Advertisement

The Potential of Arts-Integrated STEM Approaches to Promote Students’ Science Knowledge Construction and a Positive Perception of Science Learning

  • Hye-Eun ChuEmail author
  • Yeon-A. Son
  • Hyoung-Kyu Koo
  • Sonya N. Martin
  • David F. Treagust
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Declining interest among high school and university students in the study of science as a major subject has had educators and curriculum designers searching for a teaching approach that would raise interest and engender a positive perception of learning science. At the same time, government and industry leaders have expressed concern about the need for the science curriculum to produce qualified scientists and engineers capable of creative thinking and innovation. One solution proposed and implemented in some countries is STEAM, the integration of the arts (e.g., visual arts, literature, history) into the teaching of STEM. This chapter presents the theoretical framework, pedagogical approach, and some outcomes of a STEAM project conducted in seven primary and secondary schools in Sydney, Australia, and Seoul, Korea. The project was grounded in a social constructivist theory of learning and applied an inquiry-based pedagogical method, which informed the integration of arts- and culture-related content into science teaching/learning activities. STEAM lessons were designed to build an awareness and appreciation of the relevance and role of science concepts in social-cultural events familiar to students, such as the Vivid Sydney (an annual festival of light) known to every Sydney student and the Light Festival familiar to South Korean students. Some strategies of arts/culture integration and the resulting outcomes are described and illustrated with students’ work. The positive effects of the STEAM approach on teaching, learning, and students’ perception of science are reported. Notwithstanding the positive effects, there are challenges to be addressed in any plan to implement STEAM more widely than as a trial in selected schools. These challenges and concerns are discussed and possible solutions are proposed.

Keywords

STEAM Students’ knowledge construction Students’ perceptions of science learning STEAM challenges 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Government’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia–Korea Foundation, AKF-2015 Grant 0098), by the Macquarie University New Staff Grant (GT-00058), and by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the South Korean Government (NRF-2016S1A3A2925401).

