Advertisement

Inquiry, Investigative Processes, Art, and Writing in STEAM

  • Adam Stroud
  • Lawrence BainesEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Modern educational practices tend toward integrating domains that were previously considered distinct and separate. In recent years, the term STEM has come to be affiliated with the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. However, once STEM was established as a handy way of referencing these four fields in a concise acronym, scholars urged a further expansion to include the arts—and thus was born the term STEAM (Robelen, 2011).

Keywords

STEM Inquiry-based learning Art in science Writing in science 

References

  1. Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Baines, L., & Kunkel, A. (2016). Going bohemian. Seattle, Wa: Amazon Digital Services.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
  4. Burleson, K. M., & Martinez-Vaz, B. M. (2011). Microbes in Mascara: Hypothesis-driven research in a nonmajor biology lab. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 12(2), 166–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bybee, R. W. (1982). Historical research in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capra, F. (2008). The science of Leonardo. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Chesbro, R. (2006). Using interactive science notebooks for inquiry-based science. Science Scope, 29(7), 30–34.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: DC Heath.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.Google Scholar
  11. Dolberry, A. A. (2010). The sci-fi microbe: Reinforcing understanding of microbial structures and their significance through a creative writing exercise. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 11(2), 175–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Hammerman, E. (2006). 8 essentials of inquiry-based science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaladanki, V., & Bhattacharya, K. (2015). Arts-based approach to physics instruction. Creative Approaches to Research, 8(2), 32–45.Google Scholar
  16. Karplus, R., & Their, H. D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  17. Maeda, J. (2013). Artists and scientists: More alike than different. Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/artists-and-scientists-more-alike-than-different/.
  18. Massiala, B. G. (1969). Inquiry. Today’s Education, 58, 40–42.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas (Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavorial and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Piaget, J. (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.Google Scholar
  21. Potvin, P., & Hasni, A. (2014). Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03057267.2014.881626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson Jr., R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: A community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBELife Sciences Education, 11, 17–25.Google Scholar
  23. Robelen, E. (2011, December 7). STEAM: Experts make case for adding arts to STEM. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/01/13steam_ep.h31.html
  24. Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Schon, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waldman, C., & Crippen, K. J. (2009). Integrating interactive notebooks. The Science Teacher, 76, 55–59.Google Scholar
  27. Wheatley, G. (1998). Problem-centered learning. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  28. Young, J. (2003). Science interactive notebooks in the classroom. Science Scope, 26(4), 44–47.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations