Rationale

Recently, to increase innovation and bolster national economics, K-12 school settings have emphasized science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum and programs. STEM-based teaching is a way to increase academic achievement in schools and introduce students to knowledge that are of critical importance to tomorrow’s workforce. President Obama’s focus on STEM education with the White House’s Educate to Innovate initiative expands beyond governmental agencies to include nonprofits, businesses, and community partners (2014). However, because of the sometimes narrow approach toward interpreting and then teaching knowledge, skills, and perspectives sometimes associated with STEM, educational leaders have called for more balanced ways to teaching and learning, which includes the arts, design, and humanities (Brady 2014; Connor et al. 2015). This desire for a balanced approach fostered science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education, defined by a transdisciplinary style of teaching encouraging a wide variety of knowledge and skill sets that promotes problem-solving (Winterman and Malacinski 2015). The goal of this approach is to prepare students to solve the world’s pressing issues through innovation, creativity, critical thinking, effective communication, collaboration, and ultimately new knowledge.

STEAM moves beyond one discipline such as science, toward multiple modes of inquiry and viewpoints (Connor et al. 2015). It incorporates content areas by merging the subjects and asking students to problem solve using authentic scenarios. Art incorporates new approaches to solving problems, thus including the arts in STEM activities deliver a natural platform for transdisciplinary inquiry. Some researchers argue the scientific and humanistic schism that has existed for centuries in Western culture has failed to acknowledge that the value of “art and imagination in the process of generating scientific knowledge” (Watson and Watson 2013, p. 1). STEAM education in the K-12 setting is still relatively new, but some findings demonstrate STEAM teaching increases motivation, engagement, and effective disciplinary learning in STEM areas (Henrkisen et al. 2015). Although there are successes in STEM education that also have similar positive outcomes (Davis 2014), the STEAM movement looks to increase the ways in which students are able to make connections between the disciplines (Connor et al. 2015). Students not only strengthen their learning within the disciplines, but between disciplines, pointing to the opportunity to make connections with art, music, and design as a way to reinforce this learning (Miller and Knezek 2013).

Despite these early successes, little research exists on what STEAM teaching practices are and how teachers enact those practices in their classrooms (Kim and Park 2012; Yackman 2007). Yet, there is a growing national attention toward STEAM. In fact, the NMC (Johnson et al. 2015) listed STEAM as one of the rising trends in K-12 education and STEAM-focused schools continue to appear in a variety of locales. Some early adopters include the Da Vinci Schools in California, Drew Charter School in Georgia, Fisher STEAM Middle School in South Carolina, Pulaski Middle School in Virginia, nationwide in Korea, and several schools in Europe—with even more school districts adopting STEAM practices each year (Delaney 2014). The growing national and global attention to STEAM provides an opportunity for teacher education to explore the ways in which teachers implement STEAM practices, the successes and challenges, and how teachers are beginning to make sense of this innovative teaching practice.

Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this paper is to examine the implementation of STEAM teaching practices in science and math middle school classrooms. The research question is what do STEAM teaching practices look like when enacted in middle school classrooms? Specifically, how do teachers make sense of STEAM practices within the context of their teaching environment?

Literature Review

With little research regarding the efficacy of STEAM practices, educators have limited conceptual understanding of how to design or enact STEAM teaching (Henrkisen et al. 2015; Kim and Park 2012). This limited understanding often leads teachers to use existing STEM models and attempt to “add on” experiences with the arts or humanities (Henrkisen et al. 2015). With the concept of STEAM and related teaching practices relatively new, this present study is informed by the literature detailing current approaches toward conceptualizing STEAM teaching and contextual factors impacting teachers’ pedagogical practice. Specifically, we review the major themes that researchers discuss when examining STEAM education: discipline integration, problem-based learning, technology and twenty-first century skills, and incorporating the arts.

Discipline Integration

Discipline integration involves the different content and methods of various fields to teach curricular concepts and solve complex problems. Research on the notion of discipline integration has resulted in a variety of opinions of what transdisciplinary teaching is and what it requires (Kaufman et al. 2003). Often there are types of discipline integration, characterized as cross-disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary.

Cross-disciplinary integration views one discipline from the perspective of another, while multidisciplinary involves several disciplines focused on a problem or issue. At this level, each discipline contributes “its own knowledge or approach to the theme with no attempt to integrate or interrelate ideas” (Kaufman et al. 2003, p. 10). This type of discipline integration engages the knowledge, processes, and skills from more than one discipline such as science and math. It is characterized within the literature as the least integrative form of integrated research—yet, equally, it is arguably the most attainable because there is no attempt to blend the disciplines (Janssen and Goldsworthy 1996). For example, on unit on plant growth, the students could plant a school garden. During this process, the students could be asked to calculate the cubic feet of soil needed to fill the space, along with learning about composition of the soil and soil types. A multidisciplinary approach, including both science and math content, would ask students to calculate the volume as a part of planning the process for the plant approach. The advantage of this approach is that even though the approaches are disciplinary, the different perspectives of the disciplines bring to the issues can be gathered and pulled together for reporting of the findings (Max-Neef 2005), however this approach of adding in different disciplines is typically not well integrated (Jakobsen et al. 2004).

A noted shortcoming of multidisciplinary teaching is the extent to which the approach is targeted at specific problem-solving. In general, multidisciplinary is seen as thematically organized rather than problem oriented (Wickson et al. 2006). Some contend—and we agree—that the curricula can be created around a central problem (Petts et al. 2008). However, because a multidisciplinary approach lacks an iterative process in which new questions are often created within and for another discipline, it is not as problem focused as interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches. Because STEAM practices focus on building problem-solving skills, the multidisciplinary approach is actually disadvantageous to the STEAM approach.

The concept of interdisciplinary distinguishes itself from a multidisciplinary approach by attempting to integrate the contributions of several disciplines. Within this interdisciplinary perspective, a harmonious relationship is sought among the various disciplines. A noted shortfall of interdisciplinary approaches when considering STEAM teaching is that interdisciplinary approaches start with the discipline versus the problem to be solved. Meeth (1978) writes, “Whereas interdisciplinary programs start with the discipline, transdisciplinary programs start with the issue or problem and, through the process of problem solving, bring to bear the knowledge of those disciplines that contributes to a solution or resolution” (p. 10).

The notion of transdisciplinary is in essence “beyond the disciplines.” Transdisciplinary approaches use the collective expertise from many disciplines to pose and solve problems in a manner which foregrounds the problem, not the discipline. Most research cites that transdisciplinary approaches are the most difficult to teach; however, given the traditional organizational structure of schools by subject area, this is to be expected. Although we disagree with Meeth that the ideas are hierarchical, indicating that one is better than the others, we view transdisciplinary approaches in ways similar to Meeth and extend the concept by emphasizing that all knowledge is by its very nature holistic; to artificially, and perhaps arbitrarily, carve it up will assuredly present certain difficulties in the context of formal education. Mishra et al. (2011) state that transdisciplinary knowledge which “emerges from disciplinary practices, and also transcends them, is critical” (p. 24). Students move beyond one correct way to solve a problem toward an approach that integrates different solutions, viewpoints, or perspectives. The authors acknowledge the challenges with implementing transdisciplinary approaches in schools and recognize that at times due to certain content, pacing, or teacher’s content knowledge, these approaches may not feasible or effective.

Problem-Based Learning

In our review of existing STEAM literature, in addition to discipline integration, problem-based learning was another common thread. For example, Miller and Knezek (Miller and Knezek 2013) studied the effectiveness of a STEAM professional development called “STEAM approaches using WeDo and NXT robotic systems” (p. 3294). In this study, teachers from a variety of content areas also participated in a NASA space mission professional development, which included research on the mission. The professional development included “collaboration, problem solving, research, investigation, creation, and publishing of content” (p. 3294). Additionally, they incorporated mentors from the local community to answer questions. Then, the teachers implemented these same lessons into their classroom. This study found that when the liberal arts were integrated with science, student achievement in science and math increased. In this approach, Miller and Knezek found problem-based learning with the use of technology, increased student achievement in specific subjects. Similarly, the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) found similar results using a problem-based learning scenario that considers local context. With the use of their Innovation Hub, students will use technology to solve problems. In both of these examples, STEAM is viewed as solving problems while using technology.

Kim and Song (2013) noted the importance of problem-based learning during STEAM-based curricula. In their study of gifted students, their aim was to investigate how students’ attitudes changed toward technology through the use of STEAM curricula. They found that through the use of open-ended and real-world problems helped students to be able to make connections to STEM disciplines, included technology. Moreover, the students noted a desire to seek employment in the fields of technology, as they were able to make the connection of how technology can assist in solving real-world problems.

Connor et al. (2015) also made the connection between STEAM and problem-based learning. They examined how blending disciplines could further look to dismantle “disciplinary egocentrism” (Schank 1983), which they believe causes students to be unable to engage in multiple disciplines to solve problems. They worry that a narrow approach to problem-solving creates artificial limits that support only one perspective. They called for “student-centric” approaches such as problem-based or project-based approaches that integrate disciplines, particularly liberal arts that were early adopters of these student-centric approaches. Therefore, they examine how the inclusion of the liberal arts into STEM so the boundaries between the traditional academic subjects can be removed so that science, technology, engineering, and arts “can be structured into an integrated curriculum” (p. 38). In this way, Connor and colleagues are calling for a learning approach that is student directed instead of teacher dictated.

Problem-based approaches are not new; they have been successfully implemented in classrooms for decades to help situate practical experiences or provide experiential learning in contexts understandable to children (Chin and Chia 2004; Hmelo-Silver 2004; Savery 2006). Studies examining the impact of problem-based learning report high levels of student engagement, an ability to think critically and solve problems, and a capacity to encourage student collaboration (Brush and Saye 2008; ChanLin 2008; Penuel and Means 2000). In relationship to STEAM teaching, problem-based learning is well suited to assist with the knowledge construction, active learning, and reflective thinking around ill-structured problems in which there is not one correct answer (Hmelo-Silver 2004). However, PBL can be challenging to implement as Savery (2006) describe in his research findings. When attempting to implement problem-based, teachers reported a number of challenges including supporting multiple student abilities, connection to standards, and difficulty in supporting students while providing them with independence, and challenges with assessment tools. While the alignment of PBL and STEAM practices is not yet clearly articulated in the literature, overlap between inquiry-based approaches and multiple pathways to propose solutions to authentic problems suggests problem-based learning is a viable and important method to include in STEAM teaching (Herro and Quigley 2016, in review).

Technology and Twenty-First Century Skills

Literature regarding twenty-first century skills acknowledges student success is dependent on their ability to build relationships, collaboratively solve problems, design and share information, manage multiple streams of simultaneous information, and analyze and critique multimodal texts (NCTE Executive Committee 2008; Trilling and Fadel 2009). The Partnership for Twenty-First Century Skills (2004) proposes problem-solving, creativity, and innovation are significant components of “active investigative thinking” explaining:

When we engage in high-quality thinking, we function both critically and creatively; we produce and assess, generate and judge the products of our thought. Within these descriptions lie a number of ideas that are important to the 21st century skills framework. Critical thinking is a skill that can be taught, practiced, and mastered. It draws on other skills, such as communication and information literacy, to examine evidence, then analyze, interpret, and evaluate it (p. 13).

The National Academies of Sciences (Katehi et al. 2009) addressed the need for design thinking and creativity in STEM fields as an important approach engineers use to solve engineering problems, suggesting that innovative thinking can be fostered and taught as part of basic problem-solving strategies employing creative thinking (e.g., encouraging nonlinear, iterative design). The authors also linked design thinking with increases in mathematical reasoning. Moreover, it has been argued that scientific inquiry is bolstered by active and creative solutions involving innovation and “making” and that technology can significantly assist in engineering solutions when it is viewed as “the embodiment of the knowledge and skills one needs to create and operate the artifacts in our global environment” (Jones 2014, p. 12). Science and math reasoning is believed to increase when aligned with ways in which artist think and implement ideas, much like Da Vinci’s intellectual depictions of anatomical drawings.

Furthermore, cognitive science supports the notion that problem-solving has a social dimension, and collaborative technologies offer opportunities for this important work (Partnership for Twenty-First Century Skills, 2004). To that end, The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has included creativity and information, communication and collaboration, and critical thinking, decision-making and problem-solving as key standards for students to practice and master during their K-12 education (ISTE 2015). The research-based standards are an effort to guide what students should be able to do in a digital world (Papa 2010) and are congruent to quality STEAM teaching practices.

In their extensive review of the literature surrounding barriers to transforming practices with technology, Hew and Brush (2007) remind us that the knowledge and skills of technology supported by (1) classroom management techniques, (2) leadership, (3) resources, (4) positive teacher attitudes, (5) a shared vision, and (6) effective professional development may impact student learning with technology. In regard to STEAM teaching, this points to the necessity of technology and twenty-first century skills as the foundation for teachers and their students to practice, collaborate, and apply requisite skills in STEAM units.

Arts Integration

Perhaps the most misunderstood part of STEAM teaching is arts integration. The move from “STEM” to “STEAM” is thought to produce powerful and authentic learning opportunities (Fountain 2014), with the “A” representing both arts and humanities. However, there is little extant literature to guide educators to consider how this might be enacted in their teaching practices. Henrkisen et al. (2015) point out that historically the boundaries between art and science and music and math are fluid and encourage educators at all levels to exemplify breaking the rigid boundaries between the disciplines by engaging learners in creative and artistic ways to solve problems. They provide examples in which teachers use visual arts to demonstrate understanding of a science concept, or music, theater, and kinesthetic movement to explore activity within an ecosystem. The authors discuss the complexity of knowledge production when students engaging in “creative synthesis” where senses, prior experience, and new understandings produce new knowledge. They provide examples demonstrating the depth of understanding that can occur when learning in multisensory ways, such as an experienced swimmer exploring the physics of ocean waves, tides, and currents using prior experience, senses, and additional knowledge to create new meaning. Juxtaposed with the far-to-frequent summarization of concepts in science, math, or literature to demonstrate learning or meaning, it is easy to imagine the arts offering opportunities for creative synthesis of new ideas.

Often, art is integrated through the design process, an important component of visual arts; however, when this is the only level of art integration, students are not able to understand how art and engineering are different (Nathan 2012). It is important for students to understand that designers create artwork mostly for clients and that artists create expressive artwork for themselves or an audience (Cross 2001). According to Maeda (2013), “design creates the innovative products and solutions that will propel our economy forward, and artists ask the deep questions about humanity that reveal which way forward actually is” (p. 34). Therefore, components, design, and art are important in STEAM teaching, although we recognize that arts integration beyond design can often be difficult for content area teachers to integrate. In general, the transdisciplinary nature of STEAM teaching aligns with the nonlinear problem-solving and open-endedness of creative thinking (Mishra et al. 2011), fostering a space for students to use their imagination, which fuels innovation (Eisner 2002).

Research Design

This research employs a qualitative methodology in order to understand the extent to which STEAM practices were implemented in a variety of middle school settings. Qualitative methodology was appropriate to comprehend the nuances of how and to what extent the STEAM practices were implemented, and furthermore, it relies on multiple sources of evidence and benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions.

Prior to this study, we studied teachers’ perceptions of STEAM before, during, and after the PD (for results of this work, see Herro and Quigley 2016, in review). Findings from the first portion of our study indicated the teachers increased their comprehension of problem-based approaches to STEAM, their conceptual understanding of transdisciplinary approaches, their knowledge of technology integration to enhance student learning, and collaboration as a way for students to learn in new ways (Herro and Quigley 2016, in review). This study details the same participants’ classroom implementations of STEAM practices with continued yearlong supports (i.e., forming cohorts with peers, instructor, and peer observations) and three professional development sessions throughout the academic year. The yearlong supports also included an online Learning Module System (LMS) wherein teachers posted their reflective journals, online discussions, and other assignments.

Study Context

Participants

The participants included 21 science and math teachers (5 males and 16 females) from seven middle schools in the same school district. The school district is the 110th largest in the nation. The STEAM district coordinator recruited the participants. The participants were required to obtain approval from their principal to attend the professional development. Table 1 provides information regarding the number of years the participants had taught. Despite some previous training (nine teachers had graduate level courses on technology; five teachers took a district-wide STEAM professional development; two attended a national weeklong training, and one was a former engineer also certified in science and math), 18 of the participants had not implemented any STEAM-based practices; three of the science teachers (Tara,Footnote 1 Amanda, and Dana) had implemented projects as assessment.

Table 1 Participants’ years of teaching
Full size table

Context of this Professional Development

The opening of a STEAM middle school (grades 6–8) in the southeast part of the USA prompted a partnership with a local university to assist in understanding and strengthening STEAM teaching practices. Yearlong discussions between district administrators and university faculty culminated in a decision to offer a 9-credit sequence of graduate courses to the teachers.

After discussion and planning meetings between district administrators, teachers, and university professors, a program entitled “Project-based learning, Digital Media and Learning, and Reflective Practitioner” emerged. The goal was to provide a STEAM professional learning opportunity aligned with current standards and based on general, requisite district requirements for content. During these courses, teachers were offered 50 h of focused summertime PD with additional follow-up classes during the following academic year. The goal of the follow-up class (“Reflective Practitioner”) was to enact, reflect upon, and refine practices while forming supportive professional cohorts to extend practices learned in the PD to their own classrooms.

Creating a STEAM school necessitated the courses; however, only three teachers from the new school were offered enrollment because the district believed allowing more equitable participation from other middle schools could potentially impact more students. And, the other schools, while not opened as STEAM schools, were interested in implementing STEAM teaching practices. Thus, an additional 18 participants from seven other middle schools were offered enrollment.

Problem-based Learning and Digital Media and Learning were the first courses offered in the summer; the focus of these courses was on identifying students’ interests and practices outside of formal schooling, building background STEAM literacies, and then connecting the two broad ideas to engaging STEAM practices. Using models aligned to transdisciplinary teaching (Kaufman et al. 2003), problem-based learning (Hmelo-Silver 2004), and effective technology integration (ISTE 2015), teachers were asked to identify, understand, connect, and express STEAM concepts in a systematic way to solve problems (Vasquez et al. 2013). Within the first intensive 2-week course, participants formed collaborative teams and selected problems to solve based on a local issue—to develop an understanding of the sustainability of a local river flowing through a thriving downtown. Community mentors were solicited to assist in gathering evidence regarding the economic, political, social, environmental, and historical considerations of the site.

Below we have provided a summary of the problem and process used during the PD:

  • Math, science, and technology teachers formed collaborative groups to answer the following question, “Government officials are interested in using the waterway at [Local river name] to harvest renewable energy. Local residents are upset about this decision and concerned about the environmental, health, political, social, and economic impact. Therefore, residents are asking expert scientists to take on some important tasks: (1) to identify, document, and research both problems and alternatives to using this waterway to harness energy and (2) to collect and analyze data regarding the proposed alternative to using the waterway to harness energy.”

After some initial research, the teams traveled to a local river and surrounding sites to collect data. Community mentors provided expertise discussing the river from the lens of economic sustainability, environmental issues related to soil and water quality, and historical and political issues driving the rivers development and use. Teachers collected data such as water quality and flow samples, video recordings, field notes, and images. During the course, Google Apps were used extensively for surveys, document sharing, mapping locations, and further collaborating (via Google Hangout) with mentors. Social bookmarks facilitated teacher-to-student and peer sharing of Internet sites. Wordpress blogs, iMovie, and podcasting demonstrated learning and allowed teachers to creatively mix media projects showcasing their research and proposed solutions to identified problems regarding sustaining the economic or environmental health of the river.

Prior to this study, we studied teachers’ perceptions of STEAM before, during, and after the PD (for results of this work, see Herro and Quigley 2016, under review). Findings from the first portion of our study indicated the teachers increased their comprehension of problem-based approaches to STEAM, their conceptual understanding of transdisciplinary approaches, their knowledge of technology integration to enhance student learning, and collaboration as a way for students to learn in new ways (Herro and Quigley 2016, in review). This study details the same participants’ classroom implementations of STEAM practices with continued yearlong supports (i.e., forming cohorts with peers, instructor, and peer observations) and three professional development sessions throughout the academic year; the researchers were not directly involved in teaching any of the STEAM lessons. The yearlong supports also included an online Learning Module System (LMS) wherein teachers posted their reflective journals, online discussions, and other assignments.

Data Sources and Collection

Both primary and secondary data sources were used to answer the research question. The primary sources included teacher reflective journals, observation tool, and field notes. The secondary sources were reflective journal entries based on observation tool, online discussion topics, field notes, and artifacts from teaching. Below we describe the data sources and data collection procedures for each source.

Teacher Reflective Journal

The participants (middle school teachers) kept a weekly reflective journal over the course of the academic year on the online LMS. In the journal, they discussed the STEAM practices they implemented, challenges, and successes they had with the implementation. The journal entries varied from one paragraph to four paragraphs depending on the week. These data were used as a primary data source to track the trajectory and frequency of implementation of the STEAM practices and to understand impediments to implementing STEAM practices.

Observation Tool

Each teacher was observed at least two times by one of the two authors. The observation tool included brief descriptive information about the class (i.e., class size, grade level, content area), the purpose of the lesson, activities, student arrangement (group work, teacher directed, etc.), and a narrative portion detailing what happened during the lesson. In this narrative portion, we focused on success with STEAM practices and areas to further STEAM implementation. We looked for moments or pieces of STEAM implementation and a way to help the teachers see other opportunities for STEAM implementation. For example, we looked for items such as discipline integration, problem-based learning, technology integration/twenty-first century skills, attention to arts and humanities—items previously identified as STEAM throughout literature review. It was not used as an evaluative tool, and we did not share the data with the principals or administrators in disaggregate form. We did, however, talk to principals and administration about ways the district could further support the implementation of STEAM practices. The authors completed the tool during the observation and shared the tool with the teachers after the lesson. We used this as a primary data source.

Reflective Journal Entry on Observations

After the observation, we met with the teachers and discussed our observations and problem-solved with them about ways to further implement STEAM practices. The teachers wrote a one-page reflection on the experience of being observed. This was secondary data source to the observations to validate the data.

Student and Teacher-Created Artifacts

Artifacts were also used as a secondary data source to understand the type of implementation. Participants would often share student work with us to show us the ways in which students were responding to the STEAM teaching. Additionally, they shared unit and/or lesson plans, rubrics, or criteria sheets. These data, similar to the other secondary data sources, were used as a way to further understand the ways STEAM practices were implemented in the classrooms.

Data Analysis

During the first phase in the exploratory sequential data analysis, we examined the pre-/post-survey data from the previous study (see Herro and Quigley 2016, in review) to understand the STEAM perceptions of the teachers during the beginning of this study. Many of the teachers increased their understanding of problem-based approaches to STEAM, moved toward a conceptual understanding of transdisciplinary teaching, understood the value of technology integration, and viewed collaboration as a new method for students to learn. However, the post-survey data indicated the cohort had difficulty understanding arts integration beyond the media arts and difficulty conceptualizing authentic assessment—which takes into consideration ways to develop tasks mirroring the real world, and then determining criteria and rubrics to address the tasks. This first phase of our research informed the necessary supports and data collection techniques for teachers enacting STEAM practices in their classrooms for phase two of this study.

For this study, or phase two, we qualitatively analyzed the data by beginning with the primary data sources using an exploratory sequential data analysis technique (Fisher and Sanderson 1996). Exploratory, sequential data analysis is an analysis technique wherein each data source is analyzed in an intentional order to provide insights through iterative analysis. This technique is recommended for studies such as our own, when there are multiple, related data sources. We analyzed the data in two ways, first by individual teachers to understand how they implemented STEAM practices in their classroom and second as an aggregated group to understand practices crosscutting all teachers. In this way, we could better understand individual and collective STEAM teaching practices.

To determine how participants enacted STEAM-based practices and what those practices looked like in their classrooms, we analyzed the weekly reflective journal entries looking for indicators of STEAM practices (i.e., transdisciplinary approaches, problem-based learning, technology integration/twenty-first century skills, attention to arts and humanities). These were a priori codes from theoretical approaches discussed in the literature and evidenced and noted from analyzing the pre-/post-data in first phase of this study. We then noted and categorized STEAM practices that the teachers mentioned or considered as STEAM (i.e., student choice, inquiry based), matching them to the a priori codes or recording emergent codes (Creswell and Plano-Clark 2007). Next, we classified all of the codes into themes and used inter-rater reliability to arrive at five primary themes. Five primary themes encompassed STEAM-based instructional approaches: relevancy, student choice, technology integration, problem-based, and authentic assessment. Then, we analyzed the secondary data sources to refute or validate the primary sources. For the secondary analysis, we began by analyzing the teachers’ one-page reflection on their observations and then analyzed the online discussions. During this phase in the analysis, we verified themes. Finally, we utilized the artifacts as ways to understand the level of STEAM practices implementation, which helped us to refine the research questions to include instructional approaches that were present (relevance, student choice, technology integration, problem-based, authentic assessment) and documented two themes, art integration and transdisciplinary approaches, that were notably absent across the cohort. These were noted because both arts integration and transdisciplinary approaches are documented in early literature, suggesting both are critical in differentiating STEAM from STEM.

Findings

The cohort enacted a variety of instructional approaches; however, there were five main consistencies in their approach including relevance, student choice, technology integration, problem-based, and authentic assessment. In essence, they were apparent across data, mentioned or observed in detail by at least 75 % of our participants. In Table 2, we provide exemplars of each of these instructional approaches and include the data tag (Teacher’s Name (Pseudonym)/Data source/Week #).

Table 2 Exemplars of STEAM instructional approaches
Full size table

Since we are attempting to understand what STEAM-based practices look like in middle school math and science classrooms from a comprehensive perspective, we purposely did not seek to quantify teacher mentions of specific instructional approaches because the number of mentions is not an indication of frequency of practice. This acknowledges teaching as a dynamic and fluid practice, with initial innovate implementations considered holistically.

Table 2 represents the number of teachers that noted or demonstrated an instructional approach, not the number of instances. For example, student choice was observed or mentioned in reflection journals by all 21 teachers for a total 52 separate times throughout the study. In all likelihood, some teachers integrated the approaches numerous times throughout the study. Next, we describe the predominant instructional approaches in detail. Notably, as mentioned in the participant section, all participants but two science teachers (Tara and Dana) noted that they had not implemented these types of teaching practices previously.

Relevance

Overall, 20 out of the 21 teachers discussed implementing relevancy into their STEAM teaching in several ways including locally relevant, student interest, and current issues/problems. For example, Mollie used a real-world, locally relevant example to engage students in the content:

Toward the end of the second period, as students were finishing their food webs, [the students] discovered that it was mostly just a mess of lines. [At this point], I declared that a CATASTROPHE had occurred. I presented them with this scenario, “Farmers in Mainville are very frustrated with coyotes because they are attacking chickens, goats, sheep, and pigs in the area. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources has declared that hunters can hunt coyotes all year using specific methods. This is intended to significantly reduce or permanently remove coyotes from the ecosystem. How could this be a problem for your food web?” Students looked at their food webs and started to work backward, [and I heard students making comments such as] “Okay, so if I remove the coyote then… Miss Barker, is this real?” Students were shocked to discover that this is true in the state of South Carolina, and many wondered how we could get away with it. Students seemed to grasp that removing even an invasive species from a relatively well-established food web would have detrimental effects, even if the intentions were good. (Mollie/Reflective Journal/Week 32)

Here, Mollie, a seventh-grade science teacher, used a relevant approach during a unit on food webs. She found that when she utilized this approach, not only did this engage the students in the content, but also students were also able to understand the implications of removing one species and the affects of that removal on other species.

Teachers also discussed issues in their schools as a way to make STEAM learning more relevant. For example, Tara discussed how during a unit on electricity and magnetism, students pointed to a problem in the design of the classrooms:

Students are working on more group activities [suggesting students are working with partners] as we learn about electricity and magnetism. We have a lot of labs in this unit and are discussing ways we could improve electrical circuits in the school. For example, students feel there should be desks with outlets installed for when their computers go dead or low on battery. Students are designing [a] desk that will have the capability to supply the electrical power that is needed with little cost. (Tara/Reflective Journal/Week 28)

In this example, Tara points to a real problem the students had in their lives and how she capitalized on that to engage them in the lesson. She also points to this as a “short project” meaning that although this is likely not a large unit that will take weeks to implement, it drew on student relevancy to engage the students in the content of electricity.

Interestingly, relevancy was difficult to maintain for all students. Leslie, a sixth-grade math teacher notes:

This week we began the statistics unit. Statistical questions was a concept that we taught last year that we had not taught in the past and I knew I did not do a very good job presenting it and knew I wanted to do something different. For this reason, I decided to find a picture of an event that happens in Mainville that hopefully most of the kids knew. I used a picture of Mainville. It turned out that about half of the students had been to the fall festival but [just] about every student had heard of it and had a general idea of what it was. (Leslie/Reflective Journal/Week 22)

Here, Leslie points out a challenge of relevancy—how do you make it relevant for all? She did note, that even though not all students had attended the event, “They were using an event that they knew about or already had questions about which kept the students involved and engaged.”

On a related note, teachers discussed some ways they were able to make the content relevant to their students. For example, Paula, a sixth-grade science teacher used technology to survey her students during the school garden project:

We finally started our STEAM project this Friday. I took the Google survey results from a few weeks ago and placed the kids into a classroom based on their interest. (Paula/Reflective Journal/Week 12)

Each group was working on a different aspect of the garden (raised bed design, compost, types of plants, water harvesting, etc.), so she used Google forms to find out which topic students were interested in. In this way, Paula used technology as a way to ensure relevancy during this project.

Student Choice

Another aspect of STEAM-based teaching was incorporating student choice. All of the teachers implemented student choice; however, the way they implemented it took on a variety of forms. For example, Mollie incorporated students’ choice throughout a project on invention in that students were able to choose the invention, the way in which they designed it, and how they would present the invention:

This week the students continued to learn about inventors and their inventions. Some of the students are very excited and already have ideas and others are worried that they will not be able to think of an idea. One male student was very upset because he couldn’t think of an idea so I started asking him what he enjoyed doing in his spare time and he said playing NERF wars, so he finally said he knew what he could do. Many times when they play at night they can’t find their bullets or other boys will try to take his ammo so he is going to paint his with glow in the dark paint! (Mollie/Reflective Journal/Week 20)

Similarly, during an observation of Kelsey’s classroom, she incorporated student choice in the way the final projects were created:

Ms. Moore began to explain the project and specifics about what the students must do for their project. The students must describe the types of energy transformations on their hotel or town design. Students were told that they could use 3D objects if they wanted to in the design and creation of their hotel or town. For example, they can use Lego blocks to build buildings for their town. Another option was to build a cross-section diagram of their hotel. (Kelsey/Observation/Week 23)

Incorporating student choice often presented an issue to ensure all topics were covered. However, teachers were creative in the ways they ensured that students were given a choice and the material was covered. For example, Katherine describes her strategy for meeting both the standards and engaging the students through choice:

This week we have been working on vertebrate animals, the students identified their favorite animal and then made a poster to represent the animal telling certain characteristics- a way to introduce vertebrates instead of me just jumping right into vertebrates. Next the students identified the traits of the 5 vertebrate groups together and gave the information to the rest of the class to write down. I just checked to make sure they had what is covered in the SC standards. (Katherine/Reflective Journal/Week 13)

Technology Integration

The vast majority of teachers (20 out of 21) discussed technology as integral to their STEAM teaching practices, with increased use of digital tools for both instruction and collaborative student practices. Reflective journal entries and observation logs demonstrated, in varying degrees, integrating technology in a manner that directly engaged students. Besides using technology for instructional tools (e.g., teacher-made quizzes, formative assessments, and Promethean board lessons), the teachers had their students’ blog, share Google Docs, share Google Forms or presentations, create movies or interactive videos (e.g., Powtoon, an animated video presentation), and discuss work on streams in Edmodo or Google Classroom. Another dominant theme in the data was teachers’ comfort in trying new technologies while remaining flexible to rethinking approaches or technologies despite challenges or lacking experience. Two short excerpts demonstrate instructional use of technology, student use of technology, and teacher comfort trying new digital tools.

