STEM vs. STEAM
 

I have a feeling this will be a hot topic throughout the year, so I'm curious to hear what people think about the inclusion of Art in STEM. With the release of the 2017 FRC game "FIRST STEAMworks", it's pretty clear where FIRST stands on the topic.

I'm personally of the opinion that adding Art to STEM waters things down*. At some point it makes sense to draw the line on the number of topics included or else there is just too much. If you asked people which of the following is not like the other, I'm pretty confident Art would be the most popular choice.

There are also very creative/artistic elements already built into Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Design Engineering is basically using physical principles and creativity to build products to serve a need. The creativity needed to be a design engineer is much like the creativity needed to be an artist. The difference is the application of physics, and math. With that said, where does art fit into STEM?

I'd love to hear what everybody thinks!

*This doesn't mean I don't think there is value in the arts. I absolutely do.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I like it.

I certainly respect your position but I think a lot of people might be turned off to 'STEM' fields because they often feel rigid. Formulas, Standards, Benchmarks, ETC. While there certainly is a need for this I think from the outside STEM fields often don't look that exciting. Including Art could help people look at fields perhaps they overlooked in the past.

Bottom Line: If it helps more students find their passion in life, i'm game.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Agree with this - I think that Art is extremely different from Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths not just in the subject matter, but in the challenges that they face. Many STEM fields have an issue with supply; Art does not. STEM has major challenges with getting women into the field, Art does not. Lumping art in with the others seems disingenuous and turns the acronym into a vague platitude, sort of like a catch all buzzword to advertise programs.

I don't see how throwing Art into what is already a very large list of fields helps students to find their passion. If they are interested in STEM and also into art, students will find ways to combine their interests anyway.

Of course none of this is to diminish the value in arts, just that they should not be included in the STEM acronym as they are important for different reasons.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

An important part of this debate is how we define "Art". In the context of STEAM I personally think that the word "Art" refers to the fine arts, and according to Wikipedia "the fine arts commonly include additional forms [of art], such a film, photography, video production/editing, design, sequential art, conceptual art, and printmaking". Those first three items have been a core part of FIRST for a very long time. Teams have entire sub-teams dedicated to film, photography, and video production. The Chairman's award, the most prestigious award in FIRST, heavily revolves around those three concepts. There are entire competitions within FIRST dedicated to making films and animations. But photography, film, and video development do not fall into the categories of science, technology, engineering, or math. Marketing FIRST solely as a STEM program does not properly include those aspects of FIRST; as more and more teams make the fine arts a more integrated part of their team and culture, and in turn the culture of FIRST, it is important that FIRST accurately markets itself as what it has in store for future innovators.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

We teach how to use a first aid kit to our members. Should we now call it SHTEAM (Science Health Tech Engineering Arts Math)?

Nothing exists in a vacuum. I don't know of anyone who actually thinks the arts are useless, and have zero place in FIRST. The point is what the emphasis of the program is. One of the goals of FIRST is to make scientists and engineers "rock stars." Many artists are already immensely popular, they don't need the extra boost compared to scientists. Sure, Steven Hawking is popular, but honestly, more artists are well known than scientists.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Here's one reason to include the "A".

Let's say that you have two companies, and they're making and selling almost the exact same thing to consumers. Just for the sake of argument, let's go with a toaster. So, two toasters that for all intents and purposes do the exact same thing, same settings, all that sort of thing. BUT! One of the two is "bare-bones"--just has enough "package" to meet safety requirements. The other is "packaged" nicely so that it looks nice, while still being safe.

Which company will sell more toasters, all other things being equal? (Translation: Which company do YOU want to work for? ;))


I'd be willing to bet that that second company sells more toasters, even if the price is slightly higher.


I believe the correct term here is "industrial designer". Basically, someone who can make a product look really good. Now, the engineers know this person as "devil's advocate", because they've got to fit everything in the package that said person creates, and that person knows the engineers as "devil's advocate" because there's always that one thing sticking out that has to be made to look good...

I'd have to say that if a designer like that has some engineering background, huge asset to a company doing consumer goods (and maybe some non-consumer goods, too). And if the engineers have some art, that's also good.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I think there is a place for both.

Mohammed above me defines the art in STEAM as fine arts, but I would argue that in many cases art is much broader, and more applicable than that., especially when we are including art with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. If I put in "define:art" on google, I get the following definition first:
For me, the key is that first part: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination-- this is, fundamentally, what science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields are. The difference is in that last part-- producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Art is the application of the same things we value in STEM, just towards a different end. On a philosophical level, I see no issues in including art.

All this being said, I think that too often "STEAM" is trotted out when someone either wants a slice of the STEM financial pie or to pretend that a deficit in arts or STEM fields is somehow made up by an excess of the other.

I also think that in FIRST we're in a unique position to create things that can be appreciated both for their technical and performance aspects, but also for their aesthetics and emotional resonance. At champs last year, who wasn't on the edge of their seat and then cheering when 330 fell and got back up, not once, but twice? There is huge power in seeing a robot not only perform well, but also look pretty (at least from a distance, I never got a chance to look at it up close) and there is resonance in that getting back up-- we all fall, we all fail, and I think a robot doing the same can generate a similar reaction to watching an athlete do something similar in an athletic event.

At the end of the day, I can appreciate both STEM and STEAM in their appropriate contexts. What I can't stand is using one or the other to mask issues stemming from a deficit of either.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

The emphasis of the program is "Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology". Art means many things to many people- to some, it's music, painting, and writing. To others, it's a false color representation of otherwise non-visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum produced by a NASA scientist from the Hubble Space Telescope. In the engineering world, there's an entire artistic category called Industrial Design- FRC even has an award for it, sponsored by General Motors, which "Celebrates form and function in an efficiently designed machine that effectively addresses the game challenge."

The bottom line is, art is significantly more than music, painting, poetry, crafts, or whatever stereotypes are generally associated with the word. Art turns the math and physics of electric propulsion into a Tesla Model S, or internal combustion into a Porsche 911/Bugatti Veyron/(insert favorite supercar), or audio decompression algorithms into an iPod, or an FRC game into an aesthetically pleasing and highly functional robot. I would argue anyone who doesn't think an FRC Team 118 robot is a work of art has no understanding of the word. Art is the fusion of form and function, the look and feel of something complimenting how it works. Art is being able to communicate how a design came about, or the inspiration for a component. It's sharing and expressing ideas. Art is whatever you make it, and it has as much of a place in science and engineering as the math and physics. Whether it's a stunning visual representation of infrared, ultraviolet, and x-ray wavelengths of a distant galaxy, or the "poetry in motion" of a perfect two boulder autonomous, there are few things more inspiring than art, and if that isn't the emphasis of the program, I don't know what is.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Every program has the opportunity to decide what they intend to promote and accomplish.

If FIRST really is hopping aboard the STEAM train, I hope they back it up with sufficient promotion and inclusion of the arts. Part of me says they used it only so far as a nice pun for a game name. Time will tell.

Every other program (teams, schools, etc) has the choice to focus on what they deem beneficial to their communities. We don't intend to shift our focus because of this random FRC game title, but could in the future depending on what we determine is best to serve our community.

I expect everyone's thoughts on this will be different, but this certainly is a matter of emphasis, and no size fits all. I hope if FIRST says they are about the Arts, they back it up with their actions.

-Mike

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Saying everything is art does not compel me to incorportate art into STEM.

When people refer to art education, they mean the fine arts, such painting, filmography, music, etc. When people say STEM, they generally are speaking in the context of education.

If STEM become STEAM, and especially if everything is art, then the entire point of emphasizing STEM education is out the window. We essentially are saying all education is important, which while true, is an aimless statement.

Again, not that there is no point to art, nor to say the art doesn't belong in FIRST, but rather, where does it end? If we start including everything that may be involved with FIRST, then how big are we willing to let the acronym get? I think a letter relating to professionalism/teamwork is more important AND relevant than art.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Compartmentalizing is dumb. Why not go back to SET? Why not stick with STEM? or go to STEAM? SHTEAM as mentioned above? Economics is important, too, guys! SHTEEAM!

I see no line and therefore refuse the acronym. Making STEM some magic box makes blurring the lines and talking between disciplines harder than it really is. (Oh lord, this sounds like one of those "there are infinite genders" rants)

Every time I say "STEM" a little bit of me dies inside. I inspire people to be engineers, not scientists, not "technologists", rarely mathematicians, and never artists**. I teach people how to apply what they know to design and fix things.

Say what you mean, not buzzwords.

(**That isn't to say these are bad things but simply that I just... I don't exude those things)

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I am stealing this from another comment on a different thread, but I believe that Philip Arola stated:
STEM is objective, art is subjective

I hate to have this boil down to an argument on where FRC is heading or what is best (STEM or STEaM) - it will result in a fruitless argument. We could go down the path that if we include art, we should include Business. And if we include business, we should include Family and Consumer Sciences. In short - they all have a place in FRC if you wish to include them. It is up to each team and school to figure out what amalgamation of letters they wish to adhere to.

I am a VERY strong proponent of STEM as it relates to the fields that need to be focused on so that we can continue to place students into said fields (whether it be because of national security interest or based solely on economics). In my curmudgeonly old mind, the world is not hurting for more art majors - but we are definitely in need of more students studying in the STEM fields asap.

However, I can offer some insight from my own team. FRC 4607 CIS is not the same team if I just included the typical 'robotics kids' that may (or may not) succeed in the STEM fields. Instead, when we created this team, my former co-coach and I decided to go after the leaders of our school: the athletes, theater bugs, debate kids, NHS students, etc. We knew that the 'robotic kids' would be there - so we decided to build a team around them. And it has paid dividends.

I have been working this over in my mind for many weeks now - what is FRC and why is it so darn special? With all the other competitive robotics competitions, what is FRC and what does it mean to my school, my students, and (most importantly), to me?

To me FRC means two simple words: Opportunity and Access. I don't care what side of the argument you fall on - STEM or STEaM - the true beauty of FIRST is the fact that it offers students many opportunities to fail and succeed; it also allows a great many students access to areas of their community or personal skills/talents that they did not know were available.

The OP can attest to this. Without the opportunities that FRC offered, Ginger Power most likely would not be one of the most prolific members on this site. He would not have started NDSU's Bison Robotics or the GreenHorns Ri3d. His life was changed by 4607 - and because of his opportunities, he has changed the landscape for many FRC teams in ND and MN. His access to this program in his junior and senior year of high school were a catalyst of change in his life. I am sure if you have talked with him he has gone on and on about the robots and the many failures and some of the successes he has experienced.

But he may (or may not) have mentioned our Propogandanistas - the all-female marketing squad from our rookie season - a group of 4 sophomore girls that were instrumental in developing FRC 4607 from a strictly 'Robotics team' to the multi-faceted team we are today. Of those 'nistas, one would go on to be our captain her senior season, another would become the VP of the State NHS program, a third would fully develop our Marketing and PR department, and the last would forever change how we conduct our business department on 4607.

They joined on a whim and were interested in the arts as well as STEM. So if I went my own way and was hell-bent on STEM only, they would not be included and FRC 4607 would look (sadly) different today. It was the artistic flair that Emma, Dani, and Sydney-squared brought to our team that first season (and I swear to this day they were the reason we were drafted onto the winning alliance back in 2013 at NorthStar).

So STEM or STEaM - it is how you make it relevant to the students. Whichever you choose, put the students first and give them opportunities and allow them access to success!

For me - FRC was created to offer students such as Ginger Power the access to many, many opportunities. And this young man has gone on to create a great life for himself and countless others!

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

This is why Mike is one of my favorite posters here on CD - and a personal hero of mine - he takes what I am 'trying' to think and then can put it so succinctly!

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Hedgehog inadvertently reminded me of someone who I don't think has a CD account, but who would be very suited to weigh in on this discussion (and who was on the teaser discussion panel earlier): Emma Dumont, of FRC980. I've got a feeling that she'd be able to argue both (all?) sides equally well.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I really like the point you bring up about the opportunities that can arise from studying art. I think a lot of this discussion revolves around whether Art or STEM provides a more realistic and fruitful career path, and so it's important to understand just how important Art can be in that respect, even if you're not pursuing a career in the arts.

In these discussions it's natural to emphasize the differences between "Art" and "Science" - but I think a much more interesting question is what they have in common. For those who haven't seen Adam Savage's talk from SXSW a couple years ago, I highly recommend you watch it. If it doesn't change your perspective, it may at least help you understand the other side of this discussion.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I wasn't watching the recently released trailer until this morning, because I was going to a Columbia admissions event. It's interesting to note that the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Sciences requires all Freshman Engineering students to take a class called "The Art of Engineering".

I suppose that that could be taken in two ways, either, "Engineering is already incorporating art, leave the acronym alone" or, "Art is essential to engineering but still distinct and thus should be included in the acronym"

Has anyone on this forum taken the class and could you comment?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I'm not close enough to the source to understand exactly what is taught, so perhaps I could use some education from folks that have gone from STEM to STEAM in the classroom.

Part of my spiel to students, most of whom come from poor backgrounds has always been "STEM careers are in strong need. If you want to have a solid job that pays well enough for you to not have to worry about rent, having a car, middle class basics, most any job in engineering will get you there." Including Art (STEM>STEAM) might include it as a "valid career choice", which waters down that message at first glance. The only thing worse in my mind would be to add an extra S for sports and tell students we need more professional athletes in the world, and it is perfectly OK to plan on not needing school because you will get a $1M+ contract playing sports.

That being said, there are a lot of lesser paying jobs within STEM, though arguably still better than the average pure artistic career. I'm also careful to always note... at the end of the day, once you make enough money to pay for the absolute basics, it is more important to be happy with what you do than be wealthy.

All that being said, should we as STEM students and professionals value art and the importance of aesthetics? Absolutely. I think within 30 minutes of the FRC game release, our team had 10 ideas floating around on SteamPunk related art projects we wanted to do. The same way STEM professionals need to know management, economics, history, geography, and all the other basics, we need to have an appreciation for art. I don't know if it warrants extra emphasis over the other humanities, nor is it important to include as STEAM instead of STEM. If the powers that be think that by overemphasizing STEM we lost the creativity that comes with art, sure?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

As a teacher, the appeal to me of STEAM over STEM is twofold. The first is purely pragmatic. Aesthetics matters when you design and build things you want to sell. Teaching students that it is a completely separate issue from the engineering is putting them at a disadvantage. Just look at the markets for phones, computers and cars and tell me the Art part of design doesn't matter. A friend who is an engineer for a car company told me recently they ask a question of new hires designed to elicit their views on the importance of aesthetics, and they have decided against candidates who were dismissive of aesthetics as unimportant or not part of their job as an engineer.

The second big part of the appeal is that including Art makes developing creativity easier. In the last few years I have been an avid reader of the research available about teaching students to be more creative. The general consensus seems to be that students will become more creative if they are given more opportunities to be creative. Having open ended projects, or open ended parts of projects, is very important in providing these opportunities. I did some research myself about two and a half decades ago about visual perception. I found that some of the techniques used in art classes to teach students about perspective and shading enhanced students' visual perception skills. As an example, students who had taken drawing classes were able to more quickly and reliably figure if a particular set of shapes could fit together and how they would fit together.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

The original question worded "do you like A or B" and I am choosing C.

If I had to choose between the three, I prefer BEST the most. Business, Engineering, Science, and Technology.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

It's good to have these dialogs.

In FIRST, aren't we applying science, technology, art, and math to engineering projects? Isn't engineering a combination of all of the others - or the application of them all? It is to me, anyway.

Math is a science. Applied math and art ( one can argue ) can result in more science, other sciences. Applied math, art, and science produce technology. And somewhere technology and engineering feed each other, along with math, art, and science.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I am personally in the opinion that adding "Arts" to STEM makes it seem more like a "Let's include everyone ever" instead of a "Focus on these four, broad topics" that it has been. At our school, the Science, Math, and Tech departments are all near each other, but the Art department is on the whole other side of the school. Our school has murals made by the Art students on one side of the main hallway and on the other is posters for Science Olympiad and Robotics. The Art kids and the Tech kids do NOT cross paths. We are two totally seperate groups in our school.

Just my personal opinion, but it should be STEM, not STEAM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I think everyone has, so far, focused on what's contained in STEM and STEAM. But to me, I want to know what the purpose of the acronyms are.

Why are we concerned with STEM? The general argument I've always heard is that we need more scientists and engineers. That the world is moving forward with technology and we need to adjust our education system to create students well suited to take advantage of that path. In other words, STEM is important because we want to bring those fields to the forefront of our educational system and make sure they don't get ignored.

What about Arts? What could we gain by including them in this push? Well, for one many Arts pursuits are grounded in Math and science. Think of music, how you can create harmonics and dissonance, beats and patterns defined and made beautiful through the math and physics involved. Think of art, how some wavelengths of light are complementary on a pallet while others aren't, how certain ratios are found pleasing to the eye and the difficulty of achieving the balance needed to draw a beautiful human face.

But that's a lot of what others have said - what's contained within the Arts category. If we look at the purpose of including Arts, it's to give students creative and artistic outlets in class. Unfortunately, art programs are some of the first ones to be cut in our schools when they face budget cuts. Millions of students are going through their k-12 programs without having the option to join choir or band, or to pursue painting or theater.

We all have our passions, and many of those who frequent CD are passionate about STEM, not the Arts. But when I look at teams and students across FIRST, some of the best one's I've seen achieve a balance. Yes, they love the robot, but they also participate in sports, engage in artistic pursuits, and do stuff outside of FIRST to grow other parts of their mind and personalities. Being well rounded, in my opinion, is much more important for personal health than being solely focused and dedicated to one pursuit. And that's why adding a focus on Arts in our schools can be an important part of our society.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Is there a difference between the creativity that goes into the form and function of the Tesla Model S, and the creativity used to form the Mona Lisa? Does the beauty of the Tesla Model S come from something in the arts? Or would we call it good engineering? Many people are saying that arts should be included in STEM because form matters in engineering. I would argue that form is included in engineering already.

To borrow an example used earlier, when I look at 118's robot I see an engineering masterpiece. The tradeoffs they make, and the way they fit so much into such a clean package is beautiful.

Great engineering is often viewed as a work of art. The difference, to me, between an engineering masterpiece and a work of art is the science and math that determines the form of the engineering.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

You actually just answered your own question right here. The creativity, vision, skill, and execution that goes into the arts are skill sets that overlap with the necessary skill sets to do well in engineering. And often, the physics and math skills needed to be a good engineer come into the arts as well. The most obvious example I'm most familiar with would be audio, which has a significant amount of both art and engineering by any definition. But really, in all forms of art there are elements that overlap with STEM.

The implicit assumption in posts like yours is that the arts do not involve science, or math, or technology, to be produced, and this couldn't be further from the truth. All art is created with technology. Technology enables the creation of more art. Application of math and science principles enables proficiency in art and achievement that isn't always possible. The two are linked in more ways than you can imagine.

I think it's a natural fit, that gives the arts the value and attention it deserves in our society, and that STEM majors will have better, more well-rounded education if they respect the arts the same way they respect STEM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Don't we already have Art in FIRST? Look around at a competition. People are always taking pictures (photography is technically an art). Fliers are everywhere. Sure, posters are made on a computer but it takes some sort of art skills to make them look good. I also heard of a chairman's team last year sculpting a tower in a chairman's presentation. Sculpting is an art. All I'm saying is there is already art in FRC.

Also, think about this a little more. My twin sister joined the robotics team last year. She is on our school's speech team. Last year, she actually wrote a speech about STEM vs. STEAM last year. I thought she was crazy at first when she wrote it. Then I heard all her explanations and Art actually fits in well into the Engineering and Technology aspects.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

To me, it's a question of how the label is used.

There are certain skills (math/science related) which are useful for understanding the world around us. Since understanding things is generally good, these skills are considered valuable. There are many ways to acquire and express these skills. To simplify referring to these skills as a whole, the "STEM" category name could be used.

Many people have found useful ways to combine artistic expressions of themselves and their world with technology, which requires science and math principles. Awesome! Now we have some skills which could be categorized under "STEAM".

All of these individual things are good because they have some underlying beneficial quality, not because they fall into some category (STEAM/STEM/etc).

Unfortunately, some folks use the category name as a fancy buzzword to get attention (and funding). This can become confusing and frustrating because the category is not sufficient to understand the underlying intentions.

Does FRC teach and inspire STEAM-related skills? Arguably yes.
Is FRC a STEM or STEAM organization? Depends who you ask.
Does FRC use technology, arts, and science to inspire innovation and teach skills which are applicable to all careers? For sure! And this is the reason why it's a worthwhile endeavor, not because it could be labeled as "STEAM".

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

The past is prologue: A previous STEM/STEAM discussion

Asking the right questions is important:
In the context of student-robotics programs, for me, the central STEM/STEAM question is whether I wish our culture would tilt a bit more toward producing more "Artists" than it does now, or toward producing more "STEM" folks than it does now.

Nothing draconian, just which way would I want that needle to move.

Currently, moving the needle a bit more toward more STEM graduates, without losing sight of the bigger picture, seems to be a good idea.

Blake

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I get where the dissonance of the question comes from. My first reaction when people change from STEM to STEAM on me is that they're saying "Don't forget about the art!" As if engineering doesn't already use art in everything we do. And frankly, often when someone pitches "STEAM" at me, that is what they individually are trying to say: "Hey, pencil pusher, be creative!" Or "Actually this field is fine, look at all the artists." Or "Hey, why isn't art getting that STEM money?" (The last is a reasonable debate, if engaged as anything more than a complaint.)

It's very annoying.

However, I don't argue that that's at all the real intention behind the acronym expansion. After all, no one would dispute that we use science and math in engineering, math in science, technology in math, and on and on. Rather than saying, "Hey, be artistic / add art!" it's saying, "Hey, we are artistic. And mathematical, and scientific, and technological. Yes, that's that thing. Come on over!" So to answer your question - yes, there are creative/artistic elements built into STEM, just like there's math built into SET and science built into engineering. And that's exactly where they all fit.

The more practical discussion though, is that an acronym alone does not champion one implementation or another. We and HQ both need to engage STEAM as a cohesive whole, rather than as, "our art is over here in animation and our science is in the R&D..." as is sometimes done. Remember that the reason the NSF created SMET* at all wasn't to say "these are all really important." It was to say "this should be a cohesively handled framework." Because I'm convinced that artistic-style creativity is as integral to engineering as math is, etcetera, I agree with that statement.

*Yes, that's the original acronym. Glad it didn't catch on.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I was always under the impression that the goal of promoting STEM is to encourage young people to go into STEM fields, i.e. society wants to graduate more Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics majors.

STEAM includes Art, but I doubt that society wants to graduate more Art majors. Rather, STEAM could be the description of what well rounded STEM majors need to learn, particularly the Engineering part of STEM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Adding "art" to "STEM" has always struck me as a sort of silly attempt at saying "me, too!"

Look: Sure, art is important. That doesn't mean we need to talk about art whenever we talk about STEM. "STEAM" is a term that, to me, seems so broad as to be nearly useless (and, not-unrelatedly, suffers from a serious case of "one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others") - STEM and art don't actually have very much in common and the issues surrounding STEM education and art education are fundamentally different and need to be addressed separately.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I like this.

STEM is important when trying to promote future careers. STEAM is important to cover everything that goes into a STEM career.

I also think that Engineering already has Art in it. As an engineering student I was and am taught to think of how a product looks. The aesthetic is always taught to us, which is technically art, which is part of Engineering.

I like STEM because it is a nice little acronym that rounds up a group of very similar fields and puts them under one umbrella. Adding art is adding a curve ball that is not like the others.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Lots of people are making statements to the effect that "STEM already incorporates a lot of art, STEM is itself an art, therefore we don't need to change the acronym". Isn't this an argument against keeping the acronym, not for it? If art is so important to STEM, it should be recognized as a part of it.

Calling it like I see it here; lots of people in STEM fields don't have respect for the arts, and that's where a lot of the pushback on this change is. Lots of STEM majors in college look down on art majors as being unemployable or unrealistic, and feel their majors are superior to theirs. This extends into the professional world as well. I think fighting this stigma that devalues art is important.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Even if it's the case that a lot of people in STEM do not respect the arts, that alone doesn't really provide any good justification for adding "art" to the acronym.

When we speak of STEM education, we are speaking of a group of things that are similar enough that they share a large number of common features and problems, and thus it is fruitful to discuss them as a single unit. Value judgments aside, "art" simply does not conceptually fit with the rest.

If you want to have a discussion about the devaluation of art in STEM fields, then have that discussion - but don't try to insert that discussion into every discussion of STEM, which is the only real end I see of using the "STEAM" acronym.

Edit: This may be a bit more contentious, but some of the advocacy for using "STEAM" instead of "STEM" also strikes me as carrying vague connotations of postmodernism, which I do not like one bit.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Mike,
Good points as always.

I would place the entire teaser and downloadable content from FIRST in the "art" category. So far, so good?

David

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

That definitely wasn't my entire argument, as evidenced by the rest of all my posts on the subject. My argument is that the combination of the lack of respect people give art, combined with its importance both outside of STEM subjects and even within STEM subjects, shows the value of recognizing art alongside STEM subjects.

Lots of people here seem to agree that STEM subjects involve art, and art subjects involve STEM. If that's really the case, yet there is a lack of respect for something this important to the rest of STEM, adding art to the acronym is a good response, which helps further imply this relationship.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I really can't agree with this. The first part, I might agree with in a loose sense of the word "art" - but the relationship between engineering and art is fundamentally nothing like the relationship between engineering and math.

As to the second part, I can't really agree, because I don't think the purpose of the acronym is to "build appreciation" - it's to provide a useful label for a collection of intimately-related subjects. "STEAM" loses that utility.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

So Art isn't intimately-related in Engineering, Architecture, Design? I have to disagree.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Not in the Bob Ross sense, in my opinion. Art is a very broad category...

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

But there's tons of examples of this. Architecture is the intersection of structural engineering requirements, and artistic / aesthetic use of space. Knowledge of both tangible and concrete math and science needs to be combined with intangible experience in spatial design and layout. Engineering also uses architectural principles in it as well - one example that comes to mind for me because it's related to my work is the layout of a shop floor in order to optimize a process. Optimizing this layout requires some artistic vision in how objects can be oriented around each other and how parts can flow through the system, combined with the hard math and science of operation times, flow control, operator steps, etc.

Music has tons of engineering in it - the production, design, and operation of audio systems, speakers, monitors, musical instruments, synthesizers, recording devices, playback devices all require heavy doses of engineering and science in the quest for artistic self-expression. There's absolutely a lot of mathematics in musical composition and physics in the entire concept of audio. This is probably the field that the connection is the most obvious in - music could not exist without STEM, and the music industry is a valid and relevant field for someone in STEM with an art interest to go into.

I'm less familiar with other forms of art, which there are obviously many, but anything from theater to cinematography to painting to sculpture, to varying degrees, involves STEM subjects, and all sorts of STEM fields incorporate the artistic lessons taught in arts fields. This is less tangible for me to explain because art is so subjective but I believe artistic design, aesthetics, culture, and society shape the kind of engineer and mechanical designer that I am, and that I'm a better engineer for my appreciation and interest in the arts (even if I'm not as good at them). I also believe that when I've worked on or completed an engineering design, I have created art.

I'm saying they ARE intimately related, and the fact that people don't observe and appreciate this is all the more reason for its inclusion in the label. The structure of our education system may not recognize them as similar concepts, and many STEM people may devalue the arts, but that does not mean there is no relationship, and it doesn't mean that it's not beneficial for us to view the subjects as related. I think it is.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

In any case, if STEAM is a direction FIRST wants to go, this page needs to be updated.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Albert Einstein played the violin, Johnny Cash was a code breaker in the Air force, Brian May (guitarist from Queen for you youngsters) is an astrophysicist, I can site example after example of artist who have math/science brains. It is very common for musicians to have mathematical/technical talent.

To me keep the tent big and open and not quibble about A's.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

None of these even begin to resemble the scale of conceptual similarity between the "traditional" STEM fields. Can we find examples of overlap between arts and STEM? Of course. Does that mean that the "STEAM" label is similarly coherent to STEM? Not even close.

For example, I can point out that some birds are aquatic - after all, look at penguins! This does not mean that I should adopt a term for "Birds and Aquatic Animals" when I mean to speak about birds. Even if it were the case that ornithologists systemically devalued marine biology, it still would not be a good idea.

I'm sorry, I'm simply not buying the argument that the "A" in "STEAM" does not stand out.

It is not useful to derail discussion of STEM, in which we discuss many things that are relevant to the subjects that fall under the STEM label but not art, by forcing ourselves to include in our discussions a subject that has a comparatively very different set of features and concerns.

I am not saying that we should never discuss "STEAM." I am saying that adopting a policy of replacing the "STEM" label with "STEAM" is a bad idea, especially if it's only out of some feeling that "we don't care enough about art."

Here's another way to think of this: how many academic subjects can you think of that clearly do not fit under the "STEAM" label? In an information-theoretic sense, a label that specifies everything is no more useful than a label that specifies nothing.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I don't really care either way but one thing I do notice is that art is generally looked down upon at least by young people. All the unemployment or useless art degree jokes/memes are very common on social media and at least in my area, engineering students generally look down on art. To claim that STEM people and students already know art is important isn't quite accurate. That said the same could be said for almost every other discipline such as communication skills, English, and business.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

David,

It's very artistic set of media indeed!

In my mind, FIRST supporting the "A" in STEAM would look more like 5-8 million in scholarships for Art Students at Art-focused colleges? Or maybe rewarding teams that graduate many college Art students from their FRC team, even if they lack promotion of Engineering or Science? If STEAM is the new way forward, I would expect Art to receive the same level of emphasis and respect program-wide as the rest of STEAM.

I haven't seen that level of support yet, but will be interested to see how this develops.

-Mike

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Hey I believe that Art's inclusion in STEM comes from the fact that many modern applications of art are heavily invested and affected by technology, such as graphic design, 3D-Modeling, animation, game design, etc (all CTE classes as well). Art encompasses much more than that obviously, but in order to include the specific tech based art forms in STEM, which I believe that the ones I've mentioned definitely do deserve to be included, the word "art" as a descriptor is pretty much the only broad word that can be used to add to the STEM acronym. Now whether or not you even need the word art to encompass these things is a different argument than whether these things deserve to be under the STEM umbrella, which I believe they do. Now my last point with the meld of art and STEM is that they are an integral part of each other in many aspects: Architecture, CAD, Industrial Design, and in general Invention and Innovation, none of which function well without equal parts critical and creative thinking. Just think DaVinci, largely considered an artist, sculptor, inventor, and engineer, and with whatever he does, his creative and analytical talents are not mutually exclusive.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Hey I believe that Art's inclusion in STEM comes from the fact that many modern applications of art are heavily invested and affected by technology, such as graphic design, 3D-Modeling, animation, game design, etc (all CTE classes as well). Art encompasses much more than that obviously, but in order to include the specific tech based art forms in STEM, which I believe that the ones I've mentioned definitely do deserve to be included, the word "art" as a descriptor is pretty much the only broad word that can be used to add to the STEM acronym. Now whether or not you even need the word art to encompass these things is a different argument than whether these things deserve to be under the STEM umbrella, which I believe they do. Now my last point with the meld of art and STEM is that they are an integral part of each other in many aspects: Architecture, CAD, Industrial Design, and in general Invention and Innovation, none of which function well without equal parts critical and creative thinking. Just think DaVinci, largely considered an artist, sculptor, inventor, and engineer, and with whatever he does, his creative and analytical talents are not mutually exclusive.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Disclaimer - I've always been pro the STEAM label and this is one of those topics I'm irrationally passionate about.

I don't think it's because "we don't care enough about art" I think it's because art makes people better. And no, I don't mean in some general sense "knowing art makes you more rounded" that some guidance counselor will justify making engineering students take an art history class [1]. I mean in the sense that it makes you genuinely think about things in a different way.

Let's use music as an example, it teaches fractions in a really interesting way because most folks don't realize it's fractions even though it's right there in the names (quarter note, eight note...). It teaches basic coding concepts (what is sheet music except a language for defining how to perform a task?) But it does all this without triggering the "that's too hard" reaction in most folks. I've seen folks who panicked whenever they saw "add these fractions" but music and rhythm all made sense to them. That sound is simply air vibrating isn't just a piece in a lecture when you play an instrument, you can see it and feel it. It's an incredibly powerful experience to learn something that isn't just words on a board but is something you can create and feel.

What I'm trying to say is that art is, for the most part, intrinsically linked to engineering. They are two sides of the same coin. And instead of fighting over a stupid acronym we should be figuring out how we can use art to explain concepts in engineering rather than just the other way around. Yes, to me I understand that overlapping two frequencies just right can cause a new sound. But I can feel it when I play an instrument.

Maybe we can stop thinking of art as a separate thing and more of Applied STEM. Bonus, we can keep the STEAM acronym. (Science Technology Engineering Application and Math) :P



[1] For the record - I've taken Art History classes and actually really enjoy them.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

One overlooked detail here is that FIRST does not have a monopoly on STEM outreach. School districts in my area advertise their STEM programs as well, and sometimes even tried to advertise STEAM, to little effect. The whole point to STEM is to be a focused path of education, and when STEAM is mentioned, it reaches well beyond CAD or design. So perhaps I'm just a bit jaded from my prior experience with STEAM. Again, not that art school is useless; as I and others have said before, art can be extraordinarily complex if rigor is applied. STEAM becomes too broad and meaningless, and devolves into a buzzword.

And this is what I hear from parents, mind you, not just my singular opinion.

Stereotypes about engineers looking down upon art majors is also an exaggeration. Sure, I've made jokes about it, and I cannot for the life of me understand the utility of some specific degrees, but I and many engineers love Steve Vai, of Frank Zappa fame, who attended the Berklee College of Music. Or Quincy Jones, or Joey Kramer of Aerosmith, both of whom also went to that institution.
Or Jimmy Page, who has no musical education.
Or Brian May, who actually went to university as a physics major.

By the way, prejudice based on what major you have does cut both ways, believe it or not. I've heard plenty of art majors scoff at engineers.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Does adding Art to STEM blur the focus of the acronym? To me, the purpose of STEM is to highlight a need in our society for more people in STEM related fields.

An example that shapes my opinion on this subject: My team is working to build a STEM Center at our high school. The purpose of this STEM Center would be to house technical education classes like: Mechanical Drafting (CAD), Architectural Design, General Tech, etc. Our robotics team would also have a permanent facility in the building, and we are also pushing for more robotics based curriculum.

Now if my robotics team were pushing for a STEAM center we would presumably need to share the space with the art classes. We would also need to share funding with the art classes. People/Businesses in the community who are donating to build the STEAM Center wouldn't know if their money is going to Robotics or Art. In my mind the A in the acronym blurs the focus.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

As another interesting tidbit... I went to lookup the origin of STEM, and it turns out that there are a dozen different acronyms for it. Originally, it was METS.

Anyways, while doing so, I noticed one of the other acronyms was STEAM - Science, Technology, Engineering and Applied Mathematics. Not Art.

With the release of STEAMworks, do we know which STEAM acronym FIRST is using? Are they referring to Arts or Applied Mathematics?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Given the paintbrush in the logo I think it's safe to assume they mean Art. That's a very interesting piece of history though.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I am going to take a couple of lines out of a December 2013 Wall Street Journal article. These few lines are out of context, please read the whole story to see the WSJ viewpoint, but I am using them to raise a question of my own.

So here is the question I propose: There is a bill in your state legislature to create a $500,000 fund out of tax-payer money. It has been written to support STEM education, which includes after school science programs and clubs for k-12 students. A senator suggests using identical wording for the bill, but making it say STEAM, so that all after school arts programs can also pull from the same pot of funding. Which bill would you support?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I think the push to change STEM to STEAM is a reminder to us. Don't cut out the arts in an attempt to expand STEM education. All to often art and phys ed are the first on the cutting block when money gets tight.

Another discipline that was somewhat mentioned is what often is called Liberal Arts. Writing, languages, history, social sciences, etc. These too are very important to have well-rounded individuals. But they're not as often targets for eliminating from schools.

Another area is vocational education. While some of these classes are tech-related - and more and more of them are - we still need people who want to learn mechanics, welding, plumbing, carpentry, and a host of other trades.

And I agree with someone above that business education needs to be available. While many engineers and other tech types decry the "bean counters", someone needs to keep projects on track financially, needs to market the products once they are engineered, and needs to evaluate consumer demand for new products.

OK, someone come up with an acronym that adds A, L, V, and B to STEM.

TLDR: We need access to all disciplines in education. We can't focus just on STEM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Some people have some questions as to whether the STEAM acronym was intentionally included and whether it refers to art. While I was looking through the DLC, I found this on the recruitment posters:
This seems to indicate that FRC is trying to attract and include art more, which means that the A in STEAMWORKS probably refers to art.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Many people here have been making the point that we need to include the art acronym as some FRC Robots are 'works of art' and how not including art devalues creative effort put in to on FRC robots.

I think everybody agrees that a great deal of creativity goes into FRC robots. However does this mean that Art has to be a core component of the STEM acronym? I really don't see a reason for this, as why should art have a monopoly on creativity??? For many (most?) people, the word art means much more than applied creativity, and for that reason it dilutes the message, especially as many components of the field of art are completely separated from many components of STEM, in a way that the various subjects part of the STEM superfield are much more closely related. Additionally, the challenges faced by STEM fields are similar, whereas the challenges faced by art fields are not similar to those faced by STEM fields.

Sure, there is overlap between architectural and industrial design fields (to pick a random example), however there is also a great deal of overlap between STEM and many other fields (that are not just peripheral but vital to the advancement of STEM), yet we do not choose to include them in the STEM acronym. For example, I would argue that STEM advancements are driven by skills in the humanities - for example many of the most prominent figures in STEM fields are not just great engineers, but also great entrepreneurs or businesspeople.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

What is art?

and how can we have this discussion, without a cultural reference?

:) yes, my dad got a Masters degree in Art History, later in life

My LeMons Rally car:

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I, as a carnivore, think we should call it MEATS.

All kidding aside, I really agree with Andrew's comment from earlier in the thread:

My son, when he was in 8th or 9th grade, submitted a C program to the school literary magazine because he felt programming was an art. I agree with him. The advisor called him down to his classroom to have a chat. Benjamin made his case. It's a creative outlet for him. If the magazine is about creativity, his program should be there too. The advisor agreed. His program was in the literary magazine.

I just did a "define:art" in google. It says:
Building and designing robots is exactly the expression and application of human creative skill. But FIRST is not just building and operating robots. It's a business so you have accounting, sales, marketing, writing, competing interests, drawing, painting, project management, team building, personality conflicts, and more that is not directly related to STE or M. I could easily classify/justify all of those functions as an "Art" and that's why A should be included.

To me, FIRST Robotics is a perfect fit for STEAM. I don't think anybody is suggesting that all the art programs in school get moved to the technology department, or vice versa. The addition of A is just recognition that art is an important part of FIRST Robotics. It's not "Art is important" but "Art is important too".

I will close with this thought. Changing to STEM to STEAM will bring in more students and it will create diversity within FIRST Robotics teams. Who wouldn't want that? Diversity is power. Different people with different backgrounds and interest generate different points of view. If our team could get more business students and more art students, I think we would be a better team.

When I saw the title for this thread, I thought almost everyone would support this change. I'm surprised by the pushback that I see. I need to think more about the opposing viewpoints to try and understand them better. The 10 minutes reading the thread hasn't done it yet :)

Cheers!

-Eric

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I think the below (both versions) is true, but can't we make a similar case for mathematics? A la:If you're reading this wondering what math would be outside SET, back up and think about all of the different fields of mathematics versus what SET really uses day to day. Yes, we can pick specific examples for any area someone names, much the way we have been with artistic fields. But there's no denying there's a huge spectrum of useful mathematics outside of what springs to mind with "engineering" or "science" or "technology"--that's why it's called "math". This is true for all of them. If I say "engineering and zoology" or "science and mathematical topology", laypeople won't jump to a natural understanding other than the STEM acronym itself. On the other hand I'm sure if you talked to someone of a related background, they could easily explain both overlaps--just as we've been doing herein. I think much of this dissonance is that we're using all the terms to connote a specificity they don't actually mean, which is in part rooted in our a priori understanding of "STEM" itself.

I don't think there's a fair way to quantify these overlaps, and I'm not even really arguing that the overlap with art is as large as SET or STEM. But it's worth asking why we're drawing the floor where we are. I draw it here myself as well. But I have to ask myself how much of "A is the odd one out" is simply from the inertia of us understanding S, T, E, and M as STEM, even though their overlaps are not complete either?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

You're 24 Hrs. of Lemons'ing an Edsel? Yeah they have an ugly front end, but at least around here that would be a no-no given their rarity. Cool car all right, but IMHO that belongs in a shop being restored, not in a race of junkers.

(That said, more power to you).

----

Back on topic, here's how I see it: Art and Stem intermingle a lot. Some examples:

-A lot of aesthetic trends have been found to have a fundamentially mathmatical basis. Fractals, golden rectangles/spirals, and Fibonacci/Lucas sequences come to mind.

-While aesthetics are often absent in groundbreaking prototypes of new technology, it's an elegant presentation that often gets the technology into adoption (and the history books). Apple is a great example; Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive didn't invent much in the way of new technology; instead they integrated existing technology in user-friendly and eye-pleasing ways. Without the iPod mp3 wouldn't have taken off. Without the iPhone we likely wouldn't have smartphones (at least in the way we do now).

-On that same note, a well engineered product is doomed to fail in the market without good marketing. This includes advertising. Good advertising is both an art and a science, so once again they mix.

-In practice, I find that engineering can often be just as much an art as it is a science. Example: programming. One can slap some code together and make it work, that's the science side. Making it easy to understand and modify, now that is more of an art IMHO. Engineering without the art aspect is generally kludges, which sometimes is a necessity, yes, but often isn't the best way to go about making a quality product.

-Finally, I'll mention Will.I.Am as an example. He uses all sorts of technology to make the music that made him (and the Black Eyed Peas) famous. This is true for many artists; without good, artist-friendly technology their vision will never see the light of day. Likewise, without artists to use such technology the engineers and designers who make such have no customer base. There'd be no Photoshop, Wacom tablets, or Macs.

In many ways STEM and Art support each other. There are plenty of other examples (like the robots made by 254 and the like), but that's beside the point. By adding an A we don't have to make everything "artistic", be we can (and should) appreciate and celebrate the symbiotic relationship between STEM and art.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

LeMons Rally. Not 24 Hours of LeMons. Big difference.

and you're welcome to buy it and restore it...but that would be a foolish thing to do, with a 1959 Ranger Sedan. They're very common as Edsels go, and have little intrinsic value. And very expensive to fix up. But the fun factor....yeah, they're fun to play with! Brings a smile to many who see it.

