Search results

This paper aims to broaden the conversation regarding STEAM by investigating the new form of education. The novelty of science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) instruction in K-12 classrooms means few cases of STEAM teaching are documented in depth.

As part of a larger multi-year study researching STEAM teaching practices in 14 middle school classrooms in the southeastern USA, the article first summarizes prior research findings and then presents ideas for higher education and K-12 researchers to consider when incorporating STEAM teaching in pre-service education, professional development and in classrooms. Then, the authors use a second-order narrative approach to describe three cases of teachers enacting STEAM practices in classrooms.

Drawing on the notion of “remixing” education in the context of STEAM, the authors show how each teacher alters existing practices, instead of offering entirely new instruction, as they implement STEAM teaching.

With few cases of STEAM teaching detailed in the depth, this paper advances the understanding of STEAM teaching practices in K-12 classrooms.

The purpose of this study is to identify and assess collaborative problem solving (CPS) behaviors in elementary students in science, technology, engineering, arts/humanities and mathematics (STEAM)-related making and to garner students perspectives. We offer a valid way for researchers to understand collaborative processes and for educators to create opportunities for collaboration. Additionally, the feedback from the assessment offers students a way to reflect on their CPS skills.

This qualitative study evaluated 52 elementary students’ CPS skills using co-measure, a validated rubric assessing students’ CPS when working in STEAM-related makerspace activities. Students worked in collaborative groups to “make” artifacts when solving a problem posed by their teacher. They were assessed using co-measure’s four dimensions: peer interactions, positive communication, inquiry rich/multiple paths and transdisciplinary approaches and scored via each dimension’s associated attributes. Student interviews provided their perspectives on CPS.

A majority of students scored in the acceptable or proficient range in the social dimensions of peer interactions and positive communication. Students scored slightly lower on the cognitive dimensions of inquiry rich/multiple paths and markedly lower on transdisciplinary approaches when collaborating. Findings suggest to increase CPS skills, teachers might develop “making” activities fostering greater inquiry and model ways to strategize and verify information, approach the problem drawing on student interest and prior knowledge and collaboratively use tools, materials and methods that mimic the real world when problem-solving.

Much of the current research on assessing CPS during making is in the early stages of considering appropriate assessment approaches, especially in schools. To expand this literature the study includes elementary students between the ages of 6-10, the focus is on assessing their collaboration using an observational rubric. The authors use preliminary findings from young children’s perspectives on making to position the future work.

This research brings together two streams of thought applied to decision-making: lean thinking and stakeholder theory. Both have been identified as ways to improve organizational value. Previous studies disagree regarding whether they can work together. This study investigates if managers balance stakeholders and lean thinking in decision-making.

This research investigates if both lean thinking and stakeholder salience share common literature by using data mining. It surveys organizations that perceive themselves as lean and have multiple diverse stakeholders to determine whether waste and salience are considered when making decisions. An ANOVA is done to see if organization type, management level, organization size, geographic location, or lean maturity has an effect on the priority of stakeholder salience or lean thinking's waste variants when making decisions.

Findings of this research are: 1) stakeholders salience criteria are considered more often than lean thinking's waste variants in decision-making by managers as a whole and in particular by middle-level managers and senior managers. However, lean thinking's waste variants are considered as often as stakeholder salience criteria by first-line managers. 2) The ranking of stakeholder salience in making decisions is not affected by organization type, respondent position, organization size, perceived lean experience, or geographic location. The organization type, organization size, lean experience, and location do not affect the ranking of lean thinking variants either. But the ranking of lean thinking's waste variants is significantly different for first-line, middle-level, and senior managers. Middle-level managers rank lean thinking higher than that of either first-line or senior-level. Because of this, middle managers have a more balanced approach in using lean thinking and stakeholder salience than other managers. 3) Stakeholder salience criteria have a significantly higher ranking than lean thinking variants in making decisions for all organization types: manufacturing and nonmanufacturing.

This research demonstrates a significant disconnect exists between lean thinking and demands of stakeholders that impacts the value of an organization, and only middle-level managers bring balance and awareness of both streams of thought. An empirical instrument has been developed to balance the stakeholder salience criteria with the lean thinking variants.