5 Collaborations and Networking
The survey and follow-up interviews regarding col-
laborations and networking revealed the following in-
sights.
When participants were asked about partnerships
with universities, research institutions, companies, or
experts from the STEM field, 21 teachers reported
that there are no partnerships at all. The remaining
participants listed partnerships with a total of eleven
different organizations, including the Austrian Eco-
nomic Chambers, the Austrian Federal Ministry for
Education, Science, and Research (BMBWF), cen-
ters for education, high schools, local farmers, the
police, and universities. These partnerships show a
range of connections beyond STEM-specific institu-
tions, though the majority lack such collaborations.
An overview of these responses is provided in Figure
11 and 12.
The second question addressed promoting cooper-
ation between science subjects and other disciplines.
Twenty participants stated that interdisciplinary co-
operation is not promoted in their schools. The re-
maining 16 participants mentioned various interdis-
ciplinary projects, although many noted that these
projects depend heavily on the initiative of individ-
ual teachers. One respondent stated, “There is no
common practice in our school about interdisciplinary
teaching”, while another added, “Sadly, this is hap-
pening rarely, because it just takes way too much
time”.
The third question focused on whether schools
have STEM certificates or are aiming to achieve them.
Ten teachers reported that their schools neither have
STEM certificates nor plan to pursue them. The re-
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
68

Figure 11: Partnerships between teachers’ schools and uni-
versities, research institutions, companies, or experts from
the STEM field.
Figure 12: Types of partnerships between teachers’ schools
and universities, research institutions, companies, or experts
from the STEM field.
maining participants reported between one and three
STEM-related certificates that their schools have been
awarded, with an arithmetic mean of 1.25 certifi-
cates per school. Eight different certificates were
mentioned, including those related to Digital Educa-
tion, environment, health, nature, sports, and general
STEM. These certifications highlight a broader ap-
proach to recognition beyond STEM alone. More-
over, teachers from these schools were also interested
in achieving more certificates. Figure 13 and 14 pro-
vide an overview of these results.
Figure 13: Existence of STEM certificates.
Figure 14: Overview of the fields of certificates of the teach-
ers’ schools.
6 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the findings of this study reveal sev-
eral insights regarding the state of STEM education
in Austrian schools and inform potential areas for im-
provement in line with the three research questions.
STEM Resources and Teacher Preparation (RQ1):
Schools show significant variability in terms of STEM
resources, digital tools, and specialized spaces, with
some schools adequately equipped while others face
limitations due to outdated or insufficient equipment.
Teacher preparedness also varies widely; while some
educators have received STEM-focused training, oth-
ers have had limited or no exposure, resulting in a
range of comfort and competency levels. Many teach-
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
69

ers expressed a desire for more professional develop-
ment and support structures to effectively incorporate
STEM into their instruction.
Integration of STEM into the Curriculum and Stu-
dent Engagement (RQ2): STEM integration into the
curriculum varies across schools. While some schools
promote STEM through projects and special classes,
others lack the resources or infrastructure to fully en-
gage students. Nevertheless, many teachers display a
strong interest in STEM instruction and recognize the
importance of fostering student strengths and inter-
ests through project-based learning and competitions.
However, resource constraints and limited interdisci-
plinary opportunities sometimes hinder these efforts.
Collaboration and Networking in STEM Educa-
tion (RQ3): Partnerships with external STEM orga-
nizations are limited, with only a few schools report-
ing active collaborations. Where partnerships exist,
they can support interdisciplinary learning and facil-
itate pathways to STEM certifications. Nevertheless,
the lack of a standardized approach to collaboration
presents challenges to the consistent implementation
of these partnerships across schools.
Overall, the study highlights both the potential and
the challenges of enhancing STEM education within
Austrian schools. Strengthening teacher training, en-
suring consistent access to resources, and fostering
partnerships with external STEM organizations will
be critical for advancing STEM education and ad-
dressing current disparities.
7 DISCUSSION
Findings reveal that teachers’ self-perceptions of their
STEM skills and qualifications vary widely, with
many lacking formal teacher training or ongoing pro-
fessional development. Similar research with STEM
teachers in Austria about the use of technology also
shows a lack of knowledge about the efficient use of
the latest technologies in the classroom, their utiliza-
tion in general, and the participants’ desire for pro-
fessional teacher training (Schmidthaler et al., 2023a;
Schmidthaler et al., 2023b; H
¨
ormann et al., 2023).
Furthermore, this research indicates that interdisci-
plinary collaboration is largely unsupported as a sys-
tematic practice in the participating Austrian com-
pulsory schools, relying instead on the voluntary ef-
forts of individual teachers. Despite some existing
projects, a lack of institutional promotion limits reg-
ular cooperation across subjects. This inconsistency
challenges effective curriculum integration and stu-
dent engagement in STEM subjects. Like H
¨
ormann
et al. 2023, the data highlights a pressing need for
better resources and facilities, particularly in Aus-
trian primary schools, where disparities in equipment
availability can significantly hinder the implementa-
tion of hands-on STEM activities. The pilot project
in Steyr represents a proactive step toward address-
ing these gaps. However, its success will depend on
sustained collaboration between local governments,
educational institutions, and industry partners (Steyr
News, 2024). As teachers express interest in integrat-
ing more STEM into their classrooms, creating an en-
vironment that fosters interdisciplinary teaching and
supports teachers in developing innovative curricula
that can engage students effectively (H
¨
ormann et al.,
2023) is crucial. Moreover, the lack of partnerships
with universities and research institutions can limit
the opportunities for primary and secondary school
students to engage with real-world applications of
their learning. Strengthening these collaborations can
enhance the relevance of STEM education and pro-
vide students with valuable experiences that prepare
them for future STEM careers.
REFERENCES
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., and Levine,
S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects
girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
107:1860–1863.
Brenneman, K., Lange, A., and Nayfeld, I. (2018). Integrat-
ing stem into preschool education; designing a profes-
sional development model in diverse settings. Early
Childhood Education Journal 2018 47:1, 47:15–28.
Brenneman, K., Stevenson-Boyd, J., and Frede, E. C.
(2009). Mathematics and science in preschool: Pol-
icy and practice.
Buchter, J., Kucskar, M., Oh-Young, C., Welgarz-Ward,
J., and Gelfer, J. (2017). Supporting STEM in Early
Childhood Education.
Chalufour, I. (2010). Learning to teach science: Strate-
gies that support teacher practice. In Collected Papers
from the STEM in Early Education and Development
(SEED) Conference.
Clements, D. H. (2021). Learning and teaching early math
: The learning trajectories approach ( 3nd ed .). Rout-
ledge.
Davidson, C. N. (2011). Now you see it: how the brain
science of attention will transform the way we live,
work, and learn. Viking.
DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing
early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engi-
neering and math) initiatives. Education, 133:77–84.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., and Shouse, A. W.
(2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and
Teaching Science in Grades K-8. The National
Academies Press.
CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
70

