Abstract
In this chapter, we present a multi-threaded argument to suggest how design thinking can be an excellent framework for developing STEAM education. We note that STEAM is broader than mere arts integration in STEM. It reflects a view of education that is more creative, real-world-driven, and problem- or project-based in nature. To develop learning content and experiences that offer creative, authentic, real-world, and problem- or project-driven focus, teachers need more than an argument—they need a guiding framework. We suggest that design and design thinking are natural areas of interconnection with STEAM, both for learners and teachers. These ideas can be used to frame STEAM-based experiences that are more open, creative, project-based, and real-world-driven. Here, we discuss the nature of the connections between design and STEAM and focus on how teachers can use design thinking practices to help them redesign curriculum to transition from STEM to STEAM.
Let us search … for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict.
~ Donald Schön
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.
Boy, G. A. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centered education, creativity & learning thinking. In Proceedings of the 31st European conference on cognitive ergonomics (p. 3). New York: ACM. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2501907&picked=prox
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183–206.
Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77(5), 859–869.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogies, 5(2), 37–47.
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Psychology Press.
Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. In Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12–17.
Education Closet. (n.d.). What is STEAM? Retrieved from http://educationcloset.com/steam/what-is-steam/
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.
Fox, J., & Fox, R. (2000). Exploring the nature of creativity. Dobuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishers.
Henriksen, D. (2011). We teach who we are: Creativity and trans-disciplinary thinking in the practices of accomplished teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Michigan State University ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46.
Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it? In Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.
Jolly, A. (2014). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education week: Teacher. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html
Jolly, A. (2016). STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4–8. New York: Routledge.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Danvers, MA: Crown Business.
Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). Development and application of STEAM teaching model based on the Rube Goldberg’s invention. In Computer science and its applications (pp. 693–698). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.
Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., et al. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546.
Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: On being in-disciplined. TechTrends, 56(6), 18–21.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.
Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2015). In search of a teacher education curriculum: Appropriating a design lens to solve problems of practice. Educational Technology, 55(6), 3–14.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
Peppler, K. A. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. IEEE Computer, 46(9), 38–43.
Piro, J. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future, too. Education Week, 29(24), 28–29.
Plattner, H. (2015). Bootcamp bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf
Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2010). Design thinking: Understand–improve–apply. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Radziwill, N. M., Benton, M. C., & Moellers, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Reframing what it means to learn. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 3.
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Boston: Houghton Miffin.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Shlain, L. (1991). Art & physics: Parallel visions in space, time and light. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S., & Henriksen, D. (2016). Fail again, fail better: Embracing failure as a paradigm for creative learning in the arts. Art Education, 69(2), 6–11.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution: The Rede lecture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.
Weisman, D. L. (2012). An essay on the art and science of teaching. The American Economist, 57(1), 111–125.
Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Henriksen, D., Mehta, R., Mehta, S. (2019). Design Thinking Gives STEAM to Teaching: A Framework That Breaks Disciplinary Boundaries. In: Khine, M.S., Areepattamannil, S. (eds) STEAM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04002-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04003-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)