Advertisement

Structuring STEAM Inquiries: Lessons Learned from Practice

  • Sarah B. BushEmail author
  • Kristin L. Cook
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we share our journey of working with in-service elementary teachers in school-level professional learning communities as they develop, refine, and implement problem-based STEAM investigations in their classrooms with a critical focus on grade-level mathematics and science content and practices as defined by the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards. Our work with elementary teachers has yielded several problem-based STEAM inquiries that authentically and meaningfully integrate content areas to solve real-world problems. We have explicitly focused on inquiries that infuse the arts to investigate its potential to engage more diverse learners – in some cases students who have not traditionally been drawn to STEM subjects. We provide readers with the following three concrete examples of classroom-tested inquiries that have successfully and meaningfully integrated all areas of STEAM: designing a prosthetic arm for a kindergartener, a paleontology investigation, and a closer look at the arts within roller-coaster engineering. We conclude by sharing lessons learned as we embark on implementing effective STEAM instruction in the elementary school setting, and we provide tips and helpful resources for readers wishing to engage in the implementation of high-quality STEAM instruction.

References

  1. Ahn, J., & Kwon, N. (2013). An analysis on STEAM education teaching and learning program on technology and engineering. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 33(4), 708–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, C. (2016). An artist’s argument for STEAM education. Education Digest, 81, 21–23.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5), 23–37.Google Scholar
  4. Bequette, J., & Bequette, M. (2012). A place for ART and DESIGN education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Koellner, K., & Swackhamer, L. E. (2015). Mathematics professional development: Improving teaching using the problem-solving cycle and leadership preparation models. New York: Teacher’s College Press (copublished with NCTM.Google Scholar
  7. Bryk A. S., Gomez L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://cdn.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bryk-gomez_building-nics-education.pdf
  8. Buck, G., Cook, K., Quigley, C., Eastwood, J., & Lucas, Y. (2009). Exploring how urban African-American girls position themselves in science learning: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 386–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bush, S. B., Cox, R., & Cook, K. L. (2016). Building a prosthetic hand: Math matters. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(2), 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (2019). Step into STEAM: Your standards-based action plan for deepening mathematics and science learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  11. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and EngineeringTeacher, 70(1), 30–35.Google Scholar
  12. Cook, K., Bush, S. B., & Cox, R. (2015). Engineering encounters: Creating a prosthetic hand. Science and Children, 53(4), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cook, K. L., Bush, S. B., & Cox, R. (2017). Engineering encounters: From STEM to STEAM. Science and Children, 54(6), 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative: Mathematics standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association and Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
  15. Cox, R., Hunter, K., Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (in press). Teaching STEAM through a problem-based paleontology exploration. Science and Children.Google Scholar
  16. Czerniak, C. M. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 537–560). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Delaney, M. (2014). Schools shift from STEM to STEAM. Edtech, 2 April, 1–4. [Online]. Available from: http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/04/schools-shift-stem-steam.
  18. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Early Childhood STEM Working Group. (2017). Early STEM matters: Providing high quality STEM experiences for all young learners. A Policy Report. Retrieved from http://ecstem.uchicago.edu. UChicago STEM Education.
  20. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hom, E. J. (2014). What is STEM education? [Website]. http://www.livescience.com/43296-what-is-stem-education.html
  24. Hunter, K., Cox, R., Bush, S. B., Cook, K. L., & Jamner, J. (2017). A paleontology investigation: “Unearthing” the mathematics. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(7), 438–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hurley, M. M. (2001). Reviewing integrated science and mathematics: The search for evidence and definitions from new perspectives. Reviewing Integrated Science and Mathematics, 10(5), 259–268.Google Scholar
  26. Institute of Design at Stanford. (2016). Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/
  27. Klein, J. T. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Keyword meanings for collaboration science and translational medicine. Journal of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology, 2(2), 1024.Google Scholar
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, S., Alacaci, C., O’Brien, G., & Jiang, Z. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers’ use of mathematics in a project-based science approach. School Science and Mathematics, 102(4), 172–180.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18199.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  31. McAleer, S. D. (2008). Professional growth through mentoring: A study of experienced mathematics teachers participating in a content-based online mentoring and induction program. Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 69(08). (UMI No. 3319930).Google Scholar
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18290/next-generation-science-standards-for-states-by-states
  33. Ostler, E. (2012). 21st century STEM education: A tactical model for long-range success. International Journal of Applied, 2(1), 28–33.Google Scholar
  34. Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park Rogers, M. A., & Abell, S. K. (2008). The design, enactment, and experience of inquiry-based instruction in undergraduate science education: A case study. Science Education, 92(4), 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. Computer, 46, 38–43.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Read, T. (2013). STEM can lead the way: Rethinking teacher preparation and policy. California STEM Learning Network. Retrieved from http://face.ucr.edu/STEM%20Can%20Lead%20the%20Way%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
  39. Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, C. E., & Paré, J. N. (2016). Exploring Klein bottles through pottery: A STEAM investigation. The Mathematics Teacher, 110, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sztajn, P. (2011). Research commentary: Standards for reporting mathematics professional development in research studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Timperley, H. S. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Watanabe, T., & Huntley, M. A. (1998). Connecting mathematics and science in undergraduate teacher education programs: Faculty voices from the Maryland collaborative for teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Bellarmine UniversityLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations