Introduction

Over the last two decades, educators have seen policies, committees, and new standards in the USA calling for a “new approach” to STEM education (National Research Council 1996, 2000). Central to these calls is a pedagogical shift from focusing on supporting the acquisition of content to promoting deeper learning by engaging students in inquiry, making, and creative technologies (Halverson 2005). From a practical perspective, this shift is driven by the growing disparity between the education provided in schools and the needs and interests of the children who will occupy future citizenry—citizens that can produce, create, and interact with a variety of technologies and knowledge types. From a pedagogical perspective this requires shifting instructional approaches, which involves creating curriculum that utilizes creative technologies and teaching strategies that embed content in inquiry-based learning wherein students are able to understand the content, see the value in the content, and transfer the content to new situations (Noguera et al. 2015).

Consistent with this way of thinking, educators are shifting didactic, lecture-based instructional modes to more participatory models where students are collaboratively engaged in the process of inquiry, making, and creative technologies (Squire 2007). As a result, educators are now moving classroom instructional objectives away from what content do we need to know towards how can we support learners in the process of inquiry. Consequently, an increasing number of schools have modified their curricula to support students. One such example of altered curricula is the rising trend of STEAM Education (Johnson et al. 2014). Existing STEAM education research has been focused on the conceptualization of STEAM (Quigley and Herro 2016, 2017; Sanders 2006), the understanding of the transdisciplinary nature of STEAM (Guyotte et al. 2015), the ways it can engage girls and students of color (Peppler and Bender 2013; Tsurusaki et al. 2017), and the integration of art and technology into other disciplines (Ko et al. 2012; Peppler and Bender 2013). Less research exists on the impact of STEAM instruction on students (Bush and Cook 2016). Few studies examine the role teachers play in designing and implementing STEAM curricula. However, curricular reforms are ultimately implemented by teachers, as Kim and Bolger (2017) discovered regarding STEAM education; if teachers lack knowledge, confidence, and curricular supports to implement change, that change is unlikely to occur. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the ways in which elementary teachers can both design and enact STEAM teaching practices in order to define specific curricular supports for STEAM education. Our research question is: How do K-5 teachers design and implement STEAM learning environments?

Teacher Involvement in Curricular Design

As educators shift from content-focused curriculum towards more relevant, authentic experiences, they need support and often ask for sample instructional units and assessments (NGSS Lead States 2013). That said, it is widely understood that when teachers are left out of the design process, curriculum is not implemented effectively or at all (Kim and Bolger 2017). However, there is specific expertise needed for curricular design including generic design and process expertise and specific design expertise (Huizinga et al. 2014). The former entails the knowledge and skills needed to engage in the design process while the latter includes knowledge and skills needed to develop curriculum itself. The knowledge teachers need is multifaceted involving curriculum design expertise, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curriculum consistency expertise, with skills such as idea generation skills, material selection skills, systematic curriculum design skills, and implementation management skills. Without these skills, teachers often face challenges in both design and implementation of new curriculum. Huizinga et al. (2014) found that one way to mitigate challenges is to offer support that is just-in-time and context-specific. McFadden and Roehrig (2017) found it crucial that teachers are supported in the process of breaking free from past ways of developing curriculum, which leads to more fidelity in implementation. Similarly, Binkhorst et al. (2017) found that the more ownership a teacher perceives, the more likely they are to actually use the designed material in their classes. However, they call for more research into particular reform movements that can track design-to-implementation of the practices.

STEAM Instructional Practices Literature Review

While the notion of STEAM is widespread in fields such as design, architecture, and even engineering education, there is little empirical research regarding how to implement STEAM practices in K-12 settings. Additionally, K-12 educators have narrow conceptual understandings of how to design or teach using STEAM educational practices due to the limited research (Henriksen et al. 2016). This often results in teachers using existing STEM practices and attempting to “add on” the arts or humanities instead of integrating arts into the design and planning processes (Henriksen et al. 2016). With the concept of STEAM education in K-12 settings relatively new, this present study is informed by the literature detailing available approaches and strategies towards STEAM teaching. Specifically, we review the major themes that researchers discuss when examining STEAM education: discipline integration, problem-based learning, technology integration, and arts integration. These approaches assume that teachers can or should design learning environments with appropriate instructional activities promoting STEAM skills.

Discipline Integration

Discipline integration involves different content and methods of various fields to teach curricular concepts and solve complex problems. STEAM education often touts a transdisciplinary approach (Bush and Cook 2016; Quigley et al. 2017). 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). Transdisciplinary perspectives seek a balanced relationship among the various disciplines-meaning that one discipline does not take priority over the other. Meeth (1978) writes, “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 given the traditional organizational structure of schools by subject area. This challenge requires supporting teachers in ways that approach learning from a transdisciplinary standpoint from the beginning of the instructional design process. In this way, students move beyond one correct way to solve a problem, towards an approach that integrates different solutions and perspectives.

Problem-Based Learning

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 youth (Hmelo-Silver 2004; Savery and Duffy 1995).

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; Penuel and Means 2000). In terms of STEAM teaching, problem-based learning was present in most of the reviewed studies of K-12 education. Typically, in school settings, the STEAM-focused studies demonstrated that problem-based learning was a part of the curricular approach (Margot and Kettler 2019; Shernoff et al. 2017) while in out-of-school settings or classroom “STEAM electives,” the focus was on a specific challenge or product for students to design or create (Perignat and Katz-Buonincontro 2019). This demonstrates that in K-12 settings, problem-based learning and STEAM seem in alignment, and often involve removing some restraints common in traditional school settings.

Technology Integration

Technology integration in STEAM instruction has been closely connected to the maker movement in K-12 as it is thought to encourage design thinking, creativity, STEM, and social skills (Cohen 2017). Makerspaces are considered “informal sites for creative production in art, science, and engineering where people of all ages blend digital and physical technologies to explore ideas, learn technical skills and new products” as a means to build, improve and share collective knowledge (Sheridan et al. 2014). In schools, they have been used as social and cognitive activities that lend themselves naturally to STEAM instruction, such as playfully making stories, honing computer science and literacy skills (Bull et al. 2017), engineering prosthetic limbs (Cook et al. 2015), creating prototypes as solutions to pollution (Kitagawa et al. 2018) and even making buttons, memory shirts and movie montages for bereavement (Seymour 2016). In STEAM units, technology-enabled making or sharing is part of the problem-solving process (Author in review). The benefit of the maker movement to increase design and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms. The connection between making and design and engineering practices has studied in recent years and with findings suggesting making aligns most closely with STEM and STEAM initiatives in schools (Taylor 2016). The research implies that opportunities for making, with technology integration, should be integrated in STEAM problem-solving.

Arts Integration

Perhaps the most misunderstood and misaligned component of STEAM teaching is arts integration, with the “A” representing both arts and humanities (Fountain 2014). Historically, the boundaries between art and science and music and math are fluid and encourage educators to exemplify breaking the rigid boundaries between the disciplines by engaging learners in creative and artistic ways to solve problems (Henrikson et al. 2016). Henrikson et al. provide examples in which teachers use visual arts to demonstrate understanding of a science concept, music, theater, or kinesthetic movement to explore a phenomenon. These authors discuss the complexity of knowledge production when students engage 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. Compared with the infrequent summarization of concepts in science, math, or literature, the arts offer opportunities for more creative synthesis of knowledge. Still, art is often only integrated through the design process, an important component of visual art. However, when this is the only level of art integration, students are not able to understand how art and engineering are different (Nathan et al. 2011). Students must understand that designers create artwork mostly for clients and that artists create expressive artwork to explore an issue, express an emotion, or to demonstrate a creative skill (Cross 2001). Although we recognize arts integration beyond design can often be difficult for content area teachers to integrate, we want to underscore its importance. In general, the transdisciplinary nature of STEAM teaching aligns with the nonlinear problem-solving and open-endedness of creative thinking (Mishra and Kereluik 2011), fostering a space for students to use their imagination, which fuels problem-solving (Eisner 2002).

