Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

STEAM Education pp 57–78Cite as

Design Thinking Gives STEAM to Teaching: A Framework That Breaks Disciplinary Boundaries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter, we present a multi-threaded argument to suggest how design thinking can be an excellent framework for developing STEAM education. We note that STEAM is broader than mere arts integration in STEM. It reflects a view of education that is more creative, real-world-driven, and problem- or project-based in nature. To develop learning content and experiences that offer creative, authentic, real-world, and problem- or project-driven focus, teachers need more than an argument—they need a guiding framework. We suggest that design and design thinking are natural areas of interconnection with STEAM, both for learners and teachers. These ideas can be used to frame STEAM-based experiences that are more open, creative, project-based, and real-world-driven. Here, we discuss the nature of the connections between design and STEAM and focus on how teachers can use design thinking practices to help them redesign curriculum to transition from STEM to STEAM.

Let us search … for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict.

~ Donald Schön

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boy, G. A. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centered education, creativity & learning thinking. In Proceedings of the 31st European conference on cognitive ergonomics (p. 3). New York: ACM. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2501907&picked=prox

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: Productive arts in the philosophy of culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caper, R. (1996). Play, experimentation and creativity. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 77(5), 859–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogies, 5(2), 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education & learning: A guide for teachers and educators. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. In Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). Singapore, Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Closet. (n.d.). What is STEAM? Retrieved from http://educationcloset.com/steam/what-is-steam/

  • Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., & Fox, R. (2000). Exploring the nature of creativity. Dobuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2011). We teach who we are: Creativity and trans-disciplinary thinking in the practices of accomplished teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Michigan State University ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). We teach who we are. Teachers College Record, 117(7), 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it? In Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jolly, A. (2014). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education week: Teacher. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html

  • Jolly, A. (2016). STEM by design: Strategies and activities for grades 4–8. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Danvers, MA: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Park, N. (2012). Development and application of STEAM teaching model based on the Rube Goldberg’s invention. In Computer science and its applications (pp. 693–698). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Huff, M., et al. (2013). Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2012). Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: On being in-disciplined. TechTrends, 56(6), 18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2015). In search of a teacher education curriculum: Appropriating a design lens to solve problems of practice. Educational Technology, 55(6), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K. A. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. IEEE Computer, 46(9), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piro, J. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future, too. Education Week, 29(24), 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, H. (2015). Bootcamp bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf

  • Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2010). Design thinking: Understand–improve–apply. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radziwill, N. M., Benton, M. C., & Moellers, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Reframing what it means to learn. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structure and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlain, L. (1991). Art & physics: Parallel visions in space, time and light. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Henriksen, D. (2016). Fail again, fail better: Embracing failure as a paradigm for creative learning in the arts. Art Education, 69(2), 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution: The Rede lecture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, D. L. (2012). An essay on the art and science of teaching. The American Economist, 57(1), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Danah Henriksen

  2. California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Rohit Mehta

  3. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Swati Mehta

Authors
  1. Danah Henriksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rohit Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Swati Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danah Henriksen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Myint Swe Khine  & Shaljan Areepattamannil  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Henriksen, D., Mehta, R., Mehta, S. (2019). Design Thinking Gives STEAM to Teaching: A Framework That Breaks Disciplinary Boundaries. In: Khine, M.S., Areepattamannil, S. (eds) STEAM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04002-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04003-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation