International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

At the dawn of science, technology, engineering,

arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education:
prospects, priorities, processes, and problems

Shashidhar Belbase, Bhesh Raj Mainali, Wandee Kasemsukpipat, Hassan

Tairab, Munkhjargal Gochoo & Adeeb Jarrah

To cite this article: Shashidhar Belbase, Bhesh Raj Mainali, Wandee Kasemsukpipat, Hassan
Tairab, Munkhjargal Gochoo & Adeeb Jarrah (2022) At the dawn of science, technology,
engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education: prospects, priorities, processes, and
problems, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53:11,
2919-2955, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2021.1922943

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1922943

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as

Taylor & Francis Group

Published online: 05 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13730

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2022, VOL. 53, NO. 11, 2919–2955
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1922943

At the dawn of science, technology, engineering, arts, and

mathematics (STEAM) education: prospects, priorities,
processes, and problems
Shashidhar Belbase a , Bhesh Raj Mainali b , Wandee Kasemsukpipat c , Hassan
Tairab a , Munkhjargal Gochoo d and Adeeb Jarrah a
a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain,

UAE; b College of Education Human Services Faculty, Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA; c Department of
Education, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand; d Department of Computer Science
and Software Engineering, College of Information Technology, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, UAE

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of this study was to examine the current state of Received 23 December 2019
integrated science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics KEYWORDS
(STEAM) education. We conducted an extensive review of the lit- STEAM; integrated
erature, followed by document analysis to construct concepts and education;
themes associated with prospects, priorities, processes, and prob- twenty-first-century skills
lems of STEAM education. The analysis of STEAM learning con-
cepts from the literature provided three sub-constructs under the
prospects – STEAM movement, the purpose of STEAM education,
and benefits of STEAM education. The sub-constructs under prior-
ities of STEAM education were – curriculum integration in STEAM
and STEAM education as a curriculum reform. The sub-constructs of
STEAM education as a process were – the pedagogical process and
assessment in STEAM education. The sub-constructs of the problems
in STEAM education were – critiques against STEAM education and
the challenges of STEAM education. Finally, we discussed findings
and presented some implications of STEAM education.

1. Introduction
Integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as an integrated
curriculum to educate students in four disciplines is considered as an interdisciplinary
approach (Hom, 2014). Many educational contexts support this view. The recent initiatives
in the USA through the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core State Stan-
dards for Mathematics focus on integrated STEM approach. Similarly, the Department of
Education of Western Australia (2019) states STEM as a pedagogical approach that serves
as an access point for creativity, inquiry, dialogue, collaboration, and critical thinking (Edu-
cationCloset, 2019). Recently, STEAM with A for arts has been conceived as an alternative
to STEM pedagogy to promote creativity, the habit of taking risks, engagement in col-
laborative, experiential learning and perseverance in problem-solving to develop today’s

CONTACT Shashidhar Belbase [email protected]

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2920 S. BELBASE ET AL.

students as future leaders, innovators, scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs, and

learners of the twenty-first century (EducationCloset, 2019).
In this context, STEAM provides an approach to reach STEM by integrating the prin-
ciples of each discipline with the art as interdisciplinary learning to critical areas of math,
science, and art together as a whole through new technology and design thinking with an
investigative process (Stroud & Baines, 2019). The STEAM approach is more than just an
instructional strategy. It is an inspiration for innovation (Liao, 2019) and transformative
approach to school education and community development in different parts of the world,
such as African regions (Digital Education Africa Network [DEAN], 2020; Kruger, 2019;
Women Entrepreneurs for Africa, 2020) and Latin America (RICOH America Latina, 2020;
SIEMENS-Stiftung, 2018). Likewise, European countries are promoting STEAM educa-
tion at the school level through partnership and collaboration programmes, such as the
EuroSTEAM project (Haesen & Van de Put, 2018).
The STEAM ‘requires an intentional connection between standards, assessments, and
lesson design/implementation’ (EducationCloset, 2019, para.7). Through such connec-
tions, the STEAM model emphasizes learning experiences in two or more strands. The
transdisciplinary knowledge and skills complement each other through inquiry and collab-
oration with the integrity and ethics of coexistence and mutual respect (EducationCloset,
2019). Therefore, STEAM is a new vision to promote student creativity, collaboration, and
collective being through transdisciplinary consciousness and conscience (All Education
Schools.com, 2019).
Mathematics has an intimate connection to science, engineering, and arts and this con-
nection has been even more profound with technology. Various artistic patterns can be
generated by using mathematics with technology. For example, Eriksson (2020) presented
models of different kinds of Girih tiles with symmetries, translations and other forms of
transformations using both equilateral and non-equilateral tile categories. Likewise, there
are several examples in the Bridges Conference Proceedings that demonstrate how math-
ematics and arts are intimately and historically connected and complemented each other
(Gailiunas, 2019).
In this context, the STEAM education serves as a model to create a new interface
between theory and practice breaking/crossing the disciplinary boundary (Connor et al.,
2015; Quigley et al., 2019). The arts in STEAM not only cements the disciplines together as
one with a broader scope and disciplinary identity, but it also fences the essential character-
istics of the whole to mimic the real-world issues and problems (Quigley & Herro, 2019).
The shifting from STEM to STEAM from content and discipline to reach integrative and
life-long holistic education is a paradigm shift (Yakman, 2019). The literature on STEAM
education discussed the most profound benefits of this education approach at schools and
higher education institutions. However, there is skepticism at one side of this effort, which
considers STEAM as an educational whim and a bandwagon to bring old pieces as a new
whole, ‘the fashionable idea in the education market’ (Pico, 2019, p. 300). In this context,
this paper aims to analyse the current status of STEAM education.
The primary purpose of this review-based study was to analyse the current state
of STEAM education. The main research question was: What is the current state of
STEAM education in terms of prospects, priorities, processes, and problems? We wanted
to explore – What is there in the STEAM that is not in STEM disciplines? What are the
priorities of STEAM education? Why are these priorities important? What are the STEAM
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2921

processes? How do these processes help students prepare themselves for the twenty-first-
century job markets? What are some of the problems facing by the STEAM education
initiatives? What are some critiques against STEAM education? What is its future?
This paper follows this way – at first, we discuss the context of STEAM education; sec-
ond, we describe the method of study; third, we present the findings of the study; fourth,
we discuss the major themes. Finally, we offer some implications of STEAM education.

2. Context of STEAM integration

Integrated STEM education focuses production of graduates for industrial and markets
with skills and ability to perform well in their job. However, the current global economy
and market based on the exploitation of natural resources have brought us a catastrophic
environmental condition with loss of species and degrading humanity (Taylor & Taylor,
2019). In this context, it is necessary to review what is going on in STEAM integration and
how it can support or hinder in current education movement across different countries. An
extensive review of literature on STEAM education revealed several studies in this field, for
example, Vanscoder (2014), Dolberry (2015), Park et al. (2016), Herro and Quigley (2016),
and Kant et al. (2018), to name a few.
Several research-works on STEAM education focused on different contexts, such as cur-
riculum, contents, and teaching-learning of various disciplines in an integrated way. One
of the settings for STEAM learning is offered by 3D printing. This device allows science
and maths teachers to design a real model of an abstract science or maths concept with
an art. Math and science teachers can use 3D printing to create tangible representations of
mathematical or science abstract concepts for manipulation and visualization (Vanscoder,
2014). Using such visual models, students’ exposure to arts and design integrated into
STEM improved their performance (Rabalais, 2014; Vanscoder, 2014). Dolberry (2015)
conducted a study of hip-hop art and culture in the context of STEAM pedagogy. Dolberry
(2015) analysed hip-hop culture from the perspectives of epistemological constructs. He
used critical race theory as an analytical framework to critique the hegemonic structure
that maintains the status quo, which privileged particular race isolating or marginalizing
the others. This study was conducted in an urban cultural context in the US.
The trend of STEAM education has been increased in the last decade across the globe.
Park et al. (2016) studied teachers’ perceptions and practices of STEAM education in South
Korea. In this study, the authors examined teachers’ teaching methods of STEAM lessons in
their classrooms, teachers’ perception of STEAM education, its impact on students’ learn-
ing, and the challenges the teachers faced while introducing STEAM learning lessons in the
classrooms. They reported that most of the teachers were concerned with time and added
workload to teach as per the STEAM learning (Park et al., 2016). Despite these challenges,
the Ministry of Education of South Korea has made concerted efforts to enhance the suc-
cessful implementation of STEAM education in the school system (Kang, 2019; Park et al.,
2016).
When STEAM education was taking a slow momentum with skepticism from scholars
in the field of STEM disciplines, they were ‘struggling to understand what STEM is and how
to teach through an integrated STEM approach’. Herro and Quigley (2016) conducted a
multi-year study examining the perspectives and classroom practices of twenty-one middle
2922 S. BELBASE ET AL.

school mathematics and science teachers in the Southern region of the USA. The teach-
ers were invited to join a professional development (PD) programme to explore STEAM
literacies. The findings of the study suggested that participant teachers increased their
understanding of how to teach STEAM contents. They also reflected that STEAM activ-
ities during professional development helped change their classroom practices (Herro
& Quigley, 2016). Likewise, Kim and Bolger (2016) reported policy changes for Korean
schools incorporating STEAM teaching and learning in a holistic approach. The Gov-
ernment of South Korea introduced major educational reforms, despite such challenges,
by adding STEAM lessons in all schools. The participants had a positive influence on
their attitudes towards integrated STEAM lessons. The researchers also found a significant
improvement in the participants’ awareness of STEAM integrated lessons with higher per-
ceived ability and more profound value and commitment to STEAM teaching and learning
(Kim & Bolger, 2016). Likewise, Kang (2019) reported a decrease in STEM career inter-
est among the young people in South Korea, which compelled the government to initiate
STEAM reform with significant national funding.
Several schools and universities in the USA have implemented STEAM pedagogy in
their curricula to bring marginalized and underrepresented communities into the inclu-
siveness and justice in pedagogy. In this context, Native Americans are underrepresented
populations in the STEM fields (Kant et al., 2018). One of the STEAM learning purposes is
to increase the participation and interest of such underrepresented and marginalized com-
munities. This purpose can be achieved by improving the diversity in education in general
and STEM fields in particular (Kant et al., 2018). To explore underrepresentation of Native
American Girls in STEM fields, the South Dakota Space Grant Consortium (SDSGC)
and the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Pre-engineering Education Collaborative
(PEEC), partially funded a programme that partnered Flandreau Indian School (FIS) with
South Dakota State University’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. The
programme was named as STEAM Girls (Kant et al., 2018). A majority of the respon-
dents changed their attitudes from previously negative or neutral to a more positive for
science and engineering, technology, and mathematics through the integration of the arts.
The results from the post-focus group in the final STEAM Girls programme showed that
the participants liked the activities that included pride in Native American culture. They
enjoyed the field engagement activities at South Dakota State University (Kant et al., 2018).
European, African, and Latin American countries are promoting STEAM education
at the school level through different programmes. For example, five European countries
(The UK, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, and Spain) have launched a collaborative school pro-
gramme called the EuroSTEAM project by developing a framework for STEAM education
to implement in the selected schools in the partner countries (Haesen & Van de Put, 2018).
The EuroSTEAM project framework connects STEAM disciplines to real-world problems.
This framework integrates five essential skills with the five subjects, such as creativity with
science, communication with technology, ecology with engineering, critical thinking with
arts, and problem-solving with mathematics in the form of a spider web model (Haesen &
Van de Put, 2018). This model envisions the STEAM education as a transdisciplinary net-
work with the interaction between the five disciplines focusing on ‘performing problem
method’ through the collaboration of students and teachers (Haesen & Van de Put, 2018).
Besides such efforts, European Union adopted a policy of ‘strengthening STE(A)M educa-
tion in the EU’ on 26 June 2019, to promote STE(A)M skills with a multi-fund approach to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2923

developing physical infrastructure, curriculum, training, and implementation in schools

to achieve regional and gender equity in STE(A)M related careers (European Committee
of the Regions, 2019).
Many European states are implementing various strategies in order to promote
STEM/STEAM education (European Schoolnet, 2018). For example, Denmark has a pol-
icy in place, which aims to increase the number of students who are interested in STEM
programmes in school. In Italy, a national plan has been implemented, which supports edu-
cational activities directed at encouraging careers in academic studies in the STEM areas.
Similarly, National Endowment for Science Technology, and the Arts (NESTA), Creative
Learning Industries Federation and the Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA) collaborated
working together in the United Kingdom (UK) in order promote STEAM education (Siepel
et al., 2016). Siepel et al. (2016) further reported that focus on STEM education most likely
create an amicable learning environment, where young students have their full potential to
grow.
In African countries, STEAM education initiatives have been developed as a means
of empowerment and equity, especially for women and girls (Women Entrepreneurs
for Africa, 2020). The programme launched by Women Entrepreneurs for Africa
(WEforAFRICA) aims to empower girls and women through several programmes, for
example, developing community libraries to support STEAM education, and helping to
develop microlevel enterprises. Likewise, Inspire Africa is a STEAM programme launched
in schools in South Africa that integrates drone technology with science, engineering,
mathematics and arts (Kruger, 2019), and the STEAM Foundation NPC is promoting
STEAM education in South Africa through educator training, manufacturing and dis-
tributing instructional materials, and researching on STEAM issues (STEAM Foundation
NPC, 2020).
Arab nations, such as Egypt (Aziz, 2015) and the United Arab Emirates (Shaer et al.,
2019), have emphasized the integrated STEM/STEAM education as a part of continu-
ous reform in the school curriculum as per the national agendas and the governments’
visions to advance the twenty-first-century skills. The schools are encouraged to promote
STEM/STEAM education through certification and STEM/STEAM accreditation in Egypt
(Aziz, 2015). The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Education, Abu Dhabi Department
of Education, and Mohammad Bin Rashid School of Government in Dubai have empha-
sized promoting STEM/STEAM education through various programmes, for example,
Advanced Science Agenda, Think Science, and National Agenda and the UAE Vision to
be one of the top twenty high performing nations in PISA and the top 15 high performing
nations in TIMSS (Shaer et al., 2019).
Not only developed nations, but underdeveloped and developing nations are also
promoting STEAM education to some extent. For example, some schools (e.g. Samrid-
dhi School in Kathmandu, https://samriddhischool.edu.np/steam-education-its-importan
tance/) and higher education institutions in Nepal (e.g. Kathmandu University:
https://soe.kusoed.edu.np/steam-education/) have been promoting STEAM pedagogy.
Samriddhi School and Kathmandu University School of Education (KUSOED) are among
the few institutions emphasizing STEAM pedagogy in Nepal. Currently, KUSOED offers
graduate degree programme in STEAM education (Belbase, 2019). Likewise, STEAM edu-
cation has gained a momentum in African nations (Badmus & Omosewo, 2020) and Latin
America (Cevallos et al., 2019).
2924 S. BELBASE ET AL.