Class Dojo is going well. The kids are responding well. I just need to tweak the rewards/consequences to match. I also was able to help a fellow teacher with Google Classroom. It feels strange and wonderful to be more knowledgeable than most people about technology because I never saw myself as a “techie.” Last week, the Google App guy from the District asked if I wanted to present at the Upstate Technology Conference. To top it off, beside the little bit I learned in class over the summer, I largely self taught myself. It’s like I’m no longer intimidated and I actually seek out new technology. I think I’m addicted! I only wish I had Chrome Books or newer technology. (Carrie/Observation/Week10)

I tried some new technology this week- Padlet, Edmodo, GIZMOs, and Google Classroom I rolled out Edmodo and GIZMOs to my students on Thursday and Friday. I forgot how long it takes 6th graders to log in and get the hang of things. By Friday; however, I think everyone was on track. I even got some messages on Edmodo on Friday night and Saturday! I downloaded the app on my phone and it made it easy to message students back when they had questions about homework or about the plant unit. (Kelsey/Observation/Week22)

In general, the cohort of teachers described a willingness to invest time teaching and learning with technology as they saw value in promoting twenty-first century skills critical to STEAM teaching. Interestingly, the technology seemed motivating to teachers providing them with a renewed sense of the importance of engaging their students.

Problem-Based

Sixteen of the 21 teachers used problem-based approaches in which a problem, without a definitive answer, was posed for students to solve. The remaining six teachers implemented real-world projects, but not problem-based approaches (further detailed in the “Discussion” section). Problems ranged in both complexity and relevance to authentic issues. Some teachers used local mentors, while others used virtual or physical field trips to assist in researching. In some cases, the learning was confined to the classroom. Two representative examples below illustrate the different types of problems posed.

The students began the Joule Island project where the students were given the problem, “Energy has run out in the US. Luckily, you have been selected as one of the people to move to Joule Island. However, you one have a certain amount of energy and money you can spend. Research the different types of energy, how much energy they [referring to the island as a whole] use and the price and then develop a plan and construct a model.” (Roger/Reflection Journal/Week 22)

We introduced the sea turtle problem, “Each year thousands of hatchling turtles emerge from their nests along the southeast U.S. coast and enter the Atlantic Ocean. Sadly, only an estimated one in 1,000 to 10,000 will survive to adulthood. The natural obstacles faced by young and adult sea turtles are staggering, but the increasing threats are causing them to be very close to extinction. Today, all sea turtles found in U.S. waters are federally listed as endangered, except for the loggerhead, which is listed as threatened. The Mainville Zoo would like to create an educational tool that will be displayed on World Oceans Day next to a student created giant sea turtle that will help visitors learn about this important species and understand the risks that sea turtles face and how they can help.”(Tara/Reflective Journal/Week 30)

The variance in the examples above shows how teachers used problem to facilitate specific lines of inquiry. In the first example, Roger posed a question that required students to research, explore multiple solutions, and then engineer a solution. The problem did not bridge disciplines, nor is something students might authentically encounter. The second example demonstrated problem-based learning in that the problem is central to the curriculum and does not feel school like, yet it remains authentic as sea turtles and the local zoo are both issues geographically and locally relevant.

Authentic Assessment

During the post-survey results, the teachers had difficulty understanding how they would implement authentic assessment. Interestingly, all of the teachers were able to implement a non-traditional, authentic assessment during their STEAM teaching. In effect, the teachers were all able to develop criteria and rubrics aligned with “what students should be able to do” contextualized with tasks involved in solving the problems.

Kelsey described the amount of pre-planning necessary to implement this type of assessment:

The research is guided by questions and the students developed the game. They are working in groups of 3-4. Through out the past weeks they have also been taking small quizzes, working with worms and microscopes and completing homework assignments. The feedback from the students has been incredible. They love the project and they really seem to be learning detailed information about invertebrates. Managing the group work and making sure they are on task has been very time consuming, but it has been worth the effort. I am excited about their work and the classroom has a rejuvenated feeling. I am finding the joy in the unknown again. I developed this project and I am the only 6th grade science teacher using this project in my class. Therefore, I have been doing tons of legwork on developing guidelines and rubrics. I have already noticed several things that I will modify next year to make the project run more smoothly. About a week into the project I realized that the scope of the project was too big, so we scaled it back to just invertebrates. (Kelsey Reflective Journal/Week13)

In this example, Kelsey designed a unit wherein the students were creating board games about invertebrates. She discussed that because this was a non-traditional assessment she needed to develop guidelines and rubrics. This points to the need to have criteria for the students when asking them to complete a task that is beyond the traditional test or quiz. She also mentioned the need to adjust the timeline and scope of the project (scaling back from the invertebrates and vertebrates to just the invertebrates). Several teachers discussed formative assessment embedded in the units as a key component for understanding students’ learning progress. Katherine assessed her students’ knowledge on energy, renewable, and non-renewable resources, reflection of light, and properties of bacteria through a project to build solar ovens during a unit on energy. She introduced the problem of cooking food using a renewable energy source to the students and then asked them to design a solar oven. As this was a group project, Katherine discusses the importance of peer evaluation in this unit. These examples of authentic assessment demonstrate that despite the teachers’ hesitations at the beginning of the year, the teachers were able to think broadly about the way they could assess their students’ knowledge. Importantly, most teachers (19) discussed traditional assessments remaining a part of their practice due to school district requirements. We also acknowledge that while all teachers were able to create and implement authentic assessments, data collected did not conclusively show teachers whether teachers formed future learning steps for individual students to progress based on these assessments.

Limited Enactment of STEAM Instructional Practices

Very few teachers implemented a transdisciplinary approach, integrated the arts, or fostered productive collaboration, all ideal tenants of STEAM teaching practices; however, through our data we garnered insight into possible reasons for this lack of consideration of these practices. Below we will provide these insights and also give exemplars from teachers who were able to implement these practices in their teaching.

Transdisciplinary Approach

As stated in the literature review, one of the differences between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches is that transdisciplinary begins with the problem to solve and then involves the content, while interdisciplinary beings with the content to study. However, achieving transdisciplinary teaching is difficult and was challenging for our teachers to enact. That said five of the 21 teachers were able to implement a STEAM unit. For example, one science teacher, Martha, developed a unit wherein her students were to help the Mainville Zoo with choosing a new animal and habitat size for one of the enclosures. The students were to research about animal species, habitat, habits, life cycle, etc. Additionally, they were required to determine the adequate size and space requirements and communicate their decision to the Zoo Board Members by designing an interactive presentation. In this example, the problem of study led the investigation.

Another example of a transdisciplinary approach was Tara and Roger, who created the problem scenario around issues of sea turtles, referred to previously.

This problem scenario rooted the lessons that followed, and the teachers referred to this problem scenario throughout the unit. For example, in math class, the students looked at trends in the decreasing turtle populations in South Carolina and compared it to national data. They also compared the data to other species (i.e., polar bears, sharks) to determine whether the rates were higher. At this particular school, other content area teachers (outside of the cohort) were also involved including the English teacher, Social Studies, Technology, and Art teacher, who were able to see connections between this problem scenario and their content standards.

Transdisciplinary teaching was difficult for most of the teachers. For example, Leslie states,

One of my biggest struggles with integrating STEAM units into the classroom is that I want Math to be at forefront of the unit, when oftentimes it is not. I have to continuously remind myself that woven into the Garden Project that we have [already] started planning, is every one of the standards of mathematical practice. It is during this time that I have reminded myself, as well as the other teachers working on the project, that we do not have to teach the students every bit about each piece of technology, they will be able to discover much of it on their own.

This represents a shift in her mindset that she was struggling with—the notion of how to ensure the content was covered but also to promote student-directed learning. This same challenge was echoed by Heather, who although she was able to connect other content areas, was still focused on covering the content instead of beginning with a problem to solve. In her reflective journal (Week 30), she notes:

This week, I sat down with the ELA teacher, and we discussed what each of us would do for our next STEAM/PBL unit. In ELA, students will practice writing how to compose a specific object that a classmate will then try to build from the directions the person wrote. In Science and Art, students will create a model of a human body system to better understand the construction and function of its individual parts and how the parts work together. Finally, in ELA, students will use their models to help them write an expository essay about the organ, organ system, and its functions.

Here, similar to Leslie, she is connecting the contents in different areas but not utilizing a transdisciplinary approach to do so.

Arts Integration

As one of the goals of STEAM is to involve the arts in order to increase the participation of students who are traditionally absent from STEM, arts integration is clearly an important approach. However, this approach was also a challenge for the teachers to implement. Although ten teachers self-reported the use of art, most (eight of the 10 teachers) connected arts to the media arts (technology) instead of creative arts or arts as expression. For example, Mollie in the reflective journal (Week 26) noted her students were using art when, “They were designing their models of their organs on Google Draw.” While this involves creative process and design, which is a component of STEAM, it limited the type of model (all students were to create a specific organ, and it was supposed to be an accurate depiction of the organ instead of an expression of the organ). Another example of this would be the flower models that the students created in Tara’s class. These models had exact dimensions, materials, and color choices determined for the students, and therefore, there was little creative or expressive process. One example of arts integration involving the expressive arts was with the sea turtle project mentioned above. The science teachers, Tara and Roger, worked with the arts teacher (not in the cohort) to create the following lesson for the students:

When researching the migration patterns, discuss what the sea turtle is going through. Can you imagine moving from one location to another, leaving loved ones behind? Have you ever had to go through a “migration” (i.e., life change, new situation, new school, new house)? Construct a migration relief, first of the sea turtles migration. Then construct a “feelings” relief, describing your own migration. (Roger and Tara/Teacher Artifacts/Week 26)

In this example, the students were employing creative and expressive arts instead of just design or technical arts. The students were not simply called upon to relate to feelings but rather were asked to dig deeper and specify an event in which they had experienced a movement. Some students drew on their feelings of moving to middle school from elementary school, moving from one church to another or moving from one state to another when their parents experienced economic job relocation. Ultimately, they understood the idea that movement is a necessity among all species, including humans. The students reflected on the project afterward by completing artist’s statements. The artist statements confirmed that they could respond to their emotion aesthetically and that they could authentically connect with creativity based on core content.

Collaboration (vs. Group Work)

One of the twenty-first century skills that STEAM teaching seeks to promote is collaboration. Collaboration skills include ways in which students collaborate in investigations, design, creation, inquiry, and the ways in which students collaborate to connect knowledge evidence and experience. However, all teachers noted that collaboration was a difficult skill to support making statements such as, “The groups are not working well together” and “I have to move groups a lot. It seems that they don’t know how to work together or one person is doing all the work.” This points to the need to support students in this skill development. One teacher, Katherine discusses that students need practice with productive collaboration:

This week I came to the realization that STEAM is hard for students because they have never been taught or allowed to truly collaborate on a project, particularly with science. Students have been trained to look for the “right” answer. My students will often times come to me and ask me the answer. I realize that this is hard for some students. I’m teaching my students how to work together, figure things out as they go, and that there is not just one right answer. (Katherine/Reflective Journal/Week24)

Another teacher, Dana discussed the ways in which she supported her students early on in the academic year:

We set up the room with 4 students at a table (2 tables together) to begin the feeling of a group. Then the students began working with collaboration exercises this week called Life Boat Game and then Spaghetti Towers. After we played Life Boat we had a discussion and wrote down information they learned about the decision process on the Promethean board. We made a list of “good teamwork” together for the students to have in their notebooks and we have it posted in the room. I felt this worked well with the students and it is something that they can refer back to when they are working on group projects. (Dana/Reflective Journal/Week3)

Here, Dana provided specific strategies for her students to work on productive group work, thus fostering collaboration. She also discussed the importance of creating a problem that “was complex enough to warrant collaboration” which demonstrates her knowledge of the importance of beginning with a problem to solve.

Discussion

This research contributes to the sparse but growing interest in the literature, which supports research-based practices for STEAM teaching. This study explored the enactment of teaching practices of 21 middle school teachers after completing intensive STEAM professional development. Overwhelming, the teachers indicated they were able to implement relevant scenarios to engage students in problem-solving, with only one teacher reporting an inability to design a relevant problem. This teacher noted time constraints and an inability to conceptualize STEAM without supports from other disciplines prevented him from moving forward. This implies that creating relevant, authentic scenarios was an instructional approach the teachers were able to implement effectively. Interestingly, the literature related to creating authentic contexts notes that this could be challenging for teachers to enact. The teachers described that their students were engaged in the learning process making statements such as:

My students come to class excited to share the information they’ve looked up about the problem we are solving, talking and asking questions. They do this despite not be required to. When I see them in the hallway, they tell me what their new ideas are. They tell me they did not why math was important before.

Relevant learning engages students in content by providing students the opportunity to make connections between the content and their lives (Hmelo-Silver 2004) and provides them with examples of real-world situations where the content knowledge is used (Herrington et al. 2014). The recent Johnson et al. (2015) notes that by working to solve relevant problems students think critically and communicate effectively, “mastering academic content aligned with twenty-first century skills while tackling real issues in their community and beyond” (p. 8). Specifically for STEAM teaching, relevance is critical and often engages students in meta-disciplines (Herrington et al. 2014), one of the stated goals of STEAM.

All teachers within this cohort effectively offered their students choices in topic of study, method of inquiry, type of product, technology used, collaborative partners, or ways to demonstrate knowledge. Interestingly, more than half of the teachers offered students choices in all aforementioned categories, noting that student choice was an easy way to provide students with ownership over their learning. It may be case that prior experience with student groupings, units incorporating projects, and authentic assessments provided a natural venue to incorporate student choice; however, it is important to note most teachers were able to provide multiple opportunities for choice, thus providing the students with valuable opportunities to feel ownership over the learning process. This implies that student choice is one way the teachers were able to move from a teacher-directed classroom toward more student-driven learning process. This is analogous to the research that suggests that providing students with appropriate levels of autonomy within learning contexts leads to greater levels of engagement in learning and higher levels of motivation (Urdan and Schoenfelder 2006). Additionally, this suggests student choice is an attainable and effective method within STEAM units.

With 20 of 21 teachers reporting heavy integration of technology within their STEAM teaching, and with efforts to directly engage students in creating or collaborating with media, technology served as motivating influence. Despite challenges of access, experience, and expertise, most of the teachers persisted in trying new technologies, demonstrating technologies to fellow teachers, remaining patient with the process and using “work-arounds,” and finding ways to use technology beyond instructional tools (e.g., student creation of movies, digital posters, infographics, etc.). Teacher attitudes regarding integrating technologies within STEAM practices were positively impacted by their enthusiasm to try new technologies, and in turn the technologies were more deeply integrated (Ertmer 2005). This indicates that technology provides a motivating opportunity for teachers to enact STEAM practices and explore innovative ways to engage students. It reinforces research (Hew and Brush 2007) that transformative technology practices, in this case within STEAM units, entails having a shared vision, adequate resources, positive teacher attitudes, and effective professional development to impact student learning. The remaining teacher who did not integrate technology cited access as the primary issue.

In general, teachers were able to successfully integrate problem-based instruction. Observations and reflective journals detailed the teachers’ ability to implement a problem-based approach, with only five clearly struggling to offer any kind of problem-based scenario. The majority of teachers posed a problem to be studied collaboratively. However, their approach was often multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary. Akin to what Wickson et al. (2006) documented, it was organized thematically or focused on the discipline they taught (math or science) versus a problem-oriented scenario. Many teachers discussed their inability to engage colleagues from other disciplines in a common project. Furthermore, there was a wide range of implementation efforts as evidenced by observations and reflective journals. For example, some teachers posed a question that was clearly a problem but not authentic or connected to students’ lives (e.g., the case of Joule Island). Other teachers suggested problems in the form of challenges that offered few lines of inquiry (e.g., create a balloon-powered car or design a tool to teach cell parts to a third-grader). This finding implies that clear understanding of problem-based versus project-based learning must be delineated for teachers attempting to enact STEAM practices. It also suggests future research considering whether moving on a continuum from problem-based to project-based work and multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary teaching might be effective.

All teachers succeeded in implementing non-traditional assessment practices. The assessments were typically formative assessments embedded in the units and included checklists, check-ins, and peer and self-evaluations. Many teachers saw peer evaluations a significant part of group work. Embedding assessment in the learning process is important in STEAM teaching as students will likely be at different points in the process; therefore, these embedded assessments regulate student learning and skill development throughout the lesson through multiple assessment moments and methods. In this way, the student is assessed upon multiple types of knowledge and skills instead of one discrete skill. Increasing the authenticity of an assessment is expected to have a positive influence on student learning (Oliver and Herrington 2003).

In STEAM teaching, where the goal is for students to participate in multiple modes of inquiry processes, develop certain skills such as problem-solving, and collaborate in multiple ways, a multiple-choice assessment would likely represent a misalignment with the authentic, student-driven aspects of STEAM (Darling-Hammond and Snyder 2000). Yet a number of teachers talked about traditional assessments remaining part of their teaching practices. They noted that federal and district requirements such as benchmark and state testing, often caused them to shift from authentic assessments toward these traditional assessments. All teachers noted they wanted to give students practice with multiple-choice tests in preparation for state testing and thus changed the assessment types to reflect this type of standardized testing.

STEAM Practices Not Evident

Importantly, the teachers had difficulty with some aspects of STEAM teaching including transdisciplinary teaching, arts integration, and collaborative learning. As noted in the literature review, transdisciplinary teaching is incredibly difficult to attain and likely runs counter to the single content area training and standards-driven curriculum present in many US middle schools. This indicates a need to support teachers in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teaching practices prior to transdisciplinary approaches. It also suggests that teachers need more supports in seeking experts outside of their content area.

This was also noted in the lack of arts integration. One of the hallmarks in STEAM teaching is the involvement of the arts; however, most of the teachers in this study did not implement arts beyond the digital/design arts. Teachers need opportunities for building connections between their content area and the expressive arts and likely should receive support from arts experts to do this.

Finally, all teachers in the study noted that student collaboration was difficult for them to achieve in their STEAM teaching and commented that using groups often created problems of “off-task” and other behavior issues. Several teachers noted that when they spent time developing collaboration skills and norms with their students, the students were able to collaborate more effectively. This implies that teachers need to provide opportunities for students to practice these skills. It also suggests teachers struggle with what productive collaboration looks like in their classroom. Based on this work, the authors are developing an observation tool, called Co-Measure, for teachers to measure student collaboration in STEAM units. This tool will provide support for teachers to assess specific aspects of collaboration such as expected tasks (establishing roles, seeking peer feedback) and behaviors (verbal check-ins, sharing tools), with the hope of improving student collaboration and ultimately student learning.

Conclusion

This multiyear research, strengthened by this study exploring how teachers make sense of STEAM practices in their teaching environment, led us to some significant conclusions guiding the next steps for our work. Although many of the individual practices assisted in student learning, STEAM teaching involves major shifts in teaching practice for many teachers; it takes time to refine and implement effectively. Opportunities for teachers to reflect on their practice while providing support in the context of classroom teaching can help close the gap (Dede and Richards 2012) and move STEAM teaching forward. However, teachers require a clear definition of STEAM in order to improve their practice. The research has drawn our attention to the necessity to create a model that clearly defines STEAM teaching practices for teachers to gauge their enactment. To that end, under the guidance of a measurement expert, we have developed a model called STEAM Classroom Assessment of Learning Experiences (SCALE). Next steps in this research include testing and refining the model to improve STEAM teaching and impact STEAM learning.