Advertisement

Developing a Rhetoric of Aesthetics: The (Often) Forgotten Link Between Art and STEM

  • Rohit MehtaEmail author
  • Sarah Keenan
  • Danah Henriksen
  • Punya Mishra
Chapter

Abstract

Beauty, curiosity, wonder, awe, and the inherent pleasure of figuring things out are aesthetic attributes that scientists, mathematicians, and engineers often speak about when describing their motivations for engaging in STEM. In contrast, despite the robustness of evidence for the importance of the aesthetic, most arguments for learning science have focused on instrumental and functional reasons. Such an approach positions science as a tool, the value of which lies in its usefulness to externally constructed projects and goals. In this manner it trivializes the personal, affective, and humanistic nature of engaging with science and scientific ideas. In this chapter, we provide examples and an argument for a rhetoric of aesthetics that can be incorporated in a teaching. Building on a series of studies we have conducted, we offer a threefold, fractal framework that helps us integrate the aesthetic in STEM learning. The three frames in this rhetoric reside on the intersections of arts and STEM and can be seen as fuel to designing STEAM pedagogies. Finally, to move this framework into educational settings, we share several examples of how we have used this rhetoric to guide teacher professional development for STEM educators, by focusing their thinking and teaching on a more aesthetically driven STEAM view of learning.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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). ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandrasekhar, S. (1987). Truth and beauty: Aesthetics and motivations in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley, T. M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, P., & Russ, R. (2015). Dynamic framing in the communication of scientific research: Texts and interaction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1934/2005). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1943). The child and the curriculum: The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dirac, P. A. M. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, 208, 45–53.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0563-45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1999). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines–and beyond. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 78–88). London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  16. Girod, M. (2001). Teaching fifth grade science for aesthetic understanding. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI Number: 3009113).Google Scholar
  17. Girod, M. (2007). A conceptual overview of the role of beauty and aesthetics in science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 38–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: Case studies of three fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Good, J., Keenan, S., & Mishra, P. (2016). Education:=coding+aesthetics; Aesthetic understanding, computer science education, and computational thinking. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35(4), 313–318.Google Scholar
  20. Gopnik, A. (2000). Explanation as orgasm and the drive for causal understanding: The evolution, function and phenomenology of the theory-formation system. In F. Keil & R. Wilson (Eds.), Cognition and explanation (pp. 299–323). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, R. (1990). Molecular beauty. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48(3), 191.  https://doi.org/10.2307/431761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holton, G. J. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, P. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bwqn.
  24. Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). The roles of aesthetic experience in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.
  26. Jolly, A. (2016). STEM by Design: Strategies and activities for grades (pp. 4–8). Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., et al. (2011). Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lightman, A. P., & Brawer, R. (1990). Origins: the lives and worlds of modern cosmologists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mehta, R., Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2016). Creativity in mathematics and beyond – Learning from fields medal winners. TechTrends, 60(1), 14–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0011-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mishra, P., Terry, C. A., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2013). Square peg, round hole, good engineering. TechTrends, 57(2), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Orrell, D. (2012). Truth or beauty: Science and the quest for order. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Petroski, H. (2011). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  36. Piro, J. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future, too. Education Week, 29(24), 28–29.Google Scholar
  37. Poincaré, H. (1910). Mathematical creation. The Monist, 20(3), 321–335.  https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19102037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pugh, K., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Root-Bernstein, R., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 115–137.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0802_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world's most creative people. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  43. Scruton, R. (1983). The aesthetic understanding: Essays in the philosophy of art and culture. New York: Metheun & Co.Google Scholar
  44. Sykes, C. (1981). The pleasure of finding things out. Motion Picture. London: BBC 2.Google Scholar
  45. Tauber, A. I. (1997). The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science, Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1997 edition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohit Mehta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Keenan
    • 2
  • Danah Henriksen
    • 3
  • Punya Mishra
    • 3
  1. 1.California State UniversityFresnoUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations