Literature Review
There is an increasing body of research surrounding the topic of Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM) in education. Research ranges from the perspective of the pre-service teacher to the experienced teacher; from the young student to the graduate student; from children of different racial and cultural background, and from diverse socioeconomic settings. Educators, parents, and industries have a vested interest in understanding why some students gravitate toward STEAM careers, maintaining their interest level throughout school, while others have either a lack of interest or a fading interest in STEAM over time.
Two themes emerged when conducting this literature review. The first theme encompasses a student’s prior exposure to STEAM, coupled with their ability to ask meaningful questions, and how this effects their attitudes toward this academic area. This falls under the constructivist theory, best theorized by Jean Piaget. The second theme focused on the relationship between a student’s mindset and the impact it can have on self-efficacy the areas of math and science. This is best known as the growth mindset theory, which has been developed by Carol Dweck.
Prior Exposure
Dejonckheere, De Wit, Van de Keere, & Vervaet (2016) found that within Science, “The more experience a child has, the more abstraction and causal learning can occur” (p. 553). Results of their study, conducted within four preschool classrooms, found that with targeted inquiry-based scientific instruction, the students increased their scientific reasoning and inquiry skills during exploratory play (Dejonckheere, De Wit, Van de Keere, & Vervaet, 2016). This study also highlights that the students were more willing to design and conduct their own investigation when faced with and unknown problem, all as result of exposure to scientific investigations.
Similarly, Kurz, Yodder, and Zu (2014) found a positive increase in student attitudes toward science after exposure to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) activities during a Science Expo (Kurz, Yoder, & Zu, 2014, p. 229). As well, student attitudes toward career options within STEM fields increased after exposure to Science and Engineering challenges at an Engineering Conference. Notably, the exposure to STEM during these expos showed positive changes in the interest of STEM fields across grade-levels.
Still, exposure alone is not enough. STEAM is an inquiry-based field, and equipping our students with the ability to ask meaningful questions is foundational to their learning. According to Korkmaz, “Critical thinking skills rest on students’ ability to ask incisive and penetrating questions that get beneath the surface of a topic and reveal its complexity and subtlety” (Korkmaz, 2009, p. 2). This type of questioning goes beyond the level of rote memorization, and must be consciously modeled by classroom teachers.
Moving beyond just the introduction to STEAM learning, student curiosity will need to endure when children face challenges in the engineering design process. The initial curiosity that comes with the beginning of a STEAM challenge can be a powerful tool in the elementary classroom. It is a vital aspect of the learning process, serving as a motivator and a facilitator (Koechlin & Zwaan,2006). Still, educators will need to provide a structure for students to not only ask questions, but also an opportunity to explore these questions (Rothstein, Santana, & Minigan, 2015).
These studies highlight not only the importance of STEM exposure in the elementary schools, but also the importance of equipping students with questioning skills that allow them to explore STEAM concepts. While the foundational scientific knowledge is important for young students, just as impactful is the process of “doing” science. The ability for students to view science as a fluid practice, in which they engage in the content, create experiments, and learn from their mistakes provides an increase in not only in-class engagement, but also long-term attitudes toward STEAM. The teaching strategies employed during the process drive the student’s ability to become inquiry-driven when working in the scientific realm.
Student Mindset
There is a close connection between the work on self-efficacy by Albert Bandura and Growth Mindset by Carol Dweck. Bandura found that, “In casual tests, the higher the level of induced self-efficacy, the higher the performance accomplishments and the lower the emotional arousal” (Badura, 1982, p. 122). Aligned with this idea, multiple studies cite academic gains after students have received training in growth midst practices. In one example, several hundred students in New York City were separated into two groups. One group was given a workshop on growth mindset practices, while the other group was given a workshop on study skills. The students who were given instruction on growth mindset practices academically outperformed their peers (Blackwell, Dweck, & Trzesniewski, 2007). While student mindsets impact academic achievement, it is important to note that mindsets can change over the course of time. In addition, emerging research suggest that student mindsets can differ based upon domain references. Student may view their ability to grow and develop differently for reading than they do for mathematics (Sparks, 2015).
Students with growth mindsets are focused on overcoming challenges and view mistakes as learning opportunities, whereas students with a more fixed mindset focus on intelligence (Dweck, 2015). Students with a fixed mindset often view intelligence as an inherent trait, rather than one that can be developed. They link being smart with correct answers, and find challenges uncomfortable, preferring to demonstrate mastery in all areas (Dweck, 2015). On the other end of the spectrum, students with a growth mindset enjoy challenges. They view mistakes as an opportunity for learning and see intelligence as something that is continually being developed (Dweck, 2015).
Limitations
While the studies reviewed are well documented and cited in education, the body of research in relation to STEAM and elementary students remains limited. In general, the research in STEAM vs STEM is limited at the present time. In addition, the reviewed literature around growth mindset shows changes in student achievement in mathematics with populations who were taught specifically about growth mindset theory. While this is an important component of STEAM learning, a broader scope is needed to find a similar relationship beyond just math.
Implications
My quantitative needs assessment found that the students who felt negatively about STEAM challenges are uncomfortable with the process of making mistakes in the design and redesign parts of the challenge. As well, the data led me to infer that students are least comfortable when the expectations are unclear. Throughout the qualitative interviews I conducted with my students, two themes emerged. The first theme was that students were excited to complete STEAM challenges. A second theme that emerged was student frustration when challenges didn’t go as planned.
The above literature review shows a convergence of these findings, and prior research. The impact of prior experience and student questioning ability is something I need to consider as I plan my intervention. While I am unable to control the amount of exposure students have had when they begin STEAM challenges in my classroom, I can plan for the impact of this variance. As well, modeling higher level questioning techniques will prove to be important. Providing students with a greater understanding of the STEAM process, investigating famous inventors whose path was met with many failures (as a means to provide exposure to perseverance), and adjusting the process for the first few STEAM challenges the students complete, can lead to an improvement of student attitudes. Additionally, devising a path that incorporates the teaching of growth mindset alongside the STEAM challenges may provide a concrete platform for students to apply their strategies
Two themes emerged when conducting this literature review. The first theme encompasses a student’s prior exposure to STEAM, coupled with their ability to ask meaningful questions, and how this effects their attitudes toward this academic area. This falls under the constructivist theory, best theorized by Jean Piaget. The second theme focused on the relationship between a student’s mindset and the impact it can have on self-efficacy the areas of math and science. This is best known as the growth mindset theory, which has been developed by Carol Dweck.
Prior Exposure
Dejonckheere, De Wit, Van de Keere, & Vervaet (2016) found that within Science, “The more experience a child has, the more abstraction and causal learning can occur” (p. 553). Results of their study, conducted within four preschool classrooms, found that with targeted inquiry-based scientific instruction, the students increased their scientific reasoning and inquiry skills during exploratory play (Dejonckheere, De Wit, Van de Keere, & Vervaet, 2016). This study also highlights that the students were more willing to design and conduct their own investigation when faced with and unknown problem, all as result of exposure to scientific investigations.
Similarly, Kurz, Yodder, and Zu (2014) found a positive increase in student attitudes toward science after exposure to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) activities during a Science Expo (Kurz, Yoder, & Zu, 2014, p. 229). As well, student attitudes toward career options within STEM fields increased after exposure to Science and Engineering challenges at an Engineering Conference. Notably, the exposure to STEM during these expos showed positive changes in the interest of STEM fields across grade-levels.
Still, exposure alone is not enough. STEAM is an inquiry-based field, and equipping our students with the ability to ask meaningful questions is foundational to their learning. According to Korkmaz, “Critical thinking skills rest on students’ ability to ask incisive and penetrating questions that get beneath the surface of a topic and reveal its complexity and subtlety” (Korkmaz, 2009, p. 2). This type of questioning goes beyond the level of rote memorization, and must be consciously modeled by classroom teachers.
Moving beyond just the introduction to STEAM learning, student curiosity will need to endure when children face challenges in the engineering design process. The initial curiosity that comes with the beginning of a STEAM challenge can be a powerful tool in the elementary classroom. It is a vital aspect of the learning process, serving as a motivator and a facilitator (Koechlin & Zwaan,2006). Still, educators will need to provide a structure for students to not only ask questions, but also an opportunity to explore these questions (Rothstein, Santana, & Minigan, 2015).
These studies highlight not only the importance of STEM exposure in the elementary schools, but also the importance of equipping students with questioning skills that allow them to explore STEAM concepts. While the foundational scientific knowledge is important for young students, just as impactful is the process of “doing” science. The ability for students to view science as a fluid practice, in which they engage in the content, create experiments, and learn from their mistakes provides an increase in not only in-class engagement, but also long-term attitudes toward STEAM. The teaching strategies employed during the process drive the student’s ability to become inquiry-driven when working in the scientific realm.
Student Mindset
There is a close connection between the work on self-efficacy by Albert Bandura and Growth Mindset by Carol Dweck. Bandura found that, “In casual tests, the higher the level of induced self-efficacy, the higher the performance accomplishments and the lower the emotional arousal” (Badura, 1982, p. 122). Aligned with this idea, multiple studies cite academic gains after students have received training in growth midst practices. In one example, several hundred students in New York City were separated into two groups. One group was given a workshop on growth mindset practices, while the other group was given a workshop on study skills. The students who were given instruction on growth mindset practices academically outperformed their peers (Blackwell, Dweck, & Trzesniewski, 2007). While student mindsets impact academic achievement, it is important to note that mindsets can change over the course of time. In addition, emerging research suggest that student mindsets can differ based upon domain references. Student may view their ability to grow and develop differently for reading than they do for mathematics (Sparks, 2015).
Students with growth mindsets are focused on overcoming challenges and view mistakes as learning opportunities, whereas students with a more fixed mindset focus on intelligence (Dweck, 2015). Students with a fixed mindset often view intelligence as an inherent trait, rather than one that can be developed. They link being smart with correct answers, and find challenges uncomfortable, preferring to demonstrate mastery in all areas (Dweck, 2015). On the other end of the spectrum, students with a growth mindset enjoy challenges. They view mistakes as an opportunity for learning and see intelligence as something that is continually being developed (Dweck, 2015).
Limitations
While the studies reviewed are well documented and cited in education, the body of research in relation to STEAM and elementary students remains limited. In general, the research in STEAM vs STEM is limited at the present time. In addition, the reviewed literature around growth mindset shows changes in student achievement in mathematics with populations who were taught specifically about growth mindset theory. While this is an important component of STEAM learning, a broader scope is needed to find a similar relationship beyond just math.
Implications
My quantitative needs assessment found that the students who felt negatively about STEAM challenges are uncomfortable with the process of making mistakes in the design and redesign parts of the challenge. As well, the data led me to infer that students are least comfortable when the expectations are unclear. Throughout the qualitative interviews I conducted with my students, two themes emerged. The first theme was that students were excited to complete STEAM challenges. A second theme that emerged was student frustration when challenges didn’t go as planned.
The above literature review shows a convergence of these findings, and prior research. The impact of prior experience and student questioning ability is something I need to consider as I plan my intervention. While I am unable to control the amount of exposure students have had when they begin STEAM challenges in my classroom, I can plan for the impact of this variance. As well, modeling higher level questioning techniques will prove to be important. Providing students with a greater understanding of the STEAM process, investigating famous inventors whose path was met with many failures (as a means to provide exposure to perseverance), and adjusting the process for the first few STEAM challenges the students complete, can lead to an improvement of student attitudes. Additionally, devising a path that incorporates the teaching of growth mindset alongside the STEAM challenges may provide a concrete platform for students to apply their strategies