Structuring STEAM Inquiries: Lessons Learned from Practice

Elementary teachers are usually responsible for teaching all content areas and could therefore benefit from professional development on cross-curricular planning and instruction. Research on integration suggests that “a large number of K-12 studies sustain the notion that integration helps students learn, motivates students, and helps them build problem-solving skills” (Czerniak, 2007, p. 545). Hurley’s (2001) meta-analysis of integrated instruction recognizes appeal for integrated method courses offered by teacher preparation programs, stating the merit of integrated and thematic approaches to curriculum. She found that most empirical research supports integrated instruction, suggesting as well that integration fosters learning, motivation, and problem-solving skills. Park Rogers and Abell (2008) also provide a concise review of benefits of integrated instruction, including maximizing instructional time, reinforcing concepts, learning big ideas, and fostering cross-curricular connections. They note concerns with integration, however, such as an unequal focusing on one discipline more than others or lack of powerful instruction in any one topic because all boundaries are blurred. Among the various content areas, integration of science and mathematics has received much attention (Czerniak, 2007). In their review of science and mathematics integration literature, Pang and Good (2000) found that mathematics is often integrated into science instruction as an adjunct component to science content. Moreover, while the rationale for science and mathematics integration is clear (e.g., they require similar inquiry and problem-solving skills), the actual implementation of integrated instruction in the classroom is rare (Watanabe & Huntley, 1998).

Through integrated instruction, elementary teachers can simultaneously address standards across content areas. Unfortunately, most elementary school curricula are currently disjointed and isolated, with certain time frames dedicated to each subject and little integration (Watanabe & Huntley, 1998). Teachers can be taught to integrate their curricula and be given opportunities to reflect on how to do so through ongoing professional development. Park Rogers and Abell (2008) suggested professional development ought to include a focus on process skills, the use of national and state standards to drive the planning of thematic units, and the use of strong and meaningful themes. Therefore, in our work, content standards are intentionally integrated with value importantly given to meeting the goals of each of the five content areas in STEAM: science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics. Furthermore, our professional development efforts encouraged integration that was driven by teachers’ objectives (viz., state content standards).

Our work with in-service elementary teachers is grounded in the research base which supports the effectiveness of integrated STEM instruction (such as in Becker & Park, 2011; Hom, 2014). Integrated STEM instruction has shown positive effects on student achievement as well (Becker & Park, 2011). Read (2013) argues that the majority of K-8 teachers are underprepared in their mathematics and science content and that they need more training in both content and practices. A report from the Early Childhood STEM Working Group (2017) recommends a revamping of in-service STEM-related training for teachers of young children and highlights the importance of making high-quality STEM resources for young children available to practitioners. To prepare students for the twenty-first-century demands, a truly integrated approach to teaching the STEM subjects is needed as we prepare teachers to teach integrated STEM so that they, too, can understand the connections among the STEM disciplines (Ostler, 2012). Our program works to help teachers learn how to integrate mathematics and science concepts together into cohesive STEM curricula using high-quality resources, a skill which Lewis, Alacaci, O’Brien, and Jiang (2002) have documented is often challenging for teachers.

In addition to developing in-service elementary teachers’ abilities to effectively integrate the STEM subjects meaningfully, we are exploring how the integration of the arts can be used as a “hook” or a way to engage more diverse learners – often those that have not typically been drawn to the individual STEM subjects. A new, but rather limited, body of literature has emerged which supports the benefit of arts integration into STEM as a way to engage more types of learners (Ahn & Kwon, 2013; Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Wynn & Harris, 2012). The addition of the “A” taking it from STEM to STEAM recognizes the role of aesthetics, beauty, and emotion to arriving at a solution to a problem (Bailey, 2016). Incorporating the arts adds a needed affective component to complex STEM concepts and problems, often making it more accessible (Peppler, 2013; Smith and Paré, 2016) and more engaging. A recent study conducted by Herro and Quigley (2016) studied the effectiveness of a multiyear STEAM professional development program and found that through this program teachers increased their understanding of STEAM. Although the research on the effectiveness of STEAM education is limited, more districts and schools are engaging in teaching integrated STEAM each year (Delaney, 2014). Our work aims to add to the limited literature base on integrated STEAM education.

