Volume/Issue :

Article type :

Original article

Page No :

74-84

Abstract :

STEAM education is named as one of the priorities of Lithuanian education, responding to the need to promote a culture of innovation at school and to develop students' creative and critical thinking. The search for opportunities of integration of the subjects of arts and sciences into teaching / learning processes involve researchers and practitioners from various fields (engineering, education, arts, culture, and technological innovation). The numbers of scientific publications on the concept of STEAM education and on the role of arts in it that have been increasing over the last decade testify to the scientific community's attention to the issue, however, they also raise so far unanswered questions about the integration of arts into STEAM theory and practice. Researchers address several problematic areas in STEAM education: insufficient analysis of practical cases, limited preparedness of teachers to implement STEAM projects, and one-sided interpretation of the purpose of arts. Not much is known about how teachers’ value personal experiences in arts integration, how effective the inclusion of arts in the context of STEAM education is, and what the dynamics of STEAM discipline integration is. The aim of this study is to find out why and how primary school teachers integrate arts into STEAM projects, what challenges they face, and how they assess their competencies to ensure arts integration. To achieve the aim of the research, a focus group discussion with teachers working at two Lithuanian primary schools and implementing STEAM projects was chosen as the main data gathering method. The results of the focus group discussion revealed that the teachers preferred an arts-enhanced model of STEAM subject integration mostly through visual arts (drawing, photography, collage, and sculptural elements by gluing). Arts were applied with the aim of diversifying students' academic activities and enriching them with emotional experiences. The research participants saw the following advantages of including arts in STEAM projects: increasing the choice of activities and tools, enhancing students' engagement in learning processes, developing leadership and cooperation skills, maintaining learning motivation, improving critical and creative thinking skills, and linking learning to life. The limitations of teachers' competence to integrate arts into STEAM projects became apparent as well: insufficient knowledge of forms and ways of artistic expression, distrust of their own artistic abilities, and a lack of experience in cooperation with art teachers and artists. Based on the research findings, the directions of further research were formulated, the most relevant ones being an analysis of specific STEAM projects and the modelling of multidimensional STEAM projects.

Keywords :

STEAM projects, arts integration, primary school teachers

References :

Allina, B. (2018). The development of STEAM educational policy to promote student creativity and social empowerment. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1296392
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1609406919874596
Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Gray, D., & Cooke, C. (2019). A critical review of STEAM (Science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics). In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.398
Costantino, T. (2018). STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design education. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1292973
Friedl, A. (2017). Teaching science to children: an integrated approach. McGrow-Hill Collage.
Glass, D., & Colleen, W. (2016). The art and science of looking: collaboratively learning our way to improved STEAM integration. Art Education, 69(6), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224822
Hansen, M. (2014). Characteristics of schools successful in STEM: Evidence from two states' longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.823364
Ho, D. G. (2006). The focus group interview. Rising to the challenge in qualitative research methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 5.1–5.19. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral0605
Hunter-Doniger, T. (2018). Art infusion: Ideal conditions for STEAM. Art Education, 71(2), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1414534
Hunter-Doniger, T., Howard, C., Harris, R., & Hall, C. (2018). STEAM through culturally relevant teaching and storytelling. Art Education, 71(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1389593
Yakman, G. (2008). STEAM education: An overview of creating a model of integrative education, the pupils' attitudes towards technology (PATT-19). Conference: Research on Technology Innovation Design and Engineering Teaching. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327351326_STEAM_Education_an_overview_of_creating_a_model_of_integrative_education
Knochel, A. D. (2018). An object-oriented curriculum theory for STEAM: Boundary shifters, materiality and per(form)ing 3D thinking. International Journal of Education through Art, 16(17), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1386/eta.14.1.35_1
Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1224873
Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 1–3. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d30/c4d0ffd67a4cd4d8ffbfa0eab32bf6ba8806.pdf
Morgan, D. L., & Scannell, A. (1998). Planning Focus Group as qualitative research. Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984287
Nyumba, T., Wilson, Derrick, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Payton, F., White, A., & Mullins, T. (2017). STEM majors, art thinkers (STEM + Arts) – issues of duality, rigor and inclusion. Journal of STEM Education, 8(3), 39–47. https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2101/1870
Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.1316331
Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
Rodham, K., & Gavin, J. (2006). The ethics of using the internet to collect qualitative research data. Research Ethics, 2(3), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F174701610600200303
Rufo, D. (2016). STEAM-ing up the science fair. Art Education, 69(4), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2016.1176475
Segarra, V. A., Natalizio, B., Falkenberg, C. V., Pulford, S., & Holmes, R. M. (2018). STEAM: Using the arts to train well-rounded and creative scientists. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2Fjmbe.v19i1.1360
Shatunoval, O., Anisimova, T., Sabirova, F., & Kalimullina, O. (2019). STEAM as an innovative educational technology. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 19, 153–179. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1220702.pdf
Welch, G. (2011). The arts and humanities, technology and the ‘English Baccalaureate’: STEAM not STEM. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4(2-3), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.4.2-3.245_1
Weller, S. (2017). Using internet video calls in qualitative (longitudinal) interviews: Some implications for rapport. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20, 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1269505
Woodyatt, C. R., Finneran, C. A., & Stephenson, R. (2016). In-person versus online focus group discussions: A comparative analysis of data quality. Qualitative Health Research, 26(6), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316631510
Zoom Video Communications Inc. (2016). Security guide. Zoom Video Communications Inc. https://d24cgw3uvb9a9h.cloudfront.net/static/81625/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf

Cite as :

Girdzijauskienė, R., & Šmitienė, G. (2020). Menų integravimas įgyvendinant STEAM projektus: pradinių klasių mokytojų patirtis [Integration of arts in STEAM projects: Experience of primary school teachers]. Gamtamokslinis ugdymas / Natural Science Education, 17(2), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.48127/gu-nse/20.17.74