Concise, research-based/research-supported rationale 

        STEAM Education is a learning approach that uses Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics to guide student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking. By using this strategy it encourages students of all ages to take calculated risks, participate in experiential learning, persevere in problem-solving, value collaboration, and work through the creative process. One important aspect of implementing this strategy is encouraging maker education to be part of the classroom setting. Maker Education combines the Maker movement into the educational system to give students hands-on learning that encourages creativity, thoughtfulness, a community of learning and sharing ideas, as well as the idea that each person can build what they want to see or use to solve a problem or need. Creating brings together modern technology with traditional arts and crafts and vocational education in a fresh, creative environment. With a focus on the actual and current needs of students and people in general, maker education offers a revolutionary approach to teaching and learning. It is a strategy that places the interests of the students at the center and asks them to learn more about how the world is made. Students are also encouraged to start thinking of themselves as creators who can experiment, hack, and find solutions to problems in the real world. This approach also provides some benefit to educators, who are responsible for classrooms where students thrive and learn.

      As society continues to progress, it is important for educators and students alike to keep  up with technological advancements. In order for this to occur, it is necessary to involve the arts. Other countries have implemented the “STEAM” form of education, where students “make” or “create” in classrooms, as opposed to the direct problem solving that gained popularity decades ago. While there are benefits to STEM-centric learning, students lack the interest to continue in STEM related fields (Land, 2013, p.). To engage students early on would prevent their lack of interest later, however this also means educators must implement an engaging curriculum. STEAM provides that bridge, placing students' needs and curiosity at the forefront in order to solve problems, allowing for students to resolve issues in an innovative manner, prioritizing creativity (ElSayary, 2021, p.2). One study found combining “play” with math lessons in middle school classrooms kept students engaged and eager to learn more. The reflective discussions held in class also proved to be useful for the teacher, and gave students freedom to express their thoughts while also meeting learning goals (Hensberry et.al, 2018, p.183). The study also briefly mentions how allowing students to take ownership of their learning experience is an effective way of keeping their minds engaged, and encourages the development of critical reasoning skills (p.179).  As long as educators can keep their students engaged, then students would have an easier time understanding material. This also means educators should be encouraged to find innovative ways to keep their students interested, and allowing students to “make” in classrooms has proven to be beneficial.

    Another study demonstrated the significance of STEAM  inside classrooms by using a volcano experiment- while children were engaged with the lesson, they were also encouraged to think creatively about the experiment. Data collected before and after the experiment revealed that more students become interested and engaged with the material after they finished their project. Student interest in science as an overall topic also increased, which could be connected to the fact that they were able to understand the material better after the project (Gates, 2017, p.9). Keeping students engaged and motivated boosts their self-efficacy (Hsiao, & Su, C.-H 2021, p.18), and as Hsaio & Su note, “A good learning environment is all about undergoing an experience, and the improvement of student’s self efficacy greatly affects their learning satisfaction and learning outcomes” (p.19). Improving student’s self efficacy would also in turn, build their confidence. When students believe in themselves, they are able to achieve more than they might have originally thought.

     While the “A” in STEAM stands for “Arts,” the implementation of the arts also calls for the humanities, and the skills learned from the discipline. In order for students to think critically, they must integrate the skills they’ve learned from other topics. Humanities and the arts combined fosters an environment where students learn to observe from multiple perspectives, offer different and innovative solutions to issues while also maintaining a level of empathy. Kathy Sun (2017) observed how middle schoolers would adjust their projects upon the addition of a guest, which prompted the students to consider how their work affects the real world (p.7). In a separate study conducted by Zehui Zhan (2022), middle schoolers were also observed; the author found that remote and close association interventions increased students’ creativity and empathy. Zhan notes how empathy promotes creativity;

In line with this assertion, empathy helps raise feelings of human-centeredness and enhance thoughtfulness on design decisions. Therefore, while being asked to solve design problems that addressed the client’s demand, students showed consideration for others, thereby promoting the novelty and usefulness of creative thinking (Gong, 2018) (p.18).

Classroom environments, no matter the age, aid students in their development. Current technological developments require modern solutions, so students must be encouraged to think about modern society and its advancements when solving problems. However, in order for students to understand how technology impacts the world, they must approach these issues with care and demonstrate empathy.

       Educators are responsible for the classroom environments they cultivate, but they are often taught to not get emotionally involved in the projects they give their students ( Steele & Ashworth, 2018, p.10). However, with maker education and allowing students to take the lead of their projects, some teachers displayed excitement and frustration with how their lessons occurred. Steele & Ashworth’s study suggested that maybe another important aspect to STEAM lessons is a teacher’s emotional involvement with the lessons they give, which would allow for them to better connect with their students. Steele notes there may be tremendous benefits for educators as well, “…[I]nitial exploration of emotionality indicates that the ArtScience integration assignment has a tremendous impact on the TCs’ understanding of subject integration and on their future practice” (p.21). While educators learn as they go, their emotional investment into the classroom provides insight on how they would be able to continue these lessons in the future. Stronger educators are necessary for better classrooms, and it is clear that these lessons strengthen educator’s skills and memory.

     One aspect all studies mentioned have in common is that the students are “making” in their classrooms. Maker education values the hands-on, “making” aspect of education, and it is still utilized within STEM educational spaces. The flexibility of “making” has proven useful in STEM spaces, but studies have recognized that there may be some hindrances when only technology is prioritized, “...[T[he potential of Maker education is impacted by the current lack of genuinely interdisciplinary, unified approaches to teaching. As a result, learners’ skills in and knowledge of the use of technical tools and equipment remain shallow and unintegrated” (Yangyang et.al, 2021, p.2). The implementation of STEAM alongside Maker education is one solution for the issues observed by researchers.  Yangyang et.al acknowledge the benefits of this implementation, “The students’ academic motivation, self efficacy, and acquisition of cross-disciplinary knowledge were measured at high levels after the course” (p.8). A separate study conducted by Lindsay Lindberg et.al (2020) explored artistic involvement in classrooms, where students were “making” in their classrooms. Lindberg notes how students were successful in making connections to their personal and peers’ lives, which indicates their ability to connect to other communities. More importantly, these students were able to grasp and practice more sophisticated topics; “Through the entire project students arguably learned more sophisticated computing concepts than in other e-textiles projects for K-12 students (e.g., “for loops,” arrays), yet at the same time these were authentic to the design context” (p.14). Using music didn’t distract students from the topic they were learning from, rather the addition of music made it easier for the students to understand, “This suggests many possibilities for meaningful STEAM pedagogy where arts and various STEM-related disciplines can work together to support students’ engagement and learning” (p.14). Students are able to take control of how they approach a problem, and allowing students that “freedom” proves to be beneficial to their learning experiences. When students are encouraged to think of themselves as “makers” or “creators,” they are able to think critically about their lessons, and feel in control of how they learn any given material.

   Maker education also forms connections between students. In Patton & Knochel’s (2017) study, they were able to observe how both educators and students formed connections with each other as they participated in “DIY” projects inside of their classrooms. “Forms of connection are vital to developing meaningful making by investigating, interrogating, and reinventing making through conversations held in person, online, or in hybrid spaces” (p.7). This finding is significant, as there are no barriers when it comes to students' ability to form connections, especially with how education has changed over the past few years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With many classrooms integrating Zoom and other online or hybrid forms of learning, these connections aren’t lost. In fact, students are able to connect with each other through any means, keeping up with the demands of new technology in classrooms and education overall. It is important to remember the newer generation of students have access to technology at an earlier age, so the education system must adapt to their familiarity, in addition to modernizing their methods of teaching. To ignore this development is to harm the potential of students and the future of learning, because of how rapidly children have adapted to technology. As Horrace (2021) points out, “Children’s knowledge of utilizing technology is tested at a young age and in many cases, children are surpassing their grandparents’ tech-knowledge with their know-how of making devices function almost effortlessly” (p.6).  Educators must understand how the current technological world affects children and their learning, and how capable children are of learning in the new digital age. This also provides reassurance to administration and educators, should something like the pandemic occur once more, students would still have access to meaningful lessons.

   Most studies on STEAM education use classrooms that include children without learning disabilities. For the most part, these studies are successful in demonstrating the benefits of STEAM in their respective environment, but Lu et.al’s (2022) study questions whether these benefits extend to children with learning disabilities. As the authors point out, there is insufficient research to back whether STEAM driven classes are beneficial to children with different learning needs; but this is due to the lack of interest in understanding children with special needs. It is for this reason why the authors decided to conduct a study on this topic. The study consisted of observing three different children in Taiwan. Each child had different needs, and no previous experience in a STEAM-driven environment. The children were encouraged to “make” by utilizing paper-cutting skills, and all data collected reflected an improvement in the children’s understanding of the lesson they were given. “On top of that, the STEAM curriculum changes the way they think and affirmatively changes their self-assurance” (p.9). Not only were the children better able to understand the lesson they were given, but there was also an increase in their self assurance, which impacts their confidence in their ability to complete the assignments they were given. Maker based education would also grant the children this flexibility they would need, considering the participants felt more confident about their abilities because they were able to take some control over their learning. Although the three participants took a different method of solution in the study, their understanding and interest in the topics increased; which couldn’t have been possible in a curriculum that does not place an emphasis on student-centred learning.

   A similar issue is posed by Park (2021), where there is a problematic lack of data in regards to STEAM and special education in Korea. Park argues STEAM based education promotes children to take the lead of their learning, something Park believes to be beneficial to the needs of special education students. When asking teachers however, they responded: their classrooms were significantly more engaged with STEAM classes, but classes were slower paced. All teachers agreed that these classes would provide their students with skills needed for life after education, but educators also wished there would be more support for them (p.7). Much like the United States, this form of education proves to be beneficial, but without the support of administration and others, the implementation of STEAM could prove to be more difficult. Although both papers place an emphasis on a need for more research, the initial findings are positive. Not only should STEAM and Maker education take place in special education classrooms, but these findings provide an interesting perspective: that placing children first, allowing them to “make” as a method of learning, is also inclusive for children with special needs. They are able to relate to their peers in the classroom environment, and the curriculum would be enriching for all students. An inclusive environment also allows for educators to feel more confident in their own classrooms, but it is clear that there needs to be more support for educators and students alike (Boice et.al, 2021, p.13). While STEAM continues to be implemented into classrooms, there is some hope that positive outcomes result in further support for educators. It is vital for administration and government to understand the immense benefits of STEAM and maker education.

     The question of whether students should be “making” in classrooms have answers, which  point to an immense benefit to implementing STEAM and maker education into classrooms. This form of education is student-centric, it grants them skills they will implement into their lives post-education, which is something valuable for the rest of their lives. Not only does this form of education value student learning, but also values how educators interact with students in their classrooms; and in order for classrooms to thrive, our educators and their concerns should also be valued by administration. After all, many educators believe in this innovative form of learning, but need the support of administration and above in order for STEAM and Maker education to work at its full potential. Educators also benefit from this form of education, considering the benefits it provides to their emotional state and memory to implement the same lessons for future classes. Maker education and STEAM are also uniquely inclusive, something that sets it apart from other forms of education; where all students regardless of needs are able to learn at their own pace, and develop lifelong skills. While educators continue to implement Maker education into their classrooms and keep their students engaged, administration should pay attention to its benefits. Ignoring the developing world of technology would prove to be detrimental to student’s learning as well; a lot of the newer generation of students were raised around new technology, it would prove useful to teach them utilizing the very technology they’ve come to understand. STEAM is the future, providing students with emotional, creative, and critical reasoning skills intertwined with ever advancing technology.

References

 Areej ElSayary. (2021). Teaching and Assessing Creativity in STEAM Education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 19(2), 1–7.

 Boice, Jackson, J. R., Alemdar, M., Rao, A. E., Grossman, S., & Usselman, M. (2021). Supporting Teachers on Their STEAM Journey: A Collaborative STEAM Teacher Training Program. Education Sciences, 11(3), 105–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030105

 Gates. (2017). Benefits of a STEAM Collaboration in Newark, New Jersey: Volcano Simulation Through a Glass-Making Experience. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.5408/16-188.1

Gong, Z. (2018). The relationship between creativity and morality: individual and collective perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University

  Hensberry, Whitacre, I., Findley, K., Schellinger, J., & Wheeler, M. B. (2018). Engaging Students with Mathematics through Play. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.24.3.0179

  Hsiao, & Su, C.-H. (2021). A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses and Its Effects on Student Motivation and Learning. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(7), 3772–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073772

  Jia, Zhou, B., & Zheng, X. (2021). A Curriculum Integrating STEAM and Maker Education Promotes Pupils’ Learning Motivation, Self-Efficacy, and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 725525–725525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725525

Karina K. R. Hensberry, Ian Whitacre, Kelly Findley, Jennifer Schellinger, & Mary Burr Wheeler. (2018). Engaging Students with Mathematics through Play. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 24(3), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.24.3.0179

 Land. (2013). Full STEAM Ahead: The Benefits of Integrating the Arts Into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317

 Lindberg, Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). STEAM Maker Education: Conceal/Reveal of Personal, Artistic and Computational Dimensions in High School Student Projects. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00051

Lu, Wu, C.-L., & Huang, Y.-M. (2022). Evaluation of Disabled STEAM -Students’ Education Learning Outcomes and Creativity under the UN Sustainable Development Goal: Project-Based Learning Oriented STEAM Curriculum with Micro:bit. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 14(2), 679–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020679

 Park. (2021). The Perception of Special Education Teachers for Implementing STEAM Education for Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(10), 925–932.

Patton, R. M., & Knochel, A. D. (2017). Meaningful Makers: Stuff, Sharing, and Connection in STEAM Curriculum. Art Education, 70(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2017.1247571

  Steele, & Ashworth, E. L. (2018). Emotionality and STEAM Integrations in Teacher Education. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v11i2.5058

  SUN. (2017). The importance of cultivating empathy in STEM education. Science Scope (Washington, D.C.), 40(8), 6–8.

 Zhan, Yao, X., & Li, T. (2022). Effects of association interventions on students’ creative thinking, aptitude, empathy, and design scheme in a STEAM course: considering remote and close association. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09801-x