Possibilities and challenges of STEAM

pedagogies

Iván Sánchez (​ivan.sanchez@oulu.fi​)

Marta Cortés (​marta.cortes@oulu.fi​)

STEAM concept and background

The term STEM refers to teaching and learning in the fields of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics. It is a very broad concept that includes education across all grade levels:
starting from kindergarten and finishing in post-doctorate studies. STEM education is also
transversal: is applied in formal (e.g. classrooms), non-formal (e.g. in courses and workshops
taught at afterschool programs) and informal (e.g. courses taught in makerspaces) education
environments (Gonzalez and Kuenzi, 2012). STEM education aims to help the next generation
of students to solve real-world problems by utilizing knowledge of multiple disciplines and
horizontal competences such as critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity (Burrows and
Slater 2015).

A report issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) aimed to

describe which was the status in education in the US. In conclusion, the report included some
recommendations to educate future citizens that could cope with the requirements of future
jobs, many of which were not yet known. ​This set of recommendations has evolved in the last
decades, and have been later identified globally as 21st century skills. They partly switched the
education paradigm from content only to skills (or competences) and content. Such skills (Chu
2017), include examination, inquiry, critical thinking and reasoning, team work, motivation…

The term STEM was coined by the NSF (National Science Foundation) in the USA in the
beginning of 2000’s with the goal of attracting and training students in the fields of science and
technology, in which it was expected a shortage of workforce. From that moment on, several
programs were started in the USA, with the goal of introducing in-service and pre-service
teachers the foundations, pedagogies, curriculum, research, and contemporary issues of the
STEM education disciplines. The NSF remarked an integrative view of the disciplines. They
should not be taught separately but as a whole, and thus bringing together the technological
design methodologies used traditionally in technology and engineering with the inquiry learning
approaches used for ages in science and math. (Sanders, 2009). The NSF expected engage
students or teams of students in scientific inquiry situated in the context of technological
problem-solving. For instance, instead of teaching concepts about energy, sustainability and
technology in separate niches, students might build their own wind turbine, in order to acquire
similar knowledge.

Land (2013) defends that teaching technology and science just prepare students to execute
tasks fluidly. However, other important competences that powers innovation and creativity are
left out. Teaching science and technology should come hand in hand with the development of
creative thinking skills through art and design(Madden 2013). In addition, the incorporation of
arts may develop further majority of STEM skills: arts utilize a divergent approach while science,
technology and engineering are more convergent. Convergent thinking consists of following a
process to reach one single solution to a problem, whereas divergent thinking involves exploring
many possible solutions to the same problem. In that way, students will be able to simultaneous
decompose a complex problem using convergent thinking and then apply the corresponding
solution to the real world uses divergent thinking.The addition of the artistic skills to the science
and technology education gave birth to a new acronym: STEAM (notice the addition of A for
arts). The literature presents John Maeda, President of the Rhode Island School of Design, as
the father of the STEAM movement (Maeda, 2012).

STEAM pedagogies
Moore et al. (2004), after an extensive review of literature, tried to characterized STEM
education. They included six main principles for quality STEM education: (1) multidisciplinar
content including math, science and technology; (2) student-centered pedagogy; (3) lessons are
situated in a inviting and engaging context; (4) inclusion of engineering design or redesign
challenge; (5) learn by making errors; (6) teamwork and collaboration. In this section we would
like to discuss a bit about the pedagogical methodologies that facilitate most of the tenets
defined by Moore and colleagues.

As stated in Chu (2017) “One limitation of the twenty-first century skills models is that while they
specify prioritized learning objectives, they do not offer educators the “means” by which to
achieve those articulated “ends.”” And this is where STEAM education quicks in. STEAM
practices support switching from traditional lecture-based teaching to inquiry and project-based
strategies including collaborative learning. The aim of this is to educate citizens that (Quigley
and Herro 2016) approach problem solving through innovation, creativity, critical thinking,
effective communication, collaboration and, of course, new knowledge. Some (Yakman 2008,
Watson and Watson 2013) have pointed out that these concepts were already acknowledged
more than a century ago by educational philosophers such as Friedrich Fröbel or John Dewey.
Fröbel promoted real world experiences and contextual learning as the only way to promote real
understanding. Dewey proposed the integration of education across subjects, and to expose
students to real-world applications to increase engagement, promoting collaborative building of
knowledge. Both of them predated somehow constructivism. Both of them promoted
student-centered learning.
When reviewing STEAM education literature, main themes in relation with pedagogy (Yakman
2008, Connor et al. 2015, Quigley and Herro. 2016) are discipline integration and several
instructional approaches based on constructivist theories like problem-based learning,
project-based learning and inquiry based learning.
Discipline integration (or Integrative education) implies that the solution of complex problems
involve the knowledge, processes and skills from different disciplines. Benefits of discipline
integration include (Stohlmann et al. 2012, Shernoff et al. 2017): more relevant, less
fragmented, and more stimulating experiences for learners; its student centered approach;
improvement in higher level thinking skills, problem solving, and retention; improvement on
student attitudes and interest in school, their motivation to learn and achievement. Connor et al
(2015) find Integrative STEM education has a strong basis in constructionism and in cognitive
science​. ​In fact, they point that the set of following cognitive themes identified by Bruning
(2004) resonate with integrative STEM education:
• Learning is a constructive, not a receptive, process.
• Motivation and beliefs are integral to cognition.
• Social interaction is fundamental to cognitive development.
• Knowledge, strategies, and expertise are contextual
Connor et al. (2015) also point that there is growing evidence that integrative instruction
enhances learning: Hartzler (2000) conducted a meta-analysis across 30 individual studies of
the effects of integrated instruction on student achievement.

The instructional approaches involved in STEAM pedagogies that we have mainly identified are
project based learning (Land 2013, Madden 2013, Watson and Watson 2013), problem based
learning (Quigley and Herro 2016) and inquiry based learning ( Madden 2013). The three of
them are mainly learner centered and based on the same principle: student needs to solve a
problem (or answer a question). Though the boundaries among those methods are quite
blurred, there are some differences, mainly on the framing of the problem and how much
information on how to get to the solution is given.
Project based learning (Knoll 1997, Becket 2002) involves students creating knowledge in order
to solve problems that arise while they are engaged in purposeful real-world activities. It was
first presented as The Project Method by Dewey’s student, Kilpatrick. Main characteristics for
Project based learning are: real-world activities frame problems that can be solved along the
project with no predefined steps, often with an interdisciplinary approach. However, Problem
based learning (Savery and Duffy 1995) focus is in solving a problem framed in a fictional
scenario that does not necessarily imply an interdisciplinary approach. The students generate
the learning issues (objectives) based on their analysis of the problem. While these two imply
exploring to obtain an answer, Inquiry based learning (Colburn 2000) aims to discover an
answer from an initial question by formulating new questions. With inquiry students in which
they develop an understanding of how scientists study the natural world. All of these
instructional approaches favor collaborative learning and team work.
Perceptions and challenges associated to STEAM
education for in service teachers
Sanders (2009) remarks the important role of primary education teachers in STEAM education:
students start loosing interest in science, maths and technology at an early age. When interest
for science and technology decays, it is difficult to get it back.

The literature presents two main challenges teachers have to face to implement STEAM
education in their classes: Integrative approach (different subjects content must be applied
simultaneously) and multidisciplinary education (teachers have to teach content outside their
comfort area or speciality).

In-service teachers that are currently applying STEAM education in their classes perceived the
following challenges when applying integrated STEAM approaches (Shernoff et al. 2017): lack
of time for collaborative planning, lack of time for instruction, an inadequate school structure and
organization (e.g. scheduling), difficulty to assess STEAM achievements, lack of resources, and
inadequate teacher education (pre-service education should put more focus in interdisciplinarity
while in-service education should include focus on content areas outside teacher’s
specialization). An extensive literature review on teachers perception of STEM recently
published by Margot and Kettle (2019) confirms the results reported by Shernoff and colleagues
(2017). In addition, Margot and Kettle (2019) remarks how they would like to receive support:
collaboration among colleagues, the availability of quality curriculum, support from learning
officials and local administration, and more important, a well-organized and frequently available
professional learning opportunities Other research work reporting perception of STEAM
education by teachers can be found from Park et al. ( 2016) and ​El-Deghaidy and Mansour
(2015). In both cases, conclusions align with those exposed previously.

