Advertisement

Moving Toward Transdisciplinary Instruction: A Longitudinal Examination of STEAM Teaching Practices

  • Cassie F. QuigleyEmail author
  • Dani Herro
  • Abigail Baker
Chapter

Abstract

For years, the STEAM movement has been touted by businesses, universities, and even governments as a way to move beyond focusing on single disciplines such as science but instead toward multiple modes of problem-solving and viewpoints (Connor AM, Karmokar S, Whittington C. International Journal of Engineering Pedagog 5(2):37–47, 2015). However, STEAM education in the K-12 setting is still relatively new, which has led to a limited conceptual understanding of how to conceptualize, design, or enact STEAM education (Kim & Park, The effect of STEAM education on elementary school student’s creativity improvement. In Kim T, Stoica A, Fang W, Vasilakos T, Villalba J, Arnett K,… Kang B (eds), Computer applications for security, control and system engineering. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35264-5_16, 2012). This limited understanding often leads teachers to use existing STEM models and attempt to “add-on” experiences with the arts or humanities (Henriksen D, DeSchryver M, Mishra P, Deep-Play Research Group, TechTrends 59:5, 2015). In response, the authors have spent the last 3 years conducting a longitudinal study exploring how STEAM teaching practices are enacted in a variety of settings in the southeast of the United States in order to understand teachers’ implementation strategies (Herro D, Quigley C, Prof Dev Educ, 1–23, 2016a, On the Horizon 24:190–204, 2016b; Quigley C, Herro D, J Sci Educ Technol 25:410–426, 2016; Quigley, Herro, & Jamil. 2017). Based on a qualitative study examining classroom observations, teachers’ reflective journals during STEAM implementation, and focus-group teacher interviews, this chapter will highlight vignettes of these classrooms including elementary and secondary school examples as well as discipline-focused STEAM examples. The goal of this chapter is to inform teacher educators and provide support to teachers who are attempting to implement this transdisciplinary approach to learning.

Keywords

STEAM Teacher education Elementary Secondary Transdisciplinary Social practice theory 

References

  1. Ahn, C. (2015). EcoScience+ art initiative: Designing a new paradigm for college education, scholarship, and service. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 11.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baillee, C., & Catalano, G. (2009). Engineering and society: Working towards social justice [synthesis lectures on engineers, technology and society series]. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  5. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), 1.Google Scholar
  8. Berry III, R., Reed, P., Ritz, J., Lin, C., Hsiung, S., & Frazier, W. (2004). STEM initiatives: Stimulating students to improve science and mathematics achievement. The Technology Teacher, 64(4), 23–30.Google Scholar
  9. Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1020–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkland, P. (2002). Systems thinking, systems practice; soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 5(2), 37-47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cnor, 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.  https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collin, A. (2009). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: Implications for vocational psychology. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 9(2), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delaney, M. (2014). Schools shift from STEM to STEAM. Edtech, April 2, 1–4. http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/04/schools-shift-stem-steam.
  17. Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience (1934). ALA Booklist, 30, 272.Google Scholar
  18. Galand, B., Bourgeois, E., & Frenay, M. (2005). The impact of a PBL curriculum on students’ motivation and self-regulation. Cashiers de Recherche en Education et Formation, 37, 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Galliot, A., Greens, R., Seddon, P., Wilson, M., & Woodham, J. (2011). Bridging STEM to STEAM: Trans-disciplinary research. Centre for Research & Development, Research News, 28, 20–23. Retrieved from http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/43989/Research-News-28-on-line.pdf Google Scholar
  20. Gettings, M. (2016). Putting it all together: STEAM, PBL, scientific method, and the studio habits of mind. Art Education, 69(4), 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbs, P. (2015). Transdisciplinarity as epistemology, ontology or principles of practical judgment. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), Transdisciplinary professional learning and practice (pp. 151–164). London: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Costantino, T. E., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. N. (2014). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art Education, 67(6), 12-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guyotte, K., Sochacka, N., Costantino, T., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. (2015). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art Education, 67(6), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM journal, 1(2), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Henriksen, D., DeSchryver, M., Mishra, P., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2015). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century transform and transcend: Synthesis as a trans-disciplinary approach to thinking and learning. TechTrends, 59(4), 5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0863-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016a). Exploring teachers’ perspectives of STEAM teaching: Implications for practice. Professional Development in Education, 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016b). Innovating with STEAM in middle school classrooms: Remixing education. On the Horizon, 24(3), 190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jolly, A. (2014). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong. Education Week, 18.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufman, D., Moss, D., Osborn, T. (2003). Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to learning and teaching.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). The effect of STEAM education on elementary school student’s creativity improvement. In T. Kim, A. Stoica, W. Fang, T. Vasilakos, J. Villalba, K. Arnett, et al. (Eds.), Computer applications for security, control and system engineering (pp. 115–121). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35264-5_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lattuca, L. R. (2003). Creating interdisciplinarity: Grounded definitions from college and university faculty. History of Intellectual Culture, 3(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  33. Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = Steam. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 34.Google Scholar
  35. Mallon, W. T., & Bunton, S. A. (2005). The functions of centers and institutes in academic biomedical research. Analysis in Brief, 5, 1–2.Google Scholar
  36. Nanni-Messegee, L., & Murphy, T. B. (2013). Putting theatre arts to the test: Student performance that Goes beyond STEM and STEAM. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 18(1), 6.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolescu, B., & Ertas, A. (2013). Transdisciplinary theory and practice. Creskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  38. Norman, G. R., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based learning: A review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Padurean, A., & Cheveresan, C. T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity in education. EDUCA IA-PLUS Journal Plus Education, 127.Google Scholar
  40. Pohl, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, 37(10), 1159–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Poulson, S. (2014). Sparking student interest in STEM by bringing industry experts into the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.newschools.org/news/sparking-student-interest-in-stem-by-bringing-industry-experts-into-the-classroom/.
  42. Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9602-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quigley, C. F., Harrington, J., Herro, D. (2017a). Moving beyond just adding “A” to STEM: Arts as expression. Science Scope. In press.Google Scholar
  44. Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. (2017b) STEAM: Conceptual model for transdisciplinary learning. School Science and Mathematics. In press.Google Scholar
  45. Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1–2), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schummer, J. (2004). Interdisciplinary issues in nanoscale research. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 9–20). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  48. Slatin, C., Galizzi, M., Melillo, K. D., Mawn, B., & Phase in Healthcare Team. (2004). Conducting interdisciplinary research to promote healthy and safe employment in health care: Promises and pitfalls. Public Health Reports, 119, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Son, Y., Jung, S., Kwon, S., Kim, H., & Kim, D. (2012). Analysis of prospective and in-service teachers’awareness of steam convergent education. Journal of Humanities & Social Science, 13(1), 255–284.Google Scholar
  50. South Carolina Social Department of Education. (2011). South Carolina social studies standards. Columbia: State or province government publication.Google Scholar
  51. Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50, 25–25.Google Scholar
  52. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Vernon, D. T. (1995). Attitudes and opinions of faculty tutors about problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 70(3), 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68(7), 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
  56. Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 326(7384), 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yackman, G. (2007). STE@M education. Retrieved from http://steamedu.com

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations