STEM vs. STEAM

[Ginger Power]

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.

[Justin Montois]

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.

[ArthurA]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Justin Montois

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.

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.

[wajirock]

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.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by wajirock

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.

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.

[EricH]

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.

[cadandcookies]

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:

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

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.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

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.

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.

[Michael Corsetto]

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

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

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.

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.

[ThaddeusMaximus]

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)

[Chief Hedgehog]

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!

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

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!

[EricH]

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.

[evoluti1]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

STEM is objective, art is subjective

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.