It is clear that school teachers need proper training to integrate STEAM education in their
classes. In order to be efficient dealing with students misconceptions in STEAM subjects, they
must hold an thorough knowledge of STEAM concepts (Nadelson et al., 2013). This research
claims that to overcome the limitations associated with the minimal preparation of in service
teachers in STEAM education, it is necessary that they participate in continuing education. On
the other hand, Sanders (2009) remarks that due to the integrative character of STEAM,
education teachers cannot be prepared anymore in conventional ways to teach in the
conventional settings. STEAM education promotes pupils engagement in inquiry, authentic
applications, and active learning environments which require teachers to seek a proper
pedagogic training.

In order to cope with the challenge of supporting teachers when building multidisciplinary and
integrative education learning activities, literature proposes different frameworks for teacher
training. Burrows and Slater (2015) defend that currently there is a disconnect between the
traditional preparation (where teachers focus in one or two disciplines) and what is needed to
apply STEAM education. They propose a progressive education in which teachers move from a
Level Zero (single discipline) to a Level Four (Constant STEAM education). Moving between
these two end points exists a testable trajectory. First step would be adding quantitative
reasoning or mathematics to concepts being taught in the target discipline. After that, teachers
should integrate two or more distinct science disciplines. Following step would be to add
Engineering projects: materialization of concepts and ideas that came up from scientific
disciplines (but emphasizing principles of engineering instead of scientific methods). When
mastered these 3 levels it would be straightforward to move to the pure STEAM education.

STEAM in undergraduate education

Despite STEAM education being conceived to cover all education spectrum: from primary to
undergraduate education, main research stream has focus on school education. We could not
find that much research on how STEAM education has been used in undergraduate studies. In
this essay, we have omitted all papers that describe small interventions in particular courses or
who are very topic specific (e.g teaching programming or robotics). We tried to choose only
papers that present long-term interventions (e.g. modifying a whole course structure).

Some studies like the one presented by Brenier et al. (2012) presents the lack of awareness of
the STEM or STEAM concept among the university community. In addition, an extensive
literature review carried out by Henderson and colleagues (2011), analyzing 190 papers
published from 1995 to 2008 shows that the researchers do not provide strong evidence of
success of the tested strategies and that the different research communities are isolated.

In spite of the fact that student centric practices developed further problem solving skills, Connor
et al., (2015) defend that there has been little adoption of such practices (e.g. project based
learning) in undergraduate engineering education. The “chalk-and-talk” is by far the most
utilized methodology in university education. In addition, they claim that there is a
misconception between Problem Based Learning and Project Based Learning. In the last one,
students should set up goals and outcomes, producing more creative solutions. Authors also
remark one of the big problems when trying to apply student centric approach in undergraduate
studies is the so called “​disciplinary egocentrism”​ , described previously by Ritcher and Paretti
(2009). Disciplinary egocentrism is a failure to see connections between a given discipline and
an interdisciplinary subject or problem and also a failure to recognize differences in perspectives
and contributions. Connor and colleagues present several experiences where they try to
integrate arts based pedagogics, which emphasize inductive vs. deductive teaching methods,
to promote inquiry guided learning in engineering undergraduate courses. They argue that
different pedagogical methods such as problem based, project based, inquiry based and
discovery learning can coexist in the same instructional model. Finally, based on their
experience they propose, the following set of guidelines: embrace different disciplines, design
flexible projects for students, tease out creativity, allow and encourage failure, realize students
are different, consider vertical orientation (mixing students from different ages groups) and
explore horizontal blurring (projects and assessments to stretch over multiple courses).

Majority of efforts made to integrate STEAM education in university studies consist of changing
teaching methodologies in existing undergraduate courses. For instance, Ifenthaler et al. (2015)
presents how they built the undergraduate course “Designing for Open Innovation” using
STEAM methodologies. It is a multidisciplinary course that includes topics from Economy, Social
Sciences and Environment. The goal of the course is to answer a “question of the semester”.
Students divided in teams complete different assignments that 1) Allow them to identify the
competences they would like to develop further 2) help them in acquiring collaboration skills and
3) facilitate the acquisition of the competences defined in the first bullet. Finally the course
ended with a reflective essay. One of the main differences between this course and the old
version of the course is how the assignments were used to scaffold student learning and team
formation. In the presented course implementation, learning was achieved at three levels:
individual learning, team learning, and learning from each other. The first group tasks were
aimed to identify their own mental models. As the course advances the group assignment is
aimed more to acquire the desired competences and answer the question of the semester.

All around the world there has also been some efforts to add STEAM education in
undergraduate programs. For instance, in their article Madden et al. (2013) describe how they
build from scratch a multidisciplinar STEAM undergraduate curriculum including biology,
computer science, mathematics, music education, psychology, theatre and visual arts. While the
STEM disciplines of the curriculum aims to develop more analytical skills, the artistic disciplines
aimed to develop creativity and divergent thinking in students. The program goal is to develop
creative leaders with the following six characteristics: good communicators, good organizers,
managers with motivational skills, creative and innovative and cross-disciplinary knowledge in at
least two fields. With the help of advisors students personalize their major (Student-Initiated
Integrative Major) which must include courses from at least two disciplines. The students and
faculty work together after the first semester in building the Integrated Learning Module. This
module involves multidisciplinary problem solving teams working on a particular thematic
problem. Students propose the themes and then select related problems to study, so they take
ownership over their own projects. Faculty will model problem solving and encourage reflection,
communication skills, and self-monitoring. Finally, students need to do internships in local
companies. According to them, this is the first STEAM program taught for undergraduate
education in the world.

Discussion
It is clear that, for future professionals, it is not only important to acquire knowledge and
expertise in particular fields but also the procurement of transversal competences such as
creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration or problem solving. Many companies
are looking for these skills among their job applicants. In addition, multidisciplinary /
interdisciplinary is a reality that many of us have to face in our jobs. It is rather common that
companies look for versatile workers which are able to work in different fields of expertise.
STEM or STEAM education tries to prepare students for this new reality. It is clear that STEM
education can help the next generation of students to solve real-world problems by applying
concepts that cut across disciplines as well as capacities of critical thinking, collaboration, and
creativity (Burrows and Slater 2015)

Although some researchers and practitioners consider STEM or STEAM just as a buzzword that
is utilized with marketing purposes and to attract funding, it may have multiple shades of
meaning depending on who is using it and where. However, there are very interesting
underlying concepts concerning education behind these words: student centered learning,
problem solving, multidisciplinarity and integrative education. These concepts are certainly not
new: in the s XIX Dewey articulated an education system where students had to solve real life
problems in a collaborative manner. But the popularization of STEAM has brought them back to
the spotlight.

The integrative approach suggested by STEAM/STEM education permits solving real life
problems: real problems cannot be solved just applying concepts of Maths, Physics, Technology
or Engineering but utilizing a combination of all of them. In addition, it permits the integration of
many different instructional methodologies such as inquiry based learning (typical from Science)
and problem based learning (typical from technology/engineering).

We believe that A (for arts and design) in STEAM is an important addition from the original
STEM approach. Arts and design permit a more divergent thinking in students, giving space to
more creative solutions to problems. We do not say that the convergent thinking, traditionally
used in engineering or science is worse, but we believe both of them are important assets in the
students toolbox. They should be able to choose which approach to use depending on the
problem.

Implementing a pure STEAM education in our current education system is purely an utopia.
There are plenty of challenges that teachers must cope with. For instance, they would need
proper training in different fields, as well as pedagogical tools in order to be able to integrate
different subjects in a single learning activity. In addition, it is necessary to overcome the
disciplinary egocentrism, especially in undergraduate education. Many times, as teachers, it is
difficult for us to see the links between our disciplines and others or even worse, we cannot
understand how others can approach the topic from a different perspective.

For a real implementation of STEAM, especially in K-12 education, it is needed a radical change
in the educational culture and administration. Curriculum and teacher assessment methods (by
the administration) should change giving importance not only to the concepts but also the the
acquisition of transversal competences.
This review reports several success cases of application of STEAM education in university
education. We think that we should try to improve the collaboration among courses not only with
colleagues in the same discipline but also in other disciplines. Organizing transdisciplinar
courses (for instance, from topics from multiple faculties) might provide students more resources
to face real life problems, since they would be able to face it from multiple perspectives.

Bibliography
Beckett, G. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL
Canada journal, 19(2), 52-66.
Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What Is STEM? A
Discussion About Conceptions of STEM in Education and Partnerships. ​School
Science and Mathematics​, ​112​(1), 3–11.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby, M., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and
instruction. Columbus.
Burrows, A., & Slater, T. (2015). A proposed integrated STEM framework for contemporary
teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2/3), 318–330.
Chu, S. K. W., Reynolds, R. B., Tavares, N. J., Notari, M., & Lee, C. W. Y. (2017).
Twenty-First Century Skills and Global Education Roadmaps. In 21st Century Skills
Development Through Inquiry-Based Learning (pp. 17-32). Springer, Singapore.
Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science scope, 23(6), 42-44.
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies
for enhancing engineering & technology education. ​International Journal of
Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)​, ​5(​ 2), 37-47.
El-Deghaidy, H., & Mansour, N. (2015). Science teachers’ perceptions of STEM education:
Possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 1(1),
51-54.
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. (2012). ​Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM): A Primer.​ ​Congressional Research Service​. Retrieved from
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42642.pdf
Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum
programs and their effects on student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, [Sl: sn]).
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate
STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439
Ifenthaler, D., Siddique, Z., & Mistree, F. (2015). Designing for open innovation: Change of
attitudes, self-concept, and team dynamics in engineering education. In ​Emerging
Technologies for STEAM Education​ (pp. 201-215). Springer, Cham.
Knoll, M. (1997). The Project Method: Its Vocational Education Origin and International
Development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59–80.
Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM Ahead: The Benefits of Integrating the Arts Into STEM.
Procedia Computer Science,​ ​20​, 547–552.
http://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2013.09.317
Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M. &
Plague, G. (2013). Rethinking STEM Education: An Interdisciplinary STEAM
Curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2013.09.316
Maeda, J. (2012). STEM to STEAM: Art in K-12 Is Key to Building a Strong Economy.
Retrieved February 3, 2019, from
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/stem-to-steam-strengthens-economy-john-maeda
Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and
education: a systematic literature review. ​International Journal of STEM Education,​
6​(1), 2.
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H.
(2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In
Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices
(pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher
STEM Perception and Preparation: Inquiry-Based STEM Professional Development
for Elementary Teachers. ​The Journal of Educational Research,​ ​106​(2), 157–168.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (n.d.). Intro A Nation At Risk: The
Imperative For Educational Reform. Retrieved February 4, 2019, from
https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/intro.html
Park, H. J., Byun, S. Y., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and
practices of STEAM education in South Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 12(7), 1739–1753.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2016.05.003
Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of
interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. ​European Journal of Engineering
Education,​ ​34​(1), 29-45.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM Education, STEMAnia. ​Technology Teacher​, ​68​(4),
20–26. ​http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9210-4
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching
integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
(J-PEER), 2(1), 4.
Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher
education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated
approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
View publication stats

Watson, A. D., & Watson, G. H. (2013). Transitioning STEM to STEAM: Reformation of

engineering education. Journal for Quality and Participation, 36(3), 1-5.
Yakman, G. (2008, February). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of
integrative education. In Pupils' Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-19)
Conference: Research on Technology, Innovation, Design & Engineering Teaching,
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Yee-King, M., Grierson, M., & d'Inverno, M. (2017, April). STEAM WORKS: Student coders
experiment more and experimenters gain higher grades. In Global Engineering
Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 359-366). IEEE.