People think about STEM or STEAM in many different ways. Bybee (2010) argues that STEM curricula should be set in a context and aligned to real-life issues that can be addressed through each of the four STEM areas. Read (2013) describes STEM as “education in math or science, using engineering design approaches and technology tools, delivered through a combination of hands-on, student-centered, inquiry-based projects and direction instruction” (slide 3). In our work with STEAM education, we agree with Herro and Quigley (2016) that STEAM incorporates the idea of transdisciplinary learning which is the idea that students learn through a true blending of the disciplines and that they are solving problems set in a real context (as in Klein, 2014). In transdisciplinary teaching, students become so engaged in solving the problem that they are excited to draw on prior knowledge and learn new concepts from the different STEAM disciplines in order to reach a solution. We work with teachers to develop authentic curricula where students are engaged in working together to solve a real problem, and in order to solve the problem, they must synthesize their knowledge of the STEAM disciplines to reach a viable solution. Our project also draws on problem-based inquiry which has been shown to improve urban and minority students’ achievement and engagement in learning in math and science (Buck, Cook, Quigley, Eastwood, & Lucas, 2009).

Full STEAM Ahead: Project Overview

Project Background

In spring 2015, approximately six months prior to the start of our professional development program, we began collaborating with the elementary science and elementary mathematics content specialists at our partner school district. We learned about district priorities and current changes and practices in mathematics and science assessments including that our state was moving to a completely revamped state standardized science assessment. During this time we identified five elementary schools in the district that showed an interest in launching STEAM efforts but needed direction and help to build infrastructure and sustainability. We also set the following project goals: (1) increase students’ science and mathematics achievement, (2) increase teachers’ and instructional coaches’ science and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge, and (3) build a community of educators dedicated to STEAM teaching and learning.

Additionally, we established partnerships with a mathematician and biologist in the arts and sciences college at our university. We also formed partnerships with three informal learning partners in our city including a state science center, a center for performing arts, and a art musuem involved in STEAM. Our informal learning partners served as experts in innovation and provided some of the professional development as well as function as a resource for participants and as part of our community of STEAM educators. We also collaborated with a consultant who had experience in creating STEM centers throughout the United States and internationally. Finally, we invited two expert K-5 STEM/STEAM lab teachers to serve on our leadership team providing a critical and current practitioner lens to the leadership group. The lead facilitators, who were also the PIs on the project, were a mathematics teacher educator and science teacher educator who aim to explore the effectiveness of truly integrated STEAM instruction. Finally, we had the expert guidance from a team of external evaluators. 

By the time the project, funded by a Mathematics Science Partnership (MSP) grant, began in fall 2016, we had enlisted five schools from our large urban partner district from the Midwest. Within those 5 schools, 25 classroom teachers (all grades 3–5 except 1 special education teacher and 1 second-grade teacher), 5 STEAM instructional coaches (1 from each school), and at least 1 building administrator for each school were signed on as the project participants. The STEAM instructional coach from each school served as the school leader and was responsible for leading school-level professional learning communities (PLCs) and organizing the classroom implementation portion of the professional development. Participants had a wide range of teaching experience, from 2 to more than 20 years, and educational attainment ranging from an initial teaching certification to multiple advanced certifications. Some participants had a variety of experience in terms of different schools, districts, and grade levels they had taught, while others had spent their entire teaching career (thus far) in one classroom placement.

Our professional development schedule was developed with research-based qualities of effective professional development in mind. For example, while we knew it would be complex and at times challenging, cyclically connecting professional development to classroom implementation (Desimone, 2009; Loucks-Horsley, Stiles, Mundry, Love, & Hewson, 2010; McAleer, 2008; Sztajn, 2011) was essential to pushing integrated STEAM forward in our participating schools. In order to create iterative cycles where teachers participated in whole-group professional development and then went back to their classrooms to implement new strategies, our professional development program took place from October through April each year. We met as a whole group approximately two times each month with ongoing classroom implementation.

