Running head: TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
Teaching Creativity Skills through STEAM Curriculum
Reimagining the Role of Art Education in the Quest for Innovation
Rebecca Cain
Vanderbilt Peabody College
1
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
2
Abstract
While creativity is difficult to measure, it is not impossible. Educators must begin to identify and
assess creativity in students in order for America to remain a competitive force in STEM fields.
One way to measure creativity in students is to use a multifaceted approach incorporating
personality factors, products, and parent observations. Additionally, creativity can be divided
into sub-categories to better assess a student’s level of creative output on a continuum. Visualspatial abilities and creative abilities are common creative traits shared by artists and STEM
innovators, and teachers must begin capitalizing on this relationship. In this paper I make the
case that there is a natural link between the creative thought processes taught in art classes, The
Studio Habits of Mind, and the innovative thought processes desired in STEM subjects. I suggest
that teachers incorporate this relationship into the interdisciplinary design-based curriculum
STEAM, which includes the addition of art to the traditional STEM acronym.
keywords: STEAM, Studio Habits of Mind, visual spatial ability, creative ability
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
3
Teaching Creativity Skills Through Art and STEM Subjects
Reimagining the Role of Art Education in the Quest for Innovation
Equipping elementary students with creativity skills is a major task for educators. These
not only are important skills to learn, but are challenging skills to teach to elementary students.
In fact, the United States is falling short in teaching these skills, which is producing a less
creative workforce (Robelen, 2012). Curriculum writers, educators, and policy makers are
starting to take note of the changing role art plays in education and reimagining art as a
necessary tool in the teaching of STEM subjects resulting in the creation of STEAM curriculum.
U.S. Representative James Langevin introduced a House resolution to highlight how the
innovative practices of art and design play an essential role in improving STEM education and
advancing research on the subject (Robelen, 2011). American competitiveness in the global
economy is an important issue, and America currently lacks an innovative, design-based
curriculum that would teach students to be more creative (Sparks, 2011).
For my capstone I will start by building upon a background paper written for SPED 3720,
which discussed the difficulty of measuring students’ creative abilities. Next, I will provide
suggestions for teachers on ways to assess and identify creativity in students. Then I will make
the argument that there is natural link between the creative thinking skills taught in visual art,
and the creativity skills desired in STEM subjects. The Studio Habits of Mind, a set of
dispositions developed in art classes, will be explained in detail to provide evidence for this
claim. Finally, I will discuss emerging research on STEAM curriculum, an interdisciplinary
curriculum combining STEM subjects and art, which could help develop creativity skills in
students. By writing this paper I hope to provide evidence on the relationship between the
creativity skills learned in visual art and the creativity skills desired in STEM subjects.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
4
Measuring Creativity
Measuring Creativity is Difficult
One reason why America lacks a design-based curriculum is because there is little
evidence-based research due to limitations in creativity research. While there are many articles
responding to why creative skills are important for young children to learn, there is still
significant controversy about whether and how creativity can be measured. This ambiguity halts
the research process. Though individual metrics for creativity may be lacking, I propose that
combining multiple tests for creativity is a better way for educators to identify creative potential
and ultimately begin to teach creativity skills. There are different levels of creative output and
often a degree of time is necessary to uncover a person’s true creative potential. In this section I
will discuss two ways of measuring creative potential. By assessing personality characteristics
and evaluating a creative product without reference to personality factors, teachers may begin to
identify creativity in students that express their creative abilities in different ways and in
different domains. Once creative potential is uncovered, teachers may begin to teach creative
thinking skills at a higher level through the design based STEAM curriculum.
Educators need a clear definition of creativity to identify creative students and measure
their creative potential. Kania (2013) defines creativity as the process of forming new ideas,
concepts, and associations, as well as the ability to create something new, and notice various
aspects of a problem. Additionally, creative thought includes positive motivations, the ability to
seek alternative solutions and ideas, gifts for using metaphors, the ability to find defects in what
is, as well as question ready solutions and truths (Kania, 2013). Creativity is a multifaceted
process including products, metacognitive processes, and personal factors (Cropley, 2000).
These complex processes make creativity hard to measure and even harder to develop.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
5
Teachers are given the daunting task of identifying and measuring creativity yet creativity
is difficult to quantify. Measuring creativity is like measuring personal values and feelings. What
might seem creative to one person may not seem creative to another. Creativity is abstract,
ambiguous and controversial. Many children express their creativity in different ways in
different domains. Additionally, a student’s creative output is affected by environmental factors
and personality characteristics. Should creativity be measured through personality traits, creative
products, academic achievement, or a combination? More importantly, once measured, what
should teachers do with the potential results and once students identified, how can teachers
individualize creative learning to a large diverse group of students (Kania, 2000)?
Levels of Creativity
A large body of research on creativity lumps individuals into two categories: Big-C
Creativity and little-c creativity. Big-C creativity is reserved for creativity at the highest level.
This level of creativity requires a degree of time and is reserved for the most eminent creative
geniuses. Persons that have attained Big-C status have contributed something new to their field
and often have won the highest awards for the contributions. Little-c creativity is reserved for
everyday creativity. One example of little-c creativity could be to create a new dish by fusing the
flavors of two cuisines in a creative way or coming up with a creative solution to a complex
problem at work (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).
The gap between little-c creativity and Big-C creativity is too wide for educators to use
for measurement and identification purposes. Attempting to use the little-c category to classify
students’ creative insights can be too restrictive resulting in such insights being dismissed or
overlooked (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). It would not be fair to hold a fourth grade student to
the same level of the creative output of a graduate student. Even graduate level students may
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
6
never reach Big-C creativity in their lifetime and elementary students may never reach little-c
creativity.
Sorting creativity into further sub-categories is one way to help educators identify
emerging creativity in students. In order to help quantify creative growth in students, Kaufman
and Beghetto (2009) proposed two new additional categories for looking at creativity as a
developmental process and further distinguish young creative minds on a continuum: Pro-C
creativity and mini-c creativity. Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) suggest adding Pro-C between
little-c creativity and Big-C creativity. This category is for professional creators that have not yet
reached (and may never reach) eminent status. Mini-c is the category most exciting for
educators. Kaufman and Beghetto (2009) suggest placing this category before little-c creativity.
This category was designed to encompass creativity inherent in the learning process (Kaufman &
Beghetto, 2009). This category puts more emphasis on creative expression, which ensures
students’ creative potential is nurtured (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).
Student and Teacher Perceptions of Creativity
Teacher concepts of creativity may differ across the board. This can be troubling when
identifying creativity in students because some could be overlooked due to preconceived
concepts of the creative persona. On one hand, teachers may be good at identifying some
creative children but are overlooking other creative children that are underappreciated in the
school context (Dawson, 1997). In a 1995 study performed by V. L. Dawson entitled “In Search
of the Wild Bohemian,” teacher concepts of their favorite and least favorite students were
compared to a creative prototype generated by college students. The creative prototype painted a
picture of a student that was impulsive, eccentric, negative, obnoxious, emotional, and
independent. The student concept favored by teachers described students that were considerate,
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
7
responsible, obedient, good natured, tolerant, and popular. Teachers indicated this was the type
of student they deemed as most creative. This personality type was called the briefcase creative
student. While past studies showed that the traditional view of the creative student, “the wild
bohemian student,” was linked to creative behavior, other studies showed that students who do
conform to school rules might actually outperform nonconforming students on verbal creativity
(Dawson, 1997). It is important that teachers know these stereotypes when assessing creativity
so neither type of student gets overlooked due to misperceptions.
Revealing one’s creative side openly and freely in the school context takes a lot of guts.
Students may conceal their creative traits due to the possibility of failing or destroying their wellestablished and favored ideas (Selby, Shaw, & Houtz, 2005). Creativity involves openness, an
internal locus of evaluation, and the self-confidence to pursue an idea despite external
discouragements (Selby, Shaw, & Houtz, 2005). If teachers are measuring creative potential by
identifying personality traits in a restrictive school setting, than they should be prepared to be
disappointed. Not all of these traits show up in this environment let alone in every subject and all
the time.
Suggestions for Measuring Creativity
Teachers
Teachers can identify creative potential by identifying personality characteristics in
students thought processes. Intrapersonal traits are not always expressed in visual creative
products but may be noticed in a student’s personality. Students that have not identified a
favored domain to express their creativity visually may not be excluded if teachers are looking
for personality traits. Unfortunately there are many potentially negative consequences of only
using personality traits to identify and measure creative potential. For example, students may not
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
8
exhibit these personality traits all the time, in every subject, or with every teacher. It is hard to
measure traits that may change due to a variety of environmental factors. Teachers’ preconceived
concepts about what is creative as well as negative stereotypes may get in the way and leave
some students unidentified. Students may also feel uncomfortable opening up in the school
environment and may go unnoticed.
An alternative to identifying creativity through personality traits is to evaluate children’s
products without reference to personality factors (Dawson, 1997). Examples of products might
be artwork or writing samples. Products can be evaluated anonymously, which eliminates bias
from teachers and parents. In fact, when teachers evaluated products for creativity, the results
were more in line with expert ratings of what is more creative (Dawson, 1997). Research shows
that teachers’ perceptions of creative personality traits differed from expert views but their
judgment of products did not.
Unfortunately there are also negative consequences to only evaluating creative products.
Intrapersonal creativity may go unnoticed. Underachieving students, students with learning
disabilities, language delays, or students whom English is a second language may be at a
disadvantage. Unless products are created at school independently, parents may help with
product creation and idea formation at home, which makes the results not as reliable. Academic
achievement may shed light on correlations between creativity and success in school. If teachers
influence students to be open to exploring variety of learning styles in elementary school,
students may develop more creativity skills over time.
Parents
Parents can also play an instrumental role in measuring their child’s creative potential by
giving information to teachers on how the child reacts in non-school settings. Runco (1989)
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
9
found that the personality characteristics thought by parents to be related to creativity were in
agreement to personality characteristics found in the research literature yet children identified as
creative by parents were not identified by teachers (Dawson, 1997). Not all creative students will
demonstrate their abilities in the school setting. Parents have a deeper understanding of how their
child performs in different arenas. With knowledge of this information, parents may help
teachers unlock this creative potential in the classroom and make sure no creative students get
left behind due to environmental factors. Teachers should send home a survey to gather parents’
opinions of their child’s creative potential. This might also help shed light on the child’s
preferred domain to express creativity.
Finally, in order to measure creativity as a result of the creative process, one should take
into account both the teaching process and learning process. It would be a mistake to focus solely
on the teaching process, ignoring, at the same time, the learning process (Kania, 2013). The
dialogue between the teacher and student and the underlying expectations from both parties play
a role measuring creativity. For example, if the teacher is very creative but does not expect the
student to be creative, than the teacher’s creative potential is not being used for learning (Kania,
2013). On the other hand, a teacher may require his students to be very creative, yet the teacher
does not exhibit or model these characteristics. This type of teacher-student relationship may
lead the students to resist creative expression and rebel against the creative requirements (Kania,
2000). The most beneficial relationship in the educational process is when the teacher instructs
creatively and requires creativity from the students (Kania, 2000). Not only is the teacher
modeling creative thinking to facilitate creative learning, but is requiring students to push back
by giving students equally creative challenges. This type of dialogue sets the stage for students
to try innovative problem solving with the confidence that their teacher can guide them. In
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
10
addition, their fear of failure should diminish if the emphasis is put on being creative, not being
correct.
Although creativity is difficult to identify and measure, teachers can begin by assessing
students personality characteristics and thought processes. Additionally, creative products can be
used without reference to personality factors. Parents can be a useful resource as creativity
manifests itself differently in different domains. Parents have valuable insight into how their
child reacts outside of school in situations that demand creativity. Finally, both the teaching and
learning process must be taken into account when analyzing how instructional strategies promote
creativity in students.
STEAM Curriculum
Students must be well versed in 21st century workforce skills related to STEM education
but the United States is failing to compete with other countries when it comes to student
performance and interest in STEM areas (Daugherty, 2013). STEAM curriculum, which includes
the traditional STEM subjects, science, technology, engineering, and math with the new
interdisciplinary addition of art, is an exciting possible answer to this problem. Daugherty (2013)
argues that the United States economy rests on its ability to be a leader in innovation, yet public
schools are failing to teach students the creativity skills required to innovate in STEM subjects.
Although creativity is very difficult to identify and measure, steps must be taken to teach
creativity skills to students. The more educators work to identify creativity in students and
cultivate it, the more they will understand about the processes needed to teach these skills
effectively in the classroom.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
11
The Natural Link
There is a natural link between the creativity skills taught in the arts and the innovative
thinking skills desired in STEM fields. Many educators would argue that STEM is missing a key
set of creativity-related components that are equally critical to fostering a competitive and
innovative workforce and those skills are summarized under the letter A for Arts (White, as cited
in Daugherty, 2013). Arts infused instruction may allow students who have no particular interest
in becoming a professional engineer or scientist, to understand and apply those concepts more
readily to other endeavors (Daugherty, 2013). Students learn though the artistic process that
manipulating how things look and how things work often leads to the creation of purposeful
innovative items that have a balance of function and aesthetics (Findelli, as cited in Bequette,
2012). When students begin to use art as a design process, not just a visual representation of
technical ability, deep connections can be made between the creative process and STEM fields
Many of the same skills are developed in art that are necessary for innovation and
creativity in STEM subjects. Two examples are visual spatial abilities and creative abilities. An
innovator must visualize what does not yet exist (Coxon, 2012). Creative and visual spatial
talent development are both necessary for innovation in STEM fields yet neither is mentioned in
the No Child Left Behind Act and both are uncommon in state standards (Coxon, 2012). William
Lipscomb, a Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry, stated that the process he used to describe his
experience, the initial process of coming up with predictions and alternatives had an artistic
flavor (Mishra & Henriksen, 2012). He said that the process he used, focusing of intellect and
emotions, was an aesthetic response that felt more like an artist (Mishra & Henriksen, 2012).
Most creative people do not view their work as confined to their discipline but rather inspired
and elevated by connections within and between disciplines (Mishra & Henriksen, 2012).
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
12
Visual Spatial Ability
Lohman (1993) states that the construct of visual spatial ability is the ability to generate,
retain, retrieve, and transform well-structured visual images (as cited in Coxon, 2012). Visual
spatial abilities were researched for more than one hundred years before Gardner popularized it
in 1983 (Coxon, 2012). Galton first suggested in 1880 that understanding visual spatial ability is
important in education because visual spatial learners need differentiated instruction (Coxon,
2012). This paper makes the case that even though some students may be more adept visual
spatial learners, teachers can help other students develop visual spatial skills through a
combination of skills taught in STEAM curriculum. Using art and STEM subjects together in the
interdisciplinary curriculum model STEAM, will advance all students’ visual spatial abilities and
teach students how to apply them. Coxon (2012) argues that the relationship between high visual
spatial ability and success in STEM fields is so strong that we cannot afford to continue to ignore
the development of spatial talent in school.
Creative Ability
The nation’s push for high stakes testing is stifling creativity. In fact, Bronson &
Merryman (2010) state that creativity scores have declined among US children for the past two
decades (as cited in Coxon, 2012). Schools have made children so fearful of being wrong that
they avoid original solutions in exchange for safe answers (Coxon, 2012). Rote memorization
has replaced authentic experimental learning in order to ace achievement tests. Tying these
achievement tests to funding has exacerbated this problem even further. Additionally, art is not a
tested subject, therefore even less emphasis is put on the domain where the most creative
potential may be harnessed in elementary schools.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
13
In order to create a “design-based” curriculum based on STEAM education, curriculum
writers must consider what kind of creative thinking skills they want student’s to develop. Wynn
and Harris (2013) make the claim that the greatest scientists and developers of technology are
also visual thinkers. Two great examples of visual designers and innovators, Einstein and Steve
Jobs, both integrated science, engineering, math, technology and art in their work. Wynn &
Harris (2012) also conclude that artists, who are visual thinkers, and athletes, who are strategic
thinkers, can both benefit by learning how scientists and mathematicians think and test their
thoughts. Piirto (2004) defines creativity as the ability to make something new or novel (as cited
in Coxon, 2012). Torrence (1966) says that creativity has several aspects: fluency, flexibility,
originality, and elaboration (as cited in Coxon, 2012). Additionally, Davis & Rimm (1998) argue
that creativity is useful in all domains of ability (as cited in Coxon, 2012).
Visual spatial abilities and creative abilities are important for innovations in science,
technology, engineering, and math but talents are rarely developed from these abilities by
schools (Coxon, 2012). Wynn & Harris (2012) shed light on Martin Storksdieck’s (2011) studies
which have shown that infusing art into STEM subjects allows for a different way of perceiving
and knowing and dealing with the world; freeing the scientist’s and engineer’s mind. STEAM is
an opportunity for teachers to partner, learn, and teach about the many areas where art and
STEM intersect (Wynn & Harris, 2012). Eisner (2004) states that despite the recent enthusiasm
about their contributions to academic performance, the arts are generally regarded as nice, but
not necessary (as cited in Daugherty, 2013). Eisner (2004) also argues that the arts have an
important role to play in refining our sensory system and cultivating our imaginative abilities in a
particularly focused way (as cited in Daugherty, 2013). Visual spatial abilities and creative
abilities could be further developed in schools by infusing the arts into STEM subjects.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
14
Advocating for the addition of art to the traditional STEM model is a perilous venture
due to the lack of research on how art affects academic achievement. Art has always served
students as an enrichment activity, or is an elective; therefore there is little research that shows
the effects of interdisciplinary instruction on a grand scale. Although many in the arts
community seemed inclined to promote the inclusion of art into STEM on the basis of its
contribution to the core STEM disciplines, the evidence to support such claims in thin
(Daugherty, 2013). Winner and Cooper (2000) note that they could find no research-based
evidence that studying the arts, either as separate disciplines or infused into the academic
curriculum, raises grades or improves performances on standardized achievement tests (as cited
in Daugherty, 2013). Robinson (2003) states that schools maintain rigid disciplinary boundaries
and subject matter is confined to distinct classes however this is not haw creative thinking skills
develop or how eminently creative thinkers operate (as cited in Mishra &Henriksen, 2012). By
providing evidence showing the natural link between the thought processes used in art and in
STEM subjects, hopefully new light will be shed on this practice resulting in future research
studies.