References

  1. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education: The conceptual foundations for research as a curricular imperative (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baek, Y.-S., Park, H.-J., Kim, Y., Noh, S.-G., Park, J.-Y., Lee, J., et al. (2011). STEAM education in Korea. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 11(4), 149–171.Google Scholar
  4. Bevins, S., & Price, G. (2016). Reconceptualising inquiry in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, R., Brown, J., Reardon, K., & Merrill, C. (2011). Understanding STEM: Current perceptions. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(6), 5–9.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, C., & Mao, S. (2010). Comparison of Taiwan science students’ outcomes with inquiry-group versus traditional instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 340–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho, H.-D., Lee, J.-W., & Park, J.-M. (2003). A study on the realization of Korea’s scientific and technological manpower in the 21st century: Key tasks and policy implications Open image in new window Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Science & Technology Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, H.-S., Kim, H., & Huh, J.-Y. (2012). Understanding converged human resources training (STEAM) through field application cases Open image in new window Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Korean Educational Development Institute and Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity.Google Scholar
  9. Choi, S., Lee, J., & Noh, T. (2015). A case study of preservice secondary science teachers’ demonstration of STEAM lessons. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chu, H. E., Martin, S., & Park, J. (2018). A theoretical framework for developing an intercultural STEAM program for Australian and Korean students to enhance science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9922-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clement, J. J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model-based learning and instruction in science. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Industry, Innovation, and Science. (2015). Vision for a science nation. Responding to science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A78103.
  14. Furtak, E., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 795–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han, H., & Lee, H. (2012). A study on the teachers’ perceptions and needs of STEAM education. Journal of Learner-Centred Curriculum and Instruction, 12(3), 573–603.Google Scholar
  16. Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 416–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hetland, L. (2013). Connecting creativity to understanding. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 65–70.Google Scholar
  18. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hong, S. M. (2016). A study on the employment status of science and technology personnel in science and technology and its implications Open image in new window . Science & Technology Policy, 26(3), 26–31.Google Scholar
  20. Im, H.-J., & Lee, M.-H. (2012). Pioneer professional development: STEAM pilot school case presentation Open image in new window . Busan, KR: Daeyeon Middle School. Retrieved from https://www.kofac.re.kr/upload/201204/1334539078854.pdf [in Korean].
  21. Im, S.-M., Kim, Y., & Lee, T.-S. (2014). Analysis of elementary school teachers’ perception on field application of STEAM education. Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 133–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Baccalaureate Organization. (2005–2019). Interdisciplinary learning. Retrieved from https://www.ibo.org/programmes/middle-years-programme/curriculum/interdisciplinary/.
  23. Jeong, S., & Kim, H. (2015). The effect of a climate change-monitoring program on students’ knowledge and perceptions of STEAM education in the Republic of Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(6), 1321–1338.Google Scholar
  24. Jon, J.-E., & Chung, H.-I. (2013). STEM report—Republic of Korea. In S. Marginson, R. Tytler, B. Freeman, & K. Roberts (Eds.), STEM: Country comparisons (pp. 33–46). Melbourne, AU: Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from https://acola.org/stem-country-comparisons-saf02/.
  25. Koo, H. K., Chu, H.-E., Martin, S., & Choe, S. E. (2017, August 21–25). Exploring the influence of students’ science capital on scientific modelling process and conceptual understanding. Poster presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  26. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity. (2012). A study on the policy for promoting creative and convergent science and technology talents Open image in new window Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology & Author.Google Scholar
  27. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity. (2018). Final report on program development for STEAM education in 2018 Open image in new window Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity. (2019). Study on the monitoring and implementation of the 2015 science national curriculum Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Korean Educational Development Institute. (2012). Understanding of STEAM education through field application cases (Issue Paper-OR 2012-02-02) Open image in new window . Incheon, Kr: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, E-O. (2012). Possibilities and limitations of art education contents applied in STEAM. Journal of Art Education, 33, 287–314. Retrieved from http://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/landing/article.kci?arti_id=ART001719754#nonen [in Korean].
  31. Lee, J.-J., Jang, G.-C., & Han, S.-H. (1999). Major tasks of Korea’ s science and technology policy for the 21st century Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: Samsung Economic Research Institution.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, J.-M., & Shin, Y.-J. (2014). An analysis of elementary school teachers’ difficulties in the STEAM class. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(3), 588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, K., Kim, K., & Lee, K.-J. (2013). An analysis of the lesson plans designed by teachers of the elementary STEAM leader schools. Korean Education Review, 19(2), 281–306.Google Scholar
  34. Lim, S.-M., Kim, Y., & Lee, T.-S. (2014). Analysis of elementary school teachers’ perception on field application of STEAM education. Science Education Research Institute, 38(1), 133–143.Google Scholar
  35. Lim, Y.-N. (2012). Problems and ways to improve Korean STEAM education based on integrated curriculum. Journal of Elementary Education, 25(4), 53–80.Google Scholar
  36. Liverpool Girls High School. (2019). STEAM (science technology engineering arts mathematics). Retrieved from https://liverpool-h.schools.nsw.gov.au/learning-at-our-school/steam–science-technology-engineering-arts-mathematics-.html.
  37. Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons. Report for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from https://acola.org/stem-country-comparisons-saf02/.
  38. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Boston, MA: International Study Centre. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544560.pdf.
  39. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E., Gregory, K., Smith, T., Chrostowski, S., Garden, R., & O’Connor, K. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the eighth grade. Boston, MA: International Study Centre. Retrieved from https://timss.bc.edu/timss1999i/pdf/T99i_Math_All.pdf.
  40. Miller, R. (Ed.). (1989). Doing science: Images of science in science education. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Ministry of Education. (2015). Primary and secondary schools’ curriculum (No. 2015-74). Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  42. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2009). The revised 2009 curriculum. Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  43. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2010). Paving the way for Korea’s future with creative talents and advanced science and technology (In Business Report 2011). Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  44. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2011a). Science curriculum (No. 2011-361). Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  45. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2011b). STEAM, the educational policy for 2011 year. Seoul, KR: Author.Google Scholar
  46. Morrison, J. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The student, the school, and the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM. Retrieved from https://www.partnersforpubliced.org/uploadedFiles/TeachingandLearning/Career_and_Technical_Education/Attributes%20of%20STEM%20Education%20with%20Cover%202%20.pdf.
  47. New South Wales Education Standards Authority. (2018). Science years 7-10 syllabus. Sydney, AU: Author.Google Scholar
  48. Noh, H. J., & Paik, S. H. (2014). STEAM experienced teachers’ perception of STEAM in secondary education. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 14(10), 375–402.Google Scholar
  49. Norton, A., & Cakitaki, B. (2016). Mapping Australian higher education. Melbourne, AU: Grattan Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra, AU: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  51. Park, H.-J., Baek, Y.-S., Sim, J., Son, Y.-A., Han, H., Byun, S.-Y., et al. (2014). Enhancement of effectiveness of STEAM program and improvement of site [STEAM Open image in new window . Seoul, KR: KOFAC.Google Scholar
  52. Park, H.-J., Byun, S.-Y., Sim, J., Baek, Y.-S., & Jeong, J.-S. (2016). A study on the current status of STEAM education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 36(4), 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park, H.-J., Kim, Y.-M., Noh, S.-G., Lee, J.-O., Jeong, J.-S., Choi, Y.-H., et al. (2012). Components of 4C-STEAM education and a checklist for the instructional design. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 12(4), 533–557.Google Scholar
  54. Park, J., Chu, H.-E., & Martin, S. (2017, August 21–25). Examining intercultural arts integrated STEM program. Poster presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  55. Park, J.-H., & Shin, Y.-J. (2015). The effects of science-based STEAM class on the children’s concept formation of heat transfer. Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 214–229.Google Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in America: What the decline means for arts participation (Research Report #52). New York, NY: National Endowment for the Arts.Google Scholar
  58. Rennie, L. J., Venville, G. J., & Wallace, J. (2012). Knowledge that counts in a global community: Exploring the contribution of integrated curriculum. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Saunders, W. L. (1992). The constructivist perspectives: Implications and teaching strategies for science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D. T., Shore, B. M., & Bracewell, R. J. (2015). Student outcomes in inquiry: Students’ perspectives. Learning Environments Research, 18, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  62. Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shin, H., Ahn, S., & Kim, Y. (2017). A policy analysis on the process-based evaluation: Focusing on middle school teachers in Seoul. Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 20(2), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shin, Y., & Han, S. (2011). A study of the elementary school teachers’ perception in STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, mathematics) education. Elementary Science Education, 30(4), 514–523.Google Scholar
  65. Sim, J., Lee, Y., & Kim, H.-K. (2015). Understanding STEM, STEAM education, and addressing the issues facing STEAM in the Korean context. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singhai, P. (2017, September 12). Australia falling behind in science graduates and public funding. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/education/australia-falling-behind-in-science-graduates-and-public-funding-oecd-report-20170912-gyfigs.html.
  67. Son, Y.-A., Jung, S.-I., Kwon, S.-K., Kim, H.-W., & Kim, D.-R. (2012). Analysis of prospective and in-service teachers’ awareness of STEAM convergent education. Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(1), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Song, S. S. (2004). Growth of science and technology activities in Korea and characteristics of society of scientists and engineers: An exploratory study. Science & Technology Policy, 14(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  69. Sullivan, G. (2006). Research arts in art practice. Studies in Art Education, 48(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Taylor, P. C. (2016, August 7–9). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Education Research, Brisbane: Australia. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=research_conference.
  71. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (n.d.). School-based assessment audit. Retrieved from https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/administration/schooladministration/schoolbasedassessmentaudit.
  72. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015). Understanding classroom roles in inquiry education: Linking role theory and social constructivism to the concept of role diversification. SAGE Open, 5, 4.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015607584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Windschitl, M. (2004). Caught in the cycle of reproducing folk theories of “inquiry”: How pre-service teachers continue the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 481–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yakman, G. (2006). STEM pedagogical commons for contextual learning (Unpublished master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  77. Yakman, G. (2008). STE@M education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education. Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=86752&v=75ab076a.
  78. Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the US, as a practical education framework for Korea. Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 32(6), 1072–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yoo, J., Hwang, S.-Y., & Han, I.-S. (2016). A comparative study of perceptions on STEAM education by the primary and secondary school teachers participated in the advanced STEAM teacher training program. Journal of Research in Curriculum Instruction, 20(1), 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hye-Eun Chu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yeon-A. Son
    • 2
  • Hyoung-Kyu Koo
    • 3
  • Sonya N. Martin
    • 3
  • David F. Treagust
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationDankook UniversityYonginRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Earth Science EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.School of EducationCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options