Additionally, each school-level PLC met in their building. In addition to the structure of the schedule, we also knew it was important to situate the learning during the professional development in the context of the participants’ classroom and school environment (Putnam & Borko, 2000). When teacher learning becomes “situated,” the teacher can begin to alter their own teaching practices in alignment with the professional development which can result in changes and growth in their skills and knowledge of the practices of teaching (as in Borko, 2004; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Lave & Wenger, 1991). This change and growth can take on an iterative cycle of its own – as teaching knowledge and skills improve, teachers have new knowledge and skills to offer during the professional development sessions, which in turn improves the quality of the professional development for the group (and the individual), which continues to improve the knowledge and skills for teaching, and the cycle continues. In this type of professional development environment, teachers engage with professional development leadership to help co-construct the learning experiences, which is different from traditional professional development where teachers are only seen as participants (or recipients) (Timperley, 2011).

A Focus on Content Standards and Practices

At the foundation of our work with teachers was a critical focus on mathematics and science content and practices as outlined by the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM; CCSSO, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013). We focused specifically on standards for grades 3 through 5 and worked to target content areas identified as areas of unfinished learning in mathematics achievement for students in our participating schools. This helped us plan our professional development to best meet the needs of the participating schools. All of our professional development was conducted through the primary focus of the CCSSM and NGSS content and practice standards with meaningful connections made to art and technology standards.

We also guided our project participants in being explicit and focused on the alignment of the CCSSM and NGSS content and practices as they planned the STEAM inquiries they would implement into their classes. To accomplish this, we required participants to document the specific CCSSM and NGSS content and practices, as well as art and technology standards that were being addressed in a planning template we created. Participants used curriculum pacing guides from their school district to determine CCSSM and NGSS standards of focus. At first, many participants were aligning their STEAM inquiries to every standard that might have a connection, which tended to have a “mile wide and inch deep” effect. We guided teachers to only align those standards that were of primary focus and which were assessed through their planned STEAM inquiries.

How well the CCSSM and NGSS content and practices as well as art and technology standards were being addressed during classroom implementation of STEAM inquiries was a focus of school visits that occurred during year 2 of the project. During this time, both project leaders and participants observed STEAM inquiries of project participants in their classrooms and used an observation tool we created to document the strength of the alignment of the inquiries to appropriate CCSSM, NGSS, art, and technology standards.

Housing STEAM inquiries within problem-based scenarios enabled teachers to encourage collaborative problem-solving that required the use of and knowledge of various content areas as well as set an authentic context within which to explore. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a process that promotes learning through working together to solve a real-life problem. Students practice science in the classroom the way that scientists and engineers do working in collaborative groups to iteratively solve problems and explore challenges (Savery, 2006). As such, the benefits of using PBL include but are not limited to increased content knowledge, higher-order thinking, self-directed learning, and twenty-first-century skills such as collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). For our purposes, PBL offered an entry point for teachers embarking on designing meaningful and complex STEAM inquiries.

Creation of STEAM Inquiries

We used an adapted version of the problem-solving cycle (PSC; Borko, Jacobs, Koellner, & Swackhamer, 2015) to plan STEAM inquiries in whole-group professional development sessions, implement them in the classroom, and then reflect on the instruction during the following whole-group professional development. We worked with participants to employ Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow (2010) “Plan, Do, Study, Act” cycles so that participants essentially engage in and conduct action research. At the beginning of each cycle, during a whole-group professional development session, school- and grade-level PLCs determine a “change idea” they want to test during implementation of their STEAM inquiry. They work as a team to develop their STEAM inquiry and complete a planning document (mentioned above) that includes key alignment to CCSSM, NGSS, art, and technology standards. During this whole-group professional development session, groups meet with leadership team members that specialize in mathematics, science, arts, and technology for guidance. They plan as a group and share plans with the leadership team. They also meet with fellow project participants that will be observing their classroom in order to debrief on the purpose and content of the planned inquiry. Often teachers leave the whole-group session with a fairly well-formed plan, and they finalize the details and gather materials once back in their school building prior to implementation.

During implementation, participants are observed by selected leadership team members and fellow participants. All observers complete a STEAM observation feedback form we created for the project which is used to guide a discussion of the lesson’s effectiveness at the following whole-group session. Teachers collect artifacts from their lesson, such as student work and pictures. They bring their planning documents, STEAM observation feedback forms, and lesson artifacts as evidence to the following whole-group session.

At the whole-group session following classroom implementation, the session is dedicated to structured debriefs of each lesson observation. Observer/observe teams meet for structured time blocks to discuss both student thinking and the teacher instructional strategies (as in Borko et al., 2015) through the lens of the STEAM observation feedback forms, planning documents, and lesson artifacts. These post-observation reflection discussions are rich with detail on CCSSM and NGSS content and practices as well as pedagogical strategies, student engagement, relevancy, questioning, the level of true integration, and more.

Three Classroom-Tested Inquiries

In this chapter, we provide readers with three classroom-tested inquires that can serve as helpful exemplars of meaningful integration of STEAM using authentic and engaging contexts. These three examples include the following STEAM inquiries: designing a prosthetic arm for a kindergartener, a paleontology investigation, and a closer look at the arts within roller-coaster engineering. In each case we describe the context and the inquiry itself, and then we focus on the alignment to key standards, with a critical focus on the CCSSM and NGSS content and practices. The first inquiry, designing a prosthetic arm for a kindergartener, highlights the use of technology as a strategic tool to increase the effectiveness of instruction. The second inquiry, a paleontology investigation, highlights how scientists use science and mathematics to recreate extinct animals. The third investigation focuses on the benefits of the arts integration into roller-coaster engineering.

Three Classroom-Tested Inquires

Designing a Prosthetic Arm for a Kindergartener

The driving prompt for this fourth-grade STEAM lesson was inspired by a local kindergartener who was missing a portion of her right arm and thus had difficulty logging onto school computers. By synthesizing the various content areas of STEAM, students were asked to design and build a prosthetic arm that would enable the student to simultaneously press the Control-Alt-Delete buttons on the keyboard. Motivated by this authentic and meaningful context, students began by undergoing a series of tasks that would help them empathize with the student for whom they would be designing. They explored the American with Disabilities Act and conducted an inventory of tasks they could or could not accomplish around the school (i.e., using the restroom, washing hands in the sink, opening doors, carrying books from locker to classroom, etc.) and submitted their conclusions to the principal about the accessibility in their school. Through this guided exploration, students became aware of how difficult simple tasks are with only one arm and understood the seriousness of the project on which they were about to embark. Purpose-driven and highly engaged in their task, students conducted research about prosthetics and anatomy/skeletal system. They also investigated ways in which other animals use body parts as hands, such as how opossums use their tails to grasp onto trees and how geckos have sticky substances on their fingers to adhere to surfaces. These explorations of nature helped students generate ideas for their prototype, which they drew as a schematic in their science notebooks. Students were excited to begin building their prosthetic using the ideas they generated from their research, though the teacher emphasized how the design process is a series of planning/replanning/pilot tests before the actual fabrication of their prototype on the classroom 3D printer. First, students were asked to create a blueprint on Tinkercad, an online site for creating digital designs that can ultimately be printed three dimensionally. In doing so, students considered measurement and scale of their designs (see Fig. 2.1). Next, students continued to work in teams to build a physical prototype of their design using simple hardware the teacher provided for construction. Through presentations, groups had to sell their prototype as the “design of the day” that would be the final prosthetic printed when the groups merged as one design company. Stakeholders such as the principal, the district technology integration specialist, other teachers, and classmates served as the audience for these presentations. The final prosthetic was then printed and given to the family of the kindergartener. This meaningful learning experience engaged students in solving a problem that was important to them, and their excitement about being able to help a local family drove active participation in the long-term project.

Fig. 2.1
A photograph of students designing with a measuring scale.