And according to an art teacher I encountered somewhere in California, the car is Art.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I would argue that point in the schools around me. In the past few years, two local high schools had a decrease in funding for the STEM subjects and have had multiple teachers let go from their positions in these fields. However, the Art and Music departments have grown.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

This is the opposite of the general trend across the country, and all of my personal experience on the subject.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I tend to agree. Honestly I've long been of the opinion that adding Arts to STEM was more of a funding ploy than anything, seeing how it always seems like funding is being cut for Art programs, but more funding is given to sports and more recently STEM. By throwing that "A" in the middle, it likely opens up a LOT more funding opportunities to Art programs than they would otherwise have.

At some point I think you loose focus on the objective, after all, if we're going to include Arts, why not English (or whatever language)? After all, engineers write a lot of notes and other documents when working on a project. Why not throw in Social Sciences too, since technology has such a huge impact on society? Where does it stop? Eventually if you continue down this road, the acronym (STEM) just turns into a synonym for "School". :rolleyes:

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I think there's a pretty clear division there, even though skills are representative across disciplines. To me, STEAM is about creation of discrete objects and ideas. In science and math, it's creation of new knowledge, laws, and theories that describe our observed experiences in the world. Technology and engineering are about creation in a more obvious way - creating the gizmos and gadgets that run modern life. Art is about creation of media (in all of its forms) that enriches the human experience.

English, Social Studies, etc. are about communication. English is learning the standard methods of communication across all that speak and read the language. Social Studies are "applied communication" in the way engineering is "applied science" - they are communicating ideas, histories, abstract concepts, and observations about the social world we live in and how humans interact with each other (see sociology, history, etc).

Maybe I'm inventing this distinction, it really is more of a gray line than anything else, but I really think art has a place in STEM, and that I'm a better STEM person for including art in my education.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

How does this definition include both music and mathematics but exclude literary criticism (you pretty clearly create distinct "ideas" in the latter)?

If it does not - why on earth must we also advocate for literary criticism whenever we mean to advocate for STEM?

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I don't think literature isn't art, per se, but that in an academic context, the arts refers to things like music, performance art, sculpture, drawing, architecture, etc. If we are going for A meaning "everything that is an art", I think the acronym would just have one letter and cover almost all human output.

I think the fundamental difference between you and I on this issue here is that I want to advocate for STEAM, and you want to advocate for STEM. I value the arts as part of the umbrella and you don't. All of your arguments are starting from the premise that there's STEM, and we're jamming art into it, and I'm starting from the premise that STEAM is the more natural choice and that STEM forced the arts out in order to make itself more palatable to certain benefactors.

I'm going to try and cut back my posts on this thread; I don't mean to be such a force in this discussion. I just feel pretty strongly about it.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

In my experience, strictly-technical STEM people generally care more about the product and less about the people using it. Arts people are the exact opposite: they empathize with the person and see the product as a means to an end. It is a metaphorical marriage, or symbiotic relationship. Whether we like it or not, one will not exist without the other at a holistic level.

Personally, I think the name STEAMWORKS is kind of fun. It gives a nod to Disney's future (more technically-driven art-minded people) and also to their biggest rival in animation.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

For a long time, I thought the A in STEAM stood for "and", as in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Silly me. :)

To explain my POV, I need to preface this with some definitions. There may be people who disagree with how I define these words but it's hard to have a conversation without a common understanding.

Science is the practice of organizing a system of verifiable facts through observation and repetition.

Technology is the collection of skills and processes derived from scientific knowledge.

Engineering is the application of scientific knowledge to intentionally effect an outcome typically through machine or structure.

Math is really just a subset of science, albeit a very abstract one (props to maddog175 for already saying this).

Art is expression meant to tap into human emotion. Emotion happens in the observer's head. That is the antithesis of science. It seems incongruous to me to include it. That doesn't mean it's unimportant, but it is dissimilar to the others.

Human beings are complex creatures. Each of us is an emotional being. We all have some art that speaks to us. But we also all have the capacity to observe and draw rational conclusions. One is not inherently more important than the other but they are not the same thing.

The question we should be asking is not whether it should be STEM vs STEAM but what is the mission of FIRST? If it's to produce well-rounded individuals through robotics, go for STEAM. If it's to get more people to learn, love, and live science and its related disciplines, go for STEM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

What really separates "STEAM" from a "general education?" STEM has a clear focus on a set of subjects and career fields. I feel broadening that to STEAM causes the focus to become blurred and poorly defined. "The arts" are already a very broad set of subjects and interpretations, as this thread has pointed out repeatedly. When you add that whole basket into the mix, STEAM very quickly starts to resemble almost every topic covered by general education.

I chose to think of my 10th grade schedule. I don't remember what I had each period of the day, but these were the 7 classes I took in 10th grade:
Algebra II
Latin II
P.E./Driver's Ed
Chemistry
World History
English Literature
Band

STEM has a pretty clear focus on only two of those classes (Algebra and Chemistry). The only topic clearly outside the focus of STEAM would be my physical education/driver's ed class. History and Latin are a bit tenuous depending on your interpretation of "the arts" as it relates to STEAM, but Universities frequently have one of both of those subjects covered by Bachelor of the Arts degrees. Once the focus expands this much beyond the relatively tightly bound STEM target, the mission and endgame of a STEAM program becomes very hard to identify. In particular, I echo the concerns of those who have brought up points regarding funding and donations to STEAM vs STEM. At that point, you're basically funding education as a whole. By no means is education funding a bad thing, but if our focus is simply on education rather than targeted topics, why use the STEAM acronym at all?

I have zero issue with students learning and embracing "A" subjects in a STEM program. In fact, I've openly argued that there's less separation than we culturally make out between STEM and the arts. For a long time, Dean rallied hard against the celebrity given to rock stars and athletes (up until the point where Dean started inviting a rock star to be a chief spokesman for FIRST). I somewhat rejected that claim, arguing instead that STEM achievements are intrinsic to the mechanisms that allowed rock stars to become rock stars (sound engineering, for example). Areas like that are where I see we can build better bridges between "the arts" and "STEM," demonstrating how the two areas are interlinked and dependent on one another. Showing the importance of STEM fields within the arts is a powerful method of shifting the culture to appreciate science and technology (aka FIRST's goal). But that should be done within the well defined scope of STEM. There's a clear and well defined focus to STEM, and while showing how that focus can be applied outside of core areas is critical, it doesn't mean that other core areas have to be added.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Not sure I buy this distinction is warranted. It seems like you wrote a definition of art in order to get this conclusion but even so, how does this conclusion necessarily follow?

There are plenty of fields that are clearly in the STEM world, such as architecture, that are also clearly in the world of art. If some fields in STEM involve art, how can we say it is not a part of STEM?

As I said in an earlier post, I have a friend who is an engineer for an auto company. She has been paid to take art and design classes precisely because the aesthetics has become a very important part of her job. When her group is hiring they have interview question designed to elicit the interviewees ideas about the place of art in the design process, because that is important to them.

