Title: STEAM: Help or Hinderance?
Stream: Interdisciplinary, Multidisciplinary & Transdisciplinary Education
Presentation Type: Live-Stream Presentation
Authors:
Richard Davies, University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom
Jo Trowsdale, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Abstract:
Mejias et al (2020) reviewed the use and utility of the term STEAM in educational practice, echoing in their US study ideas advanced by our UK based review (see Authors, 2016). We all recognise that greater clarity of the term STEAM is vital for research and for assessing its value for practice. They argue that STEAM emphasizes the hybridity of the two epistemic positions inherent in STEM and arts. We argue that whilst this explicates an aspect of the STEAM narrative it does so at the expense of more nuanced understandings of its role in educational discourses. We argue that confusion arises not from the inclusion of arts into STEM, but with STEM itself. By uniting the two, STEM’s inherent difficulties become apparent. We question two key aspects of Mejias et al’s argument: that STEM is comprised of 4 disciplines to which arts adds a fifth, and their account of the purpose of combining the arts with STEM. Specifically, we argue, in line with Glover and Currie (1994), that viewing STEM as four disciplines misrepresents the epistemic landscape. Technologies (plural) and engineering, whilst grounded in broadly scientific knowledge, are necessarily transdisciplinary. Further, Mathematics, rather than a discipline, is the language of the natural sciences. The arts, similarly confused, are restricted in their educative potential. In terms of purpose, STEAM is an educational trope, along with STEM, within a volatile global market for industry and manufactured goods, and the educational pathways necessary to enhance the skills pipeline for such work.
Conference Comments & Feedback
Place a comment using your LinkedIn profileShare this Presentation
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress