The trouble with STEAM and why we use it anyway

Sam Mejias,Mark Rosin,Bronwyn Bevan,Raul Mishael Sedas,Elisabeth Soep,Jen Wong,Naomi Thompson,Kylie Peppler,Joseph Roche,Mairéad Hurley,Philip Bell

doi:10.1002/sce.21605

Abstract

AbstractAs an emerging field of theory, research, and practice, STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) has received attention for its efforts to incorporate the arts into the rubric of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) learning. In particular, many informal educators have embraced it as an inclusive and authentic approach to engaging young people with STEM. Yet, as with many nascent fields, the conceptualization and usage of STEAM is somewhat ambivalent and weakly theorized. On the one hand, STEAM offers significant promise through its focus on multiple ways of knowing and new pathways to equitable learning. On the other hand, it is often deployed in theory, pedagogy, and practice in ambiguous or potentially problematic ways toward varying ends. This paper attempts to disentangle some of the key tensions and contradictions of the STEAM concept as currently operationalized in educational research, policy, and practice. We pay particular attention to the transformative learning potential supported by contexts where STEAM is conceptualized as both pedagogical and mutually instrumental. That is, neither STEM nor arts are privileged over the other, but both are equally in play. We link the possibilities suggested by this approach to emerging theories for understanding how designing for and surfacing epistemic practices linked to the relevant disciplines being integrated into STEAM programs may point the way toward resolving tensions in inter‐ and transdisciplinary learning approaches.

Highlights

AN OFTEN USED, OFTEN DISPUTED TERMThe nascent field of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) represents ongoing attempts by educational researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to make sense of and potentially institutionalize the role of the arts in relation to science, technology, engineering, and math learning
We offer critiques of uses of various terminologies (e.g., STEAM or science + art) in cases where the value placed on arts or the STEM fields is unbalanced
We suggest that STEAM programs may often emphasize a hybrid of these two epistemic practices, which we could call “hacking,” that is, the deliberate appropriation and repurposing of existing tools and knowledge

Summary

Introduction

AN OFTEN USED, OFTEN DISPUTED TERMThe nascent field of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) represents ongoing attempts by educational researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to make sense of and potentially institutionalize the role of the arts in relation to science, technology, engineering, and math learning. Two examples are Scaling up an innovative STEAM learning environment at Northwestern University (Stevens, 2017), which focuses on encouraging students' interest in STEM careers; and One Community, One Challenge: Pop‐Up STEAM Studios (Vasinda et al, 2019), a rural community makerspace project run by Oklahoma State University Such programs focus on supporting students' STEM learning, including identity development and career aspirations (Scarff, 2015). Other programs seek to explore the emancipatory role that creativity and self‐expression through the arts can bring to questions often addressed in the science curriculum such as climate change, conservation, and sustainable development (Aslan et al, 2014; Jennett, Kloetzer, Cox, et al, 2016; Jennett, Kloetzer, Schneider, et al, 2016; Miller‐Rushing et al, 2019; Root‐Bernstein et al, 2011) These competing motivations and priorities of STEAM reveal a salient tension. STEAM has quickly advanced toward spaces of funding and programming previously reserved for STEM‐related learning due to the increasing U.S educational policy support alongside popular discourses elevating the

Objectives

Conclusion