Students considering scale in their designs

Full size image

Completing this task necessitated that students explore and deepen their understanding of the various content areas embedded in STEAM. With regard to science content and practices, students focused on structure and function (plants and animals have both internal and external structures that serve various functions in growth, survival, behavior, and reproduction 4-LS-1). Students researched the skeletal and muscular system and understood that missing appendages resulted in the need for alternative ways of completing tasks important for survival. They designed their prosthetic in a way that considered how animal species interact with environment. Building models and construction of explanations about their designs allowed students to immerse themselves in these important science and engineering practices. At the heart of this inquiry, students defined a simple design problem reflecting a need or want that includes criteria for success and constraints (3-5-ETS1-1). Being successful in this project (i.e., building a functional prosthetic that completed the task it was charged to perform as well as fit and attached to the kindergarteners’ arm) required students to consider length and angle measurement (4.MD.6), measurement conversions between customary and metric and within metric (4.MD.1), and using the four operations with decimals (4.MD.2) to develop a budget for team supply list. With regard to the mathematics practices, students had to make sense of problems and persevere in solving them (SMP 1), construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others (SMP 2), and attend to precision (SMP 6). The technology in this lesson (i.e., 3D printer and use of Tinkercad design software) was used authentically in the design process to create a blueprint and allow for fabrication of the design. Rather than using technology for the sake of technology, the seamless use of technology facilitated the task rather than took over the task. The 3D printing actually took place at night as the product, and not the printing itself, was of interest. The art integration centered on drawing, proportions, and scaling (also a mathematics connection) of the design. Aesthetics of designing a prosthetic (structure, design, color, overall look) were important, as the class was hopeful the student for whom they were designing would want to wear their product. As it turned out, the student loved their design though she did request a different color (pink instead of black)! More details related to this inquiry can be found in Cook, Bush, and Cox (2015) and Bush, Cox, and Cook (2016).

A Paleontology Investigation

This fourth-grade inquiry used embedded STEAM content to solve a paleontology-related dilemma. To encourage students’ questioning, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities, students were given the central problem: “How can we determine what an entire dinosaur looked like when all we have is its skull?” In their exploration of the problem statement, students examined a skull fossil to determine what the rest of the dinosaur must have looked like. From that, they deduced how the dinosaur must have moved, eaten food, and behaved in its habitat. In this weeklong unit, students used biological, earth science, and mathematics content to artistically design the hypothetical form and function of the dinosaur. As part of the problem statement, students were also asked to make a group presentation to the “Academy of Paleontology” about their findings, prompting them to engage in twenty-first-century learning skills such as collaborative problem-solving and creative critical thinking which were honed during the research and presentation portion of this STEAM inquiry. To begin, student groups (grouped into research teams of three, with each student given a specific role as either (1) facilitator who moderated team discussion, kept the group on task, and distributed work, (2) reporter who served as the group spokesperson to the class or instructor and summarized the group’s activities and/or conclusions, or (3) recorder who logged group discussion in a sciencenotebook and recorded data, claims, and evidence) were shown a \( \frac{1}{4} \) scale model ofa dinosaur skull. Other materials students were initially introduced to included photos of present-day animals with heads similar to the dinosaurs’ (i.e., forward-facing eye sockets, canine-like teeth, snout-shaped nose) illustrations of other various dinosaur skeletons, information about bipedal versus quadruped dinosaurs, and detailed photos of the skull from multiple viewpoints with some background detail for scale reference (see Fig. 2.2). In solving the problem, students were asked to include in their presentations (1) a description of the external features of the skulls, (2) evidence to identify which type of dinosaur it might be, and (3) conclusions about the life of the dinosaur with regard to its survival, growth, behavior, and reproduction. Students conducted research to construct their argument and worked as a team to develop their presentation to the “Academy of Paleontology.”

Fig. 2.2
A photograph of a student placing his hand on a skull photograph.

Student considering scale as they work with skull photo

Full size image

Science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics were not discrete subjects taught in this lesson but rather tools to be used in the context of the problem to be solved. Specifically, the focus of this lesson was on constructing an argument that dinosaurs have internal and external structures that function to support their survival, growth, behavior, and reproduction (4-LS1-1). By examining the skull fossil, students observed the position of its eye sockets, which indicated the dinosaur was a predator. By using their provided resources, students were able to compare the position of eye sockets in a variety of animals which showed a pattern of predators having forward facing eyes and prey having side-facing eyes. Students also noted the teeth on the skull and compared the teeth to other dinosaurs in the pictures provided. They discussed how the canines were comparatively small and the presence of grinding molars to conclude the dinosaur was an herbivore. By collecting data from the skull and comparing and contrasting the features to extant animals as well as dinosaur fossils, students were able to construct their argument that the dinosaurs’ features unveiled how it functioned in its environment. The multiple iterations of the engineering of the dinosaur skeleton addressed the engineering design standard, Generate and compare multiple possible solutions to a problem based on how well each is likely to meet the criteria and constraints of the problem (3-5-ETS1-2).

Beyond the science, students also used key mathematics. With regard to mathematics, students engaged in CCSSM mathematical practices Reason Abstractly and Quantitatively (SMP 2) and Use Appropriate Tools Strategically (SMP 5) and applied key content including measurement, measurement conversation (4.MD.1),and working with scale (5.NF.5). Students were told the skull was a \( \frac{1}{4} \) scalemodel of a dinosaur, and they were tasked with figuring out the length of the whole dinosaur. Students determined the skull was approximately 15 in. long after they measured the height of the 3D-printed skull and multiplied that length by 4. From there, the teacher guided them in measuring the head to body ratio of other dinosaur fossil photos, so students could discover that the head to body ratio tended to be between 10 and 12 times the head (i.e., the body was somewhere between 10 and 12 times the length of the head). Students had to then convert inches to feet to determine the dinosaur must be in the range of 12–15 ft. By using appropriate measuring tools as well as reasoning quantitatively, students were able to solve the problem presented to them. Finally, the arts were another area of emphasis in this STEAM unit. Art integration included many core aspects of arts instruction including creating, performing, presenting, responding to, and connecting different arts forms including dance, media arts, music, drama, and the visual arts. Various improvisational exercises and dance moves, such as working together in small groups to form the shape of a dinosaur and performing a dinosaur “ballet” that included a prehistoric soundscape created by found objects, helped students consider how the dinosaur “acted” or functioned in its environment. The sketches of dinosaur designs in students’ science notebooks also included expressions of form and function based on evidence as well as conjectures about what the skin color and texture of the dinosaur might have been like. In this unit, integrating STEAM content helped students construct their argument and consider evidence as a paleontologist does. By taking on the role of a paleontologist with limited data, students came to understand how science is connected to other disciplines and how knowledge from other disciplines is essential to solving complex and real life problems. All specific activities and assessments for this inquiry can be found in Hunter, Cox, Bush, Cook and Jamner (2017) and Cox, Hunter, Cook, and Bush (in press).

A Closer Look at the Arts Within Roller-Coaster Engineering

This fourth-grade STEAM inquiry builds on existing roller-coaster lessons by emphasizing the arts throughout the design process, as the focus is for students to use their imaginations and engineering skills to create their own designs while developing an understanding of energy. Oftentimes, the arts within the context of STEAM get reduced to craft projects with an aesthetic focus. The art integration within this lesson, however, draws upon the design element of roller-coaster engineering through imaginative visualizations, creative story-telling, and an emphasis on careers that combine elements of visual arts with STEM subjects. To begin, students are asked to visualize and imagine what a roller coaster feels like through mental imagery. Students articulate the feelings associated with riding a roller coaster, such as fear and excitement. This visceral exercise promoted engagement in the learning experience as students began to think about the thrill of riding a roller coaster and the points at which they found the most enjoyment during their ride. After perusing several images of different types of roller coasters, all which are designed with a central theme in mind (i.e., Space Mountain, dragon-shaped coasters, and coasters that simulate Indiana Jones’ adventures), students are prompted to consider how the storytelling element is present in the roller coaster’s design. Throughout the STEAM lesson, students are learning about energy transfers and how speed is connected to energy changes. As they do this, they consider how roller coasters utilize energy changes to maximize the narrative of their story. There are opportunities to discuss many artistic elements of roller-coaster design – from the structure (exterior, interior, and free standing) to trick elements (banked turns, bunny hills, camelbacks, track switches, and vertical drops) to variations (dueling coasters, racing coasters, Mobius loop coasters, and shuttle coasters). This problem-based learning activity is guided by the prompt of students designing a themed roller coaster for a local amusement park that is cost-effective, fun, and safe. Criteria and constraints are given to the students such as a budget, materials, safe and smooth stops, and required number of loops. As ideas about Newton’s law of inertia, friction, and velocity are explored, students are asked to include a thematic or storytelling element into their roller-coaster designs. Student teams considered cultural elements, mythical stories, fairy tales, and more to add their own themed environments. In addition to the creative storytelling aspect of the engineered roller coasters, students are also introduced to Walt Disney’s “Imagineering,” which blends imagination with engineering (see https://disneyimaginations.com/about-imaginations/about-imagineering/). Imagineering allows educators to demonstrate that STEAM-related disciplines can lead to creative careers. By exploring how innovators and makers who work for Disney overcome failure to achieve success, students reflect on their own experiences persevering through challenging tasks. This discussion helped students focus on creative thinking and multiple approaches to design while laying the foundation for overcoming failure, which is a key part of the inquiry. These art-inspired elements show students that a roller coaster can provide a visceral experience and art and storytelling provide an emotional experience. The inclusion of the arts helped students learn that manipulation of the visual aesthetics affect the energy flow of the system, which then determines its functionality – ultimately leading to the development of a more thoughtfully conceptualized and purposeful roller-coaster design.

The art integration in this STEAM inquiry helped underscore and provide experiential meaning to the key mathematics and science content and practices. The primary performance expectation for science was that students use evidence to construct an explanation relating the speed of an object to the energy of that object (4-PS3-1). An online animation allowed students to view the energy exchanges on a smart board and mark where they predicted potential and kinetic energy would be highest. Students discussed Newton’s law of inertia that states an object stays in motion or at rest unless acted upon by an outside force and were required to demonstrate their understanding of energy changes throughout their roller-coaster designs. Students considered what factors or materials on their roller coasters were acting as outside forces to slow the marbles (e.g., track, sandpaper, rubber strips, tape, pipe cleaners, and wind resistance). By planning and carrying out fair tests in which variables are controlled and failure points are considered to identify aspects of a model or prototype that can be improved (3-5-ETS1-3), students engaged in the engineering practices of roller-coaster creators. Discussion about what constituted a fair test was an important group consideration. Students had to decide how they would measure the marble’s run on the track (mathematics integration), how they would calculate the speed of their track (mathematics integration), and how they would determine the safety of the track consistently so that groups could compare their data (mathematics integration). Students maintaining a budget (4.MD.2) that included a running log of items purchased and costs of materials employed core mathematics principles. Students also were required to calculate overall velocity in the system by dividing the time of their run by the length of the track (7.NS.3). This calculation aided in the students being able to quantify the speed and fun-factor of their tracks and required they use appropriate measuring materials and units in their calculations. The support of online simulations helped students visualize changes in potential and kinetic energy. Thus, the use of technology in this STEAM inquiry was meaningfully integrated to build a more thorough understanding of the abstract physics embedded in the roller coaster’s design, enhancing instruction. For more specific details regarding this inquiry, see Cook, Bush, and Cox (2017).

Suggestions for STEAM Implementation

Lessons Learned

During the past several years, we have spent much time reflecting on our work with in-service elementary teachers and their students as we move toward the common goal of implementing STEAM instruction in a way that is truly integrated and transdisciplinary in nature, as well as authentic and meaningful. Through our work, we have found one of the most powerful aspects of integrated STEAM that separates it from integrated STEM is the incorporation of the empathy (see Bush & Cook, 2019 for more information). When teachers implemented STEAM lessons that sought to problem solve on behalf of others or design with someone else in mind, their sense of purpose and engagement in the lessons increased. As a result, we have shifted to structuring many of our inquiries using the design-thinking framework (Institute of Design at Stanford, 2016), which underscores the intent of the science and engineering practices called for in the NGSS but also begins inquiries with students empathizing with the situation or with others. For example, as noted above in our Designing a Prosthetic Arm for a Kindergartener exemplar, students tried to complete many typically daily tasks at their school using only one arm. They quickly found this to be extremely challenging and began to empathize with the kindergartener who faced this reality daily. Building and creating based on the foundation of empathy bring the idea of caring into the classroom and makes for more meaningful STEAM explorations. We advocate that STEAM investigations need not be planted or contrived real-life scenarios – instead they can be actual authentic scenarios facing the communities in which students live.

Tips for Practice

Teaching in a way that meaningfully integrates the STEAM subjects is drastically different from traditional teaching and can be challenging at times. We offer the following tips to serve as a guide for readers ready to embark on transdisciplinary STEAM instruction:

  • Children sometimes struggle with the idea of empathy. In our work, we have found the empathy piece of integrated STEAM instruction to be extremely powerful. It is worth the extra time and energy to engage students in this type of thinking because it builds students’ motivation and passion toward finding a successful solution to the problem. We suggest using a task as we did with the Designing a Prosthetic Arm for a Kindergartener inquiry, videos, research, children’s literature, and meaningful classroom discourse as you build the empathy piece in your STEAM inquiries.

  • Teaching STEAM in an authentic and transdisciplinary way is vastly open-ended and complex. It is inevitable that students will enter the problem and arrive at a solution using many different paths. This type of instructional environment requires a great amount of flexibility on the part of both the student and the teacher. In this environment, there is no way to anticipate every question a student may ask, every piece of knowledge from each content area that a student may access, or the direction the inquiry may take. Embrace this chaos, and model the aspects of lifelong learning and curiosity with your students.

  • Think about the tools and resources your students might find helpful for the STEAM inquiry in which you are about to embark. Try to have as many different resources and materials available to students as possible. You do not need expensive technology or fancy materials to engage students in meaningful STEAM learning. Oftentimes, household materials and resources borrowed from other teachers in your school will suffice. Teachers may also serve as resources. You might find benefit from collaborating with teachers in your school who have expertise to share with students related to your investigation. Outside experts in your community might also wish to get involved!

  • Take this teaching transformation 1 day at a time. Start by planning and implementing one integrated STEAM inquiry, which may be a 1-day or a weeklong inquiry. Take advantage of a current problem that needs to be solved in your community – seize the moment!

  • Try to focus on central concepts and practices. STEAM already incorporates many content areas and their accompanying standards. Trying to include too many performance expectations or standards that may be only touched upon can result in unclear directions and expectations for students. Think about what you wish to assess and ensure that tightly aligns to the standards in which you choose to focus your STEAM inquiries.

  • Consider classroom norms and expectations. Problem-based STEAM learning is highly collaborative in nature. It also requires perseverance as students embark on challenges for which their proposed solutions often fail. It is important that teachers support their students’ work in such an environment by providing ideas for how to overcome failure points and work in a cooperative setting with peers. Not doing so may impede on an otherwise great STEAM inquiry.

Concluding Remarks

Elementary teachers in particular face many pedagogical demands related to the teaching of content and practices of a variety of subject areas. We believe the learning that occurs though a STEAM problem-based context yields many positive benefits. Although there are many ways for schools to structure these experiences, we have seen firsthand the power of having a STEAM lab that deepens and extends the science and mathematics learning in the regular classroom. If schools choose this approach, it is essential the classroom teacher is a part of the STEAM lab experience alongside their students. For example, many classroom teachers co-teach STEAM in a lab with the lab teacher. In this way, classroom teachers can underscore and hone the content related to the STEAM inquiries while the science, mathematics, and engineering practices are extended in the lab. Explorations in problem-based STEAM inquiries take time and require students to synthesize ideas and work collaboratively to solve real-world problems; as such, engaging in these types of learning environments complements the goals for twenty-first-century learning. The power of STEAM teaching and learning derives from the aim to improve life and solve problems through innovation, design, and creative thinking.