Study of the Steam experience
introduction
The
purpose of this research was to develop a STEAM program in the context of teaching and learning Robot in schools in
Yemen instrument and implement it in a high
school class to determine the program’s effectiveness. The STEAM program was developed through a continuous
consultation process between a development team and external experts,
students recognized the meaning and necessity of STEAM
education as a problem-solving procedure that resulted in increased STEAM literacy and a development of concepts
through sharing opinions. Most students indicated
that they would frequently make use of the knowledge they learned in the STEAM program in their science class
because it allowed them to have a better understanding of the problem-solving process. Therefore, STEAM programs in science
class are apt to contribute to STEAM literacy through the integration of science, technology and art as well as
develop creative problem-solving abilities by
introducing new ideas.
STEAM is a developing educational model of how the
traditional academic subjects (silos)
of science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics can be structured into a framework by which to plan
integrative curricula. It includes reviews of the epistemologies of general and discipline specific developments
in conjunction with the individual
discipline’s standards, as related to integrative, or holistic, education. Investigating these educational relationships to one another
is currently being explored
as a way to find the commons of education in relation to pedagogy and language. Along with the development of
commons is the need for the disciplines to work with one another in a structure that is able to be
adaptable to the many variations of
discipline combinations that make up different directions that people in society pursue. This paper is an
introduction to concepts on the development of such a structure.
STEAM
is a developing educational model of how the traditional academic subjects (silos) can be structured into a framework
by which to plan integrative curricula. STEAM
is based on STEM education, which can be defined in two ways:
● 1. the more traditional way, I like to write as S-T-E-M education, as it represents the individual ‘silo’ fields of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics
education. Each has evolved to formally include elements of the others within their own standards and
practices (American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS, 1993), International Technology Education Association (ITEA, 2000), National
Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) & National Academy of Engineering (NAE, 2004).
● 2. the newer trend is the concept of integrative STEM
education. It includes the teaching
and
learning
practices when the subjects are purposefully integrated (M. Sanders, 2006; VTSOE,
2007). When planning integrative curriculum, one field
may be the dominant base discipline
or all may be planned to be more equally represented (J. G. Wells, 2006). When the argument of discipline-based vs. integrative education has been addressed, there has been disagreement. There is no argument that there are connections
between the disciplines, but there
is in what balance of content of each discipline to teach so as to not lose the uniqueness of the silos.
(Barlex
& Pitt, 2000; DeBoer, 1991) Both types of cross-curricular studies can be valuable and reality based. (Barlex &
Pitt, 2000) came up with three distinctions of
classification for disciplines being taught together;
Coordination, Collaboration, Integration. Coordination and
Collaboration are both discipline-based (Barlex & Pitt, 2000). It is promoted that multiple methods
are needed for comprehension of applications
across the disciplines (Berger & Pollman, 1996; M. J. de Vries, 1996; DeBoer, 1991; Dewey, 1963; Driscoll, 2005;
Hickman, 1992; Loepp, 1999; Paterson, 2007;
Petrina, 2007; R. C. S. Wicklein, John W. , 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This calls for a structure where
individual disciplines can still dominate their own realms, but also where there is constructive time where
interdisciplinary studies can be
addressed to promote transference of knowledge.
It
seems now in the age of recognizing the need to include Engineering Education
to promote a new face of TE as TIDE
(Technology, Idea, Design, Engineering) (ITEA,
2008) or STEM, that the design circle might be useful for the field to
use to reinvent ourselves as we did
in 1985 when we moved from IA to TE. The goal seems the same as it was then, to ensure that the field is best able to
substantiate itself as the area within the
structures of the scholastic world where students learn about a rapidly
changing reality. In order for that to happen, an adaptable system
of discipline relationships would need to be established. Such an adaptable
system would have to
be primarily structured around the base elements of education that are true for
all the disciplines.
State of the literature:
STEAM
education aims to increase students’ efficacy, confidence, and interest in science, facilitate the integrated
understanding of science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics, and nurture the necessary
creative and convergent talent. The STEAM curriculum in YEMEN has tried to
increase students’ ability to solve
problems in a convergent manner and to develop strategies to bring together YEMEN traditions and current science
technology for students. High school
age is considered a vital stage in
the development of students’ values and interests in STEAM literacy. Therefore, there is a need for better understanding in the development of the STEAM program and the
exploration of high school students’ awareness
about the STEAM program based on traditional YEMEN culture.
Contribution of
this paper to the literature :
● The designed STEAM program contributes to the
literature by assessing the educational
effect of a STEAM program based on the theme of traditional culture that is applied within a school
context.
● The
STEAM program based on traditional YEMEN culture employed in the study informs teachers, educational researchers, and
curriculum developers to implement a
constructive approach in facilitating students’ understanding of scientific principles, such as
engineering and technology.
● The findings
of this research demonstrate
the importance of developing students’ values and interests
about YEMEN traditional culture and developing a STEAM program based on the
theme of traditional culture
Since the STEAM curriculum will help develop STEAM literacy and problem-solving abilities, and increase interest and understanding in science and technology in elementary and secondary school students, STEAM education is necessary to nurture the creative and convergent talent in the young people of today, who will lead future developments in science and technology .
Importance of STEAM education :
STEAM includes science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM),
and the arts. STEM education is a
convergent education that advanced OECD countries have developed to nurture future talent
(Yakman & Lee, 2012). STEM
education stresses the importance of education that nurtures creative problem-solving skills in order to become
competitive in the global era and to prepare
for any future challenges (Baek et al., 2011; Christensen, Knezek, Tyler-Wood, & Gibson, 2014; Knezek, Christensen, Tyler-Wood, & Periathiruvadi, 2013; Yakman & Lee,
2012). STEAM education expands the relevance of STEM education by adding the arts (Maes, 2010).