Dynatrace (2024). Dynatrace solutions for education.
Erdogan, I., C¸ iftc¸i, A., Yıldırım, B., and Topc¸u, M. S.
(2017). Stem education practices: Examination of the
argumentation skills of pre-service science teachers.
Journal of Education and Practice, 8:164–173.
Eshach, H. and Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be
taught in early childhood? Journal of Science Educa-
tion and Technology, 14:315–336.
Frances, D., Kathy, H., Marisa, I., Roxane, K., Bruno, A.,
Neal, H., and Deborah, P. (2009). What works?: A
study of effective early childhood mental health con-
sultation programs.
Hapgood, S., Czerniak, C. M., Brenneman, K., Clements,
D. H., Duschl, R. A., Fleer, M., Greenfield, D.,
Hadani, H., Romance, N., Sarama, J., Schwarz, C.,
and VanMeeteren, B. (2020). The importance of early
stem education. Handbook of Research on STEM Ed-
ucation, pages 87–100.
Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the
nctm standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 30:3–19.
Hinterplattner, S., Rottenhofer, M., Groher, I., and Sabitzer,
B. (2022). Exploring students’ experiences and per-
ceptions of computer science: A survey of Austrian
secondary schools. International Conference on Com-
puter Supported Education, CSEDU - Proceedings,
2:238–247.
Hinterplattner, S., Schalk, M., Leitner, S., and Schwing-
hammer, M. (2024). MINT-Begabungsf
¨
orderung in
der Elementarp
¨
adagogik: Analyse und Chancen in
der Ausbildung, pages 279–291. Waxmann.
H
¨
ormann, C., Schmidthaler, E., Kuka, L., Rottenhofer, M.,
and Sabitzer, B. (2022). From non-existent to manda-
tory in five years – the journey of digital education in
the Austrian school system. In The 15th International
Conference on Informatics in Schools.
H
¨
ormann, C., Schmidthaler, E., and Sabitzer, B. (2023).
Navigating the implementation of the curriculum dig-
ital education in Austrian secondary schools: Chal-
lenges and teacher perspectives. In Lecture Notes in
Computer Science.
Inan, H. Z. (2019). Science education in reggio emilia-
inspired altın C¸ a
˘
g preschools. Early Childhood Ed-
ucation.
Jamil, F. M., Linder, S. M., and Stegelin, D. A. (2017).
Early childhood teacher beliefs about STEAM ed-
ucation after a professional development confer-
ence. Early Childhood Education Journal 2017 46:4,
46:409–417.
Johannes Kepler University (2024). COOL Lab.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., and Bers, M. U. (2013).
The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics
and programming workshop on sequencing ability in
early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal,
41:245–255.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., and Stiles,
K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for
teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.
McClure, E., Guernsey, L., Clements, D. H., Bales, S. N.,
Nichols, J., Kendall-Taylor, N., and Levine, M. H.
(2017). Stem starts early: Grounding science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and math education in early child-
hood.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., and Jones, E. (2010). Ex-
tending engineering education to K-12. Technology
Teacher, 69:14–19.
Schmidthaler, E., Andic, B., Schmollm
¨
uller, M., Sabitzer,
B., and Lavicza, Z. (2023a). Mobile augmented re-
ality in biological education: Perceptions of Austrian
secondary school teachers. Journal on Efficiency and
Responsibility in Education and Science, 16.
Schmidthaler, E., H
¨
ormann, C., Rottenhofer, M., Sabitzer,
B., and Lavicza, Z. (2023b). The implementation of
learning apps in biological education: a quantitative
study of the current situation in Austria. Journal of
Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 1:2397–
7604.
Silverstein, S. C. (2017). How teaching matters.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0186, 5:317.
Snow-Renner, R. and Lauer, P. A. (2005). Professional de-
velopment analysis. McREL.
Steyr News (2024). Spielerisch Programmieren lernen:
Steyr startet Pilotprojekt in Pflichtschulen.
Swertz, C. (2018). Digitale Grundbildung im Pilotversuch:
Beobachtungen einer entstehenden Praxis. Medienim-
pulse, 56(3).
Tytler, R. (2020). STEM Education for the Twenty-First
Century, pages 21–43. Springer International Publish-
ing.
Wenglinsky, H. and Silverstein, S. (2006). The sci-
ence training teachers need. Educational Leadership,
64:24–29.
The Integration of Digital Education Within an Ozobot Pilot Project: Austrian Teacher Perspectives and Practices
71