My own view is that there are some fundamental differences between art and science. Nonetheless, there is a growing body of research showing the importance of arts education in developing creativity. Note, the same research shows the positive role that good STEM programs also play in that. The key to developing creativity seems to be giving kids lots of problems in which at least some of the components are open-ended and require them to make their own judgements.

I am actually reminded of the debate in academic circles back in the 70s and 80s about watering down or fundamentally altering physics, geology, economics, biology, etc... when interdisciplinary computational science started to become a big thing.

I actually agree with you Sean, in that my big worry with STEAM is that it becomes something that isn't really about STEM. But as an educator I have the same feeling about many STEM programs. "Hey we are going to have kids use computers for things?" STEM!!! But that really comes down to the implementation of a program and not what we call it or include. Many, many supposedly STEM curriculums are really math class with a little bit of Excel and SketchUp in which students never actually design, build and test anything.

As an example, I have a friend who is a STEM teacher, and her sister is an art teacher in the same school. They do some lessons together. For example they have a lesson where the kids design a vase in Inventor and then make it on a pottery wheel. The kids in the STEM class are pushed to think about why they make the design the way they did. They answer questions like why did they choose a particular shape? They are asked to think about which designs they think are the best. The art kids are learning how the design software works. One of the most interesting parts of this lesson (I have observed it a couple of times) is when the kids are rendering the designs and trying out different colors and design patterns. The discussions that are generated are very interesting. It is also interesting to me to the art students learning about the technological tools that are becoming more and more important in the world of actual working artists. I have also observed a lesson on a day when the students are learning about two point perspective in art. This generated some fantastic STEM discussion about scale, visual perception and the best ways to represent complicated three dimensional objects.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

It was meant to be a curation of my train of thought but maybe you have a point. I welcome alternate meanings for "(The) Art(s)" to compare.

I didn't consider the end of my post to be so much of a conclusion as an observation. Words matter. The choice of STEAM vs STEM reflects on priorties: developing well-rounded individuals by incorporating art vs spotlighting science. They're both important but you can only have one highest priority.

Most fields are a little bit of both science and art, even the ones at the extremes. Both art and science are part of the human experience. Using the term STEM over STEAM is not meant to bannish art. It's meant to highlight science.

Your story about your engineer friend at the auto company and your observation about the benefits of engaging in artistic thinking support what I call "developing well-rounded individuals." That is, enhancing all modes of thinking by diversifying the kinds of thinking in which one engages. You can argue that by promoting well-rounded thinking, one is supporting scientific engagement since well-rounded thinking benefits all forms of thinking. One could also argue, as others here have done, that it also dilutes the focus on science. Taken to an extreme, we wouldn't be talking about science anymore. It would just be called learning and doing.

I'm not asking which one is important: spotlighting science vs developing well-rounded individuals. They're both important. I'm not trying to advocate one over the other. I'm wondering which one FIRST considers its highest priority.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

There are two core issues:

-Whether art is important (to teach in schools, to have in FIRST, etc.)

-Whether art should be lumped into STEM (because it's similar, to get funding, ???)

The first issue is, of course, much more important than the second. That doesn't mean it's the same issue, or that it's even particularly relevant.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

Question: How many possible reasons are there for someone to convert the acronym "STEM, into the acronym "STEAM".
Answer: About a zillion.

Question: Why did FIRST use the term STEAMWORKS in their teaser about the upcoming on-the-field competition season?
Answer: FIRST HQ knows, but I don't think they have shared their reason(s) with the general public.

Question: Do Chief Delphi discussions about the acronym "STEAM", often resemble the fable about the blind people describing an elephant?
Answer: Yes - Lots of truths are written, but it's difficult to piece them together into a comprehensive result.

;)
Blake

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

In regards to STEAM and the thought of Arts being added, I am all for it. Unfortunately, we have reached an age where the importance of the arts is vastly under rated. Musical and Visual Arts programs around the US are getting cut down, or even completely taken out, due to over all budget cuts in the education system, and the "unimportant" nature of these programs. I may be in robotics here, but my dream is to become a high school band teacher. Art is m whole goal in life, so I am happy to see it gain a bit more recognition.

In regards to the Robotics side of STEAM: art is still a valuable asset. between the average Gary Busey "Gingerdead Man" Photoshop tutorials, to the actual application to photography, advertisements, and many other aspects, Art is a big part of our goal as an organization.

P.S. FRC Rhapsody

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I have not read every post in this thread but it seams that some of you seam to have missed the point. Art complements the STEM subjects... it is not a replacement of, but a complement to them. Art is the secret sauce that takes competent engineers and scientists and makes them truly great.

From Leonardo Da Vinci to Steve Jobs the greatest engineers and scientists are those that blended art into the STEM subjects to create designs and ideas that move mankind forward.

Art does belong in STEM, Art belongs in our schools and it belongs in the First Robotics Programs.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

As many people have said, I also believe the important part is how we define "art". I believe the art in STEAM is not art lie painting, but instead art like architecture and design. Just imagine if only people from STEM fields built a building. It would be very functional, but man would it look awful. Or imagine any of apples products without design, it would be an android (jk not trying to start another debate). Architecture and design are just as important as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.

Ther for, I personally support STEAM over STEM.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

STEAM
Science, Technology, Engineering, Aeronautics, and Mathematics :cool:

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

From the Steamworks DLC Pack 1, Recruitment Poster 3:


----
My sense of art embraces much that will not be found in galleries or on stages. Most people appreciate architecture as art. For me, the interplay of electricity and magnetism with dynamic mechanisms is also art.

I have been a Tolkien fan since I first read The Hobbit in 1969. To begin his Appendices to LOTR, the Oxford Don described one of his most ancient characters as "the greatest ... in arts and lore."

For me, this sums both scholarly and professional accomplishments. I place science, technology, engineering, and mathematics among the Arts , and I see the literature and experiences they offer as Lore. We humans are more than animals, because we have arts and lore.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

^I did not know that said lemon logo was used for more than the 24 Hours of LeMons. My apologies.

I'm not in a position to fix one up... I was under the impression all Edsels had serious value due to their notoriety. I did know they were expensive/difficult to work on (all of the poorly integrated gadgets and the notorious steering wheel harness problems come to mind). Nice car, I will say that.

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

thanks! It's not a nice car, but it's neat that I drive it around. The 58s had all kinds of fun special Edsel problems, while the 59 was basically a Ford that got beat with an ugly stick. I think that most folks were embarrassed to drive them when the cars were still young, after FoMoCo gave up on the brand, so they just parked them and let them rot. A surprising number of them have low mileage, and excellent original interiors (in the northern parts of the country, at least).

Art is where you find it. According to some. I like to put art in stuff I build, too. A sense of aesthetics on the part of the designer, really makes a machine come to life. Much modern design leaves me cold. I guess I'm just getting old.

And I like the whole STEAM thing, although the Steampunk phenomenon is a bit weird, seeing the world through engineer eyes, as I do. I love when form follows function....Steampunk appears to me to be form without function.

Should be an interesting season!

Re: STEM vs. STEAM
 

I have not read the whole thread bu has any one made the connection to STEAM punk to STEAM education....

Frankly I see all things as Art... a well made motor is art to me.... you cannot seperate art in to a tower it surrounds every aspect of our life weather one acknoleges it or not....