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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From the Steamworks DLC Pack 1, Recruitment Poster 3:
FIRST® Robotics Competition is the
ultimate Sport for the Mind,TM where
imagination and innovation come
together! By combining the excitement
of sport and beauty of art with the rigors
of science and technology, teams are
challenged to design a team “brand,”
hone teamwork skills, and build and
program robots to perform tasks
against a field of competitors.*
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.
^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.
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.
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…
No joke, somebody in my school district wants to turn STEAM into STREAM, because we need to push Reading across the curriculum.
But on the positive side, PLTW has a modified version of their Intro to Engineering Design class approved as a fine art course in California because there is so much drawing and sketching required.
We have plenty of artsy kids and adults on our team. We have four team divisions (Robot, Strategy, Imagery, Financial) and we like to focus a lot of time and energy on our artistic presentation. Probably way more than most teams, since we re-theme every year. I still kind of cringe at STEAM, and I agree that it (and STEM, probably) will become a meaningless term soon. It’s just a passing catchphrase for administration and promotional materials on one side, and a watered down concept that includes ever type of education on the other.
The Denver School of Science and Technology hasn’t even been able to get a teacher to show up to their robotics team (meetings or competitions) in more than a decade, let alone get a staff sponsor. I love that team but that has been galling.
I think it’s important to go to the source on these types of discussions. Harvey White coined the term STEAM. In this op. ed by Harvey White, he talks about art as a necessary component of innovation, that a STEM education, devoid of art won’t create the innovation that we need out of our graduates. Basically, our goal in educating the next generation isn’t to create a bunch of STEM robots, because then we find ourselves in the same problem we’re in right now, which is that we don’t have enough new jobs for people. To Harvey, art is the creativity to create the future.
I think he’s kind of right. When we put people through the FIRST progression of programs, yes, we want them to be Scientists, Technologists, Engineers, and Mathematicians, but we want more than that, we want them to be the type of Scientists, Technologists, Engineers, and Mathematicians who won’t tolerate the status quo and will build the future. The type of Engineers we aim to build is not the ones robotically sitting at a desk all day writing documentation, although that is a possible career path for an Engineer. We want the type of Engineers who would make a program to write the documentation for them, do the impossible, and bring on a new era of human prosperity. I think Leadership more accurately conveys the concept, but that looks awful in an acronym. STELM? No thanks.