The studies and initiatives mentioned above demonstrate some merits of STEAM edu-
cation despite several challenges and issues in its implementation. At the same time, recent
publications in STEAM education show that there is a growing interest in STEAM edu-
cation in many places and therefore STEAM education is taking a firm position in many
schools in the USA, European countries, Australia, Singapore, Korea, and China including
other regions of the world.

3. Method of study
The method of study involved document collection, sorting documents based on relevancy,
making a note of thematic concepts, organizing the ideas within a group of categories, and
developing significant themes from these categories.

3.1. Document collection

The document collection to study STEAM education began in the spring of 2019. Some key
concepts were gathered from the website contents of more than 21 different government,
non-government, and educational institutions. Other several ideas of STEAM education
were gathered from more than 30 books or chapters, more than 20 journal articles, seven
conference proceedings, and two doctoral dissertations. These documents were collected
through various online sources and the university library facilities.
There were four types of documents as sources of information for STEAM Education.
The first sources of information were – website contents related to STEAM Education.
The google search with different keywords, such as STEAM education, STEAM initia-
tives, STEAM pedagogy, STEAM learning, STEAM teaching, STEAM assessment, STEAM
approach, etc. yielded several websites associated with STEAM education. The second
sources for the information were the journal articles and conference proceeding that we
reviewed. These articles were mostly related to engineering pedagogy, educational changes,
professional development, STEAM approaches, and sustainability. There were only two
journals that were devoted fully to STEAM education – The STEAM Journal published by
Claremont University and Journal of STEAM Education published from Turkey. However,
STEAM-related articles were also published by other journals and conference proceedings,
such as Kang (2019). This limitation shows that there are minimal journal outlets dedicated
to STEAM education. The third resources of information were the books and chapters,
for example, the books such as Khine and Areepattamannil’s (2019) STEAM Education:
Theory and Practice; and Sousa and Pilecki’ (2013) From STEM to STEAM: Using Brain-
Compatible Strategies to Integrate the Arts, to name a few. The fourth kind of materials
were reports, news sites, and brochures, or course materials of universities and government
documents.

3.2. Document analysis

We performed document analysis with a thorough review of relevant documents such as
journal articles, book chapters, reports, and website contents (Bowen, 2009). For this study,
we collected information from various sources and tabulated them in a matrix form to
sort and categorize them into different themes. Then, we noted down essential and critical
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2925

concepts from them and coded them with related ideas. We tabulated all the concepts and
codes into a matrix and organized the closely related concepts and codes under separate
sub-constructs (Tables A1–A4 in Appendix).
When the matrix was fully saturated with no significant new information emerging from
the additional concepts, we stopped the coding process (Bowen, 2009). After finalizing
the sub-constructs, we categorized them into four themes based on their interrelation to
each other. Then, we constructed a matrix relating the codes, sub-constructs, and themes
in Tables A1–A4 in the Appendix. We adapted the process of categorical thinking while
identifying the codes with different STEAM education concepts relevant to the topic of
the study (Freeman, 2017). We applied the grounded theory approach for coding, relat-
ing codes to each other to develop sub-constructs, and organizing the sub-constructs
into STEAM education (Bryant, 2017). There were four themes, and fourteen sub-themes
emerged from the analysis of the information (data) from the various literature sources.
Under the first theme, Prospects, there were three sub-themes – movement, purpose, and
benefits with twelve, seven, and ten conceptual codes, respectively (Table A1 in Appendix).
The second theme, Priorities, had two sub-themes of curriculum integration and reform
with thirteen and twelve theoretical codes, respectively (Table A2 in Appendix). The third
theme, Processes, had two sub-themes of pedagogy and assessment with twenty-one and
fifteen conceptual themes, respectively (Table A3 in Appendix). The last theme, Prob-
lems, had two sub-themes of critiques and challenges of STEAM education with thirteen
theoretical codes for each of them (Table A4 in Appendix).

3.3. Interpretation of themes

After analysing the related concepts and codes, sub-themes, and themes collected from
the different sources of literature, we interpreted each theme with the conceptual codes
and sub-themes in relation to their meanings in the context of STEAM education. While
writing the interpretation, we rebuilt the textual descriptions of themes and sub-themes
using the codes and concepts relating them back to the respective literature. In this sense,
this study was an iterative process of organizing information about STEAM education
collected from various documents and related website contents to highlight STEAM edu-
cation’s status in terms of the four distinct themes – Prospects, Priorities, Processes, and
Problems. The first iteration was looking at the connection of the conceptual codes within
a sub-theme. The second iteration was built upon those codes to generate a full descrip-
tion of related issues in STEAM education. The third iteration was to align the description
with the sub-themes and themes. The fourth iteration was to update the descriptions and
the interpretations of sub-themes and themes with any relevant citations and correspond-
ing references. These iterative processes helped us align the analyses, descriptions, and
interpretations of the themes with the conceptual codes and sub-themes through constant
comparison and theoretical sampling of the meaningful concepts. We discussed each of
these themes in the next section (results and discussion) with their sub-themes.

4. Results and discussion

In this study, four major themes emerged from the information analyses from the websites,
journal articles, books, reports, and brochures related to STEAM education. These themes
2926 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Figure 1. Themes and sub-themes of STEAM education extended with ‘h’ for humanistic and ecological
well-being.

are – Prospects, Priorities, Processes, and Problems of STEAM education (Figure 1). We
discussed each of these themes and sub-themes under separate sub-headings.

4.1. Prospects of STEAM education

The prospects of STEAM education mean the values that this field of study carries with it
to the students, teachers, schools, and society. These values are associated with how they
affect the users or practitioners in the days to come. The analysis of the information from
the literature yielded three sub-constructs under the theme ‘Prospects of STEAM educa-
tion’ that are – STEAM education movement, the purpose of STEAM education, and the
benefits of STEAM education. We presented the significant concepts related to each of
these sub-constructs and the related literature (Table A1 in Appendix). In the first sub-
construct ‘STEAM education movement’, we discussed the major events or programmes
or initiatives of educational institutions, governments, and private organizations to pro-
mote STEAM education. In another sub-construct ‘purpose of STEAM education’, we
analysed the STEAM curriculum and pedagogy in terms of their purpose in school or
higher education. We explored why STEAM education is a need at the current educational
scenarios in the fast-changing technological, economic, and demographic contexts. In the
third sub-construct ‘Benefits of STEAM Education’, we discussed the motivation behind
educational institutions to shift toward STEAM education. These three sub-constructs pro-
vide a context that Prospects of STEAM education are very high and accelerating at a fast
pace.

4.1.1. STEAM movement

There is a continuous effort from both government and non-government institutions and
organizations to enhance STEM/STEAM education in the different parts of the world.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2927

STEM movement has been a common buzzword in the education community for the
last couple of decades. Recently, the Government of the United States has considered it
more seriously. The Executive Office of the President of the United States announced a
strategic plan in a report ‘Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM
education’. The report was prepared by the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM,
2018) of the National Science and Technology Council. The report states, ‘The character of
STEM education itself has been evolving from a set of overlapping disciplines into a more
integrated and intradisciplinary approach to learning and skill development’ (CoSTEM,
2018, p. v). The strategic plan highlights STEM as a source of inspiration for discoveries,
transformative technologies, a competitive economy, a sustainable future through strate-
gic partnerships, increased diversity and equity, and transparency and accountability. The
report outlines federal strategies for the next five years to build a strong STEM foundation,
increase social justice, and prepare young people for the future with strong STEM com-
petencies (CoSTEM, 2018). The CoSTEM also emphasized increasing public and youth
engagement in the STEM-related education and career, improve students’ STEM experi-
ence, and preparing better educational programmes to meet the demands of the future
(Hom, 2014).
The development of STEAM education has been continued from other institutions as
well. For example, John Maeda, the President of the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD),
has reinvigorated STEM by reuniting the scientific truth and rigour with aesthetic beauty
and values. Since its establishment, RISD has launched several programmes and initiatives
of integrated science, maths, engineering, technology, and the arts as a whole to include
projects and designs of oceanic case studies, conducting experiments in the Nature Labs,
and engaging students through internships in medical, scientific, engineering, and artis-
tic professions (Rabalais, 2014). Similarly, there are many other STEAM ongoing projects
and academic programmes in the US, such as The New School Project in North Carolina
and Concordia University’s M.Ed. in STEAM education. Concordia University’s teacher
education programme on STEAM education offers major courses such as Foundation of
STEAM Education, STEAM Integration in K-12, From Theory to Practice: Developing
STEAM-Enhanced Curriculum, and STEAM Program Leadership (Concordia University,
2019).
There are several other STEAM programmes for students and teachers organized by
different consultancies, institutions, and organizations. For example, The Franklin Insti-
tute organized the Philadelphia Science Festival from 26 April to 4 May 2019. The STEAM
engagement was one of the critical features of this festival with a vision ‘Science is an art and
art is a science’ (The Franklin Institute, 2019, n.p.). The other active STEAM programmes
are – Brown STEAM at Brown University, MIT STEAM at Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, RISD STEAM at Rhode Island School of Design, Yale STEAM at Yale University,
BU STEAM at Boston University, Rutgers STEAM at Rutgers University, and Harvard
STEAM at Harvard University (https://steamwith.us/index.html). These are university-
based STEAM enrichment programmes mostly run by student bodies with the support
of respective institutions.
Some STEAM programmes are focused on school education. For example, Discovery
Education, a division of Discovery Communications, launched a three-year STEAM with
New York’s Mt. Vernon City School District. This programme aimed to bring a ‘high-
quality STEAM learning experiences to K-12 classrooms with a plan for developing the
2928 S. BELBASE ET AL.

integrated curriculum for the new Mt. Vernon STEAM Academy’ (Discovery Education,
August 2, 2018, n.p.). These activities and initiatives demonstrate the popularity of STEAM
education. It is further evident in the National Art Education Association’s (NAEA’s)
recent position statement on STEAM in which it clearly outlines that ‘the infusion of art and
design principles, concepts and techniques into STEM instruction and learning’ (NAEA,
2014, para. 1; as cited in Liao, 2016, p. 45). In its position statement, NAEA (2014) further
elaborated its fundamental beliefs toward STEAM education. These beliefs outline the core
values of transdisciplinary STEAM education in terms of approach to implement, focus on
creativity and innovation, and rigour of such pedagogy or programme to enhance students’
learning experiences through visualization of abstract concepts with dynamic visualization
(Castro-Alonso et al., 2015).
China, South Korea, and Singapore are some of the other countries that they already
initiated STEAM education in schools either as embedded in regular curricula or as an
enrichment programme. In this context, South Korea has implemented STEAM education
in elementary and middle schools. The programme is expected to solve the curricular and
pedagogical problems in maths, science, engineering, and arts education in South Korea
(Ministry of Education and Science Technology, 2010; as cited in Kim & Lee, 2015). The
new STEAM education in South Korea aims to develop students’ problem-solving, con-
vergence thinking, and collaborative culture to increase student interest in math, science,
engineering, arts, and technology (Kim & Lee, 2015). Likewise, several Singapore schools
have initiated STEAM education through Applied Science Centre. Ministry of Education
of Singapore has planned to implement this programme in all primary level classes in Sin-
gapore by 2023 (MoE Singapore, 2019). Several schools have already implemented Applied
Learning Programs in the areas of applied science, engineering and robotics, environ-
mental science and sustainable living, food science and technology, health science and
technology, ICT and programming, material science, simulation and modelling, transport
and communication, language, humanities, business and entrepreneurship, aesthetics and
interdisciplinary (MoE Singapore, 2019).
Some mathematics and science educators seem to embrace STEAM education in their
classroom teaching of respective subjects through integration of math and science lessons
with engineering and other disciplines, including arts (Bush & Cook, 2019b; Smith et al.,
2015). Smith et al. (2015) discussed a lesson in mathematics that had STEAM concepts
behind a motion-controlled game. The game integrated the idea of angles and measure-
ments, science of colours and movements, and designs of the game. They incorporated the
Common Core Standards and Next Generation Science Standards and the art of playing
the game to get different colours and angles from the sensors and light beams.
The above-mentioned STEM/STEAM initiatives across the globe signify a movement
toward new direction through integrated or amalgamated pedagogy for meaningful teach-
ing and learning of different disciplines together. These initiatives have redefined the
purpose of education within the STEAM field and beyond.

4.1.2. Purpose of STEAM education

The Department of Education of Western Australia (2019) states that ‘through STEM, stu-
dents develop key skills including problem-solving, creativity, critical analysis, teamwork,
independent thinking, taking the initiative, communication, and digital literacy’ (n.p.).
These skills are necessary for students to be successful in their future careers. Although
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2929

STEM education empowers students with the various technical and practical skills to suc-
ceed, however, these disciplinary skills are not sufficient to adapt to a fast-changing world
(Sousa & Pilecki, 2013). The skills learned today will soon be outdated due to fast-changing
technology, industries, and other societal aspects. The jobs seen today may no longer exist
after a few years, or at least it will not be sufficient with the same skill level that can be per-
formed at the moment. In this context, ‘we are preparing students for jobs that even don’t
exist at the moment’ (EducationCloset, 2019, n.p.). In this sense, we are at a critical point
of time to educate children in a learning environment that is more dynamic, flexible, and
relevant for the future. Therefore, STEAM education is considered as one of the options
to enhance the creativity of students through ‘integrating concepts, topics, standards, and
assessment in a powerful way to disrupt the typical course of events for our students and
help change the merry-go-round the school’ (EducationCloset, 2019, n.p.).
One of STEAM education’s key concepts is student creativity through the arts and design
and humanities that may help students in a deeper understanding of other subjects, such
as maths and science (Rabalais, 2014). Therefore, the principles that drive STEAM edu-
cation are based on ‘a natural and creative view of the world to compete in the global
market of the twenty-first century’ (Sousa & Pilecki, 2013; as cited in Rabalais, 2014, p.
5). The integration of the art and its creativity in STEAM pedagogy may help students
explore transdisciplinary knowledge and skills, but it may also open up chances to develop
their multiple intelligences by fostering learning with motivation and problem-solving
(Bush & Cook, 2019a; Rabalais, 2014). Therefore, scholars of STEAM education believe
that such pedagogy and curriculum can improve student performance when the meth-
ods of arts and designs are integrated into STEM (Rabalais, 2014). Such arts may not be
limited to just creative arts of drawing, painting, sculpturing, composing music, or per-
forming dance or drama. It may also extend to language arts and humanities for creative
and meaningful expressions and applications of engineering, math, and science (Baines,
2015). The fact is that blending of art and STEM into STEAM offers student experiences
that are both inspirational and integrated. Additionally, STEAM education also expects to
create an individual who would be more inquisitive, persistent, imaginative, disciplined
and collaborative (Cultural Learning Alliance, 2015).
The purpose of integrating the arts and design and humanities into the STEM field
is to create a new programme STEAM for embracing the beauty of working with cre-
ative designs to solve real-world problems. The STEAM students also learn to embrace
emotion as an integral factor in human life within uncertainty (Bailey, 2015) to foster
innovation and gain twenty-first-century skills (Costantino, 2017). While going through
STEAM learning, students may use their creativity and critical thinking to design inno-
vative products, solve complex problems and find new methods for sustainable economic
growth by keeping humanity at the centre (Costantino, 2017). Therefore, the primary pur-
poses of STEAM education are to promote arts-based learning, help students be creative
and collaborative, focus on problem-solving through exploration and experimentation,
and discover new skills, methods, and approaches to deal with real-world challenges (Perig-
nat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2017). Even the business and industry are looking for engineers
and technicians who are creative in problem-solving and innovative thinking with the
integration of the arts and other disciplines (Taylor & Taylor, 2018).
To achieve the purposes mentioned above, Jolly (2014) proposes to shape the STEAM
programmes by exploring new opportunities and possibilities where the concepts of the
2930 S. BELBASE ET AL.

arts naturally fit in the areas of STEM disciplines. While developing the STEAM pro-
grammes, the arts can be considered one of the applied disciplines of science and engi-
neering through the application of design thinking and modelling (Jolly, 2014). At the
same time, the purpose of STEAM pedagogy should be to apply the principles of the arts
and design to teach and learn mathematics, science, and engineering with the applica-
tion of new technology wherever possible in real situations (Jolly, 2014). An alternative
approach can be an application of ethnocomputational creativity in STEAM education with
culturally relevant pedagogy (Bennett, 2016).

4.1.3. The benefits of STEAM education

STEAM approach to teaching-learning has many advantages in terms of – the mean-
ingful engagement of students and teachers in activities, a real-life connection of maths,
science, technology, and engineering through arts and designs, authentic experience of
teaching-learning in the context, and continuous learning through experiments on new
ideas and things. These activities serve as the foundations of innovative minds/brains for
the future (EducationCloset, 2019). The STEAM pedagogy provides students the cogni-
tive and meta-cognitive tools to explore creative methods of problem-solving. ‘The STEM
subjects naturally complement and inform each other, so implementing STEAM principle
into education allows for more understanding, innovation, and a cohesive education in the
classroom’ (All Education Schools.com, 2019, n.p.).
When the Art (A) is integrated with STEM to form STEAM as a new curricular approach
of maths, science, engineering, art, and technology at one platform with resources com-
bined together, it promotes students’ learning through visualization of STEM concepts
through the viewpoint of the arts (Jolly, 2014). This process takes them out of the narrowly
conceived disciplinary knowledge to a broader perspective and possibility (Liao, 2019).
Then, one of the greatest achievements of STEAM education is that it promotes students’
thinking-outside-the-box. Students feel empowered with a new vision of interdisciplinar-
ity (Ministry of Education, New Zealand, 2019). While grounding STEAM learning into
the local context, students learn the content and process, but they also embrace empathy
and a sense of support to each other in the community of learners (Bush & Cook, 2019a,
2019b). Students may gain a better understanding of science and mathematics concepts,
which enhanced both cognitive and affective gains (Kang, 2019). Another important aspect
of STEAM is collaborative work: not within students but also in between teachers. Collab-
orative nature in STEAM lesson allows each student to share ideas and experiences in class,
resulting in enhanced lessons and shared knowledge. Moreover, collaboration between
interdisciplinary teachers helps relieve some of the pressure of developing lessons in iso-
lation, thereby providing an atmosphere of creativity and innovation within the teachers’
community (Doniger, 2018).
STEAM education can be adapted to school and higher education to transform the edu-
cation system to cope with the challenges of the twenty-first century and beyond. These
challenges are accelerating at a rate that is beyond imagination. For example: What will
happen to the earth in the next 50 years if deforestation continues at a rate that is going on
now? What will be the population mix of a country in the next 50 years? What will be the
weather pattern? What will happen to the polar ice? What will happen to many species that
are on the verge of extinction? What will be the geography of the countries? What kind of
international relations will prevail in the next fifty years? These are not the questions for just
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2931

a particular discipline. These are also some challenges that have been faced by humanity.
Therefore, education in schools or higher education level should embrace these challenges.
In this regard, the integrated STEAM education approach can be a hope for the future.
Even though STEAM is yet at its initial phase, it may grow with more educational insti-
tutions adopting/adapting its principles in the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. As
new waves of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinary concepts have emerged with spatial
humanities geographical information system (GIS) (Travis, 2019), STEAM approach to cli-
mate change (Ludlow & Travis, 2019), collaborative research in arts and biology (Dumitriu,
2019), art and writing in STEAM (Stroud & Baines, 2019), to name a few initiatives in this
direction. These initiatives aim to benefit humanity with a better understanding of the
challenges and ways to overcome them in the future.

4.2. Priorities of STEAM education

The analysis of several kinds of literature on STEAM education demonstrated the impor-
tance of this field to have an integrated perspective in education in general and science,
technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics in particular. Therefore, the theme
associated with the importance of STEAM education signified its priority in terms of
integration process and reform in current education through such integration. The sub-
constructs under the theme ‘Priorities of STEAM Education’ were – Curriculum Integra-
tion in STEAM Education and STEAM Education as Curriculum Reform (See Appendix,
Table A2). The first sub-construct highlights the curriculum integration initiatives to
improve teaching-learning for twenty-first-century skills in math, science, engineering, art,
and technology. The second sub-construct focuses on STEAM education in the form of
curriculum reform. However, it is not explicit in the literature, but many scholars hinted it
in STEAM education (e.g. Taylor & Taylor, 2019).

4.2.1. Curriculum integration in STEAM education

When STEAM education emerged as a new version of STEM with the arts and designs inte-
grated with it, there was a need to reform the curriculum and fit in the new paradigm. These
curricular changes affected the traditional school curriculum for mathematics, science,
technology, engineering, and the arts, but it also brought a change in teachers’ professional
development in these areas through curricular integration (Yakman, 2019). A few early
adopters of STEAM approach in the USA include but not limited to are – Andover High
School in Massachusetts, Da Vinci School in California, Drew Charter School in Georgia,
Fisher STEAM Middle School in South Carolina, Quatama Elementary School in Oregon,
and Pulaski Middle School in Virginia (Quigley & Herro, 2019).
In this context, Makerspace has been designed as a new curriculum for teachers’ profes-
sional development in STEAM education (Paganelli & Houston, 2016). The purpose of the
Makerspace curriculum is to impart creative, enthusiastic, and empowering experience.
Other objectives are to promote technical and practical sensibility, passion, motivation,
confidence, and optimism to the world’s future through sustainable actions (Paganelli &
Houston, 2016). The Makerspace curricular model uses five domains of activities. The first
activity is iPlay Robots (primary coding fun) to help teachers learn the basics of coding
while playing robots. The second activity is Story Starters (Legos and Language Arts) to
use models to create and share stories. The third activity is Makerspace Playbook (DIY
2932 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Materials and Makerspace), which integrates arts and design with science and math to con-
struct playbooks. The fourth activity is to design Musical Makerspace (Musical Instrument
Creation) by integrating music, science, and technology. The final activity is Desktop Math-
ufacturing (Electronic Cutter and Tessellations) to integrate mathematics concepts with
the arts and technology (Paganelli & Houston, 2016). These activities integrate STEAM
disciplines to develop multiple intelligence of the participants.
STEAM curriculum integration in different countries (e.g. the USA, Korea, Singapore,
and countries in Europe and Africa) is steadily increasing, with more schools participating
in such reform initiatives. In this context, private consultancies and companies have been
engaged in the process with the governments and schools. For example, Casio America,
Inc. has been dedicated to improving the STEAM education through developing student-
friendly devices to integrate and learn math, science, and the arts (PR Newswire, 2016) with
flexibility in the content organization and the teaching-learning process (Bush & Cook,
2019a). Similarly, Texas Instruments and European Schoolnet, with the support of Scientix,
jointly conducted a study particularly on STEM education policies and STEM teachers’
practices, with a focus on 14 European countries (European Schoolnet, 2018).
With the STEAM integrated curriculum, students are encouraged to work with peers
or in a team, taking responsibility for team engagement with cooperative learning through
creativity and innovation based on the concept of life-long learning (People’s Daily, August
23, 2018). The students in the classroom may form a learning community that contin-
uously collaborates throughout the year to strengthen group cohesion with responsibility
and collective accountability. Similarly, a group of teachers may create a professional learn-
ing community (PLC) within a school or neighbouring school to interact and improve the
integration of the STEAM curriculum more effectively from a systems approach (Martinez,
2017). Such a combination may promote diversification of pedagogical approach (Yakman,
2019).
Quigley and Herro (2019) proposed a conceptual model of the integrated STEAM cur-
riculum. They used connected learning theory to expand the model, suggesting why and
how teachers might approach the integrated instructional practices. The STEAM con-
ceptual model focuses on the classroom environment that teachers create and how they
integrate the contents and skills (Quigley & Herro, 2019). Quigley and Herro (2019)
further suggested a problem-based approach with authentic tasks, multiple solutions,
student choice, technology integration, teacher facilitation, discipline integration, assess-
ment in the STEAM classroom, and student learning in the STEAM classroom. While
students are engaged in such activities, teachers should facilitate students’ learning by
integrating problems and methods across the disciplines. Finally, the assessment of stu-
dents’ learning should largely be embedded in each step of what they do, how they
do, and what courses of actions they perform to reach their final solution (Quigley &
Herro, 2019).
Discovery Education, a division of Discovery Communications, began a three-year
partnership with New York’s Mt. Vernon City School District (MVCSD) for bringing high-
quality STEAM learning experiences to K-12 classrooms with a plan for developing the
curriculum for the new Mt. Vernon STEAM Academy (Discovery Education, August 2,
2018). Supported by Discovery Education’s STEM/STEAM experts, the MVCSD team
created a new curriculum focusing on interdisciplinary, standards-based, and thematic
real-world learning. This effort empowered the MVCSD’s new curriculum and extended
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2933

engaging STEM/STEAM learning opportunities to students across the district by using

Discovery Education’s digital and professional learning services (Discovery Education,
August 2, 2018).
Bush and Cook (2019a) collaborated with elementary science and mathematics con-
tent specialists, a mathematician, a biologist, a state science centre, a centre for performing
arts, and an art museum to be involved in a STEAM project funded by a Mathematics
Science Partnership (MSP). The project included five schools and twenty-five elemen-
tary teachers, five STEAM instructional coaches, and administrators of the five schools
to create professional learning communities (PLCs). The project focused on the mean-
ingful integration of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and
the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to make a meaningful connection to art
and technology standards (Bush & Cook, 2019a) while participating teachers in profes-
sional development sessions for implementing STEAM in their classroom practices with
integrated curricular approach.

4.2.2. STEAM education as curriculum reform

There are several logics in favour of the STEAM curriculum and pedagogy. Some argue
that the multidisciplinary integration of maths, science, engineering, and technology with
the arts is a staple of the current educational reform. In contrast, others consider that trans-
disciplinary STEAM education boosts teacher morale and student achievement (Rabalais,
2014). At the same time, there is a continued pressure on schools to enhance their stu-
dents’ learning and development in maths, science, engineering, the arts, and technology
to ensure that the school curricula are best matched for the multifaceted potential of all
children to grow all possible ways (Welch, 2011). Therefore, education leaders and scholars
called for a balanced approach to teaching and learning of the arts, design, and humani-
ties together with STEM (Quigley & Herro, 2019). Because of such demand and pressure
to improve school education for creativity and innovation at the centre of all curricular
activities, there is a growing trend toward offering STEAM education as a new curricular
approach (Quigley & Herro, 2019; Yakman, 2019).
Some scholars and education leaders view that interdisciplinary collaboration is the best
practice for arts-integrated education to promote students’ learning with creativity, col-
laboration, perseverance, and connection to the future. For a meaningful collaboration,
the art and design educators should come together with other educators from maths, sci-
ence, engineering, and technology to determine the approach to integrate the arts with
STEM to create the STEAM curricula. The arts and STEM teachers should not hesitate
to share their disciplinary knowledge, skills, and values and learn from each other (Liao,
2016). That means teachers’ creativity and method of designing and problem solving may
affect their peers and then students’ learning. This view is supported by Harris and de
Bruin (2018) when discussing and comparing student creativity and teacher practice in
STEAM education in secondary schools in Australia, the USA, Canada, and Singapore.
Their study focused on how creativity is understood, negotiated, valued, and manifested
in secondary schools, focusing on teacher and student understandings, actions, bene-
fits, and implications to creative and critical thinking (Harris & de Bruin, 2018) and
that may help students realize how concepts are connected and relate to understand-
ing a phenomenon from a holistic perspective. This learning experience makes learning
more engaging, authentic, lasting, and meaningful for students (Kim & Bolger, 2016).
2934 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Therefore, the STEAM approach extends to language arts with other areas of humanity and
social science to maths, science, engineering, and technology through transdisciplinary
discourse with new semiotics, artifacts, and mediations (Babaci-Wilhite, 2019; Mchombo,
2019). This initiative can be considered a form of curriculum reform through the STEAM
approach.
The Ministry of Education of South Korea has strongly emphasized the importance
of STEAM education in the National Curriculum. It has directed educational institutions
and schools to ensure a direct connection of STEAM learning to the planning of each and
every classroom lesson. In such planning, it is mandatory for the schools to include at least
20% of STEAM-related content in science, mathematics, technology, home economics, and
music and art classes (Park et al., 2016). The government of South Korea developed all the
teaching-learning materials for STEAM education. It distributed it to the schools across
the country so that teachers don’t need to spend too much time preparing such materials
themselves (MoE, 2011; as cited in Park et al., 2016).
Among several STEAM initiatives in the US, one of them at Clemson Univer-
sity provides certification in STEAM education. For this purpose, The South Carolina
Department of Education and Commission on Higher Education officially approved
the Clemson University College of Education’s STEAM education endorsement (Sta-
ton, 2017). Clemson University has collaborated with the local school district and
schools to launch several STEAM projects for teachers and students. For example, Bosch
Community Fund STEAM Expert Teachers aims to engage middle school teachers to
integrate project-based learning and STEAM lessons in classroom teaching of mathe-
matics, science, and technology. They have another project, ‘STEAM: Transdisciplinary
Teaching and Learning Practices for Middle School Teachers’, that engages the middle
school teachers to implement STEAM-based pedagogy focusing on student engagement
and content understanding. These are some examples among several other STEAM-
related projects the university has launched to reform STEAM education (Clemson
University, 2019). These initiatives are expected to have a lasting impact on the train-
ing and development of STEAM-related workforce needs in the state and the region
(Staton, 2017).
The initiatives mentioned above in the STEAM education demonstrate that many
schools, school districts, universities, and the governments emphasized the STEAM inte-
grated approach as a way to reform curricula for the twenty-first-century knowledge, skills,
and values among the students.

4.3. STEAM education as a process

The literature review on STEAM education yielded several concepts associated with teach-
ing, learning, and assessment processes. Therefore, the theme ‘STEAM Education as a
Process’ was created to integrate those concepts together into meaningful constructs and
sub-constructs. The sub-constructs under the theme ‘STEAM education as a Process’
were – STEAM Pedagogical Process and Assessment in STEAM Education (Table A3 in
Appendix). The first sub-construct highlights the STEAM education process in terms of
the teaching-learning process in STEAM education with a transformative goal of educa-
tion. The second sub-construct, ‘Assessment in STEAM Education’, outlines assessment
practices in STEAM education.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2935

4.3.1. Pedagogical process in STEAM education

The scholars of STEAM education integrate the arts in the instruction of maths, science,
engineering, and technology, and they combine these STEM disciplines into the arts. These
processes are linked to cognition and meta-cognition to improve instruction (Dori et al.,
2018). These scholars also claim that the integrated approach has been influential in raising
the students’ achievement levels. Therefore, many educational institutions, such as techni-
cal colleges and high schools, have introduced the arts into their curriculum, coursework,
and assessments (Rabalais, 2014). While doing this, they apply project-based learning
(PBL) as a viable means to challenge twenty-first-century learners (Rabalais, 2014). They
believe that PBL, combined with transdisciplinary knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values,
develops students’ ability to solve problems with a greater focus, variety, more profound
curiosity, and self-directed learning opportunities (Rabalais, 2014). Another point that
makes PBL a more robust approach is that it offers students a broader understanding of
what they are doing through PBL with optimal thinking than just knowledge of what is
going on (Connor et al., 2015).
The proponents of STEAM education strongly favour PBL. However, it may not be
feasible to convert every STEAM lesson into PBL. Another preferred option is to create
problem-solving scenarios in which students get a context with foregrounded problems.
Then they use their creativity and critical thinking in collaborative ways using group
dynamics to initiate the problems, reword them, plan the course of actions with alterna-
tives, and examine each option. While doing this, the student groups integrate ideas from
various disciplines (Crippen & Antonenko, 2018). Some scholars think from an art per-
spective, and others feel from the engineering design viewpoint. The problem-context is
examined not only from purely technical or scientific rationale but also from the soci-
etal and another humanitarian point of view by connecting the problem to the real-world
(Quigley & Herro, 2019). These activities should be conducted in the classrooms from an
early age so that the children see the world as an enjoyable place and a place with prob-
lems to be resolved. They become curious to understand the issues, think of the causes and
consequences, and are exposed to the potential courses of action to address them by using
knowledge and skills in maths, arts, science, and engineering (Bailey, 2015).
One of the most critical things in STEAM education is creating an understanding of
the arts and other STEM fields with both emotional appeal and cognitive feel. Students
value them as crucial elements of learning any area, be it technical or non-technical (Bai-
ley, 2015). In this context, the arts provide students a moment to celebrate what they
contributed in the class; they get encouraged with what they can offer to other students’
learning. They embrace the creativity with originality in their performance or actions of
learning (Bailey, 2015). Students can reach an extraordinary learning experience from
day-to-day life out-of-the-ordinary experiences (Bailey, 2015). This way, the arts educa-
tion methods may have a substantial impact on the STEAM programme through humility,
creativity, and contextual PBL activities (Rabalais, 2014). While doing this, it would be
imperative to design and conceive a signature pedagogy in the arts and design integrated
with maths, science, engineering, and technology. The signature pedagogy should embrace
the three essential areas in STEAM education – the critical making of projects and object-
based learning from the real-world problems, critique the ideas related to the projects and
designs, and bring every project into an exhibition for others to observe, learn and critique
(Costantino, 2017). The fact is that STEAM pedagogy can inform primary, secondary, and
2936 S. BELBASE ET AL.

tertiary education to promote the values of developing creative pedagogies for twenty-first
century learning (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017).
The STEAM education promotes integrative instruction that is referred to as a cross-
curricular and interdisciplinary curricular and pedagogical approach. It also assumes
multidisciplinary teaching is guided by the distributed intelligence approach (Rabalais,
2014). For such an extraordinary method, institutions are now incorporating arts with
STEM systematically in such a way that the arts inform STEM and get informed and
supported by the STEM, it increases the opportunities for deeper meaning and aesthetic
learning. Together with the arts, the STEM disciplines may offer students higher-level
thinking (Rabalais, 2014). The infusion of art into STEM not only improve the cognitive
scores but also it likely improves the PISA score with inclusion of problem-solving element
alongside English, Math and Science (CLA, 2015). The integration of the arts in engineer-
ing pedagogies transforms the process to be more inductive. Students are engaged to move
both way didactics from theory to a problem and from a problem to the theory (Connor
et al., 2015). In such a situation, engineering education, together with other STEAM fields,
can be promoted with project-based learning (PBL) with the integration of design think-
ing and the arts into engineering or other design science. The fundamental point of PBL
is that it embraces learning by doing a project by the students in collaboration and inquiry
on a real-life problem (Connor et al., 2015). Such projects can be related to a task where
students perform in any discipline related to daily-life issues (Connor et al., 2015).
Hetland et al. (2013) discussed four learning pathways in visual art education. The first
one is demonstration-lecture in which the teacher may demonstrate a particular work of
art as an icebreaker to start a discussion. The demonstration lecture may have a series
of explanations of any object or phenomenon together with a demonstration. Then, the
teacher may provide students a task based on the demonstration. Students are on task, and
this phase is student-at-work. The third stage in the pathway is a critique in which students
play the role of a critical friend to comment on each other’s work. Then, finally, the students
are ready to exhibit what they have accomplished in the exhibition phase. Such a pedagog-
ical framework supported by the combination of theory-practice transition is a productive
model in STEAM education (Costantino, 2017). This model can be further integrated with
the South Korean model in a combination of creative design, emotional touch, and con-
vergence of the STEAM contents (Park et al., 2016). This pedagogical approach may help
students to visualize knowledge and skills beyond all the disciplines. This kind of vision
helps students think outside the box, fostering innovative thinking (Liao, 2016). Creativity
through the STEAM pedagogical approach is one of the most critical skills for students
in the twenty-first century (Liao, 2016). This view also integrates design thinking as an
essential skill that encourages students to be innovative (Liao, 2016). Therefore, the cur-
rent motion in favour of STEAM pedagogical process through arts-integration has been
accepted to support integrated learning with an agenda of design thinking to elevate the
collective importance of all STEAM subjects (Liao, 2016).
Mathematics teachers and educators seem to be cautious when implementing the
STEAM education perspective, especially in mathematics lessons (Bush et al., 2016). Bush
et al. (2016) emphasized design thinking stages of empathizing, defining, ideating, pro-
totyping, and testing. Students were engaged in designing a prosthetic arm and hand for
a child who was born without a hand. While students accomplish their projects through
the integration of science of design thinking, engineering, and arts with mathematics, the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2937

researchers advocated an explicit focus on mathematics (M) while dealing with STEAM.
They feared that science and engineering or arts might overshadow mathematics, and stu-
dents may not learn mathematical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving rigorously
(Bush et al., 2016). However, they suggested that STEAM projects should be designed in
such a way that critical thinking and mathematical reasoning should be made explicit in
the context of science and engineering. For them, mathematics should be an integral part of
designing and implementing the STEAM education projects so that students are engaged in
grade-appropriate content and process standards for both mathematics and science (Bush
et al., 2016).
Therefore, STEAM pedagogy is an integrated approach to teaching and learning of
maths, science, engineering, arts, and technology which demands a broader framework of
instruction that engages students in service-learning from a context, experiential-learning
by doing things, project-based learning by designing and implementing projects related
to real-world, and inquiry learning that incorporates identification of problems, design-
ing solutions through experimentation, and testing the designs (Martinez, 2017). Such
approaches fulfil the immediate cognitive demands and integrate social and economic
aspects in the long run. Therefore, STEAM pedagogy aims to focus on developing a com-
petent workforce for the twenty-first-century market, industry, and society in general
(Culen & Gasparini, 2019; Martinez, 2017). The current conception of STEAM pedagogy
focuses on several skills integrated into a performance that solves real-world problems,
presents mathematical and scientific propositions into viable models, transforms engi-
neering designs into arts and arts into aesthetics with deeper cultural meaning and values
(Johnson, 2019). Therefore, the work of arts transcends mathematics and sciences to a
deeper understanding. Math-science together embraces the arts to promote it through a
scientific and logical structure or pattern (Johnson, 2019). Hence, the pedagogical process
in STEAM education is a symbiosis of the individual disciplines so that they inform each
other through cross-disciplinary activities (Johnson, 2019).

4.3.2. Assessment in STEAM education

Research has shown a strong correlation between students’ involvement in the arts and
their performance in maths and science, especially those students who are labelled at-risk
(Rabalais, 2014). The at-risk students who participated in extracurricular arts programmes
performed better than their counterparts in mathematics (Rabalais, 2014). In many places
of the world, assessment in mathematics and science is still driven by rote memorization
and routine problem-solving. For example, Park et al. (2016) reported that mathemat-
ics and science assessment is promoting rote memorization in schools in South Korea.
They claimed that the problem is due to the lack of diversity in instructional methods.
In the past, mathematics did not use hands-on activities and inquiry-based teaching and
learning. The mathematics and science teachers did not connect pedagogy to the daily-life
contexts. Therefore, the learning of mathematics and science was not effective. The gov-
ernment increased the efforts to reform school maths and science in South Korea (Park
et al., 2016). For example, the Ministry of Education of South Korea announced the first
National Mathematics Education Advanced Plan in 2012, which laid a foundation for
reforming Korean school mathematics, both pedagogy and assessment. Then, the South
Korean Government launched the second Mathematics Education Comprehensive Plan
2015 to enhance STEAM education. These plans were introduced to implement integrated
2938 S. BELBASE ET AL.

interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary education, such as STEM/STEAM education (Park

et al., 2016). Subsequently, new assessment practices have been implemented to match the
change of curriculum and pedagogy.
Herro et al. (2017) constructed a tool for assessing student learning and development
through STEAM instruction and activities of Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). Their
Co-Measure as a tool for assessing students’ CPS includes five dimensions – peer interac-
tion, positive communication, inquiry rich/multiple paths, authentic approach and tasks,
and transdisciplinary thinking. The authors claimed that this tool could be used for self
and peer assessment during CPS activity in STEAM instruction (Herro et al., 2017). The
first dimension, peer interaction, involves – monitoring tasks with peers, negotiating roles,
diving tasks among members, checking for understanding, and providing peer feedback.
The second dimension, positive communication, includes respecting others’ ideas, using
socially appropriate language and behaviour, listening to others, and taking turns. The third
dimension, inquiry rich/multiple paths, involves – developing appropriate questions and
verifying the information. The fourth dimension, authentic approach, and task involve –
sharing connections, negotiating methods or processes, and using tools collaboratively.
The last dimension, transdisciplinary thinking, includes – discussing the task, activity, and
problems using multiple disciplines, and co-creating products by incorporating ideas from
different disciplines (Herro et al., 2017).
Assessment of student learning in STEAM education is associated with students’ growth
in terms of their learning and development (EducationCloset, 2019). It should be student-
centered through their participation in co-assessing each other’s tasks or projects through
peer-assessment and self-assessment. The STEAM assessment also may focus on connect-
edness, engagement, creativity, and originality through student journaling and portfolios
(EducationCloset, 2019). Such assessment can be diagnostic, formative, and summative
assessments. In project-based learning, students develop a collaborative project that com-
bines academic knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes to investigate a real-world problem
(Wengrowicz et al., 2018). Such projects can be assessed through ‘the incorporation of
peer assessment for team performance and meta assessment for individual performance’
(Wengrowicz et al., 2018, p. 197). Such assessment can be applied in STEAM projects with
the criteria of correctness, completeness, documentation, clarity, and understandability of
project conceptual model and implementation (Wengrowicz et al., 2018). Another model
of student assessment in project-based learning can be an object-process method in which
a project is observed as a graphical-textual model complementing the visual representation
of a complex system (Wengrowicz et al., 2018).
Another approach to the assessment of student learning in STEAM education is either
a holistic approach or a criteria-based approach (Sadler, 2015). The holistic assessment
does not use a set of criteria to assess students’ performance, but the assessor observes the
whole object or action or process. It mostly depends on the holistic effect of the work of
art or design, identifying key features within such object of assessment without using pre-
determined criteria (Sadler, 2015). Whereas, the criteria-based assessment uses a fixed set
of criteria with a systematic or predetermined formal structure (such as a rubric or grad-
ing key) to be used during the assessment (Sadler, 2015). The holistic approach is more
subjective, and the criteria-based seems more objective, although the absolute objectiv-
ity is questionable. Therefore, the assessment practice in STEAM education varies across
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2939

the tasks, nature of problem-solving, and the projects that students accomplish. How-
ever, there is no clarity in the literature on how students’ learning of different disciplines
within STEAM to be assessed at various levels – from understanding, application, analysis,
evaluation, and creation in each subject at a time.

4.4. Problems in STEAM education

The literature review on STEAM education and analysis of related concepts yielded some
constructs and sub-constructs associated with problems/challenges in STEAM Education.
These problems are related to the nature of integration, teacher readiness, institutional
constraints, and classroom-related challenges. The sub-constructs under the theme ‘Prob-
lems in STEAM Education’ are – Critiques against STEAM Education and Challenges of
STEAM Education (See Appendix, Table A4). The first sub-construct highlights differ-
ent types of critiques against STEAM education. The second sub-construct describes the
potential challenges of STEAM education.

4.4.1. Critiques against STEAM education

Some critics of STEAM education argue that uses of arts with STEM in teaching-learning
may take more time away from the scientific exploration of maths, science, technology,
and engineering (Rabalais, 2014). Others believe that STEAM education can be useful, but
there is a lack of expert teachers who understand STEAM education’s nature. Other schol-
ars consider integration unnecessary, which has created more misunderstandings of the
disciplines with STEAM than making it efficient and effective (Kim & Lee, 2015). These
critics consider that wholescale integration has interfered with departmental integrity and
dismantled the stable school structure with a lack of resources. There are severe issues
in planning the instructional models which have challenged the sustainability of STEAM
curriculum and pedagogy (Lederman & Lederman, 2013; as cited in Kim & Bolger, 2016).
Simultaneously, many teachers are underprepared to create materials, plan lessons, and
teach within an interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum (Kim & Bolger, 2016). Furthermore,
there are still issues in defining the meaning of STEAM education because of the terminol-
ogy associated with STEAM such as multi-vocal, multi-perspectival and complex, which
has created a discontent among various stakeholders in regard to the content and manner
of STEAM education in schools (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017).
Some critics believe that the arts can be a distraction or detour of learning maths, sci-
ence, engineering, and modern technology, which may hinder economic growth (Rabalais,
2014). Others believe that art-based reform is a superfluous introduction of aesthetics
in the classroom without looking at how it affects the scientific rationale and integrity
of STEM education (Rabalais, 2014). The critics like the National Heritage Foundation
are more concerned with the abstract concept of the arts that is very broad from music
and drama to the field of highly subjective disciplines of humanities and social sciences
(Rabalais, 2014). Although there is a high temptation to integrate mathematics and science
more closely than other fields in STEAM education, the implementation of such integrated
instruction in the actual classroom is rare in most classes (Bush & Cook, 2019b).
Gary May, Dean of Engineering at Georgia Tech, once stated, ‘The clear value of the art
would seem to make adding A to STEM a no brainer. But when taken too far, this leads to
the general idea of a well-rounded education, which dilutes the essential need and focus
2940 S. BELBASE ET AL.

of STEM’ (Costantino, 2017, p. 2). Similarly, although the advocates of arts integration in
STEM have integrated teaching and learning in mind, critics say that there are drawbacks
of STEAM (Liao, 2016). The first critique is that discussion on integrated teaching may
lead to multiple pedagogical forms leading to the dominance of one form over the others,
such as arts-integration in STEM may overemphasize the value of arts and design without
paying much attention to other areas, such as engineering, maths, and science with equal
rigour (Liao, 2016). This ambiguity causes misunderstanding of the arts integration as it is
referred to as the overuse of the arts in teaching and learning of STEM disciplines that may
not have much merit. This kind of misunderstanding may water down the arts and social
sciences in the classroom practices (Liao, 2016).
Despite many implications of STEAM education for student learning and development
to prepare them with twenty-first-century skills in maths, science, engineering, arts, and
technology, there are critics against it. The critics claim that the pathway to STEAM sounds
exciting. Still, this move can be a dangerous one if it is implemented without a proper
understanding of the subtleties and its intention together with the complexities of its imple-
mentation. The overuse of the arts may take away students’ attention from the STEM
field by weakening the rigour of maths, science, and engineering education (All Education
Schools.com, 2019).
The critiques against STEAM education also originate from the complexities of imple-
mentation in the classroom. A recent report by the British Educational Research Asso-
ciation on STEAM education found some inconsistencies and lack of conceptual clarity
in STEAM terminology, pedagogy, and research. Perignat and Katz-Buonincontro (2019)
claimed that the primary point of confusion might originate from the subject matter of the
arts with the STEM. The issue seems to be the nature of the arts integrated into STEM.
The question is: What form of the arts does it represent? Some scholars consider it is
visual art (painting, drawing, photography, sculpture, media arts, and design), while oth-
ers referred to the variety of arts such as visual, performing (dance, music, theatre), digital
media, aesthetics, and crafts, and still others expand the definition to include the liberal
arts and humanities disciplines (Perignat & Katz-Buonincontro, 2019). Even some educa-
tional leaders, for example, Jay Greene, Head of the University of Arkansas Department
of Education Reform, claim that it can be a mistake to think that integrating the arts into
STEM to preserve arts education. The reports that the integration of the arts into STEM
improved students’ performance may be just a correlation, not causation (Joyner, 2017).
These critical views about STEAM education have been rooted in a situation that there is
little evidence from the empirical studies on the impacts of STEAM education in general
and its implications at different fields of knowledge, practice, and development in particular
(Haesen & Van de Put, 2018).
Mathematics educators seem to be worried that M in STEAM is most often silent
because of the dominance of science or engineering or other aspects in teaching and learn-
ing (Bush et al., 2016; Dardis & Wickstrom, 2019). While students are going through
STEAM activities, they are most often taking mathematics as a tool to work through the
project problems, but not as a context to develop mathematical reasoning and thinking,
and mostly mathematics portion remains as the background (Dardis & Wickstrom, 2019).
Therefore, STEAM activities should be designed in such a way that students don’t lose the
opportunity to reason mathematically and solve problems through the use of mathemat-
ical tools of problem-solving and critical thinking. Otherwise, the pedagogical lubricant
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2941

of STEAM education will dilute the main thrust of mathematics, and possibly science as
well as supporting May’s (2015) views. Adding more disciplines together may increase the
width, but not the depth, and this can mean that we are making each discipline shallow in
knowledge, skill, and experience in the name of integrated transdisciplinary epistemology.
According to Li and Schoenfeld (2019), mathematics knowledge and skill are foundations
to STEM. The idea of mathematical knowledge as a product of other knowledge and expe-
rience does not support the active learning of mathematics (Li & Schoenfeld, 2019). The
reason is that mathematics is considered a subdomain of other disciplines, and there is a
danger that mathematics knowledge is applied just as a tool for different subjects (Li &
Schoenfeld, 2019).
These views discussed above show that there are not only proponents and promoters
of STEAM education, but also, there are careful observations on the outcomes of it. The
critics of STEAM education seem to dislike the idea of putting the arts together with STEM
disciplines. They doubt that such integration has a positive causal effect on students’ learn-
ing and performance in STEM disciplines. These skeptics further created challenges in the
formulation and implementation of STEAM education.

4.4.2. Challenges with STEAM education

There are several challenges in STEAM education. Some of them are related to the teachers’
training to implement the integrated lessons and professional development of teachers to
upgrade the transdisciplinary method and philosophy to translate into classroom teaching
(Herro et al., 2018). This effort requires adequate planning time with the support of quali-
fied personnel. The lack of meaningful collaboration among the departments and colleges
is always a hurdle to arts-based reform (Rabalais, 2014). One of the biggest obstacles in
implementing the arts’ integration across science and maths curricula is the pre-existing
conception of the faculty and students that engineering and arts should/cannot interplay
and support each other (Rabalais, 2014). This view demonstrates a lack of mutual respect
and trust among the faculties across the disciplines. Some faculties in engineering and sci-
ence question the feasibility of using arts for teaching an abstract concept of maths and
science or engineering and vice-versa (Rabalais, 2014). Another challenges of STEAM ped-
agogy is inadequate funding and resources, particularly in developing countries, where
schools even do not have enough books, desk-bench, technological tools and the big class
size. For example, according to the United Nations Development Program, about 113 mil-
lion children worldwide were even out of the access of school system at the end of 2003
because of the poverty. In this regard, integrating STEAM would be extremely challenging
to implement in many underfunded schools in developing countries.
There is also disciplinary egocentrism within the departments and faculties who do
not like to share ideas with the faculty members of other departments. There is also a
lack of student readiness to accept, embrace, and engage in transdisciplinary education
of maths, science, the arts, and engineering with technology. The reasons may be several.
Some staff across the departments are unable or unwilling to learn alternative approaches
and apply to their discipline because they think it is unnecessary due to either negative
relatedness or negative perspective (Connor et al., 2015). The first one is a failure to see the
disciplinary connections leading to the inability to incorporate the new ideas and prac-
tices in one’s teaching. The second reason is having negativism about other views beyond
2942 S. BELBASE ET AL.

one’s disciplinary scope (Connor et al., 2015). These views demonstrate the psychological
challenges of STEAM education.
Other issues are related to modularization and semesterisation in STEAM education
that can be barriers to implement STEAM education due to lack of time for preparation
and training as well as lack of resources to integrate classroom practices (Connor et al.,
2015). Also, there is a lack of consensus about what needs to be integrated when form-
ing STEAM curricula. Should the focus be on the integration of curriculum or method of
teaching or method of learning or collaboration of faculties across disciplines for teaching-
learning and projects? These kinds of confusion arise due to a lack of clear definition and
meaning of STEAM integrated curriculum and pedagogy in substance, not only in the
acronymous form (Falls, 2019). This view leads to confusion in the content integration of
STEAM disciplines. Without content integration, it is almost impossible to implement only
process integration.
There is a challenge of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary collaboration due to both
logistical and intellectual factors. Logistically, it is challenging to build common space with
all kinds of support materials at a place. It is difficult to find even a typical planning time.
Many faculties reported that it complicated the schedule, especially when co-teaching is
required in the same class. The issue further extends to teaching loads within and across
the departments and colleges. There is also a need to negotiate a location for the class that
may be conducive to interdisciplinary learning, as well as the time and days that will fit into
faculty and student schedules from the varied disciplines (Costantino, 2017). The under-
standing of basic interdisciplinary knowledge and skill requirement is another challenge,
because for STEAM pedagogy teachers need to have a wide range of knowledge, which is
not easy for the teachers at least in middle/high school level and beyond.
The departments across the schools and universities have been built with a mindset of
disciplinary curriculum, teaching-learning, research and projects, and assessments. The
traditional institutional structures may pose a challenge to facilitate faculty collabora-
tion (Costantino, 2017). Another challenge may arise from the difference in the nature
of knowledge, philosophy, and paradigms across the disciplines. The contested domains of
knowledge from different disciplines may create confrontational situations in which fac-
ulty members from various departments may argue against each other’s values and beliefs,
making collaboration more complicated or impossible (Costantino, 2017). The partner-
ship at the lower grade levels where the disciplinary boundary is not demarcated can be
more fruitful than the higher level. The disciplinary paradigms may have a different onto-
logical, epistemological, and axiological system of knowledge and knowing leading to a tug
of war between proponents of STEM education and advocates for STEAM lessons (Jolly,
2014). Why experts or scholars of individual disciplines in the Science, Technology, Engi-
neering, Arts, and Mathematics would support and promote STEAM education? NCTM’s
past President Matt Larson’s two views, for example, make sense in this regard. First, sev-
eral jobs require STEM/STEAM skills and the beginning salaries in those professional
fields usually are higher than other jobs. Second, he views that STEM/STEAM advocacy
would also support mathematics education, despite the challenges of effective implemen-
tation that help in meaningful learning of mathematics, science, and other disciplines
(NCTM, 2017).
There are also mismatches between what STEAM teachers believe and what they do in
the classroom. For example, Shin (2013) found that although the majority of South Korean
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2943

teachers (about 65%) agreed on the necessity of STEAM education, only about 18% imple-
mented STEAM lessons in their class (Park et al., 2016). At the same time, on the other
hand, the artistic content in STEAM may not support social justice issues in education
in general and STEAM education in particular. For example, the arts in STEAM does
not represent Black, Latino or indigenous students (Bennett, 2016). It’s hard to believe
how STEAM provides a viable solution to the underrepresented populations’ social and
economic alienation (Bennett, 2016). Therefore, the actual integration of disciplines in
STEAM is a forceful effort to put different things together in baggage where there is no
room for re-adjustments, re-locations, and remedial of shortcomings of each other.
Shaer et al. (2019) highlighted some challenges of STEAM integrated education in
Dubai. These challenges are – integration of different disciplines in curricula due to time
and curriculum constraints, teacher workload, resources in schools, the combination of
technology, and maintaining a balance of curriculum focus of STEAM learning outcomes
(Shaer et al., 2019). These challenges, together with the challenges to meet the requirements
of each domain of knowledge in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics
is a primary concern among all the stakeholders across the nations and education system.
Although many studies showed that teachers value the integration of STEM (without
an A) and showed positive attitudes about its feasibility and efficiency (Berlin & White,
2012; Fong, 2019), other studies showed that teacher may represent a challenge to effective
implementation of STEM. For example, Owens (2014) studied teachers’ perceptions about
STEM implementation focusing on their competencies, and professional development.
Owens reported that teachers most teachers lacked confidence in their knowledge and
abilities to effectively integrate STEM. Teachers felt a need for hands-on training and pro-
fessional development. They also felt that they did not have enough time, leadership, and
proper guidance to integrate STEM effectively. Owens (2014) suggested the need for skilled
STEM leadership that can drive curriculum development, as well as teacher preparation
that supports its implementation. Kubat (2018) on the other hand focused on challenges
of implementation of such class size; too broad curriculum; and teachers lack the needed
knowledge to teach using STEM approach.
STEAM education is a complicated endeavour with many challenges ahead to prepare
teachers, school leaders, university departments, faculty members, cost of integration, and
resources management.

4.5. Implications of STEAM education

STEAM education’s primary impetus comes from the twenty-first-century skills for the
future job market and economy with the ethical use of available natural and other resources.
Unfortunately, many of today’s graduates don’t have these skills that come from across
the disciplines. A unique disciplinary knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes are not con-
sidered enough for a person’s successful career in the twenty-first century. The youths
of tomorrow, who are in schools today, need more in-depth knowledge and skills in
problem-solving, designing, and creating new knowledge with integrated ideas of the arts,
maths, science, engineering, and technology combined together. Without these skills and
expertise, the countries in the world cannot solve the problems and challenges facing
these nations (Jolly, 2014). The implementation of STEAM helps students develop knowl-
edge and a variety of skills such as critical thinking, creative designing, problem-solving,
2944 S. BELBASE ET AL.

and innovating new solutions to current problems, communicating more powerfully to

affect others, collaborating for mutual benefit and trust, and inspiring and developing
entrepreneurship (Jolly, 2014). These skills are possible through the education that inte-
grates knowledge and expertise across the disciplines, that is STEAM education. STEAM
education, collectively, is a synergy to create new models, designs, and technologies as solu-
tions for real-world problems (Jolly, 2014). The fact is that the value of a STEAM education
to students’ future employability seems so compelling that higher education institutions
should start work on integrating STEAM programmes of study without waiting for further
research evidences (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).
The implication of STEM/STEAM educational pedagogy, research, and epistemology
has both local and global implications. The problems facing humanity, such as poverty and
sustainability have local impacts at first that has both economic and environmental impli-
cations (Colucci-Gray, 2020). However, the local catastrophe can be quickly a global one
due to social, political, cultural, and economic networks, such as COVID-19 pandemic.
Although COVID-19 was first found and identified in Wuhan, China on 1 December
2019, but it quickly became global catastrophe within four months when the World Health
Organization (WHO) declared it a pandemic on 11 March 2020 (Liu et al., 2020). This
one example is enough to see how a local issue or problems should not be undermined
because it may turn into a global challenge for the entire humanity. In this context, the
STEM/STEAM education with a broader framework with humanistic and ecological con-
sciousness has ‘significant implications for future-making education in general, and science
education in particular’ (Colucci-Gray, 2020, p. 105).
Campbell (2016) discussed how informal teaching opportunities for preservice teach-
ers was carried out through the STEAM Room project. This project had the objective of
enhancing students’ fluency in maths and science with three priorities. The first priority
was the social aspect of learning through mutual respect and collaboration. The second
element was the professional practice with ethics and resilience. The third priority was the
commercial priorities that focused on the economic values of the community. Campbell
(2016) believed that by incorporating the arts, STEAM brings creativity at the forefront
with an opportunity for wider audiences. The preservice teachers who participated in the
STEAM Room project conducted two workshops in an out-of-school setting so that the
parents could join and watch their children in the activities. The activities that children
were engaged were – Tower of density and can you float a boat? The participants of the
study, preservice teachers, reported that they enjoyed conducting the workshops and felt
that it gave them a boost in confidence going into their final practicum. The workshops also
provided preservice teachers hands-on experience without any pressure of being assessed
and had fun working and networking with like-minded people (Campbell, 2016). That
means the implication of STEAM education is very high in teacher development and train-
ing to prepare them for integrated teaching and learning of maths, science, engineering,
arts, and technology.
STEAM curricula mostly emphasize problem-based learning with inquiry and hands-
on activities. Further, it focuses on a creative inquiry on a problem based on models of
maths, science, and engineering by using technology. With the integration of the arts and
design in STEM disciplines demonstrates a high-quality engagement of students in learn-
ing by doing. This transdisciplinary approach offers a basis for a broad range of possibilities
in STEAM learning. Such learning approach intrinsically shares the common values of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2945

signature pedagogies of transdisciplinary STEAM education (Costantino, 2017), with aes-

thetics, beauty and emotions increasing the accessibility to maths, science, engineering,
and the arts with technology (Bush & Cook, 2019a, 2019b) despite the critics from skep-
tics against it. The STEAM education programme seems to have merit in putting together
theory, method, and practice of science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathemat-
ics at a place while teaching, learning, and researching these disciplines. For example, there
is historical connection between arts, science and mathematics (Gailiunas, 2019), but how
we make such connection in teaching-learning at school and higher level is paramount for
the success of STEAM education.
In the end, we would like to propose a model of STEAM education with Science,
Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics as inter and transdisciplinary research,
pedagogy and epistemology that adds reading and writing as critical skills in education.
The inter and transdisciplinary educational approaches have a significant missing part,
which is a focus on ecological well-being together with humanity for the sake of the collec-
tive well-being of all on the earth in a sustainable way. Humans obtain several material and
non-material benefits from the ecosystems. However, human intervention in the ecosys-
tem may change it to have adversity in the environment, species and ecological health.
We literally viewed that in developing quality of life, schools should also illustrate the
issues related to the natural environment incorporating economic reasoning with sus-
tainability and conservation. Therefore, STEAM education and its processes seem neutral
to humanity or inhumanity, and it focuses on individual and group-benefit through the
exploitation of resources, including humans and nature. The integration of STEAM edu-
cation disciplines should be a cautious movement toward ecological common with an ‘h’
to an acronym STEAM-h, where the ‘h’ stands for humanity to care for environmental
balance for a sustainable future. Therefore, we propose a broader framework of STEAM-h
as alternative thinking for an epistemological movement of science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics through the arts of humanity as a paradigm shift. The A in STEAM
should not be just for the sake of art as an aesthetic, but it should be connected to human-
ity and ecological consciousness (Colucci-Gray, 2020) promoting learning in STEAM-h
for citizenship with ecological entrepreneurship beyond instrumental and economic gain
from the nature and its resources (Koch-Weser, 2015). In this context, STEAM-h can be
an extension of STEAM in the context of humanistic and ecological well-being beyond
scientific and economic gains. Therefore, we recommend STEAM education community
of practitioners and researchers to design and develop ecologically conscious, caring, and
harmonious STEAM-h programmes, policies, and practices.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Professor Peter C. S. Taylor, Murdoch University, for your construc-
tive feedback on this manuscript. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their very
fruitful comments/feedback to bring the manuscript in the current form.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
2946 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Funding
There was no funding from any agency or institution for this work.

ORCID
Shashidhar Belbase http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3722-756X
Bhesh Raj Mainali http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4158-2399
Wandee Kasemsukpipat http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7290-5739
Hassan Tairab http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5217-0533
Munkhjargal Gochoo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-7435
Adeeb Jarrah http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8216-8848

References
All Education Schools.com. (2019). Resources for current and future STEAM educators. https://www.
alleducationschools.com/resources/steam-education/
Aziz, N. A. E. (2015). Egyptian STEAM international partnerships for sustainable development.
International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 5(4), 2656–2660.
https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2015.0361 https://infonomics-society.org/wp-content/
uploads/ijcdse/published-papers/special-issue-volume-5-2015/Egyptian-STEAM-International-
Partnerships-for-Sustainable-Development.pdf
Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (2019). Educational tools to teach STEAM subjects integrating linguistic rights,
collaboration, and critical thinking. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Promoting language and STEAM
as human rights in education (pp. 3–16). Springer Nature.
Badmus, O. T., & Omosewo, E. O. (2020). Evolution of STEM, STEAM and STREAM in Africa: The
implication of the knowledge gap. International Journal of Research in STEM Education (IJRSE),
2(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijrse.v2i2.227
Bailey, C. (2015). An artist’s argument for STEAM education. https://www.modeldmedia.com/fea
tures/artsinSTEM033115.aspx
Baines, L. (2015). The language arts as foundational for science, technology, engineering, art, and
mathematics. In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Emerging technologies for STEAM
education: Full STEAM ahead (pp. 247–258). Springer.
Belbase, S. (2019). STEAM education initiatives in Nepal. The STEAM Journal, 4(1), Article 7.
https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20190401.07
Bennett, A. (2016). Ethnocomputational creativity in STEAM education: A cultural framework for
generative justice. Revista Teknokultura, 13(2), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_TEKN.2016.
v13.n2.52843
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the
integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics,
112(1), 20. https://search-proquest-com.uaeu.idm.oclc.org/docview/914157458?accountid=62
373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00111.x
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. Oxford
University Press.
Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (2019a). Structuring STEAM inquiries: Lessons learned from practice.
In M. S. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM education: Theory and practice (pp. 19–35).
Springer.
Bush, S. B., & Cook, K. L. (2019b). Step into STEAM, grades K-5: Your standards-based action plan
for deepening mathematics and science learning. Corwin, A SAGE Company and NCTM.
Bush, S. B., Cox, R., & Cook, K. L. (2016). A critical focus on the M in STEAM. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 23(2), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.23.2.0110
Campbell, C. (2016). Full STEAM ahead: Creating informal teaching opportunities for pre-service
teachers. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2947

& Teacher Education International conference (pp. 3134–3138). Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE).
Castro-Alonso, J., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). The potential of embodied cognition to improve
STEAM instructional dynamic visualization. In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. M. Spector (Eds.),
Emerging technologies for STEAM education: Full STEAM ahead (pp. 113–136). Springer.
Cevallos, C. B., Alvarado, M. A., & Ladera, C. L. (2019). Quantum computing for undergrad-
uates: A true STEAM case. Latin American Journal of Science Education, 6(22030), 1–16.
https://lajse.org/nov19/2019_22030_2.pdf
Clemson University. (2019). The STEAM collective: An ecosystem to support STEAM learning.
https://www.clemson.edu/steam/ecosystem/
Colucci-Gray, L. (2020). What matters in developing an ecological view through STEAM pedagogies
in science education. In P. Burnard & L. Colucci-Gray (Eds.), Why science and arts creativities
matter: (Re-)configuring STEAM for future-making education (pp. 105–130). Brill Publishing.
Colucci-Gray, L., Burnard, P., Cooke, C., Davies, R., Gray, D., & Trowsdale, J. (2017). Review-
ing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through creative pedagogies
for 21st learning: How can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic,
and inclusive form of education? British Educational Research Association. https://jotrowsdale.
files.wordpress.com/2017/11/bera-research-commission-report-steam.pdf
Committee on STEM (CoSTEM) Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strat-
egy for STEM education. Executive Office of the President of the United States. https://www.
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf
Concordia University. (2019). M.Ed. in curriculum and instruction: Science, technology, engineering,
arts, and mathematics (online brochure). https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/enrollment-assets/
Concordia+University-Portland/MEd/Program+PDFs/Concordia-MEd-C%26I-STEAM-Progra
mInfo.pdf
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for
enhancing engineering and technology education. International Journal for Engineering Pedagogy,
5(2), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458
Costantino, T. (2017). STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design educa-
tion. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.129
2973
Crippen, K. J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2018). Designing for collaborative problem solving in STEM
cyberlearning. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and
culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 89–116). Springer Nature.
Culen, A. L., & Gasparini, A. A. (2019). STEAM education: Why learn design thinking? In Z.
Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Promoting language and STEAM as human rights in education (pp. 91–108).
Springer Nature.
Cultural Learning Alliance (CLA). (2015). STEAM hack, October 2015 blog. Retrieved May 27, 2020,
from https://www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/news/steam-hack-october-2015/
Dardis, E., & Wickstrom, M. H. (2019). Emphasizing the M in STEAM activities. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 25(7), 436–438. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.25.7.0436
Department of Education Government of Western Australia. (2019). What is STEM? https://www.
education.wa.edu.au/what-is-stem
Digital Education Africa Network (DEAN). (2020). Digital STEAM classes in Kenya: Introduction
of digital tools at secondary schools in Kenya. https://www.dean.ngo/ict4e/digital-steam-classes-
kenya/
Discovery Education. (2018, Aug. 2). New York’s Mt. Vernon City School District begins new three-
year partnership with Discovery Education strengthening STEAM/STEM education across the school
system.
Dolberry, M. E. (2015). From “They” science to “Our” science: Hip hop epistemology in STEAM
education [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Washington.
Doniger, T. (2018). Art infusion: Ideal conditions for STEAM. Art Education, 71(2), 22–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1414534
Dori, Y. J., Mevarech, Z. R., & Baker, D. R. (2018). Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM
education: Learning, teaching, and assessment. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.),
2948 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education: Learning, teaching, and assessment (pp.
1–8). Springer Nature.
Dumitriu, A. (2019). Collaborative journey in art and biology. In A. de la Garza & C. Travis
(Eds.), The STEAM revolution: Transdisciplinary approaches to science, technology, engineering,
arts, humanities and mathematics (pp. 91–106). Springer Nature.
EducationCloset. (2019). What is STEAM? https://educationcloset.com/steam/what-is-steam/
Eriksson, L. (2020). Adaptor tiles evolves the Girih tile set. Bridges 2020 Conference Proceedings.
https://archive.bridgesmathart.org/2020/bridges2020-19.pdf
European Committee of the Regions. (2019). Strengthening STE(A)M education in the EU. Opinion
Factsheet, Opinion Number: CDR 6435/2018. https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/Opinion
Timeline.aspx?opId=CDR-6435-2018
European Schoolnet. (2018). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics education policies in
Europe: Scientix observatory report October 2018. https://www.scientix.eu/documents/10137/782
005/Scientix_Texas-Instruments_STEM-policies-October-2018.pdf/d56db8e4-cef1-4480-a420-1
107bae513d5
Falls, Z. (2019). Beyond boundaries: Pre-service teachers’ experiences of transdisciplinary educa-
tion via STEAM making projects. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of the society for information
technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1556–1562). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Fong, H. K. A. (2019). Current math teacher perceptions of STEM careers (Order No. 27539815).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2323549030). https://search-proquest-
com.uaeu.idm.oclc.org/docview/2323549030?accountid=62373
Freeman, M. (2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group.
Gailiunas, P. (2019). Bridges and artists. Bridges 2019 Conference Proceedings. https://archive.bridges
mathart.org/2019/bridges2019-75.pdf
Haesen, S., & Van de Put, E. (2018). STEAM education in Europe: A comparative analysis report.
EuroSTEAM. https://www.eurosteamproject.eu/res/Comparative_analysis_report_vlatest.pdf
Harris, A., & de Bruin, L. R. (2018). Secondary school creativity, teacher practice and
STEAM education: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 153–179.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9311-2
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through pro-
fessional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional Development in Education,
43(3), 416–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507
Herro, D., Quigley, C., Andrews, J., & Delacruz, G. (2017). Co-measure: Developing an assessment
for student collaboration in STEAM activities. International Journal of STEAM Education, 4(1),
26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0094-z
Herro, D., Quigley, C., & Cian, H. (2018). The challenges of STEAM instruction: Lessons from
the field. Action in Teacher Education, 41(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.155
1159
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veneema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits
of visual arts education. Teachers College Press.
Hom, E. J. (2014). What is STEM education? Live Science: Tech. https://www.livescience.com/43296-
what-is-stem-education.htmlHunter
Johnson, G. (2019). The synchronicity of art and mathematics. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Promoting
language and STEAM as human rights in education (pp. 177–188). Springer Nature.
Jolly, A. (2014, Novem 18). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education Week: Teacher.
https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html
Joyner, J. (2017, December 10). UA professor argues support for STEAM education misplaced. Talk
Business and Politics (TB&P). https://talkbusiness.net/2017/12/ua-professor-argues-support-for-
steam-education-misplaced/
Kang, N.-H. (2019). A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM education in South Korea.
Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5, Article No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0034-y
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2949

Kant, J. M., Burckhard, S. R., & Meyers, R. T. (2018). Engaging high school girls in Native American
culturally responsive STEAM enrichment activities. Journal of STEM Education, 18(5), 15–25.
https://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2210/1912
Kathmandu University School of Education (KUSOED). (2018). Curriculum for M.Phil. in educa-
tion: Specialization in STEAM education. https://soe.kusoed.edu.np/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/
MPhil-STEAM.pdf
Khine, M. S., & Areepattamannil, S. (Eds.). (2019). STEAM education: Theory and practice. Springer.
Kathmandu University School of Education (KUSOED). (2019). STEAM education. Program
Brochure. https://soe.kusoed.edu.np/steam-education/
Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2016). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes
about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson plans. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9709-3
Kim, S. W., & Lee, Y. (2015). The analysis on research trends for STEAM education in korea. In
S. Carliner, C. Fulford, & N. Ostashewski (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2015–world confer-
ence on educational media and technology (pp. 1800–1805). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Koch-Weser, M. (2015). Ecological entrepreneurship. In G. Faltin (Ed.), Handbuch entrepreneurship
(pp. 139–154). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04994-2_10
Kruger, D. (2019, February 20). Inspire Africa launches innovative STEAM program for SA schools.
IT News Africa: Africa’s Technology News Leader. https://www.itnewsafrica.com/2019/02/inspire-
africa-launches-innovative-steam-program-for-sa-schools/
Kubat, U. (2018). The integration of STEM into science classes. World Journal on Educational
Technology: Current Issues, 10(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v10i3.3557
Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in
STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s405
94-019-0197-9
Liao, C. (2019). Creating a STEAM map: A content analysis of visual art practices in STEAM edu-
cation. In M. S. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM education: Theory and practice (pp.
37–55). Springer.
Liao, C. (2019). Creating a STEAM map: A content analysis of visual art practices. In S. T. E. A. M.
education, I. M. S. Khine, & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM education: Theory and practice
(pp. 37–55). Springer.
Liu, Y.-C., Kuo, R.-L., & Shih, S.-R. (2020). COVID-19: The first documented coronavirus pandemic
in history. Biomedical Journal, 43(4), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2020.04.007
Ludlow, F., & Travis, C. (2019). STEAM approaches to climate change, extreme weather and socio-
political conflict. In A. de la Garza & C. Travis (Eds.), The STEAM revolution: Transdisciplinary
approaches to science, technology, engineering, arts, humanities and mathematics (pp. 33–66).
Springer Nature.
Martinez, J. E. (2017). The search for method in STEAM education. Palgrave Macmillan.
May, G. S. (2015, March 30). STEM, not STEAM. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/
views/2015/03/30/essay-criticizes-idea-adding-arts-push-stem-education
Mchombo, S. (2019). Vergal arts as culturally relevant pedagogical tools in math/science education.
In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Promoting language and STEAM as human rights in education (pp.
17–38). Springer Nature.
Ministry of Education (MOE, Singapore). (2019). List of schools offering ALP. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/docs/defaultsource/document/education/secondary/applied-learning/list-of-schools-offering
-alp.pdf
Ministry of Education New Zealand. (2019). Future focused learning: STEM/STEAM. http://elearn
ing.tki.org.nz/Teaching/Future-focused-learning/STEM-STEAM
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). The integration of the humani-
ties and arts with sciences, engineering, and medicine in higher education: Branches from the same
tree. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24988.
National Art Education Association (NAEA). (2014, April). Position statement on STEAM edu-
cation. https://www.arteducators.org/advocacy/articles/552-naea-position-statement-on-steam-
education
2950 S. BELBASE ET AL.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2017). Math education is STEM education.
President’s message. https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/
Archive/Matt-Larson/Math-Education-Is-STEM-Education!/
Owens, D. B. (2014). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics education in K-5 schools (Order No. 3708713). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (1691866368). https://searchproquest.com.uaeu.idm.oclc.org/docview/16918663
68?accountid=62373
Paganelli, A., & Houston, C. (2016). Making STEAM across the curriculum. In G. Chamblee & L.
Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education Inter-
national conference (pp. 750–754). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Park, H., Byun, S., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions and practices
of STEAM education in South Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology
Education, 12(7), 1739–1753. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1531a
People’s Daily. (2018, August 23). China’s first STEAM education guidebook published. Benchmark
Information Limited.
Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2017). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strate-
gies to integrate the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2017.130
0970
Perignat, E., & Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2019). STEAM in practice and research: An integrative liter-
ature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
Pico, R. A. (2019). STEAM education K-8 and the role of education professionals: The school coun-
sellors’ role in STEAM program design and implementation. In G. T. Eliason, M. Lepore, J. L.
Samide, & J. Patrick (Eds.), Career development across the lifespan: Counseling for community,
schools, higher education, and beyond (pp. 291–312). Information Age Publishing.
PR Newswire. (2016, August 30). Casio keeps STEAM education top of mind this summer. ProQuest
Central.
Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2019). An educator’s guide to STEAM: Engaging students using real-world
problems. Teachers College Press.
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Baker, A. (2019). Moving toward transdisciplinary instruction: A lon-
gitudinal examination of STEAM teaching practice. In M. S. Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.),
STEAM education: Theory and practice (pp. 143–164). Springer.
Rabalais, M. E. (2014). STEAM: A national study of the integration of the arts into STEM instruc-
tion and its impacts on student achievement [A doctoral dissertation]. University of Louisiana
Lafayette.
RICOH America Latina. (2020). STEAM lab solution: Encouraging children through technology.
https://www.ricoh-americalatina.com/en/industries/k12/steam
Sadler, D. R. (2015). Backwards assessment explanations: Implications for teaching and assessment
practice. In D. Lebler, G. Carey, & S. D. Harrison (Eds.), Assessment in music education: From
policy to practice (pp. 9–20). Springer.
Shaer, S., Zakzak, L., & Shibl, E. (2019). The STEAM dilemma: Advancing sciences in UAE schools – the
case of dubai. United Arab Emirates: Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government (MBRSG).
https://www.mbrsg.ae/getattachment/174c88b2-e633-4dc9-9f9a-a473f6c91892/The-STEAM-
Dilemma-Advancing-Sciences-in-UAE-School.aspx
Shin, J. H. (2013). Survey of primary and secondary school teachers’ recognition about STEAM
convergence education. Korean Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 29–53.
SIEMEN-Stiftung. (2018). STEAM education in Latin America: Two conferences move the issue for-
ward. https://www.siemens-stiftung.org/en/media/news/steam-education-in-latin-america-two-
conferences-move-the-issue-forward/
Siepel, J., Canerani, R., Pellegrino, G., & Masucci, M. (2016). The fusion effect: The economic returns to
combining arts and science skills: R report nesta. Nesta. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_
fusion_effect_v6.pdf
Smith, C. P., King, B., & Gonzalez, D. (2015). The STEAM behind the scenes. Teaching Children
Mathematics, 22(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.22.1.0046
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2951

