Professional Development in Education

ISSN: 1941-5257 (Print) 1941-5265 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching

through professional development: implications
for teacher educators

Danielle Herro & Cassie Quigley

To cite this article: Danielle Herro & Cassie Quigley (2016): Exploring teachers’ perceptions
of STEAM teaching through professional development: implications for teacher educators,
Professional Development in Education, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507

Published online: 19 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 57

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjie20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 25 September 2016, At: 23:41
Professional Development in Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507

Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through

professional development: implications for teacher educators
Danielle Herroa* and Cassie Quigleyb
a
Digital Media and Learning, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA; bEugene T. Moore
School of Education, Clemson University, 205 Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC, USA
(Received 23 December 2015; accepted 3 June 2016)

This research involves a multi-year study examining the perspectives and class-
room practices of 21 middle school mathematics and science teachers, in the
southeastern United States, participating in professional development (PD)
exploring science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM)
literacies. This study sought to understand teachers’ perceptions and practices
before and after a PD in which STEAM integration was explored through
project-based learning involving the political, social, economical, environmental
and historical context of a local river. Participants used digital media as a means
of communicating and collaborating with peers and mentors, collecting and
analyzing data, and creating and sharing projects. Results suggest teachers
increased their understanding of STEAM to teach content and perceived the
STEAM PD as an effective initial step to change practice, citing the impor-
tance of collaboration and technology integrated directly into the learning pro-
cess. Implications from this study offer other teacher educators valuable
considerations towards developing successful STEAM PD to effect successful
STEAM teaching.
Keywords: STEAM professional development; STEAM teaching; project-based
learning; teacher education

Introduction
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is currently recognized
and widely used as a meta-discipline that bridges discrete disciplines such as
science, technology, engineering and mathematics using applications or processes
from each to create knowledge as whole (Morrison 2010). Economic, political, edu-
cational and world leaders and organizations have called for STEM-focused teaching
in order to increase academic rigor and prepare students for the workplace (Tytler
et al. 2008, National Research Council (US) 2011). However, researchers acknowl-
edge it is difficult to assess actual STEM learning when implemented in schools
(Honey et al. 2014). When referring to STEM, they suggest, ‘Existing assessments
tend to focus on knowledge in a single discipline. Furthermore, they typically focus
on content knowledge alone and give little attention to the practices in the
disciplines and applications of knowledge’ (2014, p. 6). Schachter (2011, p. 28)

*Corresponding author. Email: dherro@clemson.edu

© 2016 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)

2 D. Herro and C. Quigley

points to ‘President Obama’s State of the Union address in which the president
placed STEM high on the list of the nation’s educational priorities.’ The goal,
although worthwhile, in inculcating STEM literacies in classrooms is not to create
more scientists, engineers or mathematicians (Vasquez et al. 2013), but instead to
develop capable students who can function in a highly technological world. STEM
literacies draw on each of the disciplines in an entwined manner (often referred to as
‘interdisciplinary’ or ‘multidisciplinary’) to identify, understand, connect and express
STEM concepts in a systematic way to solve problems; meaning that STEM typi-
cally focuses on separate content areas through inquiry while attempting to draw
relationships between the disciplines.
Increasing STEM learning has not been easy. Despite increasing STEM priori-
ties, advocates of STEM have struggled to conceptualize STEM instruction, which
is probably because the various stakeholders, including government officials, K–12
teachers, students, parents and businesses, have a variety of understandings of
STEM based on their own experiences (Breiner et al. 2012).
In a recent article published by Education Week, Robelen (2011) suggests that
combining the arts to ‘move STEM to STEAM’ can produce powerful and
authentic learning opportunities. STEAM, where the ‘A’ represents arts and
humanities, is conceptualized as a transdisciplinary learning process. Transdisci-
plinary teaching assists students in exploring content areas by foregrounding a
problem or issue using multiple inquiry processes, which naturally connect the
disciplines through the problem to be solved. Like STEM learning, STEAM
assumes technology is used to facilitate part of the problem-solving process, but
the primary difference between STEM and STEAM is this transdisciplinary
approach in which authentic problems are explored and students can better under-
stand how all things relate to each other. Jolly (2014) points to the tug-of-war
between STEM and STEAM proponents trying to detangle the differences. She
suggests that both have merit, but that STEM often relies primarily on mathemat-
ics and science to direct learning activities, while STEAM emphasizes design,
media and performing arts, creative thinking or even playful problem-solving
when exploring and designing solutions.
Interestingly, despite the lack of conceptual or empirical work on STEAM-based
teaching practices (Yakman 2008), STEAM-focused schools exist in a variety of
locations. Some early adopters include the Da Vinci Schools in California, Drew
Charter School in Georgia, Pulaski Middle School in Virginia, schools nationwide in
Seoul, Korea and several schools in Europe – with even more school districts adopt-
ing STEAM practices each year (Delaney 2014). However, the lack of empirical evi-
dence remains as to the efficacy of this approach for developing capable students
who are well equipped to solve problems and meet the career challenges of the mod-
ern workforce. The purpose of this article is to explore teachers’ perspectives
towards STEAM teaching practices before and after participating in professional
development (PD). We wanted to know: what are the teachers’ current perceptions
of STEAM practices; how can STEAM PD assist teachers in understanding and
valuing the role of project-based learning (PBL) and technology in STEAM units;
and in what ways do their perceptions change after participating in PD? Answering
these questions is a first step to assist in the design of future STEAM PD, guiding
effective teacher education programs, and ultimately help practitioners implement
successful STEAM practices.
 Professional Development in Education 3

Review of the literature

STEAM education has a short history of application, beginning in 2011, which
means that STEAM practices are new, with limited research informing the field or
suggesting how teachers should be trained. Thus we review challenges in K–12
STEM education and emerging literature on STEAM education that informed both
our PD and our research.

Challenges in STEM education

One challenge to STEM education is that it is often narrowly focused on mathemat-
ics or science. Bybee (2010) suggests that teachers struggle to understand compo-
nents of STEM education, initially equating it to mathematics and science
challenges, and seldom to engineering or technology. He suggests that STEM educa-
tion must be context-based and aligned with real-life situations and global problems
or issues addressed through each component of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics. He furthers that challenges to STEM education will remain until model
STEM units, PD and assessment supported by policy and administers are integrated
into schools. In a similar vein, Honey et al.’s (2014) report proposing an agenda for
STEM integration acknowledges a rise in interest by educators, but a dearth of
research on factors that meaningfully promote interdisciplinary and integrated
approaches of the disciplines that would teach and retain students.
A recent study (Nadelson et al. 2013) regarding the impact of three-day STEM
PD institutes with two separate cohorts of K–5 elementary teachers confirmed that
perceptions, knowledge and overall confidence in STEM teaching increased when
teachers worked together and aligned their standards to STEM projects; however,
challenges in recruitment (teachers did not see the institute as beneficial) and pro-
longed time to reflect and refine practices were deemed necessary by the researchers
for continued improvement.
Student achievement in STEM has been sparsely addressed in the literature,
probably due to the lack of a clear conceptualization and the initial focus on teacher
development. A preliminary meta-analysis (Becker and Park 2011) of 28 studies
explored the effect of integrative approaches among STEM subjects, and improve-
ments in students’ achievement in general showed that students who learned STEM
through an integrative approach had greater achievement. The researchers called for
additional research evaluating student learning with integrative STEM approaches
with more specificity on the various ways in which subjects are integrated.
With unresolved challenges in STEM still apparent in K–12 settings, schools
have nonetheless begun to embrace STEAM education. It stands to reason that simi-
lar challenges will transpire in STEAM education. Although there is limited avail-
able research on STEAM education, we review two components of STEAM
instructional approaches from nascent STEAM literature.

Transdisciplinary teaching
As stated previously, although there is little conceptualization of STEAM, research-
ers note that one difference between STEM and STEAM is that STEAM incorpo-
rates transdisciplinarity (Rinne et al. 2011, Bequette and Bequette 2012, Guyotte
et al. 2015).
4 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Klein (2014) proposed transdisciplinarity as a collaborative process that

transcends multidisciplinary approaches wherein two major conditions are present:
an overarching synthesis of the disciplines (versus blending or integrating them);
and team members solving real world problems. She also suggests that transdisci-
plinarity raises the issue of not only problem solutions, but the problem choice (e.g.
choosing to include social justice issues or economic issues as part of scientific prob-
lems) because complex societal problems may be interdependent and relational but
not predicable (Klein 2004). Therefore, as we looked to support teachers’ in STEAM
practices, we purposely utilized a transdisciplinary approach, an approach that solves
a problem by transcending the discipline, foregrounding a problem that may have
multiple solutions. Transdisciplinary learning is often conflated with multidisci-
plinary or interdisciplinary learning. Multidisciplinary inquiry includes the knowl-
edge/understanding of more than one discipline (e.g. biology and physics), while
interdisciplinary inquiry uses the knowledge/understandings of one discipline within
another (e.g. biophysics). As such, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching
often focuses heavily on the disciplines versus the problem to be solved (e.g. posing
an engineering and mathematics problem to design a robot). In contrast, transdisci-
plinarity involves multiple disciplines but also includes the possibility of new per-
spectives ‘beyond’ those disciplines. For example, if teachers designed a STEAM
lesson that asked students to investigate the ramifications of imploding and redevel-
oping a building site in an area adjacent to a school, this would involve transdisci-
plinarity teaching, as this is a problem with numerous issues and solutions. In order
for students to define and explore the ramifications of this implosion, the students
would utilize content from more than one discipline (Gibbs 2015). For instance, dur-
ing the problem-solving portion of this lesson, students would utilize mathematics to
understand the size of the implosion and its effects on the school to determine
whether the school might be harmed. Additionally, they would need to understand
how sound travels and whether this might be of concern to the general public. Engi-
neering would be useful to develop models of the blast and to create alternative
routes for car and pedestrian travel. Through the use of technology, the students
might create a video providing a public service announcement in order to inform the
community about the implosion. Finally, the students could propose plans for repur-
posing the space and utilizing arts through aesthetics (Bequette and Bequette 2012).
In this way, STEAM extends beyond the media arts when incorporating art as a part
of the initial problem-solving process.
Transdisciplinary teaching can be challenging to implement effectively. It
requires teachers to develop content knowledge within their discipline but also an
understanding of other disciplines. In this way, teachers must be able to see the con-
nections between their content and others. They must also understand how to create
relevant problems that address multiple disciplines. Moore et al. (2014) contend that
this requires context integration and content integration. Context integration focuses
on the content of one discipline and uses contexts from a different discipline to
make the content more relevant. For example, a sixth-grade mathematics teacher
might create a unit around the appropriate enclosure sizes for nearby zoo animals.
The mathematics content would be ratios and calculating area and/or volume
addressing requisite state mathematics standards related to this content, assuming the
instance of this case; however, understanding animal behavior makes the topic more
relevant and would provide a better platform for solving the problem. In this
 Professional Development in Education 5

example of context integration, the teacher designed a lesson that involved the
context of science to situate the mathematics content in a real-world context.
Conversely, content integration focuses on the blending of the content fields into
a single curriculum in order to highlight main ideas from multiple content areas. For
example, an eighth-grade science teacher might create a unit on understanding the
financial impact of solar-powered lights in a city park. Content knowledge is
required in the area of electricity, heat transfer and efficiency but fully understanding
the financial impact requires mathematical knowledge in terms of calculating the
cost of solar-powered lights versus lights that use natural resources. In this example
of content integration, understanding the content of both mathematics and science is
required to solve this problem. Being able to integrate context and content requires a
high level of subject matter content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge,
which Cochran et al. (1993), among others, cited as a critical, yet difficult piece to
develop during transdisciplinary teaching. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is
that teachers are unable to develop the skills needed to successfully integrate content
and context, and one area falls short, which typically is the content knowledge (Lee
and Nason 2013).
What is not known is how to effectively support transdisciplinary teaching with
pedagogical techniques that enrich content and meet curricula requirements. That
said, advocates state that STEAM creates a more realistic transdisciplinary learning
experience than STEM because the arts create a space for creativity, which provides
a platform for better integration of the disciplines (Rinne et al. 2011, Miller and
Knezek 2013). Students who experienced transdisciplinary teaching not only
strengthened their learning within the disciplines, but between disciplines through
the opportunity to explore and make connections between art, music, mathematics,
science and more (Henrkisen et al. 2015). Moreover, studies into transdisciplinary
curricula found that students who experienced this type of learning were more inter-
ested in pursuing careers to support the fields of mathematics and science. One rea-
son is that students, who might not otherwise be interested in science and
mathematics, were drawn to the disciplines through this transdisciplinary approach
(Vanasupa 2012). STEAM intends to develop students’ critical thinking skills and
ability to solve complex problems by merging various subjects and applying them to
real life. The purpose of this transdisciplinary education is to appeal to students’
understanding, interests, motivation and potentials in science and technology, as well
as to increase their creativity (Henriksen 2014).
However, most teachers have used little STEAM education in their classes, due
to insufficient PD on how to implement this transdisciplinary approach into their
specific content areas (Geum and Bae 2012). Several studies conducted on the per-
ceptions of elementary and secondary teachers demonstrated that teachers have posi-
tive attitudes about STEAM education, and agree that this teaching practice would
be a shift from their traditional teacher-centered practices (e.g. lecture, notes) towards
student-centered learning (Shin and Han 2011, Han et al. 2012, Son et al. 2012).
The teachers mostly understood the core concepts and the necessity of STEAM, but
were still not clear about how to approach STEAM teaching. According to Son et al.
(2012), teachers’ awareness of STEAM education increased once they had the oppor-
tunity to make connections to their content curricula in order to understand how to
apply it to their actual teaching. This early research points to the need of clearly
defining and modeling a STEAM approach for teachers, and providing them with
opportunities to experience this approach from the perspective of students.
6 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Overall, teachers describe several needs to facilitate STEAM education including

time to develop STEAM-related curricula, supportive administrators, productive in-
service training and consulting with educational experts (Shin and Han 2011).
Accordingly, STEAM education needs to include an examination of effective PD
that shifts teacher perceptions of STEAM towards a transdisciplinary manner of
teaching and learning.

Project-based learning
One transdisciplinary teaching approach that has demonstrated learning, increased
collaborative skills, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, which are all goals
of STEAM, is PBL. Project-based learning has been utilized and studied for decades
as a sound pedagogical technique that can bridge multiple disciplines (Barron 1998,
Thomas 2000, Krajcik 2015). Therefore, in order to frame our conceptions of
STEAM, we utilized PBL as a pedagogical strategy to integrate the content areas of
science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics. When PBL is compared with
traditional (lecture or other non-PBL instruction) teaching, students performed better
on assessments of their content knowledge with the PBL instruction (Penuel and
Means 2000). Effective integration of PBL has demonstrated higher-levels of student
engagement, critical thinking, problem-solving and a higher level of collaboration
between students (Brush and Saye 2008, ChanLin 2008).
The specific PBL framework we utilized was Thomas’s (2000) five criteria to
define PBL: ‘Projects are central, not peripheral to the curriculum’; ‘projects are
focused on questions or problems that “drive” students to encounter (and struggle
with) the central concepts and principles of the discipline’; ‘projects involve students
in a constructive investigation’; ‘projects are student-driven to some significant
degree’; and ‘projects are realistic, not school-like’ (2000, pp. 3–4).
Despite its positive benefits, many teachers find it difficult to enact. For example,
Marx et al. (1997) documented that the challenges of successful implementation of
PBL included the following: projects were time-consuming; classrooms felt disor-
derly; teachers could not control the flow of information; it was difficult to balance
giving students independence and providing them with supports; it was difficult to
incorporate technology as a cognitive tool; and authentic assessments were hard to
design. What is not known about PBL is how it might align with STEAM teaching
to promote multiple inquiry-based approaches. Similar to transdisciplinary teaching,
we were careful to explore the challenges of PBL to ensure that the teachers were
prepared to overcome these common struggles prior to implementation.
In summary, although the literature on STEAM education practices is limited,
early findings indicate the potential for increasing participation and engagement in
STEM fields as well as ways to create capable students who can function in a highly
technological world. Moreover, through a transdisciplinary approach to PBL, stu-
dents use multiple pathways and lines of inquiry to solve complex, real-world prob-
lems, while increasing their understanding of content knowledge.

Methodology
This research explored how placing middle school teachers in the role of students’
learning through PBL and technology-enhanced PD might cause them to rethink
their teaching practices. First, we created a STEAM professional learning
 Professional Development in Education 7

opportunity aligned with current standards and based on general, requisite district
requirements for content. Teacher perceptions of STEAM were examined before,
during and after the PD. The ongoing research is part of a larger study aimed at
shifting teaching practices. The third sequence of the PD courses, not yet completed
at the time of this publication, will further detail participants’ classroom implementa-
tions of STEAM practices with continued year-long supports (e.g. forming cohorts
with peers, and instructor and peer observations).
This descriptive case study (Stake 1995) employs qualitative research. Case
study is appropriate because it relies on multiple sources of evidence, and benefits
from the prior development of theoretical propositions. Stake (1995, p. xi) states that
‘Case study is the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming
to understand its activity within important circumstances.’ The teachers within the
context of the PD define the case; therefore the research is framed around the year-
long PD, focusing first on teachers during the summer sessions and their perspec-
tives and perceived influence of the PD on their future STEAM teaching. Methods
are aligned to Stake’s notion of an integrative system in that our case was interested
in the interactions within the PD, which formed participants’ perspectives towards
STEAM teaching.

Research questions
Our research questions were as follows:

• What are the teachers’ current perceptions of STEAM practices?

• In what ways does STEAM PD assist teachers in understanding the role of
PBL and technology in STEAM units?
• In what ways do their perceptions change after participating in PD?

We use findings from these questions to draw implications towards improving

teacher education.

Context of this professional development and research

The opening of an innovative STEAM middle school (Grades Six to Eight) in a
mid-sized school district in the southeastern United States prompted a partnership
with a nearby university to assist with PD focused on strengthening teachers’ under-
standing and practices with STEAM literacies. After a year of discussion and plan-
ning meetings between district administrators, teachers and university faculty, a
nine-credit sequence of three courses (‘Project-based Learning,’ ‘Digital Media and
Learning,’ ‘Becoming a Reflective Practitioner’) was proposed offering teachers
approximately 50 hours of focused PD time during the summer months, with addi-
tional follow-up PD to be offered directly in classrooms through follow-up meetings,
observations and planning sessions during the next academic year. The district deter-
mined that the PD would include mathematics and science teachers believing that
the ‘A’ in STEAM encompassed the humanities (taught by all teachers), technology
was not considered a separate content area and middle schools in the region did not
have engineering teachers.
The goal of the follow-up PD was to enact, reflect upon and refine practices
while forming supportive professional cohorts to extend practices. Although the new
8 D. Herro and C. Quigley

STEAM school prompted the PD course sequence, only three teachers from the new
school were involved, with an additional 18 drawn from seven other schools. This
minor involvement from the STEAM middle school was purposeful because the
gradual phase in of teachers and grade levels (school year 2014/15 only had sixth-
grade students, with Grades Seven and Eight to follow in subsequent years) was
planned for the new school, it enabled other district teachers opportunities to partici-
pate and future cohorts of the STEAM PD model were anticipated.
The initial 50-hour PD, which constituted the courses ‘Project-based Learning’
and ‘Digital Media and Learning,’ focused on offering teachers background in stu-
dent interests and practices outside of school (creating with media, hands-on learn-
ing, interests in local or neighborhood issues) and then connecting those interests to
engaging STEAM practices. Using a model aligned with emerging STEAM prac-
tices described in the literature, teachers were asked to identify, understand, connect
and express STEAM concepts in a systematic way to solve problems (Vasquez et al.
2013). Throughout the course, participants formed teams and selected problems to
solve, based on their personal and professional interests, to understand the sustain-
ability of a local river flowing through a thriving downtown. Community mentors,
who served as content area experts, solicited by the instructors from local govern-
ment agencies, such as the Parks and Recreation Director and sustainable living, soil
conservation and wastewater treatment experts, provided background and evidence
regarding the economic, political, social, environmental and historical considerations
of the site. Internet research offered additional evidence to support their hypotheses
and digital media facilitated and demonstrated much of the learning. In order to have
teachers consider STEAM learning, data collection was conducted at the site,
experts guided their work and digital media enabled them to collaboratively solve
problems and express and concepts. In the following we further detail the process to
elucidate understanding:
Teachers formed teams (math, science and technology teachers) to address the follow-
ing tasks and provide potential solutions, ‘Government officials are interested in using
the waterway at [Local river name] to harvest renewable energy. Local residents are
upset about this decision and concerned about the environmental, health, political,
social and economic impact. The park is highly visible and heavily used in the city’s
vibrant downtown. Therefore, residents are asking expert scientists to take on some
important tasks: (1) To identify, document, and research both problems and alternatives
to using this waterway to harness energy and, (2) To collect and analyze data regarding
the proposed alternative to using the waterway to harness energy.’ (See Appendix 1 for
explanation of alignment with STEAM)
After initial research, the teams and community experts traveled to a local river
and surrounding sites to collect data. Teachers collected data including water quality
and flow samples, video recordings, notes and images. During the PD, technology
was introduced in mini-lessons in a ‘just-in-time’ (Hew and Brush 2007) format to
communicate, complete work or for future consideration. Google Apps were used
extensively for surveys, document sharing, mapping locations and further collaborat-
ing (via Google Hangout) with experts. Social bookmarks (Diigo, available at
https://www.diigo.com/) facilitated teacher-to-student and peer sharing of Internet
sites. WordPress blogs (https://wordpress.org/), iMovie (Apple, Inc.) and podcasting
demonstrated learning and allowed teachers to creatively mix media projects show-
casing their research and proposed solutions to identified problems regarding sus-
taining the economic or environmental health of the river. Prior to this, teachers met
 Professional Development in Education 9

Table 1. Description of activities and technologies for weeklong STEAM PD.

Day Session Activities Technology
1 Morning • Big Picture – why does this matter? Google Docs and
• Google Apps for Education – how are Google Forms
things organized?
• Create a Google form for understanding
student interest
• Watch video on implications for gauging
student interest
1 Afternoon • Begin to outline project-based instruction Diigo
(designing a project-based lesson,
incorporating engagement/interest of
students, meeting standards, and cyber-
physical learning)
• Brainstorm topic questions within content
area
• Create Diigo account (social bookmarks),
research topic
• Begin to create data collection plan and
refine question
2 Morning • Set up data collection, show examples
• Field trip to local river to collect data
• Meet with community experts (seven)
2 Afternoon • Introduce blogging as a way to Blogs
disseminate research
• Group work on blogs and data analysis
3 Morning • Group share out – five minutes per group Google Hangout
(What is the problem you are trying to
solve? Data collected? What further
information do you need? Further
questions for community members?)
• Google Hangout – chat with expert for
20–30 minutes
3 Afternoon • Present a ‘menu of options’ to demonstrate iMovie, podcasts
understanding (i.e. Digital storytelling/
scriptwriting – iMovie App, podcasting
Apps)
• Research/creating/work session
4 Morning • Student assessment – how to write rubrics Google Drive
• Discussion of using digital tools to
monitor learning
• Discussion of group work assessment
(individual and group work/when to
intervene?)
• Collaboration (peers/student-to-student)
4 Afternoon • Working session – create media and Google Forms, bitly,
evaluations podcasts, iMovie
• Created rubric for peer-evaluation (Google
Form + bitly link), podcast or iMovie
5 Morning • Deconstruction of PBL – discussion of Google Earth
difference between projects and project-
based learning/whole class and individual
groups

(Continued)
10 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Table 1. (Continued).
Day Session Activities Technology
• Google Earth – locate environmental
science in a variety of locales
• Community Quest – began thinking about
community-based questions for local
investigations (brown fields; food desserts)
• Final work time
5 Afternoon • Presentation of ‘in progress work,’
blog/media/peer evaluation
• Discussion of follow-up course (reflective
practice)
• Schedule for observations (October/
February/April) and post-survey

for an orientation day to familiarize themselves with the instructors, syllabus, Goo-
gle Apps, reading assignments and a general discussion regarding STEAM. Two
weeks later they began the week-long intensive PD. Table 1 presents details of the
day-to-day activities and technologies introduced throughout the PD.

Participants
The participants included 21 science and mathematics teachers (five males and 16
females) from seven middle schools in the same school district; the district ranks
within the largest 110th nationally. This PD enhanced an existing district-wide
STEAM initiative, and thus some participants had prior STEAM training or knowl-
edge. The STEAM district coordinator recruited the participants, and they were
required to obtain approval from their principal to attend the PD. Table 2 presents
information regarding the number of years the participants had taught. Table 3 pre-
sents information regarding their certification related to STEAM.

Data sources
Measures include pre-test and post-test open-ended surveys (see Appendix 2) from
21 teachers, observations conducted during the PD, daily written reflections on new
technology introduced, recorded focus group interviews and teacher-created artifacts.
The pre-survey was administered in an effort to better understand teachers’ prior
beliefs and experiences regarding STEAM and PBL, use of technology and expecta-
tions for this PD. Post-surveys and focus group interviews focused on increased
understanding of STEAM, its impact towards changing practice (e.g. future plans to

Table 2. Participants’ years of teaching.

Years teaching Participants
0–3 4
3–6 5
7–12 7
12–20 2
20+ 3
 Professional Development in Education 11

Table 3. Certification level related to STEAM.

Type of certification
None 4
Graduate school or technology courses 9
STEAM ALIVE (in-district PD) 5
National week-long training 2
Former engineer/certified in mathematics/science teaching 1

integrate STEAM) and perceptions of value of the PD. On the final day, a total of
10 questions were posed to a focus group (recorded and later transcribed) including:

• Throughout this week, have your perceptions of STEAM changed at all

(expanded, narrowed, clarified, etc.)? If so, could you explain in what ways?
• Do you intend to use any parts of the learning from this professional learning
in your classrooms? If so, which parts do you see using immediately?
• Which parts will you need more time to implement?
• What do you envision as the biggest challenge for implementation?

Artifacts included projects created during the intensive week-long class, and unit
plans from six different groups representing all 21 participants, completed two
weeks after the PD; unit plan topics included investigating issues related to invasive
species, doctors diagnosing a disease, planning a school garden, raising money to
support a field trip, adaptation of native species after a catastrophe and the effects of
infectious diseases on populations.

Data analysis
A thematic analysis focused on the overarching question regarding teachers’ prior
perceptions, shifting perceptions and future plans to integrate STEAM practices (e.g.
PBL, technology integration and transdisciplinary teaching) after participating in the
PD. A multi-step thematic analysis is a process often used when comparing multiple
data sources sequentially, wherein one data source will inform the next type of data
source used (Miles et al. 2013). The first step in the thematic analysis was to code
the pre-survey data. Data codes included teachers’ understanding of collaboration,
STEAM teaching and technology integration, and these data informed post-surveys
and focus group questions. After the initial analysis, focus group interviews were
devised to ask direct questions, regarding STEAM teaching practices as already
noted. Using the initial data codes a second round of analysis was conducted on
post-survey data, focus group data and teacher artifacts (e.g. media created within
the PD and unit plans). After the second round of analysis, codes were refined to
create themes, which were discussed, interpreted, triangulated and compared
between researchers, ensuring validity and reliability (Erickson 1986).

Findings
Findings addressing our research questions are detailed in the following sections;
themes are addressed separately, but overlap is evident between the themes.
12 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Teachers’ perceptions of STEAM before the PD

Participants’ perceptions of STEAM before the PD demonstrated that they valued
STEAM, believing it important that the practice incorporated the arts, and suggested
the approach would create new roles for teachers and students, yet they lacked the
understanding of how to approach teaching their content in a transdisciplinary man-
ner or what incorporating the ‘arts’ really meant. This was despite the districts’
focus on a STEAM initiative ostensibly offering information and training by a dis-
trict STEAM coordinator (the district no longer has a science coordinator replacing
the position with a STEAM coordinator, as such all science teachers had contact
with this coordinator), and that at least one-third had completed prior STEAM PD
or training.

Valuing STEAM for future preparedness

All of the teachers (N = 21) felt that science, technology, engineering and mathemat-
ics skills were important to inculcate in their students, saying they were ‘the future,’
or ‘science, technology, engineering and math skills would guide the future’ or ‘they
were critical to career development and vital for today’s students.’ One believed
technology was important but often used for the ‘sake of teaching the tool’ and
without enhancing student learning. Before the STEAM PD, teachers believed that
incorporating the ‘arts’ would make students well rounded and potentially garner
greater interest in other content areas. Three teachers mentioned that STEAM might
offer students more ways to communicate their learning through language arts (in-
cluding drawing, music, reading or writing), two added that they were curious about
what emphasizing the arts and humanities really meant and two simply stated that
STEAM was not much different than STEM.

Perceptions of new roles in STEAM classrooms

In general, teachers in this PD believed that the role of the student and teacher
should be different from traditional classroom models emphasizing transmittal of
knowledge. Teachers described the perceived role of the student in STEAM learning
as ‘a creator and developer engaged in inquiry,’ able to communicate and make con-
nections because they had a ‘need to know.’ Eight of the teachers described their
perceptions of students in STEAM learning as actively involved, ‘doing, creating,
exploring or engaging in the process,’ while teachers acted as facilitators. Three
mentioned students needing to participant in more group work and two participants
expressed concern over students getting off-task with technology.

Limited understanding of a transdisciplinary approach

The teachers had difficulty understanding how to enact transdisciplinarity, regardless
of earlier STEAM training. Five of the 21 participants believed STEAM should be
integrated across disciplines versus being approached as a single skill, with three of
the five further explaining the connections between science, technology, engineering
and mathematics. These three participants clearly perceived an obvious overlap of
the disciplines but expressed teaching constraints (schedules, standards, content
expectations) that prevented them seeing beyond their own discipline. In terms of
 Professional Development in Education 13

incorporating ‘the arts,’ pre-surveys showed that 18 participants understood STEAM

to include art but their knowledge of what this might mean pedagogically was
absent or limited. Teachers did not see including the arts in STEAM as a way of
approaching teaching. Most said nothing beyond ‘it integrates the arts.’ Furthermore,
none of the teachers expressed STEAM as transdisciplinary (note: we did not expect
them to use the term; responses were examined for types of teaching practices
described) or raised the issue of project-based approaches.

Changes in teacher perceptions after the professional development

Following the PD, teachers’ perceptions of STEAM shifted in three primary ways.
They expressed an increased understanding of STEAM to teach content (within or
beyond their discipline), they perceived collaboration as a means of achieving trans-
disciplinary teaching and they believed effective technology integration should move
beyond technology for instruction and focus on technology as a tool to promote
learning content.

Increased understanding of STEAM to teach content

Classroom observations, artifacts created during the week-long PD and post-surveys
evidenced teachers’ deepening understanding of STEAM as a method to teach con-
tent, with PBL and technology deepening this understanding.
Three representative examples recorded during whole-class discussions demon-
strate their deepening understanding of the concepts. Teachers worked daily in the
same teams of four or five during the PD, with one member typically highlighting
small group discussions for the entire class. One group (N = 5) reported: ‘the more
we talk within our groups in the context of the problem we are solving, the more we
understand how to connect content, bring in content, and teach students through the
use of an interesting project.’ Another group (N = 4) reported:
developing a unit with a strong guiding question or problem that will give meaning to
the learning taking place in the classroom. By having this main focus, the students will
have a purpose for their learning and hopefully feel motivated to participate in class
discussions and activities.
During discussions reflecting on the use of local community members, the majority
of participants talked about the value of connecting to experts (via Google Hangout)
to assist in teaching content, explaining that they were a bridge to understanding
‘problem-based learning in action in their classroom.’ On the final day of the PD the
groups began designing unit plans; seven were completed and uploaded to Google
Drive two weeks after the PD ended. Each unit included: a driving question relevant
to students’ lives or locality; a transdisciplinary teaching model involving three or
more disciplines embedded within a problem scenario; attention to twenty-first-
century skills and technology; and a focus on collaborative ways to solve a problem
related to the driving question. Unit plans were a clear indication of an increased
understanding of STEAM (see abbreviated sample in Appendix 3; representative of
the typical unit plan).
In addition, post-class and focus group interviews demonstrated teachers’ beliefs
that the PD increased their understanding of STEAM to include PBL and technology
integration, with more than half (N = 12) citing the scenario-based problem-solving
14 D. Herro and C. Quigley

activities in the class (an important component of PBL), where they took the role of
the teacher and learner, as critical to deepening their understanding of how to imple-
ment STEAM. Nine of the teachers mentioned the combination of experiencing
technology integration within a project that crossed disciplines as essential to fur-
thering their understanding of STEAM.
Four of the seven focus group participants discussed the importance of under-
standing how PBL lines up with STEAM principles, believing they learned how to
implement it effectively and better assess student learning. Three of the seven men-
tioned how ‘STEAM was clarified for me,’ saying they ‘heard of STEM but had
never experienced it or done it in class,’ and could now see ‘that there are many
more layers to STEM and STEAM, it’s not just changing some verbiage or throwing
in some engineering.’ Participants pointed to the combination of STEAM and PBL
explored within a collaborative group as key to deepening their understanding of
ways to implement units in their classrooms. They further believed the support of
instructors, mentors and technology assisted in deepening their understanding. A
representative sentiment expressed by one of participants is as follows:
This professional development allowed me to practice and consider project-based
learning, STEAM, transdisciplinary approaches, and useful technology as both the stu-
dent and teacher. I benefited from learning about these ideas in a collaborative group
with other teachers and the support of mentors (instructors). In a way, this class mod-
eled what we hope to see in our classrooms because the learning is more powerful.

Collaboration as an initial means towards transdisciplinary teaching

Even after the PD, participants did not fully grasp the concept of transdisciplinarity,
believing their ability to change practice was limited to interdisciplinary teaching in
the immediate future. However, collaboration was discussed as a preliminary means
of beginning to develop an understanding towards this approach. Specifically, the
participants discussed two ways in which collaboration facilitated a move towards
transdisciplinary thinking. First, they believed in collaboration by incorporating
other disciplines into their teaching (e.g. science teachers considering mathematical
concepts). Second, collaboration helped them identify areas where they would need
content expertise outside of their specific discipline. Ten of the participants dis-
cussed collaboration as a way to think beyond single content areas. For example,
one participant stated in the post-survey: ‘because of the way the PD was structured,
we collaborated not only in our content area but across the disciplines as well. This
was new to me. It forced me to think beyond my content area, beyond my class-
room.’ In one case, two groups (nine participants) talked about the differences and
similarities of teaching conversions as a mathematics teacher or a science teacher,
and discussed ways to incorporate social studies into their projects even though they
were not social studies teachers; teachers demonstrated an increased ability to con-
nect numerous disciplines around a group project.
Sixteen participants also noted that collaboration, oftentimes enabled by technol-
ogy, allowed them an opportunity to connect with experts in the field in content
areas outside of their specialty. Because STEAM requires teachers to incorporate
multiple content areas, the teachers felt this type of collaboration provided them with
the necessary support to incorporate multiple content areas and modes of inquiry.
They mentioned the ability to meet with the experts at the river as a good way to
 Professional Development in Education 15

initially establish a relationship with them but that Google Hangout was also a
useful way to collaborate with the experts, and a tool that could be easily
incorporated into their classrooms. Importantly, all six projects that the teachers cre-
ated (during the class) demonstrated their ability to provide relevant experiences for
students connected to community issues, which required leaning on experts outside
of the teachers’ individual disciplines. All projects utilized experts, emulated role-
playing of government or community organizations and addressed issues local to the
school or city surroundings. Again, technology greatly assisted in demonstrating
understanding. For example, one group’s presentation included an iMovie that was
produced on site at the local river, detailing water quality issues related to moving
the waterway by role-playing a reporter and official from local wastewater treatment
plant. The data sharing, analysis and organization was done with Google Docs, a
blog and a Google Presentation with an embedded iMovie.

Importance of experiencing technology as tools to learn content

During the PD, a daily after-lunch check-in was conducted by recording each tea-
cher’s thoughts on post-it notes placed on a chart as they reflected on the value of
the technology modeled for teaching and learning. This served to gauge whether
teachers understood the purpose of the technology and whether they would use it
again (see Table 4). In post-surveys, nine of the 21 teachers cited that the effective
use of technology when they ‘took the role of students’ helped them envision its use
and would significantly alter their plans to integrate and use technology in the class-
room. Three additional teachers mentioned the need to further ‘play with’ the tools,
but believed they had a much better understanding of how to use technology to
impact students. Again, they cited this being fostered by their dual role within the
PD, experiencing the project as both student and teacher.
Focus group participants repeatedly suggested that the collaborative components
of the digital tools (Google Docs, Google Hangout, Diigo, WordPress, etc.) posi-
tively influenced their perspective towards using similar technologies with students.
Furthermore, they suggested this was much different from prior PDs and technology
‘training.’ When asked why this method was effective, one teacher explained:
‘Going through the process as a student [using the technology] helped me to better
understand what I need to do as teacher in my classroom.’ All (seven) focus group
members planned to increase technology integration in future units, including but
not limited to STEAM units. While ‘intent’ itself is not a novel finding, in this case
intended use is significant because participants were likely to follow through as
future units were to be observed by the researchers in the subsequent ‘Becoming a
Reflective Practitioner’ course. With no requirement to integrate a particular type or
number of technologies, teachers were free to employ limited or low-tech options.
Additionally, each unit plan (N = 7) evidenced teachers’ intention to use technology
in their future STEAM units, including Google Docs, iMovie, Google Hangout,
Diigo, Photoshop, Socrative (http://www.socrative.com/) or other collaborative
software.

Challenges to enacting STEAM teaching

Despite the fact that participants valued STEAM and discussed opportunities for
implementing the STEAM practices in their classrooms, they also discussed
16 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Table 4. Teachers’ daily check-in to gauge value of technology introduced.

Technology Was it useful? Purpose (representative responses)
Socrative Yes = 15 Short quiz-like format that can be used for various
Maybe = 3 reasons: data collection, assessment, immediate feedback;
No response = 3 provides immediate feedback which facilitates learning;
helps me reflect on my teaching by viewing data, would
use to assess and re-teach
Google Yes = 20 Instant responses/sharing of documents and collaboration
Docs/ No = 1 on single documents; allows students to post responses
Forms and learn from each other, can use it to survey students;
getting to know students, collaborative tool for students,
easy access to student knowledge
Diigo Yes = 12 Allows facilitators to place relevant research sites in one
Maybe = 3 place to focus students and protect them; used to list
No = 1 websites, highlight, annotate, sticky notes; facilitates
No response = 5 learning if students are highlighting/annotating website;
definitely helps learning, gives students a great starting
point when choosing sources
WordPress Yes = 12 Allows students to present information about a particular
Blog Maybe = 5 subject, unsure about using it though, if you are able to
No= 1 use Google docs seems unnecessary; working together
No response = 3 and pulling information and discussion from different
Maybe = 2 point of views
No response = 1
Google Yes = 18 Facilitate learning, allows the ability to communicate with
Hangout others (e.g., experts), this is great if they cannot make it
to your class; This was wonderful! I can definitely see the
benefit of using this tool to collaborate with/other experts/
school groups, etc.; great way to connect and share.
Opens up many learning opportunities (expert, other
classes, world)
iMoviea Yes = 11 Communicate information to an audience, summarize,
Maybe = 1 engages students; creative; can show comprehension for
No response = 2 longer projects; some people may enjoy this method of
expression
a
Seven participants involved in focus group interviews did not participate in the check-in activity.

numerous challenges for implementing these practices. Overwhelmingly, the teachers

in the focus group discussed how opportunities for collaborative planning with col-
leagues at their schools would be critical to successful implementation. Although this
PD provided the participants with a collaborative space, they were concerned about
being able to continue to have collaborative planning time during the academic year.
Only one school, the new STEAM middle school, had established a daily planning
time for teachers across disciplines to collaborate. Additionally, with only a couple
participants from each school, the opportunity for a common planning time would
provide a means to impact other teachers who were not a part of the PD.
Another concern about implementation included ways in which they would
assess the students. The participants worried about group grading (e.g. giving the
students from the group all the same grade) but struggled with ways to differentiate
grading that was still representative of the knowledge and work of the students. One
major concern from the focus group was how the participants would be able to
effectively scaffold students with multiple ability levels through the STEAM units;
 Professional Development in Education 17

they also discussed the challenges of effective student grouping to create a

productive learning space. They remarked that group work often led to ‘one student
doing all the work’ in their classrooms. The last challenge they discussed was pac-
ing. The participants noted that if they had more flexibility over their pacing guide
and the ‘scope and sequence’ of the courses, they would be able to more authenti-
cally integrate other disciplines. They felt that the scope and sequence guide limited
their ability to teach transdisciplinarily because of the prescribed nature of the guide.
For example, one participant noted that he would love to do a unit relating geometry
and motion but that these subjects were taught during different times of the year.
Surprisingly, technology was not seen as a significant challenge; all had reliable con-
nectivity with varying levels of device access. These perceived challenges informed
ways to support participants during the academic year.

Discussion and implications

What does this mean for teacher educators?
Research towards effective STEAM practices is in its infancy, yet schools are
beginning to adopt broad pedagogical and integration approaches. Research-based
professional learning is necessary to prepare teachers for this trend, and thus under-
standing ways to design successful STEAM PD by teacher educators is important.
Drawing on data from this case, we discuss implications for educators and research-
ers informing future efforts to impact STEAM teaching practices.
Despite some knowledge or STEAM training by at least half of the participants
before the PD, most had limited understanding of STEAM as including transdisci-
plinary approaches. They viewed STEAM as addressing, but not necessarily inte-
grating, multiple disciplines. This is consistent with Son et al. (2012), suggesting
teachers may understand core concepts of STEAM but struggle to clearly articulate
it in theory, much less practice. After the PD teachers had a more concise under-
standing of STEAM to teach content, they believed PBL was an important compo-
nent of STEAM, and they perceived collaboration and technology as important to
teach in a transdisciplinary manner. While they had a better understanding of how to
include the arts and humanities (as part of transdisciplinary teaching), they primarily
considered media arts focusing on creative ways to deliver presentations. This points
to the need to have teacher educators involve arts and humanities experts in PD
efforts.

Technology-enabled collaboration as key towards understanding and implementing

STEAM
Collaboration greatly impacted teachers’ perceptions of how to implement STEAM
in their classrooms, and technology greatly assisted in this work. In this case,
collaboration enabled teachers to bridge disciplines (Morrison 2010) and investigate
scenarios linked to real-world problems. Teachers believed collaboration assisted
them in: understanding STEAM content related to transdisciplinary teaching; con-
necting with experts in the field; and enabling fruitful discussions to work out cur-
rent and future implementation challenges. Teachers used Google Docs, Google
Hangout, Diigo, Blogger and iMovie to understand and share content, collectively
analyze data and connect with mentors. This technology-enabled collaborative work
in which participants solved a relevant, local problem and opportunities to simulate
18 D. Herro and C. Quigley

and discuss projects based on multiple disciplines served to strengthen the

understanding of STEAM and promote movement towards transdisciplinary teach-
ing. Teachers also reported the inclusion of PBL to drive problem-solving activities
that crossed disciplines proved effective in deepening their understanding of
STEAM. Akin to research reporting higher levels of engagement, problem-solving
and motivation among students who collaborate (Brush and Saye 2008, ChanLin
2008), teachers experienced similar benefits.
Even though scheduling, curricula requirements and insufficient planning time
were noted as constraints limiting their ability to achieve true transdisciplinary
teaching, the participants believed they would immediately (in the fall term) move
towards a model of interdisciplinary teaching (e.g. science and mathematics teachers
creating a STEAM unit). While this is not ‘true’ transdisciplinary teaching, it may
be an important first step. Similar to Shin and Han’s (2011) findings, schools wishing
to support STEAM might rethink common planning time, consider block scheduling
and emphasize ways to address content and standards with STEAM units. In a
similar vein, teacher educators might employ interdisciplinary units of study in
PD and pre-service teacher training as a first step towards transdisciplinarity.

Technology as tools for learning content

Solving problems in STEAM units was approached by foregrounding content.
Instead of step-by-step walkthroughs of digital tools, technology was presented in
mini-lessons, embedded in activities and transdisciplinary work to learn, collaborate
or create content (e.g. Google Docs to work on unit plans and narrate iMovie scripts,
Google Forms to collect data in the field, WordPress blogs to collectively create and
then comment on mathematics and science information discovered, analyzed and
summarized from the waterway). Daily ‘after-lunch check-ins’ proved useful for
teachers to consider the purpose, value and potential for future integration of tech-
nology with transdisciplinary teaching and learning. The technology ‘mini-lessons’
bolstered teachers’ confidence in their ability to use or assess the tools for future
classroom units, a finding supported by other researchers (Hew and Brush 2007).
Additionally, akin to Miller and Knezek’s (2013) assertion, technology offered ways
for teachers to be creative, providing a platform for better integration of the disci-
plines. The iMovie final product, and to a lesser extent the WordPress blogs, were
clear indications of creative integration of the media arts in STEAM. This finding
indicates modeling the use of technology as a learning tool (for creating, communi-
cating and demonstrating understanding) wherein teachers assumed the role of stu-
dents enhanced STEAM learning. This implies similar methods might be effective
with teacher educators working with pre-service or in-service teachers to understand
content through STEAM.

Addressing the ‘A’ in STEAM

Teachers had a better, but not complete, understanding of how the arts might be inte-
grated into STEAM units. Participants were mathematics and science educators who
primarily addressed the arts through creative video production or scripts evidencing
solutions. Integrating the arts or humanities, analogous to Cochran et al.’s (1993)
perspective, proved difficult. Creativity was primarily evidenced in the creation of
final products or presentations (creating iMovies emulating town board meetings or
 Professional Development in Education 19

public service announcements) or at times discussed (ways to connect to social

studies or art) but not necessarily enacted in meaningful ways. Particularly, the par-
ticipants did not view the creative process as a mode of inquiry. As a result, partici-
pants suggested they were unsure of how they would significantly alter their future
teaching practices to integrate the arts beyond media arts. This implies that to fully
move towards transdisciplinary approaches emphasizing the ‘arts,’ direct involve-
ment by art and humanities educators would probably strengthen STEAM projects,
and ultimately impact students, and again this extends to teacher educators. A clear
omission on our part was not involving those with arts or humanities expertise to
consult or co-teach the PD. Modeling a STEAM unit wherein creative processes
assist with problem-solving would help participants view the arts integral to the
learning process.
In sum, there are numerous broad implications that can be drawn from this study
to significantly assist teacher educators wishing to improve STEAM teaching prac-
tices: collaboration, enabled by technology, can significantly assist educators in
understanding multiple content areas and achieving transdisciplinarity; teachers may
need the necessary step of first working towards interdisciplinary teaching before
achieving transdisciplinarity; PBL and collaborative technologies can assist in under-
standing STEAM principles and learning content, an important step towards
STEAM teaching; and incorporating the ‘A’ in STEAM requires increased involve-
ment by arts and humanities educators. Perhaps most importantly, our research sug-
gests a one-week PD, albeit intensive, is not sufficient for teachers to feel prepared
to fully implement STEAM. Continued PD and support adjusted to teachers’ class-
room and school context is necessary.

Limitations and further research

Limitations of this research include the relatively small size of the participant group,
which impacts generalizability in other settings. The majority of the teachers were
motivated and open to learning new pedagogical approaches, and we acknowledge
this is not always the case when PD programs are mandated or attended as ‘required
hours.’ However, we argue the importance of researching and suggesting effective
models of STEAM PD, and this experience proved a successful first step, scalable
to larger populations. Issues surfacing throughout the PD involved ways to address
varied contexts and ability to support transdisciplinary teaching once units are in the
implementation stage. This requires ongoing support and larger discussions with
each school site.
This first phase of the multi-year study provided significant insight to improve and
expand the PD moving forward. Next steps include researching the effectiveness of
the STEAM/PBL units enacted in participants’ classrooms, and scaling the sequence
of PD courses to a ‘train-the-trainer’ model, work that is already underway.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Bosch Community Grant Fund.
20 D. Herro and C. Quigley

References
Barron, B.J.S., 1998. Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem- and
project-based learning. The journal of the learning sciences, 7, 271–311.
Becker, K. and Park, K., 2011. Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary
meta-analysis. Journal of STEM education: Innovations and research, 12 (5/6), 23.
Bequette, J.W., and Bequette, M.B., 2012. A place for art and design education in the STEM
conversation. Art education, 65 (2), 40–47.
Breiner, J.M., et al., 2012. What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in edu-
cation and partnerships. School science and mathematics, 112 (1), 3–11.
Brush, T., and Saye, J., 2008. The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on
student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. The interdisciplinary jour-
nal of problem-based learning, 2 (1), 21–56.
Bybee, R., 2010. Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and engineering
teacher, 70 (1), 30–35.
ChanLin, L., 2008. Technology integration applied to project-based learning in Science. Inno-
vations in education and teaching International, 45, 55–65.
Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A., and King, R.A., 1993. Pedagogical content knowing: an inte-
grative model for teacher preparation. Journal of teacher education, 44 (4), 263–272.
Delaney, M., 2014. Schools shift from STEM to STEAM. Edtech, 2 April, 1–4. [online].
Available from: http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/04/schools-shift-stem-
steam
Erickson, F., 1986. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In: M.C. Wittrock, ed.
Handbook of research on teaching. New York, NY: Macmillan, 119–161.
Geum, Y., and Bae, S., 2012. The recognition and needs of elementary school teachers about
STEAM education. Korean institute of industrial education, 37 (2), 57–75.
Gibbs, P., ed., 2015. Transdisciplinary professional learning and practice. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Guyotte, K.W., et al., 2015. Collaborative creativity in STEAM: narratives of art education
students’ experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. International journal of education &
the arts, 16 (15), 1–39. Available from: http://www.ijea.org/v16n15/
Han, H., et al., 2012. A Study on the perceptions of teachers and students on the implementa-
tion of the intensive course completion system in mathematics courses. The mathematical
education, 51 (4), 317–335.
Henriksen, D., 2014. Full STEAM ahead: creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices.
The STEAM journal, 1(2), Article15. doi:10.5642/steam.20140102.15
Henrkisen, D., et al., 2015. Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century transform
and transcend: synthesis as a trans-disciplinary approach to thinking and learning. Tech-
Trends, 59 (4), 5. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0863-9.
Hew, K.F., and Brush, T., 2007. Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: cur-
rent knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 55 (3), 223–252.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., and Schweingruber, H., eds., 2014. STEMiIntegration in K-12 edu-
cation: status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Acade-
mies Press.
Jolly, A., 2014. STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education week: Teacher. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html
Klein, J.T., 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36 (4), 515–526.
Klein, J.T., 2014. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: keyword meanings for collabora-
tion science and translational medicine. Journal of translational medicine and epidemiol-
ogy, 2 (2), 1024.
Krajcik, J., 2015. Project-based science: engaging students in three-dimensional learning. The
science teacher, 82 (1), 25.
Lee, K.T., and Nason, R.A., 2013. The recruitment of STEM-talented students into teacher
education programs. International journal of engineering education, 29 (4), 833–838.
Marx, R.W., et al., 1997. Enacting project-based science. The elementary school journal,
341–358.
 Professional Development in Education 21

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., and Saldaña, J., 2013. Qualitative data analysis: a methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Miller, J., and Knezek, G., 2013. STEAM for student engagement. Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 1 March 2013, 3288–3298.
Moore, T.J., et al., 2014. A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: research and
development. Journal of pre-college engineering education research (J-PEER), 4(1), 2.
Morrison, J., 2010. The STEM education monograph series, attributes of STEM education,
the student, the school, the classroom. Baltimore, MD: Teaching Institute for Excellence
in STEM.
Nadelson, L.S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M. and Pfiester, J., 2013. Teacher
STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for
elementary teachers. The journal of educational research, 106 (2), 157–168.
National Research Council (US), Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for
K-12 STEM Education, 2011. Successful K-12 STEM education: identifying effective
approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Penuel, W.R., and Means, B., 2000. Designing a performance assessment to measure stu-
dents’ communication skills in multi-media-supported, project-based learning. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Rinne, L., et al., 2011. Why arts integration improves long-term retention of content. Mind,
brain, and education, 5 (2), 89–96.
Robelen, E.W., 2011. STEAM: experts make case for adding arts to STEM. Education week,
31 (13), 8.
Schachter, R., 2011. Helping STEM take root, (April), 28–33. District administration [online].
Available from: http://www.districtadministration.com/article/helping-stem-take-root
Shin, Y., and Han, S., 2011. A study of the elementary school teachers’ perception in
STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) education. Elementary
science education, 30 (4), 514–523.
Son, Y., et al., 2012. Analysis of prospective and in-service teachers’ awareness of steam
convergent education. Journal of humanities & social science, 13 (1), 255–284.
Stake, R.E., 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, J.W., 2000. A review of research on project-based learning. Report prepared for The
Autodesk Foundation. Available from: http://www.bie.org/index.php/site/RE/pbl_
research/29
Tytler, R., et al. 2008. Opening up pathways: engagement in STEM across the primary-sec-
ondary school transition. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations.
Vanasupa, L., 2012. Challenges in transdisciplinary, integrated projects: reflections on the
case of faculty members’ failure to collaborate. Innovative higher education, 37 (3),
171–184.
Vasquez, J., Sneider, C., and Comer, M., 2013. STEM lesson essentials. Integrating science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Press.
Yakman, G., 2008. STEAM education: an overview of creating a model of integrative educa-
tion. Proceeding of PATT on 19th ITEEA conference, 335–358.
22 D. Herro and C. Quigley

Appendix 1. Aligning problem scenarios with STEAM

Problem-solving scenarios in STEAM vary, but are aligned with curricular goals and stan-
dards relevant to grade level and classroom contexts. STEAM is presented as a transdisci-
plinary problem that focuses on solving a ‘real-world’ issue. The goal is to address as many
disciplines as possible, naturally, through the problem – but not necessarily equally. The class
is encouraged to brainstorm important questions, or lines of inquiry, to ask within the larger
problem posed. In solving the scenario used in this professional development, teachers might
address issues of water and soil testing (science), calculate flow rates of the water (mathemat-
ics), diagram ways to engineer a solution related to harnessing energy with modeling soft-
ware (engineering), delve into the aesthetics of park environments or use media arts (arts) to
create a public relations message. Technology is used throughout the problem-solving process
for collaborative work, data collection, research, diagramming and presentation.

Appendix 2. Pre and post-survey questions

Pre-survey questions

1. Please list your name, schools you have taught at and subject(s) taught.
2. How many years have you been teaching?
3. Do you have any certifications or have you taken any coursework specific to the inte-
gration of science, technology and mathematics?
4. Is there a difference between STEM and STEAM?
5. How do you view the role of science, technology and/or mathematics in education?
6. How often do you use the Internet, mobile devices or digital media tools?
7. How would you describe the role of the student when using science, technology or
mathematics for learning?
8. Describe your knowledge and use of STEM or STEAM practices.
9. What do you hope to gain from this STEAM PD?
10. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your current teaching practices
specific to science, mathematics or technology?
11. Describe how you use technology to support teaching content.
12. Do you collaborate with your colleagues on issues of planning, curriculum and
instruction?

Post-survey questions

1. How would you describe STEAM teaching and learning to another teacher?
2. What do (did) you consider the most valuable learning in this PD?
3. Describe how you collaborated in this class.
4. What do you consider the most valuable part of the PD?
5. Do you intend to implement any of the learning from this week in your classroom?
Please describe. What will it look like in your classroom? Will it involve other
teachers?
6. What could be improved? What was not useful to you?
7. How do you perceive the role of instructors, experts and peers to help you understand
STEAM integration?
8. Is there anything else you would like us to know?
 Professional Development in Education 23

Appendix 3. Abbreviated sample of teacher-created unit outline

Project summary and problem: The Hamilton County Health System has noticed that
several patients have gotten very sick. They believe the most harmful bacteria are
coming from one of three sources: the patient’s room (sheets, pillows, fellow patient,
bed pan, etc.), the cafeteria (tray, eating utensils, etc.) or the surgical tools. The hospital
lab is very busy and occasionally depends on the community to do simple tests to
identify the disease-causing bacteria, diagnose the disease it is causing, and determine
how to get rid of it in both the patient and the building
Transdisciplinary standard/teaching: Science, technology, English/language arts
Student roles: All students will perform swabbing, staining and microscope work to
identify different bacteria. Once students know the different types of bacteria, one
student will diagnose the disease, one student will determine what patients need, and
one student will identify the source of the bacteria and determine how to disinfect the
source. Students will collaborate to find solutions to the problem
Driving question: Why do some patients get sicker in the hospital?
A doctor or nurse will present the problem to my students and ask that they help the
hospital. She will then indicate that my students will present their findings in 8–10 days
Daily outline/products: Individual: Day 1 – completed Petri dish (formative).
Day 2 – ticket out the door about bacterial cell walls and Gram staining (formative).
Day 3 – one completed lab sheet and microscope slides (formative).
Day 4, 5, 6 – research using Diigo and group created blogs (formative).
Day 6, 7, 8 – presentation of results (via Prezi, or Google Presentations) (summative)
Other: Students will confer with two additional groups on day five to discuss their
findings. This will provide students a chance to adjust their research (if necessary), and
this will also give me a chance to work with these students to identify what went wrong
with their lab methods and bacterial classification
Resources needed: On-site people, facilities. Students will hear about the project from a
doctor and then present their findings to a panel of doctors and nurses (hopefully from
Hamilton County Health System). The experiments and research will occur in the
science classroom
Equipment needed: Microscopes (10), computer (one per student), Bunsen burner (one
for teacher)
Materials: Microscope slides (three per group per class = 120), Petri dishes (three per
group per class = 120), nutrient agar, swabbing sticks, crystal violet stain, iodine, slide
covers, gloves, goggles, matches (for teacher)
Public audience/ties to community: Students will be presenting their findings to a team
of experts (a panel of doctors and nurses). Students will learn about the problem from a
doctor, nurse or medical student in the classroom or via Google Hangouts
Reflection methods/learning log: Student groups will record and post research via Google
Docs/blog