Abstract
Beauty, curiosity, wonder, awe, and the inherent pleasure of figuring things out are aesthetic attributes that scientists, mathematicians, and engineers often speak about when describing their motivations for engaging in STEM. In contrast, despite the robustness of evidence for the importance of the aesthetic, most arguments for learning science have focused on instrumental and functional reasons. Such an approach positions science as a tool, the value of which lies in its usefulness to externally constructed projects and goals. In this manner it trivializes the personal, affective, and humanistic nature of engaging with science and scientific ideas. In this chapter, we provide examples and an argument for a rhetoric of aesthetics that can be incorporated in a teaching. Building on a series of studies we have conducted, we offer a threefold, fractal framework that helps us integrate the aesthetic in STEM learning. The three frames in this rhetoric reside on the intersections of arts and STEM and can be seen as fuel to designing STEAM pedagogies. Finally, to move this framework into educational settings, we share several examples of how we have used this rhetoric to guide teacher professional development for STEM educators, by focusing their thinking and teaching on a more aesthetically driven STEAM view of learning.
Euclid alone has looked on Beauty bare.
Let all who prate of Beauty hold their peace,
And lay them prone upon the earth and cease
To ponder on themselves, the while they stare
At nothing, intricately drawn nowhere
— Ed St. Vincent Milay
The greatest scientists are artists as well
— Albert Einstein
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12.
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007028
Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: Sage.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.
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). ACM.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
Chandrasekhar, S. (1987). Truth and beauty: Aesthetics and motivations in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conley, T. M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European tradition. New York: Longman.
Davis, P., & Russ, R. (2015). Dynamic framing in the communication of scientific research: Texts and interaction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 221–252.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136–155.
Dewey, J. (1934/2005). Art as experience. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1943). The child and the curriculum: The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, 208, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0563-45
Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1999). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines–and beyond. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy (pp. 78–88). London: Paul Chapman.
Girod, M. (2001). Teaching fifth grade science for aesthetic understanding. Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI Number: 3009113).
Girod, M. (2007). A conceptual overview of the role of beauty and aesthetics in science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560226
Girod, M., & Wong, D. (2002). An aesthetic (Deweyan) perspective on science learning: Case studies of three fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 199–124.
Good, J., Keenan, S., & Mishra, P. (2016). Education:=coding+aesthetics; Aesthetic understanding, computer science education, and computational thinking. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35(4), 313–318.
Gopnik, A. (2000). Explanation as orgasm and the drive for causal understanding: The evolution, function and phenomenology of the theory-formation system. In F. Keil & R. Wilson (Eds.), Cognition and explanation (pp. 299–323). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoffmann, R. (1990). Molecular beauty. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48(3), 191. https://doi.org/10.2307/431761
Holton, G. J. (1988). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein (Rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, P. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. Yale University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bwqn.
Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P. O. (2008). The roles of aesthetic experience in elementary school science. Research in Science Education, 38, 45–65.
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 (pp. 4–8). Routledge.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., et al. (2011). Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163.
Lightman, A. P., & Brawer, R. (1990). Origins: the lives and worlds of modern cosmologists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mehta, R., Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2016). Creativity in mathematics and beyond – Learning from fields medal winners. TechTrends, 60(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0011-6
Mishra, P., Terry, C. A., Henriksen, D., & Deep-Play Research Group. (2013). Square peg, round hole, good engineering. TechTrends, 57(2), 22–25.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education. Washington, DC.
Orrell, D. (2012). Truth or beauty: Science and the quest for order. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Petroski, H. (2011). The essential engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems. New York: Vintage.
Piro, J. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future, too. Education Week, 29(24), 28–29.
Poincaré, H. (1910). Mathematical creation. The Monist, 20(3), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19102037
Pugh, K., & Girod, M. (2007). Science, art, and experience: Constructing a science pedagogy from Dewey’s aesthetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 9–27.
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.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Root-Bernstein, R., Bernstein, M., & Garnier, H. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8(2), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0802_2
Root-Bernstein, R. S., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Scruton, R. (1983). The aesthetic understanding: Essays in the philosophy of art and culture. New York: Metheun & Co.
Sykes, C. (1981). The pleasure of finding things out. Motion Picture. London: BBC 2.
Tauber, A. I. (1997). The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science, Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1997 edition. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mehta, R., Keenan, S., Henriksen, D., Mishra, P. (2019). Developing a Rhetoric of Aesthetics: The (Often) Forgotten Link Between Art and STEM. In: Khine, M.S., Areepattamannil, S. (eds) STEAM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04003-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04002-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04003-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)