Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

STEAM in practice and research: An integrative literature review

T
⁎
Elaine Perignat , Jen Katz-Buonincontro
Drexel University, School of Education, 3401 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: This integrative review examines 44 published articles (empirical, descriptive, and pedagogical
STEAM education frameworks) on the topic of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics)
Creativity education from 2007 to 2018. Despite the emergence of STEAM as a popular pedagogical ap-
Arts-integration proach for enhancing students’ creativity, problem-solving skills, and interest in STEM fields, the
Transdisciplinary
definitions and purposes of STEAM education remain ubiquitous. Therefore, the review examined
Interdisciplinary
descriptions of the overall purpose of STEAM education, definitions of the STEAM acronym and
the ‘A’ in STEAM, creativity as a learning outcome, elements of arts education, and arts education
learning outcomes. The review found a myriad of definitions of the STEAM concept in general, a
variety of interpretations for the “A” in STEAM, and an overall lack of reported learning out-
comes in the areas of creativity, problem-solving, and arts education. The articles also differ-
entiate in methods for merging STEAM disciplines, described in one of five ways: transdisci-
plinary, interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and arts-integration.
Recommendations are provided to advance both research and practice in STEAM education.

1. Need to clarify STEAM education

STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education emerged as a new pedagogy during the Americans
for the Arts-National Policy Roundtable discussion in 2007, in response to the need to increase student interest and skills in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields (Allina, 2013; Daugherty, 2013; Quigley, Herro, & Jamil, 2017). STEAM
education merges the arts with STEM subjects for the purpose of improving student engagement, creativity, innovation, problem-
solving skills, and other cognitive benefits (Hetland & Winner, 2004; Liao, 2016; NAEA, 2016; Root-Bernstein, 2015), and to improve
employability skills (e.g. teamwork, communication, adaptability) necessary for career and economic advancement (Colucci-Gray
et al., 2017). As STEAM grows in popularity in American K-12 schools, scholars have proposed a variety of models and pedagogical
approaches for developing and integrating the arts into STEM classes. However, these new models and pedagogies are derived from a
myriad of interpretations of the STEAM acronym and various conceptions about arts-integration and arts education. Therefore, this
integrative literature review investigates how STEAM education is defined and studied in 44 articles from 2007 (key date in STEAM
development) through 2018.
A recent report by the British Educational Research Association on STEAM education found inconsistencies and lack of conceptual
clarity in STEAM terminology, pedagogy, and research (Colucci-Gray et al., 2017). A primary point of confusion is the matter of
defining the Arts within the STEAM acronym. While some scholars consider the “Arts” to represent “Art Education” (singular “art”)
specific to visual art (painting, drawing, photography, sculpture, media arts, and design), while others refer to “Arts Education”
(plural “arts”) referring to a variety of arts including visual, performing (dance, music, theater), digital media, aesthetics, and crafts,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: epo23@drexel.edu (E. Perignat), jkb@drexel.edu (J. Katz-Buonincontro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.10.002
Received 12 July 2018; Received in revised form 24 October 2018; Accepted 28 October 2018
Available online 31 October 2018
1871-1871/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

and still others expand the definition to include the liberal arts and humanities disciplines (Herro & Quigley, 2016a; NAEA, 2016;
Quigley et al., 2017). Lastly, some scholars use the term “Arts” as a synonym for project-based learning, technology-based learning, or
design-based learning. Confusion around the concept and terminology of STEAM education is further compounded in practice.
Generally, non-arts educators in the United States who recognize the benefits of arts-based learning may struggle to find effective
strategies for integrating the arts to their curriculum (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). Arts-based curriculum includes a focus on palpable
intrinsic rewards (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1997) of sensory feedback from interaction with materials such as paint,
instruments, singing or dance movements. Additionally, the practice of artistic inquiry (Sullivan, 2005) includes play, exploration,
risk-taking, flexible thinking, and making inevitable mistakes (Eisner, 2002; Hetland, Winner, Veenema, & Sheridan, 2013; Sawyer,
2012). These mistakes are essential to the artistic process because it leads artists to problem-solve, persevere through failure, and
otherwise experience the range of attributes associated with the creative process (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976; Glăveanu, 2018;
Hetland et al., 2013; Sawyer, 2012). However, the value of the artistic process is often overlooked by non-arts educators when
integrating the arts for the purpose of creativity development (LaJevic, 2013).
As researchers at a large private American STEM university, we were intrigued at how our university’s strategic plan references
STEAM. We noticed that other faculty and students were also interested in the potential for art and design to be integrated into STEM
courses for the effective enhancement of creativity but lacked specific strategies for doing so. The ambiguity of STEAM education, arts
education, and fostering creativity can hinder the development of instruction and may make it difficult for practitioners to implement
effective methods in STEAM education (LaJevic, 2013; Liao, 2016; Quigley & Herro, 2016). In order for STEAM pedagogy to evolve
so that it can be adopted in classrooms and studied, key concepts of STEAM education must be established along with effective
approaches for developing creativity through the arts. Therefore, this integrative review examined 44 STEAM education articles
(empirical, descriptive, and pedagogical frameworks) from March 1 through March 20, 2018 in order to clarify the myriad of
definitions, descriptions, and practices in STEAM education and thus help to advance research and practice in this area. We first give
a background on the topic, describe the stages of the review, provide the results of the review and discuss implications for research
and practice.

2. Growing interest in STEAM education

This section reviews how and why STEM education began to incorporate the arts, and the parallels between arts education and
education promoting creativity. Empirical research has shown that education in the arts can enhance students’ creativity, critical
thinking, innovation, collaboration, and interpersonal communication skills (Burton, Horowitz, & Abeles, 2000; Liao, 2016; NAEA,
2016). In addition, recent findings have also shown that the arts improve cognitive skills like spatial reasoning, abstract thinking,
divergent thinking, creative self-efficacy, openness to experience, and curiosity (Swaminathan & Schellenberg, 2015; Torrance, 1972;
Winner, Goldstein, & Vincent-Lancrin, 2013). Studies have even linked Nobel laureates with artistic endeavors like photography,
music, performing arts, visual arts, crafts like woodworking, and creative writing (Root-Bernstein, 2015).
These purported outcomes and benefits of arts education were the inspiration for the STEAM concept, which was introduced in
the United States in 2007 (2017, Allina, 2013; Daugherty, 2013). The concept was introduced, in part, to help counterbalance the
increased focus on STEM subjects and the decline in arts education in the U.S. over the past decade (Martin et al., 2013; Spohn, 2008).
Non-arts educators have struggled with strategies for reintroducing the arts for the purpose of enhancing student creativity and
innovative thinking in STEM curricula (Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011).
A panoply of creativity definitions, models and theories exist (Kozbelt, Beghetto, & Runco, 2010). While novel or original thought
is arguably the most common interpretation of creativity, quality and utility or relevance are now seen as important components
(Kaufman & Sternberg, 2007). Over the years, creativity, has become appreciated in a variety of domains, not just the arts, yet arts
education studies provide evidence of the inherent connection between teaching and learning creativity through the arts (Hetland &
Winner, 2004; Maeda, 2013; NAEA, 2016). Art teachers in studios and classrooms incorporate approaches that have shown to
enhance student creativity such as encouraging unique ideas, taking appropriate risks, learning from mistakes, and exploring new
materials (Craft et al., 2001; Runco, 2014). Other studies completed by Winner et al. (2006) documented the interactions between
studio art teachers and students to identify teaching methods that foster creativity and develop student skills like: development of
craft, engaging and persisting, envisioning, expressing (self-expression), observing, reflecting, stretching and exploring, and under-
standing the art world. `
These approaches are similar to techniques identified by creativity researchers for fostering creativity in classroom contexts. For
example, fostering creativity includes the development of supportive environments in which students feel encouraged to think in-
dependently, explore and play, observe and reflect, and ask unusual questions (Craft et al., 2001; Cropley, 1995; Plucker, Guo, &
Dilley, 2018). Additionally, studies have shown that creativity is learned through example and practice (Root-Bernstein, 2015),
therefore teachers should model creative behaviors and build creative student self-efficacy through supportive and encouraging
feedback (Cropley, 1995; Runco, 2014; Sternberg & Williams, 1996).
Creativity development in the classroom is more dependent on the ways in which teachers implement activities versus the type of
activity used in the classroom (de Souza Fleith, 2000). Teachers vary in their conceptions of creativity and their beliefs in the ability
to support creativity in students (Smith & Smith, 2010). These varying and sometimes conflicting beliefs might stymie the im-
plementation of creativity in the classroom, but the lack of research on the process of teaching for creativity also presents a con-
siderable barrier (Smith & Smith, 2010). While creativity is believed to be inherent to the arts and arts education, it is important not
to stress the art form or final product over the artistic process itself. One misconception about STEAM education is that arts focus
primarily on a finished product, rather than a process of learning through thinking, planning, and creating or performing a work of

32
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

art (Edwards, 2010; LaJevic, 2013). As a result, this overt focus on the final product can actually stifle students’ creativity (Edwards,
2010). To further examine underlying assumptions and approaches to STEAM education, we endeavored to systematically collect and
analyze published articles on the topic.

3. Method

An integrative review of published articles was completed to examine and understand the definitions and interpretations of
STEAM education in research and in practice. An integrative review is a specific method of review that critiques and synthesizes
literature in order to comprehensively understand a specific topic (Cooper, 1982; Torraco, 2005; Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). In-
tegrative reviews are appropriate for reviewing literature on new or emerging topics trending in various fields (Torraco, 2005;
Whittemore & Knafl, 2005) such as STEAM education, in order to more fully understand the application of terms in published articles.
The literature reviewed in this study falls into these categories: empirical (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodology), de-
scriptive (STEAM in practice), and pedagogical frameworks (STEAM models and frameworks). Therefore, an integrative review
methodology is appropriate for disambiguating the concept of STEAM education in a variety of contexts. The selection and review of
articles was driven by the following research question: How is STEAM education defined or described in empirical, descriptive, and
pedagogical framework articles?
To answer this question, we isolated and examined the following six areas in the articles: the overall purpose of STEAM education,
definition of the STEAM acronym, definition of the ‘A’ in STEAM, definition and description of creativity (a frequently purported
outcome of STEAM), aspects of arts education, and discussion of arts education learning outcomes. The method, as outlined by
Whittemore and Knafl (2005), uses five stages: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and pre-
sentation.

3.1. Problem identification stage

STEAM education is a relatively new area of education that lacks clarity. As such, STEAM education is rife with ambiguity and
various interpretations. The abundance of interpretations and definitions of STEAM makes it difficult for practitioners to effectively
integrate the “A” and ensure the development of student creativity and other cognitive skills. Too, the lack of clarity makes it
challenging for researchers to investigate it.

3.2. Literature search stage

The review of literature was limited to scholarly, peer-reviewed, empirical, and descriptive articles, as well as articles describing
pedagogical frameworks on STEAM education, published in English. Empirical articles constitute qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methodology studies; descriptive articles include descriptions of STEAM activities and programs in practice, and pedagogical framework
articles are those that propose STEAM models and frameworks.
It was important to include multiple types of articles in this review in order to disambiguate the STEAM terms and concepts
among researchers, scholars, and practitioners. The search began March 1 and concluded March 20, 2018. Databases searched
include Education Research Complete, ERIC, and ProQuest. In addition to databases, journals searched include Art Education; Arts
Education Policy Review; Arts Learning and Research; Journal of Creative Behavior; Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and Arts; Studies in
Arts Education; and Thinking Skills and Creativity. Inclusion criteria focused on the term STEAM Education as referenced in the article
abstract, title, or keyword/subject. There was an overabundance of articles on steam in relation to steam engines or steam as a vapor
in scientific experiments, and therefore the word Education was added to the STEAM search term.

3.3. Data evaluation stage

We examined 49 articles from the literature search stage. The review excluded five articles that were determined to be editorials,
focused on STEM rather than STEAM education, and articles that mention the term STEAM Education but focus on a different topic
(STEAM was typically referenced in the context of future research or areas of significance in these cases).

3.4. Data analysis stage

Eligible articles (N = 44) were reviewed for definitions and descriptions of six areas of STEAM education (the overall purpose,
definitions of the STEAM acronym, definitions of the ‘A’ in STEAM, definitions and descriptions of creativity, aspects of arts edu-
cation, and arts education learning outcomes). Notes and direct quotes were recorded in an excel spreadsheet which were then coded
inductively in order to identify similarities and differences in STEAM definitions across the articles to answer the research question.

3.5. Presentation stage

The results of the analyses for each of the six areas, the research question, final conclusions, and recommendations for future
research and practice are described in narrative form below.

33
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

3.6. Definitions

Arts Education in the United States includes, but is not limited to, visual arts (such as drawing, painting, photography, sculpture,
media arts, and design), performing arts (such as dance, music, and theatre), creative writing/poetry, expressive arts and crafts,
digital and graphic arts, and design. This list is amassed from definitions provided by the National Art Education Association NAEA
(2016) and NCCAS (2013).
Aspects of Arts Education includes aesthetics, art history, art production or making, performing, technique, interpreting meaning,
self-expression, critiquing, and exhibiting or presenting works of art. This definition is compiled from aspects described by the
National Coalition for Core Art Standards NCCAS (2013) and aspects of Costantino’s (2018) transdisciplinary curriculum model of
signature pedagogies in arts education.
STEAM Education is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics, and used as an interdisciplinary or
transdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning that combines the disciplines in a defined learning context.

4. Results

An integrative review of 44 articles meeting the selection criteria for this study included 18 empirical, 14 descriptive, and 12
pedagogical framework articles. The empirical articles included 13 qualitative studies, three quantitative studies, and two mixed
method studies. Sixteen of the 44 articles focused on primary education students (pre-K through grade 8), one focused on high school
students (grades 9–12), seven articles discussed college students (undergraduate and graduate), nine articles broadly included K-12
education or educators, and 11 articles did not specify the levels of education or generally included all (K-20). Lastly, the authors of
the 44 articles included a mix of Art and STEM Educators (K-12) and scholars or researchers from the fields of art, science, tech-
nology, engineering, mathematics, and humanities. The following section discusses findings for each of the six categories (purpose of
STEAM education, definitions of the STEAM acronym, definitions of the ‘A’ in STEAM, definitions and descriptions of creativity,
aspects of arts education, and discussion of arts education learning outcomes) that were identified in order to examine and answer the
research question. Table 1, included at the end of this section, outlines the six categories, findings, and corresponding article cita-
tions.

4.1. Purpose of STEAM education

Half of the articles (22) describe STEAM education for the purpose of engaging students in STEM learning, developing students’
creativity, or as a means for enhancing problem-solving skills in real-world settings. There were two dominant approaches to defining
the purpose of STEAM education. The first approach emphasizes the importance of advancing learning in STEM disciplines: engaging
minority and female students in STEM subjects, increasing interest in STEM fields, and developing skills necessary for STEM careers.
The second approach emphasizes the significance of integrating domain general skills such as perspective-taking, creative and
problem-solving skills, knowledge transfer across disciplines, and/or encouraging students to explore and experience new ways of
knowing.
The purpose of STEAM for advancing learning in STEM disciplines focused heavily on engaging minority and female STEM
students in particular. For example, Kant, Burckhard, and Meyers (2018) empirical study of Native American girls explains that
STEAM education “…is one way of promoting more interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) studies
and careers among indigenous students” (p. 15). Another empirical study by Quigley and Herro (2016) states that, “one of the goals of
STEAM is to involve the arts in order to increase the participation of students who are traditionally absent from STEM…” (p. 422).
Descriptive articles also highlight the purpose of STEAM as STEM focused. For example, an article describing mathematics-focused
STEAM projects by Bush, Cox, and Cook (2016) explains that “A new body of literature is emerging that highlights the benefits of arts
integration into STEM for engaging more types of learners” (p. 111). Keane and Keane (2016) descriptive article explains, “As jobs
increasingly rely on technology and integrated STEM skills, all students need opportunities to develop mathematical, scientific, and
creative capacities” (p. 62–63). A final example of a descriptive article by Sharapan (2012) states, “STEAM integrates and uses the
arts in the STEM curriculum to help children express STEM concepts” (p. 36).
Pedagogical framework articles, however, emphasize learning across disciplines with a shared, common goal. For example,
Peppler and Wohlwend (2018) state that, "The promise of STEAM approaches is that, by coupling STEM and the arts, new under-
standings and artifacts emerge that transcend either discipline" (p. 88). Bequette and Bequette (2012) also argue that, “when the arts
are seen as an end goal, not just an entryway to presumably more important STEM topics, thoughtfully developed STEAM curricula
can truly engage sustained cross-disciplinary student learning in PK-12 settings and informal education” (p. 43). Lastly, Gettings
(2016) explains that “STEAM education offers contextual learning; utilizing subject overlap for greater understanding” (p. 10).

4.2. Diverse STEAM definitions

Nearly all of the articles (43) introduced the concept of STEAM by first defining the acronym as Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts, and Mathematics. Beyond this point, the STEAM concept is characterized in a variety of ways. Among the articles reviewed, four
main types of disciplinary integration surfaced: transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary, and cross-disciplinary
(Marshall, 2014; Meeth, 1978). Transdisciplinary STEAM education includes fully merged disciplines without boundaries and lessons
rooted in authentic problems or inquiry (e.g. Liao, 2016; Glass & Wilson, 2016; Quigley et al., 2017). Interdisciplinary STEAM

34
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

Table 1
Results of Integrative Review on STEAM Education (N = 44 Articles).
Focus area Results n Example articles

Purpose of STEAM Engaging students in STEM learning, developing students’
education creativity, or as a means for enhancing problem-solving skills
in real-world settings
Diverse STEAM Articles that characterize STEAM as a fully integrated
Definitions approach that merges all five disciplines (transdisciplinary,
interdisciplinary)
Articles describing partially integrated approaches (the arts
are combined with one or two STEM disciplines –
multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary)
STEAM described as arts-infused, arts-integrated, merging,
connecting, combining, and embedding the arts
Defining the “A” in Arts Education (visual or performing arts)
STEAM
Arts as non-STEM disciplines
Art/Arts as a synonym for project-based learning, problem-
based learning, technology-based learning, or making
Creativity as a STEAM Mentions creative thinking, creative skills, creative process,
outcome innovation, or imagination as connected with STEAM or the
Arts
No mention of creativity
Arts education Design is mentioned as part of the learning process
Making Products: focused on the final product as result of the
STEAM instruction
Making Process: exploration, creative thinking, designing,
technique, creative-expression, critique, evaluation, and
redesign
Arts education learning Overlooks or fails to address explicit arts-based learning as
outcomes measurable outcomes
Prioritize STEM learning outcomes
Mention NCAS, state arts standards, or other specific arts
education-based outcomes
22 Allina, 2017; Bush et al., 2016; Kant, Burkhard, & Meyers,
2018; Keane & Keane, 2016; Liao, Motter, & Patton, 2016;
Payton et al., 2017; Quigley & Herro, 2016; Sharapan, 2012;
Sochacka et al., 2016; Thuneberg et al., 2017
21 Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; Glass & Wilson, 2016; Guyotte,
Sochacka, Costantino, Kellam, & Walther, 2015; Herro &
Quigley, 2016b, 2016b; Liao et al., 2016; Patton & Knochel,
2017; Quigley & Herro, 2016; Wynn & Harris, 2012
13 Clary, 2016; Gates, 2017; Gershon & Ben-Horin, 2014;
Grinnell & Angal, 2016; Guyotte et al., 2014; Karabey,
Koyunkaya, Enginoglu, & Yurumezoglu, 2018; Payton et al.,
2017; Smith & Paré, 2016
16 Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Costantino, 2018; Gess, 2017;
Ghanbari, 2015; Hughes, 2017; Kant et al., 2018; Kim &
Bolger, 2017; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018; Thuneberg et al.,
2017
29 Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Costantino, 2018; Gettings, 2016;
Glass & Wilson, 2016; Grant & Patterson, 2016; Guyotte et al.,
2014; Kim & Bolger, 2017; Knochel, 2018; Liao, 2016;
Rolling, 2016
7 Clapp & Jimenez, 2016; Herro & Quigley, 2016b; 2016b;
2017; Peppler & Wohlwend, 2018; Quigley & Herro, 2016;
Quigley et al., 2017
8 Bush et al., 2016; Choi & Behm-Morawitz, 2017; Corbi &
Burgos, 2017; Gates, 2017; Grinnell & Angal, 2016; Hughes,
2017; Moyer & Miller, 2017; Watson & Watson, 2013
31 Allina, 2017; Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Costantino, 2018;
Gettings, 2016; Glass & Wilson, 2016; Herro & Quigley, 2017;
Liao, 2016; Quigley et al., 2017; Weatherly, Oleson, &
Kistner, 2017; Wynn & Harris, 2012
7 Bush et al., 2016; Corbi & Burgos, 2017; Gates, 2017; Kant
et al., 2018; Karabey et al., 2018; Moyer & Miller, 2017;
Smith & Paré, 2016;
10 Bush et al., 2016; Grinnell & Angal, 2016; Hughes, 2017; Kant
et al., 2018; Karabey et al., 2018; Quigley & Herro, 2016;
Smith & Paré, 2016
9 Clary, 2016; Gates, 2017; Herro & Quigley, 2016b; 2016b;
2017; Liao et al., 2016; Moyer & Miller, 2017; Sharapan, 2012
16 Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Choi & Behm-Morawitz, 2017;
Costantino, 2018; Gershon & Ben-Horin, 2014; Gess, 2017;
Gettings, 2016; Guyotte et al., 2014; Peppler & Wohlwend,
2018; Rolling, 2016; Weatherly et al., 2017
24 Arrieta & Kern, 2015; Choi & Behm-Morawitz, 2017; Gess,
2017; Guyotte et al., 2015; Herro & Quigley, 2017; Hughes,
2017; Patton & Knochel, 2017; Smith & Paré, 2016; Wynn &
Harris, 2012;
8 Bush et al., 2016; Clary, 2016; Gates, 2017; Glass & Wilson,
2016; Corbi & Burgos, 2017; Moyer & Miller, 2017;
7 Allina, 2017; Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Gettings, 2016;
Grant & Patterson, 2016; Grinnell & Angal, 2016; Keane &
Keane, 2016; Quigley et al., 2017

education brings several disciplines together under a common theme, but each discipline remains discrete (e.g. Smith & Paré, 2016;
Thuneberg, Salmi, & Fenyvesi, 2017). Multidisciplinary STEAM includes collaboration among two or more disciplines but are not
merged (e.g. Gershon & Ben-Horin, 2014; Payton, White, & Mullins, 2017). Lastly, cross-disciplinary STEAM education focuses on
observing one discipline through the perspective of another, for example: the physics of music (e.g. Gates, 2017).
Additionally, authors further disagree on whether STEAM fully integrates the five discipline areas or partially integrates with only
two or three disciplines. One example of a partially integrated STEAM activity (science and art) aimed to teach students about the
science of volcanos using melted glass (in an artist’s glass studio). The glass was used as a metaphor for volcanic lava due to the
shared properties, hardening and crystalizing processes (Gates, 2017). This partially integrated STEAM lesson combined the art of
glass making with geoscience, excluding the technology, engineering, and mathematic disciplines in the STEAM acronym. Another
article describing a partially integrated STEAM activity combined mathematics with pottery in the making of a Klein bottle (Smith &
Paré, 2016). Although the authors discussed ways of including science, technology, and engineering into this project, the article itself
focused solely on the mathematics and pottery aspects of the Klein bottle making process. We should note, as well, that this was not
an explicit STEAM lesson for students, but rather an exercise in curiosity between a math teacher and an art teacher.

35
 Table 2
Example STEAM Curriculum: Hurricane-Proof Houses for Middle School grades (6–8).
Lesson components Science (Next Technology Engineering Arts (National Core Arts Mathematics
Generation Science (International Society for Technology in (Next Generation Standards) (Common Core)
Standards – Earth Education) Science Standards)
Science)

Students learn about architectural designs of Innovative Designer Creating:

houses (historical, geographical, Students use a variety of technologies Generate and conceptualize
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro

designer houses, etc.) within a design process to identify and artistic ideas and work
solve problems by creating new, useful or
imaginative solutions.
Students learn about weather: elements of MS-ESS2-5 Air
clouds, wind, rain, and storms masses and weather
conditions
MS-ESS2-6 Regional
climates
MS-ESS3-2 Natural
hazards
Experiment with types and strengths/ Computational Thinker MS-ETS1-1 Define Creating:
benefits of different housing materials Students develop and employ strategies limitations of a Generate and conceptualize
(can be geographically specific; for understanding and solving problems design problem artistic ideas and work
examine both human and animal in ways that leverage the power of
houses) technological methods to develop and
test solutions.
Design coastal & beach houses that can MS-ESS2-6 Regional MS-ETS1-1 Define Creating & Producing: CCSS.MATH.7. G.A.1 Solve problems involving

36
withstand hurricanes (students design a climates limitations of a Organize and develop artistic scale drawings of geometric figures, computing
house for their own family – be creative MS-ESS3-2 Natural design problem ideas and work; Convey meaning actual lengths and areas from a scale drawing
and innovative) hazards through artistic work and reproducing a scale drawing at a different
scale.
CCSS.MATH.7.G.A.2
Draw (freehand, with ruler and protractor, and
with technology) geometric shapes with given
conditions.
Techniques for using materials to build a Creative Communicator Creating & Producing: Refine and CCSS.MATH.7.G.B.6 Solve real-world and
model house (cutting, manipulating, Students communicate clearly and complete artistic work; Develop mathematical problems involving area, volume
connecting different materials – wood express themselves creatively for a and refine artistic techniques and and surface area of two- and three-dimensional
working, sculpting techniques, etc.) variety of purposes using the platforms, work for presentation objects composed of triangles, quadrilaterals,
tools, styles, formats and digital media polygons, cubes, and right prisms.
appropriate to their goals.
Testing & Presenting final house design and MS-ESS2-5 MS-ETS1-2 Presenting & Responding:
model Air masses and Evaluate design Convey meaning through artistic
weather conditions solutions work; Perceive, analyze, interpret
MS-ESS2-6 Regional meaning of artistic work
climates
MS-ESS3-2 Natural
hazards
Evaluate design elements (effectiveness, MS-ESS2-5 Global Collaborator MS-ETS1-3 Analyze Responding:
aesthetics, and meaning or inspiration Air masses and Students use digital tools to broaden data from tests Apply criteria to evaluate artistic
of design). weather conditions their perspectives and enrich their work
MS-ESS2-6 Regional learning by collaborating with others
climates
Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

(continued on next page)

 Table 2 (continued)

Lesson components Science (Next Technology Engineering Arts (National Core Arts Mathematics
Generation Science (International Society for Technology in (Next Generation Standards) (Common Core)
Standards – Earth Education) Science Standards)
Science)

MS-ESS3-2 Natural and working effectively in teams locally

hazards and globally.
Reflection MS-ESS2-5 Air Connecting:
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro

masses and weather Synthesize and relate knowledge

conditions and personal experiences with
MS-ESS2-6 Regional societal, cultural, historical
climates contexts
MS-ESS3-2 Natural
hazards

Note. Next Generation Science Standards adapted from “Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States,” 2013, Retrieved June 26, 2018 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards.
International Society for Technology in Education adapted from “International Society for Technology in Education,” 2018, Retrieved June 27, 2018 from http://www.iste.org/standards/for-students.
National Core Arts Standards adapted from “The National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning,” 2013, Retrieved April 1, 2018, from http://nccas.wikispaces.com/.
Common Core Mathematics adapted from “Common Core State Standards: Mathematics Standards” 2010, Retrieved June 26, 2018 from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/.

37
Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

In addition to describing STEAM by way of merging disciplines, we also found that many articles (16) describe STEAM in terms of
arts integration. Some authors describe STEAM as a pedagogical tool for adding the arts to STEM and use a myriad of terms to describe
this process, such as: arts-infusion, arts-integration, merging, connecting, combining, and embedding the arts. Some authors (a majority of
whom are art educators or scholars) argue that the different terms are evidence of the misconceptions about arts pedagogy in STEAM.
For example, Liao (2016) explains that arts-integration was introduced as a pedagogical method well-before STEAM was conceived
and advises that “discussing the same content and ideas (arts integration) under a different term (STEAM) could cause confusion”
(p.45). Too, some articles describing STEAM frameworks and models do not explicitly integrate the arts, or rather redefine the arts to
represent humanities, the environment and nature, or any project-based activity (e.g. Corbi & Burgos, 2017; Herro & Quigley, 2017;
Moyer & Miller, 2017).

4.3. Defining the “A” in STEAM

Evidenced by each of the articles in this review, there is a shared understanding among scholars and practitioners that STEAM is
an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics. While most educators recognize these words as areas of
discipline, there seems to be a range of definitions for the “Arts” in the STEAM acronym. This review identified three main categories:
Arts Education, Arts as any non-STEM discipline, Arts as a synonym for project-based learning, problem-based learning, technology-
based learning, or making.
Articles discussing the integration of arts education (29) describe the inclusion of visual or performing arts, design or creatives
processes, techniques of a medium, and/or critiques of work and exhibiting final products (e.g. Guyotte, Sochacka, Costantino,
Walther, & Kellam, 2014; Knochel, 2018; Liao, 2016; Rolling, 2016). This perspective values the arts for imagination and ex-
pressivity, emphasizing new concepts and new possibilities (Barone & Eisner, 2012; Dewey, 2012). Some of these articles also
referenced National Core Arts Standards or Studio Habits of Mind (eight specific habits of art educators that foster creativity and skill
development in art classrooms, identified by Winner et al. (2006) (e.g. Bequette & Bequette, 2012; Gettings, 2016; Grant & Patterson,
2016). In these instances, the “A” in STEAM represents the Arts discipline, similar to the ways in which the STEM acronym represents
the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. However, some articles (7) explain that the intention of adding
the “A” in STEAM is to incorporate other non-STEM disciplines like the liberal arts, humanities, and interest areas like environmental
studies and community engagement (e.g. Herro & Quigley, 2016b; 2016b; Keane & Keane, 2016).
Some articles further delineate the definition of the “A” in STEAM. One article that introduces a model of STEAM, differentiates
between the plural “Arts” as a reference to the liberal arts disciplines and the singular “Art” as visual, musical, and performance art
(Quigley et al., 2017). We note that these are different delineations of the terms “art” and “arts” as defined by National Coalition for
Core Arts Standards (2013) and the National Art Education Association (2016) which describe singular “art” as visual arts and plural
“arts” as visual, performance, crafts, and other expressive arts. Clapp and Jimenez (2016) propose three interpretations of the “A” as
arts as a discipline, arts as aesthetics, or arts as creativity and innovation in STEM. And Peppler and Wohlwend (2018) explain that
lowercase “a” represents “traditional female crafts” (p. 96) such as sewing clothing and textiles, while uppercase “A” represents “fine
art subjects typically offered in schools” (p. 97).
Some articles (8) lack any definition of “A” beyond the word “Arts” or define the “A” as “Arts” but use the “Arts” as a synonymous
term for project-based activities, simple drawing or painting tasks, technology-based activities and digital literacy, or any level of
building or making of a final project in which students do not explicitly learn about the arts (e.g. Choi & Behm-Morawitz, 2017; Corbi
& Burgos, 2017; Grinnell & Angal, 2016). In these instances, arts is conceived as being more technological. Sullivan (2005) notes that
the arts can be viewed as more scientific, technological or practical when the materials are emphasized over other aspects such as
imagination and creative thinking. Watson and Watson (2013) refer to “artistic thinking” as the added “A” in STEAM in order to
“stimulate innovative problem solving” and add a “creative component through artistic thinking” (p.13). Another example is an
article by Moyer and Miller (2017) who describe a STEAM project in which students learned about environmental concerns and then
converted part of the school’s grounds to improve rainwater filtration. While this article did not explicitly define the “A” in STEAM, it
makes mention of painted rocks and a mural (to hide a propane tank) that can be assumed as representation of the “Arts” component
of this STEAM project.

4.4. Creativity as a STEAM outcome

Creative thinking, creative problem-solving, the development of creative skills, or creativity is mentioned frequently in the ar-
ticles (31) as an outcome of STEAM. The concept of creativity is connected to the arts and is characterized as one of the benefits or
learning outcomes of STEAM education. For example, Grinnell and Angal (2016) state that “…students are benefited as they develop
the creativity and persistence needed for learning in STEM subjects” (p.58). Other authors explain that creativity is a necessary skill
for economic advancement and success in STEM fields, though they do not expand upon their definitions of creativity beyond that
point. For example, Keane and Keane (2016) explain that “as jobs increasingly rely on technology and integrated STEM skills, all
students need opportunities to develop mathematical, scientific and creative capacities” (p.62–63). Another example, Choi and Behm-
Morawitz (2017) explain that “engaging in art fosters creativity and creates new opportunities, allowing young people to transition
into learning about technology” (p.80). These authors continued to use the term creativity throughout the article, but as an adjective
describing creative digital media activities or students’ creative expression through video creation.
Despite the interest in developing students’ creativity through STEAM, no articles report creativity as a measured outcome.
Instead, the articles that mention creativity introduce the term, but do not describe nor further expand upon the ways in which

38
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

creativity is developed, practiced, or fostered through STEAM education.

In contrast to articles that describe creativity as an inherent aspect of the arts, a small group of authors argue that creativity is, in
fact, inherent in all disciplines, not just the arts as it is often perceived. Ghanbari (2015) makes this point when he explains that the
“positive traits associated with art, such as creativity, imagination, and critical or divergent thinking, are not exclusive to the arts”
(p.4). Sochacka, Guyotte, and Walther, (2016) explain that they “…felt unsatisfied by what we considered to be a narrow and
simplistic view of the arts as a panacea for increasing the creative abilities of STEM students, not to mention…the implicit assumption
that engineering and other STEM fields are somehow inherently lacking in creative ways of thinking” (p. 33). And although art is not
the exclusive way to develop talent in adolescents (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1997), there is a common misconception that creativity is
connected solely to the arts and therefore students must participate in the arts in order to develop creativity.

4.5. Arts education

The articles were reviewed for descriptions or references to arts-based skills, knowledge, and dispositions common to K-16 arts
education in the United States. These aspects included, but were not limited to, aesthetics, art history, art production or making,
performing, technique, interpreting meaning, self-expression, critiquing, and exhibiting or presenting final products (Edwards, 2010;
Hetland et al., 2013; NCCAS, 2013; Seidel, Tishman, Winner, Hetland, & Palmer, 2009).
Each article included at least one aspect of arts education. The terms design or making are two aspects included in arts education.
Design was typically described (10 articles) in terms of an iterative process through which students implemented a functional final
product (e.g. digital game, video, outdoor garden or park area, or an architectural structure). Design was also discussed as a way to
teach students about the principles, elements, and aesthetics of design as they created and revised their work.
The aspect of making was also common throughout the STEAM articles (26) but was characterized in two different ways: as a
product (10 articles) and as a process (16 articles). The first characterization of making emphasizes the creation of a final product, or
what students made as a result of the STEAM instruction. For example, Clary’s (2016) article proposes the use of national park
systems as the context to teach STEAM with an emphasis on science content. The author discusses the ways in which national parks
have inspired famous songs, photography, and paintings, and uses these examples as a platform to suggest that students create their
own sketches, writings, or music about science and national parks. Although this article mentions art making, it does not describe the
process of making but rather emphasizes the art product as a means for teaching students about science in national parks.
Another example is an article by Herro and Quigley (2016a) who describe the efforts of a 6th grade science teacher implementing
a STEAM lesson using a robotics activity. Although the article describes the process of students’ skill development through robotics
tasks, the authors do not describe the making processes of the media art and scripted video projects used to present students’ robotics
solutions to the teacher. In fact, the authors only mention the creation of the media arts and videos in one sentence: “Students used
multiple techniques to solve the problem and demonstrate learning, and this included attention to the humanities (the “A” in STEAM)
as they created media art and short, scripted videos to present their solutions” (p. 1503).
The second characterization of making emphasizes the making process. As mentioned earlier, the process of making is arguably
more important than the final product itself in the domain of art. The process includes aspects of exploration, creative thinking,
designing, technique, creative-expression, evaluation, and redesign. An example of a STEAM project that is focused on the making
process is a descriptive publication by Guyotte et al. (2014) in which teams of students completed design challenges to think of and
design ways to reduce solid waste and improve water sustainably, presented as sculptures and other visual works of art. The authors
emphasize that students learned through the process of making which included observing, playing, recognizing patterns, practicing
studio techniques, creative thinking skills, and collaboration and communication among team members as they discussed ideas for
conveying their ideas through visual works.
Other aspects of arts education like developing technique, interpreting meaning, self-expression, critiquing, and exhibiting or
presenting final products were more often included in pedagogical framework articles than descriptive or empirical articles. In
general, the descriptive and empirical articles did not elaborate on the arts education aspects or extend beyond the designing and
making elements. This provides some evidence that there is discordance between STEAM in concept and STEAM in practice.

4.6. Arts education learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are essential components of any educational program, lesson, or activity. Therefore, in order to fully examine
and understand the range of interpretations of STEAM education, each article was also reviewed for evidence or discussion of
learning outcomes connected to arts education. These learning outcomes could include alignment to national or state arts standards
in the United States, assessment of skill development in the arts (e.g. technique or mastery of art forms or media, visual literacy,
creative problem-solving), comprehension of art history or art elements, measured creativity development, or evaluated performance
or artwork.
Interestingly, there is an overall lack of explanation of arts education learning outcomes (24 articles) despite the description of
such outcomes in the articles’ introductions. This points to a critical gap in the STEAM education literature. The articles generally
failed to describe cognitive outcomes like creative thinking, design thinking, visual thinking, critical thinking, analyzing, or devel-
oping new ideas or perspectives. These implicit learning outcomes are most often described as inherent in the STEAM activity, and
lack assessment or evaluation. For example, in a descriptive article by Arrieta and Kern (2015), they explain that “Having an
exhibition program would passively expose non-art students to challenging contemporary art and perhaps foster creativity outside of
the classroom” (p. 681). This article continues to describe the exhibition program in detail but does not provide evidence of student

39
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

learning or creativity development.

Some articles (8) explicitly prioritized STEM learning over the arts, which might explain the lack of arts education learning
outcomes. For example, Glass and Wilson (2016) explain that their STEAM objective was to "engage students in art analysis com-
plemented by relevant mathematics and scientific processes, with art making as a secondary goal used to demonstrate student
understanding" (p.14). Another author, Clary (2016) describes a final project rubric that “weigh[s] defense of the science content
more heavily than literacy or artistic skills displayed” (p.37). The “artistic skills” mentioned here are not otherwise discussed in the
article. These two articles exemplify the majority of STEAM publications that overlook or fail to address explicit arts-based learning as
measurable outcomes in STEAM education. A recent review of literature on STEAM-based Maker Spaces supports this point through
its findings that the arts are mostly used in decorative or ornamental ways and lack deep engagement in the arts discipline (Clapp &
Jimenez, 2016).
Among the 44 reviewed articles, seven articles (4 pedagogical frameworks, 1 empirical, 2 descriptive) mention the use of National
Core Arts Standards (see NCCAS, 2013), state arts standards, or other arts education-based outcomes as a means for structuring
lessons and aligning outcomes in STEAM. However, the two descriptive articles clearly explain that while arts standards were not
incorporated into their described STEAM lesson, the authors do suggest that arts standards be included in future iterations of the
program (see Grinnell & Angal, 2016; Keane & Keane, 2016). In conclusion, when reviewing these articles for evidence of discussion
of arts education learning outcomes, it is clear that many STEAM educators are focusing more heavily on the lesson activities than the
direct learning outcomes as they pertain to the arts. The lack of data collection on learning outcomes reinforces the false myth that
learning in the arts is difficult, and too hard to measure. In reality, though, there are multiple ways to grade, assess, study, measure
and provide evidence of learning in the arts. Table 1 provides an overview of the six categories and findings discussed above, with
corresponding article examples identified through this study.

5. Conclusion

This review found a variety of definitions for the STEAM concept, STEAM acronym, and the “A” or “Arts” in general, indicating a
lack of knowledge about the deep history and diversity of the arts, as well as the potential for using them side by side with STEM
disciplines. Art making and the creative process were overshadowed by an emphasis on the end result, or product. And there was an
overall lack of measured learning outcomes in the areas of improved creativity, problem-solving, and arts education.
Empirical research shows that many STEAM practitioners struggle with methods for integrating the arts (Herro & Quigley, 2017;
LaJevic, 2013), which may explain why the arts often take secondary priority to STEM disciplines. However, practitioners are not
solely to blame. In its inception, the arts were suggested as an addition to STEM in order to enhance student learning and interest in
STEM fields. This description implicitly places the arts as a subservient discipline to STEM disciplines. In order for arts education to be
given equal priority in STEAM, scholars must shift their language from one that “adds arts to STEM” to describing STEAM as a
pedagogical approach that integrates five disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) equally.
Finally, there is a lack of discussion or emphasis on learning outcomes in STEAM education that expands beyond STEM content or
skills. It is interesting to note that while a majority of articles discuss the purpose of STEAM as a way to enhance creativity, problem-
solving, and develop new perspectives and insights, the reported learning outcomes rarely include these skills. Further, the few
articles that do mention creativity as a direct learning outcome, do not provide measurements, assessments, or other evidence of
students’ development of creativity or other thinking skills. The lack of attention to learning outcomes in STEAM literature begs the
question about its purported value to students, and further perpetuates confusion about creativity development and methods for
implementing high quality STEAM programs.

5.1. Recommendations for research

In order for STEAM education to evolve as an effective pedagogy, research is needed to understand the implications of STEAM in
practice. Scholars posit that STEAM is a model for enhancing creativity, critical thinking, and other skills, however there is little
evidence to support this notion. Moreover, while extant research has provided evidence of cognitive and academic benefits attributed
to arts education, there remains little evidence that these benefits have transferred to STEAM education. This gap is further widened
by the lack of research and results of STEAM learning outcomes connected to arts standards or other arts education learning ob-
jectives. Specifically, research should focus on learning outcomes pertaining to thinking skills like creativity, critical thinking,
problem-solving, and dispositions like perseverance and self-efficacy (outcomes attributed to arts education). Research in these areas
can provide substantiated influence on the development of effective STEAM models.
Lastly, researchers and scholars must address and establish a shared definition for STEAM education – specifically its acronym and
disciplinary structure. This review of literature revealed a generally shared definition of the “A” in STEAM as representing the “Arts”.
Beyond this word, however, definitions vary. The impetus for integrating the arts into STEM was to enhance students’ creativity,
problem-solving skills, and engagement and interest in STEM fields. Research supports the notion that arts education, in particular,
elicits many cognitive benefits to students and therefore should be integrated (back) into learning. It is for these reasons we argue that
scholars and researchers should universally acknowledge the integration of arts education, specifically, within STEAM education.
Agreement of a shared definition among researchers and scholars will help to develop effective pedagogical models used in practice.

40
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

5.2. Recommendations for practice

While STEAM programs often incorporate problem-based approaches, the design-process, or hands-on experiences, they often
overlook the key aspects of arts education which include critique, self-expression, and conveying meaning. Both the critique process
and the concept of conveying meaning through self-expression are hallmark characteristics of arts education which have shown to
improve students’ verbal and non-verbal communication skills, openness to others’ perceptions, understanding of sociocultural dy-
namics, and self-understanding through reflection of their own experiences and emotions (Remer, 1996; Seidel et al., 2009). The
critique process also enhances students’ communication skills, listening, interpretation, reasoning, and learning through feedback
(Costantino, 2018). As such impactful aspects of arts education, it is essential to incorporate these components of arts education in
order to effectively enhance student learning in STEAM education. These elements of arts education should be included in profes-
sional development for STEAM educators.
Professional development should also include methods for modeling and fostering creativity in the classroom. Many educators
struggle to understand that creativity development is fostered, not through the art materials or products, but through a process of
exploration, play, risk-taking, making mistakes, self-evaluation and feedback (Runco, 2014; Sternberg & Williams, 1996). One model
that we suggest for use in professional development is Costantino (2018) transdisciplinary curriculum model that incorporates
“signature pedagogies in art and design education”. Costantino’s model emphasizes learning through critical making (hands-on
approaches), object-based learning (emphasis on the process), critique and exhibition (assessment and evaluation of work and
conveying meaning). This model can be helpful to STEAM educators as they learn methods for fostering creativity and emphasizing
the process of making in STEAM lessons.
Lastly, STEAM educators should consider incorporating appropriate arts standards such as the National Core Arts Standards
(NCCAS, 2013), as well as those addressing all STEM disciplines, to ensure student learning in each STEAM discipline area. Table 2
below, provides an example STEAM project addressing standards across the five STEAM disciplines. The authentic problem addressed
in this example is the destruction of towns and homes due to severe hurricanes that have recently impacted the United States. The
lesson components in the left column describe the student activities that guide learning about weather and hurricanes, architecture,
designing a sustainable house structure, and then building, testing, and presenting a house prototype. Commonly used U.S. national
standards for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics are included to demonstrate how each STEAM discipline can be
represented.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Allina, B. (2013). The evolution of a game-changing acronym: Why government recognition of STEAM is critical. ARCADE, 31(2), Retrieved from http://arcadenw.
org/article/the-evolution-of-a-game-changing-acronym.
Allina, B. (2017). The development of STEAM educational policy to promote student creativity and social empowerment. Arts Education Policy Review, 1–11.
Arrieta, D., & Kern, J. (2015). Art outreach toward STEAM and academic libraries. New Library World, 116(11/12), 677–695.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40–47.
Bush, S. B., Cox, R., & Cook, K. L. (2016). A critical focus on the M in STEAM. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(2), 110–114.
Burton, J. M., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The question of transfer. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 228–257.
Colucci-Gray, L., Trowsdale, J., Cooke, C. F., Davies, R., Burnard, P., & Gray, D. S. (2017). Reviewing the potential and challenges of developing STEAM education through
creative pedagogies for 21st learning: How can school curricula be broadened towards a more responsive, dynamic, and inclusive form of education? British Educational
Research Association.
Choi, G. Y., & Behm-Morawitz, E. (2017). Giving a new makeover to STEAM: Establishing YouTube beauty gurus as digital literacy educators through messages and
effects on viewers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 80–91.
Clapp, E. P., & Jimenez, R. L. (2016). Implementing STEAM in maker-centered learning. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(4), 481.
Clary, R. (2016). Science and Art in the national parks: Celebrating the centennial of the US national park service. The Science Teacher, 83(7), 33–38.
Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 291–302.
Corbi, A., & Burgos, D. (2017). Open distribution of virtual containers as a key framework for open educational resources and STEAM subjects. Electronic Journal of e-
Learning, 15(2), 126–136.
Costantino, T. (2018). STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design education. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 100–106.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Cropley, A. J. (1995). Fostering creativity in the classroom: General principles. In M. Runco (Ed.). The creativity research handbook (pp. 83–114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1997). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The prospect of an "A" in STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10–15.
de Souza Fleith, D. (2000). Teacher and student perceptions of creativity in the classroom environment. Roeper Review, 22(3), 148–153.
Edwards, L. C. (2010). The creative arts: A process approach for teachers and children (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.
Eisner, E. (2002). What the arts teach and how it shows. In the arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press70–92.
Gates, A. E. (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.
Gershon, W. S., & Ben-Horin, O. (2014). Deepening inquiry: What processes of making music can teach us about creativity and ontology for inquiry-based science education.
Gess, A. H. (2017). STEAM education: Separating fact from fiction. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(3), 39–41.
Gettings, M. (2016). Putting it all together: STEAM, PBL, scientific method, and the studio habits of mind. Art Education, 69(4), 10–11.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision. New York, NY: Wiley.
Ghanbari, S. (2015). Learning across disciplines: A collective case study of two university programs that integrate the arts with STEM. International Journal of Education
& the Arts, 16(7).
Glass, D., & Wilson, C. (2016). The art and science of looking: Collaboratively learning our way to improved STEAM integration. Art Education, 69(6), 8–14.

41
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

Glăveanu, V. P. (2018). Educating which creativity? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 25–32.
Grant, J., & Patterson, D. (2016). Innovative arts programs require innovative partnerships: A case study of STEAM partnering between an art gallery and a Natural
History Museum. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(4-5), 144–152.
Grinnell, S., & Angal, S. (2016). Luminous lighting. Science and Children, 53(6), 54.
Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Costantino, T. E., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. N. (2014). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art
Education, 67(6), 12–19.
Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Costantino, T. E., Kellam, N. N., & Walther, J. (2015). Collaborative creativity in STEAM: Narratives of art education students’
experiences in transdisciplinary spaces. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 16(15), 1–38.
Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2004). Cognitive transfer from arts education to non-arts outcomes: Research evidence and policy implications. In E. W. Eisner, & M. D. Day
(Eds.). Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 135–162). Routledge.
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016b). Innovating with STEAM in middle school classrooms: Remixing education. On the Horizon, 24(3), 190–204.
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016a). STEAM enacted: A case study of a middle school teacher implementing STEAM instructional practices. G. Chamblee, & L. Langub
(Eds.). Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2016, 1499–1506.
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2017). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of STEAM teaching through professional development: Implications for teacher educators. Professional
Development in Education, 43(3), 416–438.
Hughes, J. M. (2017). Digital making with “At-Risk” youth. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 102–113.
International Society for Technology in Education (2018). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved June 27, 2018 fromhttp://www.iste.org/standards/for-students.
Kant, J. M., Burckhard, S. R., & Meyers, R. T. (2018). Engaging high school girls in native American culturally responsive STEAM activities. Journal of STEM Education,
18(5), 15–25.
Karabey, B., Koyunkaya, M. Y., Enginoglu, T., & Yurumezoglu, K. (2018). Discovering complementary colors from the perspective of steam education. Physics
Education, 53(3), 035001.
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Resource review: Creativity. Change, 39, 55–58.
Keane, L., & Keane, M. (2016). STEAM by design. Design and Technology Education, 21(1), 61–82.
Kim, D., & Bolger, M. (2017). Analysis of Korean elementary pre-service teachers’ changing attitudes about integrated STEAM pedagogy through developing lesson
plans. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 587–605.
Knochel, A. D. (2018). An object-oriented curriculum theory for STEAM: Boundary shifters, materiality and per(form)ing 3D thinking. International Journal of Education
Through Art, 14(1), 35–48.
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
LaJevic, L. (2013). Arts integration: What is really happening in the elementary classroom? Journal for Learning Through the Arts, 9(1), 1–28.
Liao, C. (2016). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. Art Education, 69(6), 44–49.
Liao, C., Motter, J. L., & Patton, R. M. (2016). Tech-savvy girls: Learning 21st-century skills through STEAM digital artmaking. Art Education, 69(4), 29–35.
Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.201301.34.
Marshall, J. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and art integration: Toward a new understanding of art-based learning across the curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 55(2),
104–127.
Martin, A. J., Mansour, M., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., Liem, G. A., & Sudmalis, D. (2013). The role of arts participation in students’ academic and nonacademic
outcomes: A longitudinal study of school, home, and community factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 709–727.
Meeth, L. (1978). Interdisciplinary studies: A matter of definition. Change, 10(7), 10.
Moyer, L., & Miller, T. (2017). Cultivating community resources: Formal and nonformal educators partner to change the world…one step at a time. Children’s
Technology and Engineering, 22(2), 16–19.
National Art Education Association [NAEA] (2016). Using art education to build a stronger workforce. Accessed December 10, 2017, athttps://arteducators-prod.s3.
amazonaws.com/documents/535/ff8bfae5-6b4f-4352-b900-4fc1182ad2b1.pdf?1455134278.
National Coalition for Core Art Standards [NCCAS] (2013). The national core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. Retrieved April 1, 2018,
fromhttps://www.nationalartsstandards.org/sites/default/files/NCCAS%20%20Conceptual%20Framework_0.pdf.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards: Mathematics standards. Retrieved
June 26, 2018 fromhttp://www.corestandards.org/Math/.
Next Generation Science Standards (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Retrieved June 26, 2018 fromhttp://www.nextgenscience.org/search-
standards.
Patton, R. M., & Knochel, A. D. (2017). Meaningful makers: Stuff, sharing, and connection in STEAM curriculum. Art Education, 70(1), 36–43.
Payton, F. C., White, A., & Mullins, T. (2017). STEM majors, art thinkers–issues of duality, rigor and inclusion. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research,
18(3), 39–47.
Peppler, K., & Wohlwend, K. (2018). Theorizing the nexus of STEAM practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(2), 88–99.
Plucker, J. A., Guo, J., & Dilley, A. (2018). Research-guided programs and strategies for nurturing creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon
(Eds.). APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 387–397). American Psychological Association.
Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). “Finding the joy in the unknown”: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426.
Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1-2), 1–12.
Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. C. (2011). Arts education in america: What the declines mean for arts participation. Based on the 2008 survey of public participation in the arts.
Research report# 52. National Endowment for the Arts.
Remer, J. (1996). Beyond enrichment: Building effective arts partnerships with schools and your community. New York, NY: American Council for the Arts.
Rolling, J. H., Jr (2016). Reinventing the STEAM engine for art + design education. Art Education, 69(4), 4–7.
Root-Bernstein, R. (2015). Arts and crafts as adjuncts to STEM education to foster creativity in gifted and talented students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(2),
203–212.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero,
Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Understanding-Excellence-in-Arts-Education.pdf.
Sharapan, H. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: How early childhood educators can apply Fred Rogers’ approach. YC Young Children, 67(1), 36.
Smith, C. E., & Paré, J. N. (2016). Exploring klein bottles through pottery: A STEAM investigation. Mathematics Teacher, 110(3), 208–214.
Smith, J. K., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Educational creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 250–264). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Sochacka, N. W., Guyotte, K. W., & Walther, J. (2016). Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM+ the Arts) education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 15–42.
Spohn, C. (2008). Teacher perspectives on No Child Left Behind and arts education: A case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 3–12.
Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1996). How to develop student creativity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swaminathan, S., & Schellenberg, E. G. (2015). Arts education, academic achievement and cognitive ability. In P. P. Tinio, & J. K. Smith (Eds.). The Cambridge
handbook of the psychology of aesthetics and the arts (pp. 364–384). New York: Cambridge University Press.

42
E. Perignat, J. Katz-Buonincontro Thinking Skills and Creativity 31 (2019) 31–43

Thuneberg, H., Salmi, H., & Fenyvesi, K. (2017). Hands-on math and art exhibition promoting science attitudes and educational plans. Education Research International,
1–13.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
Torrance, E. (1972). Teaching for creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114–143.
Watson, A. D., & Watson, G. H. (2013). Building both sides of the brain: Innovating by blending form and function. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 36(3), 9.
Weatherly, L., Oleson, V., & Kistner, L. R. (2017). Over the fence: Engaging preschoolers and families in a yearlong STEAM investigation. YC Young Children, 72(5),
44–50.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.
Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Winner, E., Hetland, L., Veenema, S., Sheridan, K., Palmer, P., & Locher, I. (2006). Studio thinking: How visual arts teaching can promote disciplined habits of mind. In
P. Locher, C. Martindale, L. Dorfman, & D. Leontiev (Eds.). New directions in aesthetics, creativity, and the arts (pp. 189–205). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing
Company.
Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM+ arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 42–47.

43