The purpose of STEAM education in
YEMEN is not only converge the fields of science and art, but to also increase students’ efficacy, confidence, and
interest in science, thereby
motivating students to pursue careers in science (Baek et al., 2011; Yakman & Lee, 2012). STEAM focuses on
becoming globally competitive through
the cultivation of expertise in science education as well as in creative problem solving, decision-making, and
liberal arts knowledge (Baek et al., 2011).
STEAM education has been found to increase scientific efficacy and creativity as well as maximize interest
and motivation in science, which helps improve scientific competitiveness. However, there is no specific
STEAM framework that focuses on nurturing convergent talent and there is little research that verifies the effects of the STEAM program. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to develop
a STEAM program that uses a traditional Korean musical instrument for
convergent education and implement this program in a high school class to determine its effectiveness.
Commonalities in the Development of Modern Education:
There have been many philosophers on education since the rise of the
current modern educational structure
was established. I will briefly cover the primary general educational theorists and educational psychologists as
well as the collective epistemological
movements of the four disciplines of S-T-E-M as they have matured and grown more interdisciplinary. Socrates and
Aristotle are credited with the
concept that the ‘pursuit of knowledge is the highest good’ and that this is the basis of education (Ulich, 1947).
This is still used as the foundational concept of modern research universities. The ‘New Method’
of education was officially created in the 13th Century (Ulich, 1947).
It is the basis of the modern
educational structure still followed in schools today. Its basis is the concept that schools should
be democratic in nature versus the previously
used authoritarian models (Ulich, 1947). This marked a significant shift from the concept of content-focused
curricula to that of promoting a structure of life-long learning.
The first major educational philosopher (epistemologist) who made significant statements that can give strength to the
development of the STEM movement
is Descartes. His concepts, introduced
in the early 17th century, included that the goal of education should be
to ‘examine all things… including
falsehoods, to know their value (Descartes, 1947).’
He specifically pointed out that this was the only way to dispel myths and misconceptions not previously
challenged. Since this was the time when science was emerging from alchemy, he made it a point to stress that ‘discovery is more important
than current logic and methods (Descartes, 1947).’ This paved the way for the acceptance of dispelling
myths, not only in findings, but in how the findings
were framed, looked for, recorded
and interpreted. Comenius
was a contemporary of Descartes who stated that ‘education is a preparation for life (Comenius, 1947).’ This
further opened the door for exploring
all means for acquiring knowledge. By stating that life itself was a study in education, he formally tied
that idea to the development of studentdirected
and hands-on learning methods. He said that ‘observation precedes analysis’ (Comenius, 1947), meaning that it also
precedes the rules of analysis. This
allowed the development of current science practices and the structure of laboratory based classes. Comenius was the first to
formally introduce the world of
formal education to the concept that all people needed to be educated in order to properly function in society. He said
that education was for all and specifically named females, the disabled and most significantly, youth (Comenius, 1947). He
stated that the natural curiosity of the
young needed to be exploited by allowing access to formal education for them as well. Comenius made a strong
argument for delivering a holistic approach
to education with the following statement: ‘individual sciences are badly taught unless a simple and general
survey of the total knowledge is given before…
one ought never to instruct
anybody in such a way [of] perfecting one brand of knowledge to the
exclusion of others (Comenius, 1947).’ This clause establishes a basis for
applying integrative education.
Rousseau helped establish
the formal divisions
of science and their inter-connectedness in reality and in education.
One of his related statements is; ‘the sciences are connected together
by a series of propositions, all dependent on some
general and common principles (Rousseau, 1947).’ This statement set the tone for scientific method used in education.
Pestalozzi promoted a study of
in-depth universal knowledge as the basis of education when he said; ‘principles in regard to education… were founded on an accurate knowledge of the world
(Pestalozzi, 1947).’ With this statement he clarified
why in order to accurately study something, one must study why something is instead of just what it is.
To study why something is, one must investigate
how it came to be and how it maintains, in other words, how it interacts with the rest of reality. This
concept is the basis of pure integrative studies.
Herbart helped establish education’s role in character development
by saying that; ‘the goal of
education is the development of a person with character and humane
convictions who understands the great art of constructive and
harmonious living (Herbart, 1947).’ This statement also lays the groundwork for the inclusion of a goal of
sustainability. Herbart backed up knowledge needing
to be contextual with holistic ideals by saying that ‘to present youth the whole fund of accumulated experience
in a concentrated form, is the highest
service which mankind can render to its successors (Herbart, 1947).’ With this statement, the concept of studying undesirable elements of knowledge
became strengthened in education. Herbart
also specifically referenced interdisciplinary studies by
saying: ‘geography, mathematics, the natural
sciences and history are combined (Herbart, 1947).’ This helped lay the basis for the development of Science,
Technology, Society/Studies (STS) movement over a century later.
Frame of reference of the STEAM program
The basic factors of STEAM are creative design and emotional touch,
which provide self-initiated learning experiences based on the convergent knowledge, process, and nature of various
areas related to science technology (Baek et al., 2011). As shown in Figure 1, the frame of reference
of a STEAM program can be a guideline to apply STEAM to the field and basic
frame of a developing program.
The first step is to present a situation (Lee, 2013). It is
important to let the students
recognize the problem as being connected to their lives and relate it to the real world (Brown, Collins &
Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The second step is creative
design, which encourages students to act creatively by addressing the open-ended nature of the design (Baek et
al., 2011). Specifically, the purpose
of this step is to develop not only creativity but also communication skills through a cooperative learning activity
(Kolodner et al., 2003) with “hands-on”
and “hands-in” aspects (Baek et al., 2011).
The creative design process starts with the students determining
needs and values in their lives and accepting
“design work” by determining which problem
they will focus on as self-directed learning (Knowles, 1975) through the development of a specific and
practical relationship to the learning activity. The third step, emotional touch, seeks to expand the affective
domain of the educational goal, and stresses the importance of
heart-on by experiencing and
exploring a learning situation (Baek et al., 2011). This step also helps students
develop perception, expression, and sympathy. In addition, the practical
element elevates task commitment and flow by allowing students to experience the joy of discovery,
which increases their interest in science learning.
Maes (2010) determined that arts or liberal arts enhances students’ creativity and active participation, and
stimulate students to develop a creative approach
to their scientific thinking that is based in imagination and emotion through the development of emotional
touch.
Dewey contributed greatly to the field of education. His key goal
was for people to be functionally
literate (Dewey, 1963). He promoted integrated and technical literacy to be the cornerstone of this type of
universal literacy. He went so far as
to attack the concepts of separating content and context in learning and separating learning into
content-based categories. He used vivid examples of the need for cross-curricular studies, such as; ‘scientific advances are technological advances: they
are advances in the uses of tools in order to improve
and test inferences (Hickman, 1992).’ He sets the stage for purposeful interdisciplinary studies. He promotes
spelling out linkages between
concepts, contents and contexts to look for connections that are not obvious. These concepts are vital fuel and
momentum of ISTEM education. Dewey challenged the structure of scientific hypothesis as potentially ‘mutilating the facts,’ which leads to
questioning the meanings behind them. He promoted
that meanings can be applied
in various situations to add context to education. This is a basis of meaningful learning
where inter-related,
organized & personally meaningful concepts are learned more deeply. Dewey used examples of social
constructs to show how developed methods
and meanings can affect the base elements of other fields (Dewey, 1963). This concept is essential for
integrative education with the goal of pure knowledge. Dewey recognized the need for separate disciplines, but illustrated how
the connections themselves create a concept of the whole for the learner when he stated that ‘we learn,
but only at the end, that instead of discovering
and then connecting together a number of separate realities, we have been engaged
in the progressive definition of one fact (Dewey, 1963).
Educational
Psychologists Educational psychology:
is defined as the study of the acquisition and retention of knowledge (McDevitt, 2004). This field took off in
mid-1900’s and as since then made considerable
contributions to the understanding of tangible and theoretical knowledge. I will cover a brief synopsis
of educational psychologists who have contributed
significantly to the field of education, especially those involved in the constructivist movement. Piaget is
most widely credited with defining the basis of constructivism
(Driscoll, 2005). His ideas were closely related to Vygotsky. Piaget coined the term ‘genetic epistemology’
(Driscoll, 2005) or the study of how
knowledge developed in humans. His primary tenant was that knowledge was a constant development of
misconstrued connections that were adjustable usually through developing deeper understanding. It was promoted
that a reality-based (contextual) learning
style was the most conducive
learning environment. Piaget also believed
that ‘children accommodate everything they learn from and
about into their own common sense
(Furth, 1970)’ and that is was this commonsense that was the basis of personal knowledge. Piaget theorized that
people who have not yet made the relevant
connections, remember events that they do not fully understand and can be confused about
Science
departments steam :
Silo Education Before the concept of integrative STEM education came
into being, there was a long history
of K-12 being taught as individual subjects (silos), primarily
revolving around the divisions of mathematics, science,
language arts and social studies.
In order to understand how the cross-curricular studies of STEM came to
be understood and developed, a brief
history of recent developments in each silo, including the more recent field of Technology Education, will be
reviewed.
Mathematics
Education :
This review begins with Mathematics Education [ME] as it
is one of the earliest disciplines to
emerge in the structure of modern education and has one of the longest histories of being formally structured for
learning. The National Council
for Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] is the primary organization that drives how mathematics
has evolved to be taught in the modern
K-12 arena. Their promotion of how mathematics should be studied is used across the country and has arisen
from the concepts that people need to use
mathematics to solve problems in science, technology, and everyday life (NCTM, 1989). The NCTM has published five tenets by which all of their
suggested benchmarks, standards and methodologies revolve around. The first is that there should be a
concentrated effort to convey mathematics to all kinds of learners
(NCTM, 1989). This conveys that everyone needs and understanding of mathematics in order to
be functional in society. The second is
that now an overall concept of mathematical theory, history and application should be taught in addition to applied
mathematics, much more then just the hard facts of math operations
(NCTM, 1989). By making this claim, much more
than arithmetic needs to be understood, but that for a person to be functionally literate, a concept of how
and why mathematics ‘is’ and ‘works’ needs
to be understood. The third tenet begins to address how to accomplish the first two goals. ‘Currently there are
reality-based projects and activities incorporated
into math learning so that students can understand its relation to other things, not just endless abstract
problems (Horton, Hedetniemi, Wiegert, &
Wagner, 2006; NCTM, 1989). This brings mathematics away from didactic learning
and instills a necessity to investigate mathematics in action for deeper
understanding. By saying this, the NCTM broke a major boundary into the structure of traditional modern education, mathematics education
has become much more than worksheets
and memorization, mathematics has become
an understanding of how things are understood and defined by the use of mathematics. The next tenet of ME
is that technology is now being more
readily used (NCTM, 1989). It is true that calculators and computers have been responsible for proving much of
mathematics that was previously only
theoretical, however, the inclusion of technology into ME is broader than that (Chris Merrill
& Comerford, 2004). In order to explore
mathematics through
reality-based projects a wealth of technology must be employed. This includes
basic tools including; pencils, paper and rulers through
to sophisticated machines and
devices that measure, record and support all
structures of mathematical application. All of this comes together into
the last tenet, which says that
assessment needs to include projects, constructions, analysis and process
work, as well as (instead of solely) results (NCTM, 1989). This seems to be true of all education, students need to
be assessed on how far through the
learning process they have come (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). There are many points in the process of learning where
mistakes can be made, if students are
only evaluated on their product, then how do they know at which point in the process.
Science Education:
Science education [SE] experts have been attesting to the
fact that the field of SE has blended
borders, which adds insight to other disciplines (AAAS, 1989, 1993; DeBoer, 1991; Matthews, 1997) and these thoughts
have been supplemented by experts in
other fields who recognize SE’s contributions to understanding in their fields (Barlex
& Pitt, 2000;
M. J. de Vries, 1996;
Dewey,
1963; J. Dugger, W. E. , 1993; NAE, 2002). The AAAS went as far as
to formally include the ‘Nature of
Technology’ with formal ties to engineering concepts, within their own benchmarks
and standards (AAAS, 1993). SE taught
as whole fact vs. parts (silos), allows for substantiation with deeper meaning and transference outside the
classroom (AAAS, 1989; Driver, Asoko, Leach,
Mortimer, & Scott, 1994; Matthews, 1997). It is this transference of knowledge, an ability to apply scientific
thought in novel situations, which students
need in order to be productive members of society. It is through making sense of science versus just finding out about the facts of
science, that students will not only be able to understand
science, but be able to apply
it in new situations (DeBoer,
1991). The Greek culture did not have an
understanding of this concept and it therefore kept them from developing experimental science (Hickman, 1992). Analysis is an important
area of science, but without
experimental science the field stagnates. Scientific thought itself is said to include
inductive thought, deductive
thought, processes and
attitudes (DeBoer, 1991). Therefore, in order for students to understand science, all of these levels of
thought, processes and attitudes need
to be formally addressed in SE. Currently there are three dominant interpretations of teaching science,
the first is as a structured
bodies of knowledge (content rich),
the second as a set of investigative processes and the third is as
human activity interconnected with technological application and the rest of society, it is this third
way that is necessary for hypothesis generation
(DeBoer, 1991; Hodson, 1991; Mellado, 2006) There have been given three arguments for the third type,
it provides motivation to learn in familiar
contextual way, it offers an ability to become functionally literate and it offers values development in education
(DeBoer, 1991). In order to teach this way,
there are three curricular needs, there must be an exploration of existing views to promote
the creation of new theoretical ideas, there must be experimental work and there must be cross-discipline consensus
with approved language styles
to promote understanding between the fields of
study (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; Hodson, 1991). These curricular needs are primarily provided through the use of
guided discovery (DeBoer, 1991; Driver et
al., 1994; Froebel, 1947; Furth, 1970). SE itself has direct and strong ties to constructivist learning methods (AAAS, 1993; Matthews, 1997), the three primary ones are that students need to
learn to think in a disciplined, rational way
in order to strengthen their intellect, that scientific thinking is
transferable to non-scientific
contents and creates more effective people and that future scientists must know how to think like scientists in order to perform
like scientists (DeBoer, 1991). The
experts in the field of SE have invited in the
field of technology and it’s related engineering concepts by formally
including them in their benchmarks
and have invited in the field of mathematics by promoting the need of analysis and common language and they have
even invited in the social
arts by claiming that the inter-relation of science and
human activity is critical
to understand to know how science and society
interact and function
together.
Technology Education
Technology Education [TE] has traditionally been the K-12 venue for cross-curricular
studies. This has been true from even before TE was TE, but instead was the field of Industrial Arts
(Bonser & Mossman, 1923; P. DeVore, 1976;
Foster, 1995; Kirkwood, Foster, & Bartow, 1994; Maley, 1973). TE’s relationship with science has been
intertwined since the beginning of both fields,’
scientific advances are technological advances,’ (Hickman, 1992) as they lead to the invention and production
of new technologies and ‘advances in
the uses of tools are needed in order to improve and test inferences in science’ (AAAS, 1993). It has been said
that science provides the framework by
which all technology is developed and structured to function and that even though science precedes technology
and that science and technology are independent disciplines with
different goals, methods and outcomes
(P. L. Gardner, 1994; P. L. Gardner, 1995), technology
ontology predates science and therefore science and technology are in a dialectical relationship, with
neither being a dominant partner (P. L. Gardner, 1994). The connection
between the two fields is a revolving
concept
– technology and the engineering involved to create technology, cause permanent
changes to science, the natural elements of our universe, of which they are also made up. The Maley Plan
offered itself as a primary means for applying
the principles of mathematics and science, where science becomes reality and mathematics the tool whereby
student-centered activities revolve around
testing, analysis, materials, investigations and process (Maley, 1973). It is this reality and analysis of results
where the concepts learned in the silos come together
and transference of knowledge results
to create the next generation of innovators. It stands to
reason, that a full study of technology cannot
exclude the study of the science (Bunge, 1966), which it is made up of, the engineering processes that creates it
and the mathematics necessary to understand
the developments and effects of it. Due to this, since the field became TE in 1985, most TE educational theorists and researchers have put a lot of emphasis on connections to
mathematics and science, as they are the traditional
‘academic’ disciplines which offer the most substantive backing for the positioning of TE in the broad K-12 curriculum structure (Childress, 1996;
P. D. DeVore, 1964; P. L Gardner, 1997; Laporte & Sanders, 1993;
Lauda, 1980; C. Merrill, 2001; Savage
& Sterry, 1990). But, there has been a growing emphasis to substantiate the curriculum from across the S-T-E-M
fields and formally tie in
engineering as well (Barlex & Pitt, 2000; Clark & Ernst, 2007; Dakers,
2006; M. J. de Vries,
1996; J. Dugger,
W. E. , 1993; ITEA,
1996,
2000, 2006; Mitcham, 1994; Petrina, 1998a, 2007; G.L Salinger, 2003;
Snyder & Hales, 1986; J. Wells,
Pinder, & Smith, 1992a; R. C. S. Wicklein, John W. , 1995). Other experts
in the field, further stretched the boundaries of the field to include the development field of
engineering as well as the social, creative and
aesthetic fields of the liberal and fine arts, especially Delmar Olsen, John Dewey and those involved in Jackson’s Mill
(Hickman, 1992; Olsen, 1963; Snyder
& Hales, 1986; J. Wells, Pinder, & Smith, 1992b). Leaders in the field of biotechnology have promoted related
curriculum as interdisciplinary in nature and incorporating math, science, art, design and production (J. Wells et al., 1992b) The field of STS has also
been formally linked to the field of TE to
draw out the connections to society and its effects on the direction of the field as well as technology’s effects on
society (Pinch & Bijker, 1994; Karen Zuga,
1991). These forward thinkers have argued that it is not enough to only understand the elements of how the
technology works and effects tangible objects, but to
understand how such technologies are developed through societal demands and are accepted
through the social,
economic and aesthetic values of a culture is also
vital to produce a knowledgeable citizenry.
Some educators have not focused on specific content but on a way of
offering curriculum that would involve
any and all subjects that were naturally
encountered in the investigative process of instruction. Specifically
the IACP focused on problem solving
(Lux & Ray, 1971), and some looked at various kinds of alternative curriculum theories and methods (Barlex
& Pitt, 2000; Dewey, 1963; Loepp,
1999; Petrina, 1998a, 2007; Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, & Vickers, 1995; R. C. S. Wicklein, John W.
, 1995; K. Zuga, 1993). Arguments have
been made for using multiple strategies and methods even within one curriculum so as to make it evident to
students that there are numerous ways to discover
knowledge and solve problems based on that knowledge (Dunham,
Wells, & White, 2002; M. Sanders, 2006; Sarlemijn, 1993). Validation
that there is not just one best way to teach and learn helps make the case for cross-curricular content and
methodology as a way to make the connections between
the disciplines stronger
and students transference, retention and application skills more substantial and more
deeply engrained. Despite which
content, methods and strategies various people in the field of TE have argued
for, one thing
that is agreed upon is that the overall goal of the leaders in the profession has been
to create technically and/or functionally literate
people despite the rapid changes that technology and our society produce (Bill, 2006; Dakers, 2006; P.
DeVore, 1976; ITEA, 2006). The focus has not been specific content, but on
adaptability, therefore the field has based its teachings on conveying an understanding of systems and the connections between them (J. Dugger, W. E.
, 1993). In order to accomplish this,
‘the technology laboratory, previously conceptualized as a place to make things, graduated into more of a place to
learn the interconnections of things’ (K.
Zuga, 1993). Because of this ‘TE became one of the few areas of study to adopt a structure that allows for, and encourages, changes in it’s core
structure to accommodate changes in the technological world that
inter-relate with society in a very
reciprocal way’ (K. Zuga, 1993). It is this concept that allows the field of TE adaptability to reflect the changing
needs of society and its reflection
in education. No other field is structured to be as responsive and adaptable and this has been a fallacy of
the structure of modern education since its inception. The field of TE has their ‘foot in the door,’ of K-12 education, but they are not yet situated
in a place of acceptance so that all students are given cross-curricular studies to create functionally literate
citizens. That is TE’s new challenge, to prove their place in the
structure of education and to be formally accepted
as a substantial field to teach
a necessary set of concepts to all
students at all levels.
Engineering Education ‘As developments in science and technology
occur, they create new fields
together, such as engineering, which has become a science category of its own’ (AAAS, 1989). Engineering has been
defined as ‘the use of creativity and
logic, based in mathematics and science, utilizing technology as a linking agent to create contributions to the
world (AAAS, 1993). Since engineering
is a result of science, technology, and arguably, mathematics as well, its place in education is based on its
structure in reality and it has no
history of being a silo discipline. It has been most closely aligned with the study of TE, as that is its
‘linking’ category to the substantiated fields
of mathematics and science. When students study design and technology, what they are essentially studying
is engineering (Barlex
& Pitt, 2000). Engineering Education
[EE] is unique in that it does not have a history of being part of the K-12 structure as its
own discipline. It is therefore hard to find
a place for it to fit within a long-established structure in order to
accommodate the urgent call for the
development of more engineers to meet the country’s demands (Act, 2006; Ashby, 2006; Horwedel, 2006; NAE, 2002).
There has been a substantial amount
of energy attracting and retaining students into collegiate engineering programs (EAC, 2004). There have
traditionally been two primary
focuses of engineering programs, a deep investigation of a particular field and a broader scope of
numerous engineering fields (EAC, 2004).
More recently larger programs are offering both and allowing their students to decide their own personal
scope of engineering education based on
their goals (NAE, 2004). Currently there is also a trend to advance into the future of engineering as primarily a
team-based enterprise (EAC, 2004), which allows
engineering students to work together, sharing their own specialties for the creation of the common good. Although
these changes have helped with attraction
and retention into collegiate engineering programs, in recent years there as been a call for the K-12 arena to
better prepare students to take on these challenging courses of study in post-secondary schools (NAE, 2002;
G.L Salinger, 2003; Tyson et al., 2007; R. C. Wicklein, 2006). EE
based programs are getting a lot of attention in hopes of bringing EE to the K-12 level ( Salinger,
2005). It is debatable as to if EE is the most appropriate venue of study to fulfill
these needs at the K-12 level, or if a broader more
interdisciplinary approach would be a better venue with which to deliver such contexts. Students are in need of
understanding EE abilities at a younger age in
order to be able to be competitive in the related collegiate and professional arenas. They must learn to apply the
techniques and skills associated with mathematics
and scientific principles in order to obtain an ability to be lifelong learners, design and conduct experiments,
analyze and interpret data, design systems,
components or processes, work on multi-disciplinary teams, identify contemporary issues and problems,
formulate and solve engineering problems, show responsibility, and
communicate in order to impact the world in
positive ways (Grasso & Martinelli, 2007; NAE, 2004). Since that is a lot
for one discipline to accomplish, the
formation of relationships between the fields
of STEM have become a vital
movement in the educational world in the United
States (Act, 2006). For EE to be successful, it is necessary for the field to draw on and understand the advances
made in other fields (NAE, 2004). Within the STEM education
relationship, the act of using science and mathematics
to design new technology has become the general definition of EE (Dugger, 1993). Much discussion has
taken place on whether the field of TE
should become blended with the field of EE, just this month a survey on this topic was sent out to the
Intenational Technology Education Association
members and over 400 people responded on the topic in a single day (Litowitz, 2008), also the American Association for
Engineering Education started a new
branch in their association last year called the K-12 Engineering Division which includes an election of
three Technology Educators to the nine member
board (M. Sanders, 2008). However, if EE were to become dominant over TE in K-12 education, a disadvantage
could take place in that EE could suffer from a focus on a narrower view of practice
without the broader
spectrum of social and physical developments and impacts being studied. When one realizes that engineering is the
research and development involved in
the creation of technology (AAAS, 1989) and therefore is a subset of the larger field of TE, then TE becomes the
K-12 venue where the impacts and directions
of EE is evaluated and understood. EE still remains the best venue for content specific studies at the
postsecondary level.
STEM Education
The ‘hard sciences’ club has received so much recent
emphasis that it has created a new educational branch, STEM. This concept is a result of a struggle of hierarchy within education by the individual
branches involved. A scholar in TE
summed it up well when he said, ‘STEM is a politically good move, philosophically, mathematics and science don’t want to adopt technology and neither does technology want to adopt mathematics
and science. There are pitfalls and
opportunities with all of these options. We [TE] are moving towards
engineering education and STEM versus becoming part
of science (J. Dugger, W. E., 2007).’ This concept of disciplines
having a fear of being lost within
other disciplines encouraged me to find a way to create a framework which all disciplines could be
represented in without fear of being dominated
by more politically or economically powerful disciplines.
STEM to STEAM Education
While studying the common factors
of teaching and learning across the disciplines of S-T-E-M, the influences of
the arts disciplines became more apparent,
especially those already strongly promoted in the K-12 atmosphere, language arts and social studies. I
started thinking of how to develop an educational
framework that could formally link the study of the hard sciences to that of the divisions of the arts
Arts Education Within the arts there are many divisions. Upon
reviewing many educational works
related to teaching the arts, I was unable to find a universal definition of them. I quickly found that
within articles having to do with the arts in education
there were distinctly different meanings of ‘arts education.’ Despite this, I was able to find a way to fit established meanings
into categories of an
organizational structure. As I read through articles, I began to sort them into those that were related to more
broadly related realms of education.
Those that revolved around English, ESL, sign language or some other form of art primarily
related to communication were put into a category
of the language arts. Those that revolved around things that are
traditionally addressed in ‘art’ classes,
such as paintings, sculpture, color theory and tangible creative expressions were put into the category of fine
arts. Those topics that included personal
or collective movement,
sports, dance and performance
were put into the category of physical arts. Topics that related to particular physical skills or techniques necessary for manipulating
objects were categorized as manual
arts. The broadest
category was that of the liberal arts, this one included the social sciences
such as sociology, philosophy, psychology, theology, history, civics,
politics and to educators, one of
the most important classifications, the field of education itself. It was then that I realized the oversight that the
field of education itself had not been previously
formally included in the structure of the K-12 silos of education.
Holistic Education
While investigating how each discipline related to each
other and provided support for
crossconnections and deeper understanding, I kept being led to studying
aspects of attempts
at formal and informal holistic
educational models such as
those of; Montessori (Maria Montessori, 1914, 1975; Mario Montessori, 1992), Ruggiero, ((Ruggiero, 1988), Waldorf’s Anthroposophy (AWSNA, 2008) Reggio Emilia (Firlik,
1996) and alternative schooling
movements (Eisler, 2005; Minnis & JohnSteiner, 2005). The most
successful institutions of
purposefully holistic education include Montesorri and Waldorf. Maria Montessori attributed holistic
learning theories to young children and said
they needed to have a ‘prior interest in the whole; so that they can make sense of individual facts’ (Maria
Montessori, 1914, 1975) Her educational system is one of the most successful systems
of ‘holistic’ education
established (Mario Montessori, 1992). It was based on fully integrated curricula, delivery and assessment methods. Waldorf Education is
based on Rudolph Steiner’s
Anthroposophy theory. The goal is to help produce a person
‘who is knowledgeable about the world, human history and culture, who has many varied practical
and artistic abilities, who feels a deep reverence for and communion with the
natural world, and who can act with initiative and in freedom
in the face of economic
and political pressure’
(AWSNA, 2008). A common misconception in our time is that education is merely the transfer
of information. From the Waldorf
point of view, true education
also involves the awakening of capacities—the ability
to think clearly
and critically, to empathetically experience and understand phenomena
in the world (AWSNA, 2008). Since these two structures of education have
proven to develop functional and universally literate students who have gone on to all areas of
post-secondary educational success, they are
models of success for integrative education. I will define my use of holistic education as denoting life-long learning;
therefore I consider all purposefully planned
programs of teaching that have been called holistic education, an attempt at it. I argue that holistic
learning cannot be controlled or planned; it is the interpretation of each person’s
sphere, or universe,
of influence. It significantly
helps to shape what people do with what they are exposed to and what they understand (J. D. Bransford, Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. , 1999;
J. D. Bransford, M.S. , 2005; Gagne, 2005; Ruggiero, 1988; Smith, 1998; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Since each person’s perspective is different, holistic education cannot be delivered equally to students. I would consider indigenous tribal learning and some home learning settings, to be as close as possible to intended holistic education. Otherwise, educational trends geared at educating the whole learner, tend to have their pedagogy and curriculum fall under the titles of integrated, themed, inquiry, discovery or reality-based education.
scovery or reality-based education.
Functional Literacy A significant common thread that
became apparent is that each primary
discipline promotes a need for students to develop a proficiency in the subject
that would make them literate
enough in the discipline to be able to continue to adapt to and learn
about the basic developments that the field
takes. It led to a conclusion that students need a literacy of a breadth of the primary disciplines, which would
include an ability to transfer knowledge with higher order thinking
between disciplines (Freire,
1996; Huber &
Hutchings, 2005; Ruggiero, 1988), or to use Dewey’s term, students
need to obtain a functional literacy(Hickman, 1992). In order for a person to be functionally literate, they have to be
able to adapt to their surroundings, which means observing, thinking, changing and acting constantly. It was this connection that sealed the argument that more than individual contexts,
education needed to find a way to place emphasis on developing student’s abilities to think across the disciplines.
‘The idea that it is impossible to teach people to think,… did not proceed
from scholarly research,
but from an unscholarly assumption that if thinking was not being taught, and had not been taught, it therefore could not be
taught (Ruggiero, 1988).’ This seemed like a tragedy. However,
it also stood to reason,
that if each discipline purposely pointed out the naturally
occurring connections to other disciplines, that students
would develop the ability to recognize these connections and that
would foster the creation of cross-disciplined thinkers. This meant that there was no reason to radically change
the structure of K-12 education, but simply
to promote the progression of cross-discipline connection that each field had
already been making individually.
At this point, cooperation, not structure, became the limiting factor. There were significant arguments for the creation of commons in
language and pedagogy that would promote
more universal understandings across disciplines.
Cooperation among disciplines would provide realistic dynamics and influences that would allow students
to learn how to accommodate to the real
world. Co-operation could ‘also have the effect of encouraging the use of common language, common analogies and an appropriate level of detail across the subjects thus avoiding
misconceptions and regression’ (Barlex &
Pitt, 2000). But in order for students
to be able to understand cross-disciplinary concepts, educators
have to find ways to present the information
that make sense. ‘Scholars of teaching and learning must address field-specific issues if they are going
to be heard in their own disciplines, and they
must speak in a language that their colleagues understand (Huber & Morreale, 2002), however, they must also
speak in a language that can be understood
by those based in other disciplines (Huber & Hutchings, 2005; Shulman,
2005a). Keeping a structure of disciplines is still essential
for creating a depth of
knowledge within specific fields, however a breadth and context of knowledge is equally important. In this way, they are
useful for reinforcing each other.
There should be a simultaneous awareness of the interconnectedness (or commons) among subject matter and
pedagogies. Instruction should be purposefully
planned to reflect reality (Ruggiero, 1988).
The common goal of
education should be to produce functionally literate people who know how to learn and are adaptable to their rapidly
changing environments.
STEAM
Framework
Once I had been convinced that the fields of the arts
were important to the overall
creation of knowledgeable and well-rounded citizens, this investigation led me into a deeper study of each of the
main subject areas with the hope that
I would be able to find established definitions and classifications of the finer educational divisions within each
silo. My goal was to find a way to broadly
classify all areas of study into a structure that would allow students to understand the importance of the
relationships of the fields and hopefully come
to respect their need to acquire skills in all areas if they were to become well-rounded citizens. My other goal was
to afford academe a structure by which
to help organize the teaching of the fields that would not establish hierarchy, but instead establish
a reflection of how fields of study interconnected
with one another in reality so that those connections could be reflected in scholastic arenas. Such a
structure would allow for subjects to be taught
based in one subject with naturally occurring cross-curricular elements to be explored or for topical studies to
be taught through more universally integrative
methods.
My first interpretation of how to explain the STEAM linkages was: ‘We now live in a world where; you can’t understand Science
without Technology, which couches most of its research and development
in Engineering, which you can’t create without an understanding of the
Arts and Mathematics.’ This statement
was an adaptation of: ‘The study of Technology and Engineering is not possible without the study of the
natural sciences. This in turn cannot be understood
in depth without a fundamental understanding of Mathematics (J. Dugger, W. E. , 1993).’ My adaptation was
colorful, but contrived. Therefore, I persisted
on meandering through the silos looking for more structural links. I returned
to reinvestigate the recent Kuhnian
revolution in the field of mathematics
education (Davis, 1994; Ernest, 1994; Hersh, 1994; Tymoczko, 1994).This led me on to explore the
intrinsic element that mathematics is among
the other silos. The fact that kept coming up was that mathematics, and mathematics alone is essential for the
study of the other silos, it is even the
base of the study of languages, which is the next strongest category to provide structure for the other silos.
Mathematics is the primal language that cuts
across all other field’s boundaries. It is not just a primal language but a network
of practical and theoretical divisions that interact
both with other subjects as well as
stands alone. I had found something that set apart the study of mathematics from that of science, technology and engineering,
that thing was the need for it to be included in the other disciplines. Since Intellectual
Property of G. Yakman C. 8/7/2010 mathematics is the underlying language
of all communication, it therefore
becomes the linking
agent between concept and
understanding in education.
This became a pivotal point in my framework system, but it still did
not explain how the arts fi into the
structure. I revisited the literature on the ar ual reasons to include the various fields of art into
cross-curricular studies. The answer came when investigating the field of education itself.
At that point my argument became that since the arts
discipline houses the study of education, how can education itself be formally
excluded from the stud of STEM education? But, more then that, it became
apparent that how interpretation and
application associated with the arts linked things together was the social construction of society. This led me back
to investigate the field of engineering as
the division of research and development of technology and the last piece of the frameworks puzzle became apparent.
The arts and engineering contain all
of the divisions that interact with the pure possibilities of the other fields
to shape the direction of
development. That was the missing element to this paradigm. A new interpretation of how all the field of STEAM
linked together, and due to it, STEAM
became ST∑@M. The new definition of t framework became;
S =
Since
T = Technology
E = ENGINEERING A = ARTS
M = MATH
Usefulness of a STEAM
program:
As shown in Figure 5, 74% of students were interested in the STEAM program because they could participate in
problem solving, solve the problem cooperatively,
have fun in the process of gaining new knowledge, and learn a new concept through cooperative interactions. In
particular, student E said that he
used the STEAM program in his science class because it allowed him to participate in the whole
problem-solving process. This shows that students are motivated by their interest
in science, science
efficacy, and self-confidence in the STEAM class. It
corresponds with the research results that
a creative design learning method is more effective than the original inquiry
method in science
classes (Mehalik, Doppelt,
& Schunn, 2008). Furthermore, student
F said that the process
of solving a contemporary problem through cooperation is interesting,
which is in accordance with the research showing
that students can develop communication skills and appreciation for skills through
cooperative “hands-on” and “hands-in” activities (Baek et al., 2011). The following are interviews with student
E and F: Student E: It was very fun
to understand a problem by ourselves and come to a solution through engaging
with all the group members’
opinions about and
analysis of a short bamboo flute called a danso. Student F: It was
also good when my opinions where
appreciated during the creative design discussion. And I was happy to study and discuss with friends about the
short bamboo flute called a danso. I
thought it was a lot more creative and helpful to study cooperatively during a STEAM lesson.