Sousa, D. A., & Pilecki, T. (2013). From STEM to STEAM: Using brain-compatible strategies to
integrate the arts. Corwin.
Staton, M. (2017, December 5). Clemson introduces the first STEAM education endorsement in the US.
Targeted News Service. https://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediarelations/clemson-introduces-the-
first-steam-education-endorsement-in-the-u-s/
STEAM Foundation NPC. (2020). STEAM foundation activity. https://steamfoundation.org.za/
what-we-offer-2/
Stroud, A., & Baines, L. (2019). Inquiry, investigative processes, art, and writing in ST EA M. In M. S.
Khine & S. Areepattamannil (Eds.), STEAM education: Theory and practice (pp. 1–18). Springer.
Taylor, L., & Taylor, P. C. (2018). Breaking down enlightenment silos: From STEM to STEAM educa-
tion, and beyond. In L. A. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 questions reframing education’s conversation:
Science (pp. 455–472). Peter Lang.
Taylor, P. C., & Taylor, L. (2019, November 2–4). Transformative STEAM education for sustainable
development. Proceedings of the science and mathematics international conference (SMIC), 2018.
UK: Taylor & Francis.
The Franklin Institute. (2019). Philadelphia science festival: The 2019 ST2 EAM projects.
https://www.fi.edu/psf/programs/steam-projects
Travis, C. (2019). Spatial humanities GIS: The city as a literary, historical, and cultural STEAM
lifeworld laboratory. In A. de la Garza & C. Travis (Eds.), The STEAM revolution: Transdis-
ciplinary approaches to science, technology, engineering, arts, humanities and mathematics (pp.
13–32). Springer Nature.
Vanscoder, J. (2014). 3D printing as a tool for teaching and learning In STEAM education. In M.
Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014 – society for information technology & teacher
education international conference (pp. 188–191). Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE).
Welch, G. F. (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
Wengrowicz, N., Dori, Y. J., & Dori, D. (2018). Metacognition and meta-assessment in engineering
education. In Y. J. Dori, Z. R. Mevarech, & D. R. Baker (Eds.), Cognition, metacognition, and culture
in STEM education: Learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 191–216). Springer Nature.
Women Entrepreneur for Africa. (2020). STEAM education & entrepreneurship for African women
& girls. Women Entrepreneurs for Africa. https://weforafrica.org/
Yakman, G. (2019). Why STEAM education? Accessed on December 21, 2019, from https://steamedu.
com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/WhySTEAMshortWebApr2019.pdf
2952 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Appendices

Table A1. Sub-constructs and associated concepts in the Prospects of STEM education
(M = Movement, P = Purpose, and B = Benefit in the codes and related concepts).
Codes and concepts related to prospects of STEM
Education Sub-constructs Related Literature
M1. US Government Report on STEM Education (CoSTEM) STEAM Education CoSTEM (2018), Hom (2014),
M2. Including arts and humanities in STEM Movement Rabalais (2014), Concordia
M3. Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) University (2019), The Franklin
M4. STEAM programmes in the US (e.g. New School Project in Institute (2019), NAEA (2014),
NC) Liao (2016), KUSOED (2018,
M5. The Philadelphia Science Festival 2019 2019)
M6. Student-led STEAM programmes at Universities (e.g.
Rutgers STEAM, Brown STEAM)
M7. STEAM degree programme (e.g. Concordia University
STEAM M.Ed. programme)
M8. Emphasis on STEAM education by the National Art
Education Association (NAEA) in a position statement
M9. M.Phil. in STEAM education at Kathmandu University
School of Education (KUSOED)
M10. Department of Education of Western Australia on STEAM
education
M11. The STEAM curriculum in South Korean Schools
M12. The STEAM education in Singapore schools
P1. twenty-first Century Skills through STEAM education (key Purpose of STEAM Department of Education of
skills) Education Western Australia (2019),
P2. Future-oriented skills through STEAM EducationCloset (2019),
P3. Enhance student creativity through STEAM education Costantino (2017), Jolly (2014),
P4. Developing multiple intelligence through STEAM education Bennett (2016), Rabalais (2014),
P5. Improve student performance in STEM through integration Baines (2015), Bailey (2015),
of the art Perignat and Katz-Buonincontro
P6. New opportunities and possibilities through STEAM (2017)
education
P7. New innovation through STEAM education
B1. Meaningful engagement of students through STEAM Benefits of STEAM EducationCloset (2019), All
education Education Education Schools.com (2019),
B2. Real-life connection of STEAM disciplines Liao (2019), Ministry of
B3. Creative methods of problem-solving in STEAM education Education New Zealand (2019),
B4. New curricular approach to visualize STEM through the arts Bush and Cook (2019a, 2019b),
B5. STEAM education promotes thinking outside the box Travis (2019), Ludlow and Travis
B6. Students embrace empathy and sense of support (2019), Stroud and Baines
B7. STEAM education promotes twenty-first century skills (2019), Dumitriu (2019)
B8. STEAM education promotes transdisciplinarity
B9. STEAM education for climate change
B10. STEAM education connected to humanities, e.g. spatial
humanities
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2953

Table A2. Sub-constructs and associated concepts in the Priorities of STEM education (I = Integration,
R = Reform in the codes and related concepts).
Concepts related to priorities of STEM education Sub-constructs Related literature
I1. STEAM education as a new version of STEM with the arts Curriculum Quigley and Herro (2019), Paganelli
and designs Integration in and Houston (2016), Bush
I2. STEAM curriculum integration in the US (e.g. Andover High STEAM and Cook (2019a, 2019b),
School in Massachusetts) People’s Daily (August 23, 2018),
I3. Makerspace was designed as a new curriculum for teachers’ Martinez (2017), Quigley and
professional development in STEAM education Herro (2019)
I4. Makerspace curriculum is to impart creative, enthusiastic,
and empowering experience.
I5. The Makerspace curricular model used five domains of
activities
I6. STEAM curriculum integration in different countries (e.g. US,
Korea, Singapore)
I7. STEAM education through developing student-friendly
devices to learn math, science and the arts (PR Newswire,
2016)
I8. Flexibility on the content organization and the teaching-
learning process
I9. STEAM integration as a paradigm shift from disciplinary
approach to a transdisciplinary approach
I10. Cooperative learning through creativity and innovation
based on the concept of life-long learning
I11. A systems approach to the integration of STEAM curriculum
I12. STEAM curriculum integration for connected learning
R1. STEAM as a curriculum reform through the multidisciplinary STEAM as Rabalais (2014), Welch (2011),
integration of maths, science, engineering, technology with Curriculum Quigley and Herro (2019), Harris
the arts Reform and de Bruin (2018), Kim and
R2. STEAM as curriculum reform to boost teacher morale and Bolger (2016), Babaci-Wilhite
student achievement (2019), Mchombo (2019), Park
R3. STEAM curriculum reform for the multifaceted potential of et al. (2016), Staton (2017),
all children to grow all possible ways Discovery Education (August 2,
R4. STEAM reform for a balanced approach to teaching and 2018), Bush and Cook (2019a,
learning 2019b)
R5. A growing trend toward offering STEAM education as a new
curricular approach
R6. Creativity is understood, negotiated, valued, and manifested
in secondary schools
R7. STEAM phenomenon from a holistic perspective through
transdisciplinary discourse
R8. The Ministry of Education of South Korea directed at least
20% of STEAM-related contents in science, mathematics,
technology, home economics, and music and art classes
R9. The government of South Korea developed all the teaching-
learning materials for STEAM education
R10. Clemson University provides certification in STEAM
education
R11. Need of skilled STEM workforce to enable knowledge
production and technical breakthroughs for sustainable
economic development
R12. Discovery Education and New York’s Mt. Vernon City
School District partnership for bringing high-quality STEAM
learning experiences to K-12 classroom
R13. Meaningful integration of the Common State Standards
for Mathematics (CCSSM) and the Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS)
2954 S. BELBASE ET AL.

Table A3. The sub-constructs and associated concepts in the STEAM education as a process
(Pd = Pedagogy, and A = Assessment in the codes and related concepts).
Concepts related to transformative process of
STEM education Sub-constructs Related literature
Pd1. STEAM education integrated the arts in the instruction of maths, STEAM Ped- Rabalais (2014),
science, engineering, and technology and integration of STEM agogical Connor et al. (2015),
disciplines into the arts Process Quigley and Herro
Pd2. Apply project-based learning (PBL) as a viable means to challenge (2019), Bailey (2015),
the twenty-first century learner Costantino (2017),
Pd3. PBL in combination with transdisciplinary knowledge, skills, and Connor et al. (2015),
attitudes Hetland et al. (2013),
Pd4. Students think creatively with multiple options to carry on in their Park et al. (2016),
projects with optimal thinking Liao (2016), Martinez
Pd5. Create problem-solving scenarios (2017), Culen and
Pd6. Use creativity and critical thinking in collaborative ways using Gasparini (2019),
group dynamics Johnson (2019)
Pd7. Social and other humanitarian points of views by connecting the
problem to the real-world
Pd8. Emotional appeal and cognitive feel through SEAM
Pd9. Extraordinary learning experience from the day-to-day out-of-
the-ordinary experiences
Pd10. STEAM programme through humility, creativity, and contextual
PBL activities
Pd11. Critical making for object-based learning from the real-world
problems
Pd12. Multidisciplinary teaching guided by the distributed intelligence
approach
Pd13. Deeper meaning and aesthetic learning, higher level thinking
Pd15. Both way didactics from theory to a problem and from a problem
to the theory
Pd16. PBL is that it embraces learning by doing a project by the
students in collaboration and inquiry on a real-life problem
Pd17. Learning pathways in visual art education
Pd18. Combination of creative design, emotionally tough, and
convergence the STEAM contents
Pd19. Think out of the box fostering an innovative thinking
Pd20. Service-learning from a context, experiential-learning by doing
things
Pd21. Transforms engineering designs into arts and arts into aesthetics
with deeper cultural meaning and values
A1. A strong correlation between the student involvement in the Assessment Rabalais (2014),
arts and their performance in maths and science, especially those in STEAM Park et al. (2016),
students who are labelled at-risk Education Herro et al. (2017),
A2. At-risk students who participated in extracurricular arts EducationCloset
programmes performed better than their counterparts in (2019), Wengrowicz
mathematics et al. (2018), Sadler
A3. Rote memorization in STEM assessment (2015)
A4. Construction of a tool for assessing student learning and
development through STEAM instruction and activities of
collaborative problem solving (CPS)
A5. Assessment in STEAM to measure students’ growth (in learning)
A6. Student-centered assessment through peer and self-assessment
A7. Diagnostic, formative and summative assessments in STEAM
A8. Use of STEAM learning progression to map students’ learning
A9. STEAM skills poster may guide teachers and students in assessing
learning and development
A10. Assessment grid for whole class or individual student assessment
in STEAM
A11. Student oriented meta-assessment of students’ projects
A12. Assessment oriented meta-assessment
A13. Organization oriented meta-assessment
A14. Correctness, completeness, documentation, clarity, and
understandability in assessment of the conceptual model and
implementation of the project in PBL
A15. Criteria-Based and holistic assessment
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2955

Table A4. Sub-constructs and associated concepts related to problems in STEAM (C = Critique and
Ch = Challenge in the codes and related concepts).
Concepts related to problems of STEM Education Sub-constructs Related Literature
C1. The arts with STEM in teaching-learning may take more Critiques against Rabalais (2014), Kim and Lee
time away from scientific exploration of maths, science, and STEAM (2015), Kim and Bolger (2016),
engineering Education Rabalais (2014), Bush and Cook
C2. There is a lack of expert teachers who understand the (2019a, 2019b), Costantino
nature of STEAM (2017), Liao (2016), All Education
C3. The integration as unnecessary that has created more Schools.com (2019), Perignat
misunderstandings of the disciplines with STEAM and Katz-Buonincontro (2019)
C4. Integration has interfered with departmental integrity and
dismantled the stable school structure
C5. Severe challenges in planning the instructional models in
STEAM
C6. The arts can be a distraction or detour of learning maths,
science, engineering, and modern technology
C7. The art-based reform is a superfluous introduction of
aesthetics
C8. Integration of the art makes STEAM highly subjective
C9. High temptation but a low implementation an actual
classroom
C10. STEAM is generic idea of a well-rounded education
C11. Overemphasis of the arts and design without paying much
attention to other areas, such as engineering
C12. Dangerous due to poor implementation without a proper
understanding of the subtleties
C13. Inconsistencies and lack of conceptual clarity in STEAM
terminology, pedagogy, and research
Ch1. The challenges of STEAM education are related to the Challenges Rabalais (2014), Connor et al.
training of the teachers to implement the integrated lessons of STEAM (2015), Falls (2019), Costantino
Ch2. Challenge in the professional development of teachers to Education (2017), Jolly (2014), Shin (2013),
upgrade the transdisciplinary method Bennett (2016)
Ch3. One of the biggest obstacles is the pre-existing mentality
of the faculty and students
C4. Lack of mutual respect and trust among the faculties across
the disciplines
Ch5. Disciplinary egocentrism within the departments and its
faculties
C6. Lack of student readiness to accept, embrace, and engage
in transdisciplinary education
Ch7. Negativism about any other views that are beyond one’s
disciplinary scope
Ch8. Modularization and semesterisation in STEAM education
Ch9. Lack of general consensus about what is integrated when
forming STEAM
Ch10. Challenge of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary
collaboration due to both logistical and intellectual factors
Ch11. The difference in the nature of knowledge, philosophy,
and paradigms across the disciplines
Ch12. Mismatches between what STEAM teachers believe and
what they do in the classroom
Ch13. STEAM may not support social justice issues in education