STEAM Conceptual Model

Integrating the arts and humanities with STEM is essential for innovation as it provides an engaging and collaborative way to view the world, strengthening the connection between math and science in real-world applications (Wynn and Harris 2012). Further, STEAM teaching draws on a transdisciplinary approach which foregrounds the problem to be solved, versus a discipline-specific approach. Yet, many schools implement this new curricular innovation without a clear conceptualization of what STEAM is, how it differs from STEM, and what it looks like in classrooms. To support schools during this shift, we developed a conceptual model (see Fig. 1) to guide effective instructional practices for teachers to implement STEAM-based curricula using a previous a 3-year study of teachers (for details see Quigley and Herro 2017). The conceptual model is based on connected learning theory which posits that educators should value the ways youth are already engaged in learning across multiple disciplines and spaces; it suggests that the most effective learning environments draw on individual interest and social support to overcome adversity and acknowledge contributions (Ito et al. 2013). Connected learning theory guides STEAM instruction in two primary ways: (1) as a means to draw on students’ interest in choosing relevant, real-world problems to solve when designing STEAM problem-solving scenarios (e.g., issues they care about and can relate to with a STEAM focus), and (2) providing technology options in which students participate readily outside of school such as video production, game design, robotics, digital drawing/sketching and connecting with peers to share creative solutions to problems (Grimes and Fields 2012).

Fig. 1
figure 1

STEAM conceptual model

Full size image

The first dimension, discipline integration, is the way in which teachers connect multiple disciplines or content areas through a problem-based unit. While the model posits the goal of STEAM as transdisciplinary, the model also looks at variances of discipline integration (single content, multiple disciplines, and transdisciplinary). Our research found teachers were more readily able to integrate multiple disciplines when they aligned the disciplines to the problem to be solved. Therefore, the attributes in this dimension can be defined as multiple content areas and connected ideas. In classrooms with a high level of discipline integration, the content selection draws on different disciplines during problem-solving by using expert knowledge (e.g., community experts such as a local park ranger or landscape architect), multiple sources of information, and a variety of concepts or methods.

The second dimension, classroom environment, examines the ways in which teachers structure the classroom environment to facilitate problem-solving. This dimension includes a problem-based approach, authentic tasks, multiple ways to solve the problem, student choice, technology integration, and teacher facilitation. When teachers situate the task in a real-world event, it helps to make the problem and the content more relevant to the students. This dimension significantly informs practices teachers focus on during the creation and enactment of STEAM curricula. The classroom environment is purposely designed to recognize unique skills of diverse groups (i.e. minoritized students).

The third dimension, problem-solving skills, involves the ways in which teachers support the development of students’ cognitive, interactive, and creative skills through a variety of instructional activities. These skills provide students with the means to solve problems. During STEAM lessons, teachers support students in the development of higher-order skills, such as abstracting, analyzing, applying, formulating, collaborating, and interpreting; constructing explanations; engaging in argumentation; disseminating evidence; and presenting. The conceptual model looks for teachers to regularly provide opportunities for students to practice these skills across contexts while encouraging students to explore multiple paths to solving a problem, which provides favorable conditions for sparking creative skills. These creative skills rely on a teacher’s ability to offer concepts, tools, and experiences in open-ended, problem- solving scenarios. This model helps teachers design problem-solving tasks and classroom environments to promote student-guided learning that relies on peer support and collaboration. In this manner, our STEAM conceptual model is more than just a simple combination of science, technology, engineering, arts, and math content; it defines an instructional approach by which teachers inculcate a transdisciplinary perspective on real-world problems. Table 1 provides an example of a STEAM scenario and the learning context of the classroom environment, discipline integration, and problem-solving skills.

Table 1 Example STEAM problem: learning context applied to a specific scenario in the Midwest
Full size table

This unit was developed by Authors 1 and 2 and used during a professional development with the teachers to provide an example of a STEAM unit. The teachers were led through the unit as students, taking different lines of inquiry to explore the problem. The full unit was aligned to content area standards including developing solutions in maker activities. These activities included creating murals of lake life, designing and engineering a new hook or fishing to device, developing digital activity books to educate people on the threats fish face, designing video games in visual coding game-design software to detail the safe way to catch and release, and programming simple robots to mimic a fish life cycle (see Table 2). Community experts from the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center assisted teachers and their students in gathering credible information and answering questions.

Table 2 Example STEAM-aligned making activities (fishing scenario)
Full size table

Methods

We conducted a qualitative research study utilizing coding schemes (Saldaña 2015) based on the STEAM observational rubric (see Appendix) to understand how teachers designed and enacted this new curriculum to answer the following research question: How do K-5 teachers design and implement STEAM learning environments?

Context

The K-5 elementary school is in a growing community in Southeastern Wisconsin. The area has a large refugee population (increased from 8 to 18% in 2019) and the district administrators were interested in curricular innovations that engaged students in deeper learning and fostered a sense of community. The school administration and teachers chose STEAM because of interest in problem-based learning, discipline integration, and engaging students. Fifty-seven percent of students receive free or reduced lunch. The demographics of the school are as follows: Racial/Ethnic background: Asian—7%; Black—25%; Hispanic—15%; White—40%; 2 or more races—13%. The school has 420 students, 25 classroom teachers, one principal, one assistant principal, an instructional coach, five special area teachers, and four support staff. At the time of this study, grades 3–5 had 1:1 daily Chromebook access. Grades K-2 had access to iPads regularly but did not have 1:1 access. The teachers participated in a four-day summer STEAM professional development (PD) program led by Authors 1 and 2. Details of this PD can be found in Quigley and Herro 2016. During this program, the teachers began creating a STEAM problem scenario and unit plan to be completed in early fall for feedback from Authors 1 and 2. This feedback was aligned to the STEAM principles and focused on concrete suggestions and providing resources in the form of specific technology suggestions, curricular resources, or websites with relevant information to the teachers. The unit plans were intentionally planned with adequate time so the teachers could receive the feedback with one-month planning time for the teachers to adjust the lessons. The instructional coach met with the team to review the feedback and to provide supports with how to make adjustments to the designed units. In October, Authors 1 and 2 observed the teachers implementing the planned lessons after each observation there was a feedback session in which Authors 1, 2, and the instructional coach provided support in the areas outlined in the rubric (problem-based, discipline integration, authentic tasks, teacher facilitation, inquiry, technology integration, and student choice). The spring units were implemented in March. The teachers submitted their unit plans to Authors 1 and 2 in January for feedback and classroom observations with the same feedback protocol as the fall.

Participants

Twenty-three classroom teachers and one instructional coach signed IRB consent forms representing each grade level at the school, except second grade who chose not to participate. Teachers worked in teaching teams within their grade levels during the PD and while creating STEAM unit plans. The teaching teams consisted of 4–5 teachers per grade level. All of the grade level teams designed the units together. At times, some of the grade levels (Grades 1, 3, and 5) paired up and team-taught.

Data Sources

The data sources were unit plans, reflections, classroom observations, and field notes. Each source is described in detail below.

Unit Plans

Each grade level team (K, 1, 3, 4, 5) designed two STEAM units ranging from 2 to 6 weeks of instruction time, depending on the topic. Unit plans included the following components: STEAM problem scenario, driving question, daily activities, standards, formative assessments, summative assessment, technology integration, and experts/community members.

Reflections on Implementing Units

Each teacher completed an online reflection after their implementation of the STEAM unit. The reflections included four short answer questions about implementation successes and challenges, areas of needed support, and the design process. An example question was, “During planning for the second unit, how did you approach this process? Was it different from the first time you did unit planning?”

Classroom Observations

Each grade level was observed at least twice during the academic year while implementing the two STEAM units. The researchers used an observational rubric to guide their observations which included the three dimensions of STEAM as described above (Appendix). This rubric was designed based on the conceptual model outlined in this paper (Quigley and Herro 2016), and modified based on research of implementation (Quigley and Herro 2019). It has been used by the research team for the past 5 years to support teachers during STEAM implementation.

Field Notes from Debriefing Sessions Post Observation

Author 3 took field notes documenting the conversations about support and feedback on observations. The debriefing sessions took place in person, the same day as the observations.

Data Analysis

To determine the extent to which the teachers designed units based on STEAM principles, Authors 1, 2, and 3 independently analyzed the unit plans using the codes from STEAM instructional approaches (problem-based, discipline integration, authentic tasks, teacher facilitation, inquiry, technology integration, and student choice). As a part of this analysis, the authors examined all of the components of the unit plans to determine how well the units aligned to the principles. Each author noted the extent to which the codes (e.g., student choice) were included and made notes about the type inclusion. Author 1 made comparisons across the codes noting differences. The interrater reliability was 89%. Then, the authors met to discuss differences. Infrequently, the researchers tagged the data with multiple codes when more than one component of STEAM was evident. Thus, the authors coded all observation notes and reviewed every coding difference to reach consensus. During the coding discussions, the boundaries and definitions of the codes were defined and refined. This data is represented in Table 3. The same procedure was repeated for the implementation stage of the study through the use of the observational rubrics (Appendix) and fieldnotes to determine if the designed curriculum was implemented. Then we utilized the reflections from the teachers as secondary data sources to further explore the process of designing and implementing this new curriculum. The data presented in Table 3 provides examples of each of the principles.

Table 3 Data codes from STEAM rubric for design and enactment by grade level
Full size table

Results

Using the STEAM principles as codes for the data, Table 3 provides a comparison of design and enacted practices of each of the principles (problem-based, inquiry, discipline integration, authentic tasks, teacher facilitation, technology integration, and student choice). The first column is the grade level, the second column is the scenario topic, the third column is the coded data from the unit plans, and the fourth column is the coded data from the observational rubric and feedback sessions.

In this section, we provide a summary and description of the data by grade level to demonstrate the differences and alignment in STEAM principles throughout the classrooms. The codes are italicized throughout this section.

Kindergarten

For the kindergarten teaching team, across both fall and spring semesters, designing a problem-based unit was an area of strength. The teaching team was able to design a unit that incorporated a problem that offered opportunities for student inquiry (how to make healthy choices in the spring and how to help injured animals in the fall). In essence, the designed curriculum included opportunities for problem-based, authentically designed tasks, which incorporated student choice, and multiple disciplines. As they implemented the units, we observed challenges in moving from teacher-directed tasks towards facilitation as the biggest impediment to promoting STEAM in their classroom; this was also confirmed by the teachers during post-observation discussions. The kindergarten teachers regularly relied on teacher-directed instruction where the teacher relied on asking questions and waiting for one student to respond with an answer. This approach, while it generated student responses, rarely led to the enactment of inquiry where students were able to test their ideas. However, the spring unit began with a teacher-led nature walk that encouraged questioning by the students and provided a platform that fostered inquiry. Still, in their kindergarten classrooms, the designed and enacted STEAM curriculum was primarily focused on math and literacy skills that were disconnected to the problem-solving. For example, the teachers used a planned timed reading and small group reading instruction as a part of STEAM instead of integrating relevant reading or literacy skills into the STEAM lessons. During the debrief, the teachers noted that they “felt constrained by district-mandated curriculum,” despite the instructional coach and principal encouraging the teachers to focus on the STEAM conceptual model in an authentic way using the STEAM instructional strategies while utilizing the other portion of the day for the prescribed curriculum.

Grade 1

Both the fall and spring unit plans incorporated relevant problems for the students to solve. In the fall, the students researched a topic related to the disappearance of the bees such as pesticide, lack of habitat, sound pollution, etc. The teachers also created a “bee book” which helped to facilitate student learning, providing checkpoints for teacher feedback and guidance on the requirements of the final project. Additionally, the teachers co-taught the lessons with their students in one classroom and pointed to this as being a strategy to help support teacher facilitation. Discipline integration was present in both fall and spring. In the fall, this integration was evident as the teachers referenced math, science, and engineering throughout the lesson. However, in the spring, the teacher directed their focus on e-waste (discarded technology products) using lecturing techniques and providing little acknowledgement of multiple disciplines to solve the problem. Technology integration was planned (video creation, and book creation), but limited in enactment. Interestingly, the spring unit included problem-based components, but inquiry was much more directed through teacher demonstrations and investigations pre-planned by the teacher that used guided, whole-class discussions. In the spring, creative technology was also absent in the plans and only instructional technology was enacted. The implementation mimicked the designed curriculum in that there was little opportunity for student-directed learning. Additionally, there was a disconnect between the designed problem around food waste and the implemented curriculum which were around the topics of waste in general.

Grade 3

In the fall, the designed curriculum included a problem-based unit around park development in the local area that included opportunities for student-directed inquiry, engaging with multiple disciplines, choice in map creation, and creative technologies through the use of Adobe Spark. The fall unit was broader, focusing on awareness of extreme weather. This broad question led to confusion for the students in how the tasks (such as engaging with a scientist who studies in Antarctica) might connect to their lives in Wisconsin. During the spring, the problem scenario around extreme weather also provided opportunities for inquiry in investigations, discipline integration, and a high level of student-direct learning including formation of student collaborative groups based on research topic. There was a menu of options (student choice) for the final assessment focused on creative technologies such as video creation. During the enactment, in the fall, the teachers relied on activities that were more teacher-directed such as reading passages and answering questions. In the spring, the teachers noted that they were focused on bringing in multiple disciplines and they did this through a variety of experts visiting the classroom. The students helped to brainstorm questions for the experts and were engaged in the conversation but the students had difficulty connecting the experts to the specific problem that they were solving.

Grade 4

The Grade 4 team designed problem-based units in both fall and spring. The fall unit had fewer opportunities for inquiry in that the inquiry centered on deciding which energy source should power the community-based center they were designing. In the spring, inquiry guided every aspect of the unit. The students brainstormed ideas related to their problem of hearing loss in teens. In terms of teacher facilitation, the students were grouped (across all grade 4 classrooms) by their ideas, which included creating sound-canceling headphones, researching building insulators, and finding ways to reduce noise pollution. The students chose the methods, materials, and the way they would disseminate this information in terms of presentation. The teacher asked the students what they needed to solve the problem and their answers looked different, as they promoted the ideas that the problems could be solved different ways (inquiry). Creative technologies were used to encourage designing models and prototyping, and this was apparent in the students’ work.

Grade 5

In the fall unit, the problem scenario promoted inquiry and authentic tasks around re-designing the school cafeteria. Students engaged in a variety of investigations related to their line of inquiry pointing to the ability to solve the problem in different ways as well as an opportunity to promote student inquiry. In this way, the relevant problem laid the groundwork to enact student inquiry. However, in the spring a problem that addressed issues with local water quality was less connected to students’ interest. This created a challenge once it was enacted. During the spring observation and in the post-observation debrief, we noted that it was difficult for teachers to create authentic tasks related to the problem. They discussed frustration with the problem, saying that it originally appeared to be problem-based but lacked relevance and connection to students’ lives. They noted the students were interested in the overall problem they presented, but the teachers failed to develop tasks that engaged the students. In the fall, grade five was able to seamlessly incorporate Google Docs as a brainstorming tool, and the teachers noted this supported student inquiry in ways they had not originally conceptualized. The students were able to brainstorm ideas online and group themselves according to areas of interest (food, space, utility, etc.). Grade five was able to integrate the discipline authentically in the fall, however, in the spring, the designed curriculum did not allow for discipline integration because of the way the problem was being conceptualized around water quality. While the topic could incorporate discipline integration, this was not present in the implementation. This points to the importance of both the design of the problem scenario and instructional approaches which support authentic learning that is interesting to students.

Discussion

This discussion provides a synthesis of the results with a focus on how the STEAM principles are interrelated. In this way, we do not provide another discussion of the principles but rather the relationship between the principles. Our key findings were 1) teachers who designed relevant problems provided instructional pathways aligned to the STEAM conceptual model, and 2) teacher facilitation promoted both inquiry and authentic tasks- two strategies often difficult for teachers. Finally, we discuss how integration of technology and disciplines provides opportunities for authentic assessments and student choice.

Relevant Problems Promoted Alignment of the STEAM Conceptual Model

Relevancy is dependent on the context of the students in each classroom. Therefore, the ways in which the teachers design units to make STEAM relevant varies depending on the students they teach. There are useful strategies, particular to grade levels, gleaned from this research to guide other teachers.

Across the grade levels, when teachers focused on relevancy during the design, the alignment to the other components of STEAM was more evident in both the design and enactment. Being able to create a problem scenario connected to student lives was critical to promote these instructional practices but it was not an easy task for the teachers. As noted, at times teachers would develop a relevant unit but then they struggled to do so consistently. The teachers noted that the students found that the topic was interesting, and they were engaged during the discussion with the expert, but the teachers noted the students struggled making connections to their local environment. To better support the teachers, future professional development was targeted on design thinking and how students empathize with the problems in order to help students in making connections between their lives and the problems (Köppen and Meinel 2015). Specifically, we worked with the teachers to consider how they could introduce the STEAM problem to include an activity that helped students consider the ways the problem impacted their life.

For STEAM education, during the design phase of the planning process, it is necessary to model and support ways for teachers to help students understand relevancy. This could include surveying students, whole-class discussions that gauge reaction to community issues, or brainstorming sessions. Determining if problem scenarios will be relevant to their students’ lives can ensure that teachers find interesting, relevant, or even more specific problems, so students, in turn, see how tasks aligned to the scenario are authentic to the problem. This implies that teachers need dedicated time with coaches or colleagues to create a relevant problem, allowing opportunities for drafting ideas, providing feedback and making revisions, and additional supports if the unit does not engage students. McFadden and Roehrig (2017) describe this support as continuous design supports that reinforce teachers throughout the entire process and helps to prevent teachers from resorting back to their previous curriculum or ways of teaching.

Teacher Facilitation Promoted Inquiry and Authentic Tasks

Aligned with the STEAM conceptual model, authentic tasks are a vital part of what students do during STEAM learning. The goal of these tasks is to mimic what happens in the real world. In this study, we found that teachers who allowed students to direct the learning, offered more inquiry and opportunities for creating authentic tasks. For example, grade four teachers began the unit by allowing students to group based on their interest in a particular topic related to the problem scenario. By doing this, the students began studying different parts of the problem (causes of hearing loss, headphones designs, determining harmful noises, awareness), and the teachers responded by encouraging the students to investigate these problems in ways that made sense to their topic. As a result, the tasks the students were doing (such as measuring typical decibels of sounds heard) were authentic or similar to tasks used when solving the problem in the real world. Additionally, these tasks were aligned to their topic of study and promoted a variety of inquiry paths.

Conversely, if the unit design included many teacher-directed activities such as whole-class discussions or step-by-step instructions for an activity, the implementation was too directed and the teachers noted that students found the work less authentic. Consequently, students followed the steps the teachers presented and did not fully engage in solving the problem through inquiry or use of multiple disciplines. Binkhorst et al. (2017) also noted these inconsistencies between design and implementation, even when teachers were successful in the design stage of the process. Essentially, they described how teachers who believed they had authentically contributed to the process were more likely to implement it to fidelity. In this study, all the teachers designed a unique problem scenario but at times resorted back to previously designed lesson that they felt aligned with the scenario. Because the teachers worked in collaborative teams, it is possible that one teacher felt more ownership over the design process. This points to a need for clarity around the lesson alignment to inquiry and authentic tasks.

Technology and Discipline Integration as Pathways for Authentic Assessments and Student Choice

Throughout the study, we noted if the teachers planned for students to engage with creative technologies and incorporate multiple disciplines, then their ability to assess the students authentically was easier. In authentic assessments, students are asked to apply the knowledge and skills they learned during the STEAM unit in a manner that mirrors what would be done to solve the problem in the real world. Authentic assessment must be aligned with the problem the students are solving, such as using creative technologies in 3D model design or app development. The use of creative technologies promoted discipline integration (involving engineering, science, math, and arts) that mimics what really occurs when trying to solve these types of problems. This success resonates with Kali et al.’s (2015) model for implementing technology beyond instructional technology, that recommends having teachers learn about technology through the design process.

Last, authentic assessments, when designed in a way that aligns with the problem to solve (e.g., using video, podcasting or slides to present a solution or plan, designing and building a model as part of the solution) often taps into students interests through choice because there are multiple ways to solve the problem.

Conclusion

This research demonstrates the importance of teachers designing STEAM curriculum using problem-based units in ways that promote student inquiry. The data demonstrates this is critical to enact discipline integration, teacher facilitation and authentic tasks. However, sometimes there was a mismatch between the designed and enacted curriculum. This mismatch suggests a need to support teachers in specific strategies particular to their curriculum that addresses discipline integration, teacher- facilitation, and authentic tasks. Additionally, while this data only represents one school, there is a clear need for an implementation model specific to grade levels. The supports for kindergarten classrooms and grade five classrooms are vast and varied and should reflect the uniqueness and developmental stages represented in these classrooms. Next steps in this project involve creating systematic support structures that assist teachers during implementation, as well as providing support materials offering teachers guidelines and flexibility in their environment.