However, 26% of students indicated that they would rarely use the
STEAM program because of a focus on the entrance examination preparation to university and discomfort with the strange
teaching method utilized by the STEAM
program. Student G thought that the term and procedural stage of STEAM program was very strange and
unfamiliar, and that it was better to solve
the problem using the traditional method. Thus, in order to use the STEAM program for science classes, the
lesson should be conceptualized by class procedures and taught in procedural form (Baek et al., 2011).
The following is content from the
interview with student G: Student G: When the
teacher gave us an orientation on how to teach the STEAM lesson, I
thought that it seemed very strange
and unique. So I didn't know how to solve the
problem focused on developing a precise analysis
of a danso and collaboratively designing a smartphone
application, as it is a new approach.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS :
Recently, yemen has tried to increase students’ interest in and
understanding of science technology
by adding the arts to STEM education and cultivating STEAM literacy based on science technology and problem solving.
However, there is no specific STEAM
framework that focuses on nurturing convergent
talent and there is little research that verifies the effects of the STEAM program. Thus, the purpose of this research
was to develop a STEAM program
in the context of teaching and learning a traditional yemen musical instrument and implement it in a high
school class to determine the program’s effectiveness.
As shown in this research, students recognized the STEAM science class as a “problem-solving procedure using convergent
thinking,” “instructional procedure
for knowledge generation,” and “finding a solution on their own in the STEAM activity.” Students
refined their imagination and awareness in the STEAM science
class activity through
developing their emotional touch and stimulating their creative science thinking and ideas through the reasoning
process. Moreover, most participants were willing to use the STEAM
program in science class often, although some students indicated that they would only use STEAM if it did not conflict with preparations
for the entrance exam to university. Based on the findings of this study, the major outcome from the developed STEAM program was that students can develop a solid understanding
of scientific principles as well as develop
their creativity and tap into their emotions by exploring the beauty of traditional yemen culture, as seen in the
danso.
This means that STEAM program in the context of teaching
and learning a traditional yemen musical instrument served as a network of practical divisions of varying methods, including
constructions, analysis, process work, and
application, as well as problemsolving. Also, this study found a strong link between the STEAM program and realworld
problems. Overall, we conclude that the STEAM program increased scientific efficacy and
creativity while maximizing interest
and motivation in science, which helped to improve national
competitiveness in the sciences. Finally,
this STEAM program
approach is apt to cultivate
STEAM literacy through
the convergence of science,
technology and the arts by enhancing creative
problem-solving abilities.
This research has the following limitations. It is difficult to generalize the research results because the STEAM
program activity, which was based on
a traditional yemen instrument in one high school, was not standardized. In addition, the study shows the results of
interviews with only 26 students from one
high school, and so any future research should contain a larger sample size in order to generalize the research
results so that they are applicable to a significant
number of high school students.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY :
This study sought to
develop a STEAM program based on the theme of
yemen traditional culture,
apply it to a high school science
class, and determine the effect of the program.
Therefore the purposes of this study are as
follows:
1. To develop a STEAM program
based on Korean
sound as a form of traditional
Korean culture.
2. To explore the effect of the application of the STEAM program in the context of teaching and learning a
traditional Korean instrument.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION :
A
high school STEAM program based on the theme of yemen sound After the yemen sound theme was chosen, learning
materials for students
and teachers were developed
according to the theme. This program was based on the high school science curriculum: lessons one through
three focused on analyzing a short bamboo flute called a
danso, lessons four through six focused on making a danso and performing a concert, and lessons seven through
ten focused on developing a precise
analysis of a danso and collaboratively designing a smartphone application. Twenty-six second-year high school students were divided into 4 groups of four and 2 groups of five. The main content of
the STEAM program is shown in Table 1. The elements of STEAM are: science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), the arts (A),
and
mathematics (M). The first stage, context, helps students recognize the
learning activity as a problem that
is pertinent to their lives. In other words, they play a danso and discuss the reasons why playing a
danso is difficult. Also, they learn the reason why the pitch changes according
to the intensity of sound, as related
to the “making a sound”
unit in the science textbook. As a result, students become immersed in the class activity because of the increased
relevance between the presented situation and
their lives. The second stage, creative design, is the key stage of the STEAM program. This stage helps students reflect
on their own creative ideas in the context of
practical .
REFERENCES :
Jacobs, J. E., Finken, L. L., Griffin, N. L., & Wright,
J. D. (1998). The career plans of sciencetalented rural adolescent girls. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(4), 681–704.
Jeong, J., Kim, H., Chae, D. H., & Kim, E. (2014).
The effect of a case-based reasoning instructional
model on Korean high school students’ awareness in climate change unit. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 427–435.
Kim, H. S. (2012).
A study
on relation and importance of art education and STEAM
education. Journal of Korean Society of Basic Design and Art, 13(5),
105–113. Knezek, G., Christensen, R.,
Tyler-Wood, T., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2013).
Impact of environmental power monitoring activities on middle school
student perceptions of STEM. Science
Education International, 24(1), 98–123.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design
(2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zuga, K. (1991). The technology education experience and what it can contribute to STS. Theory Into Practice, XXX(4).
Komentar
Posting Komentar