Studio Habits of Mind
Similar to the engineering design method in engineering, or the design loop used in
technology education, and the scientific method used in science classes, art classes utilize Studio
Habits of Mind or studio thinking as an experience-based technique for problem solving,
learning, investigation, and discovery (Daugherty, 2013). Dynn (2005) states that design is
commonly considered to be the distinguishing activity of engineering (as cited in Bequette,
2012). The Studio Habits of Mind refer to eight dispositions taught in art classes: Develop Craft,
Observation, Envisioning, Reflecting, Expressing, Exploring, Engaging and Persisting, and
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
15
Understanding the Art World (Daugherty, 2013). There is a natural link between the critical
thinking processes used in The Studio Habits of Mind and the thought processes utilized in
STEM design projects. In the next section, The Studio Habits of Mind will be explained in
further detail to illustrate this relationship.
The first habit, Developing Craft, refers to use of tools and materials, learning artistic
conventions, and studio practice. This includes learning to care for tools, materials and spaces
(Daugherty, 2013). This habit is essential in STEM fields as students learn about tools and
materials in science, technology, or engineering labs (Daugherty, 2013). The second habit,
Engage and Persist, involves learning to embrace problems of relevance within the art world or
developing a mental focus conducive to persevering at art tasks (Daugherty, 2013).
In science, problem-based learning (PBL) already teaches students to investigate real
world problems. Pedagogically, both art and engineering lend themselves to PBL, a way to
motivate authentic learning in a discipline (Bequette, 2012). PBL develops higher order thinking
skills as students investigate ill-defined problems including aesthetic inquiry that is explicitly
included in art curriculum (Constantino, as cited in Bequette, 2012). By combining PBL with the
Studio Habit of Mind, Engage and Persist, students may begin to embrace real world problems
in science with vigor and perseverance. Students need to learn to find problems of interest and
work with them deeply over sustained periods of time (Daugherty, 2013
In STEM classrooms, learning the basic elements of the design process often correlates
with doing design projects (Bequette, 2012). The third Studio Habit of Mind, Envision, asks
students to picture mentally what cannot be directly observed and imagine possible next steps in
making a piece of art (Daugherty, 2013). This habit not only requires visual spatial skills
necessary for design projects in STEM classrooms, but also creativity. Using forethought to
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
16
imagine the next steps in the creation of art is a critical thinking skill easily transferred to the
domains of STEM subjects. For example, students must be able to envision a solid hypothesis in
science and represent time and space algorithmically in mathematics (Daugherty, 2013).
Additionally, teachers in science classrooms tend to demonstrate the history of science rather
than the processes of doing science (Coxon, 2012). For example, a teacher might focus on how a
circuit works rather than focus on careful observations, critical thinking, and experimentation
(Coxon, 2012). By combining the studio habits Envision and Engage and Persist with PBL,
teachers will begin to see the rewards of combining STEM and Art thought processes into
innovative projects for learners.
The fourth habit, Express, includes learning to create artworks that convey an idea,
feeling, or personal meaning (Daugherty, 2013). STEM subjects are often centered on improving
the world through invention, design, and scientific breakthroughs. Understanding that art is a
mass form of communication and that, architects, city planners, and illustrators tackle problems
with specific options and limitations sheds light on what architects, city planners, and artists
actually do (Bequette, 2012). The next habit, Observe, teaches students to look at visual content
more closely in order to see things one might have missed ordinarily (Daugherty, 2013).
Certain creative thinking skills such as observation are as common to creative scientists
and mathematicians as they are to artists (Hudson, as cited in Mishra & Henriksen, 2012). Reflect
includes questioning, explaining; talking with others, and evaluating or judging ones own
artwork or others artwork (Daugherty, 2013). Explore involves teaching the student to take risks,
explore without a plan, and embrace mistakes and learn from accidents (Daugherty, 2013).
Finally, Understanding the Art World includes learning about art history as well as learning to
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
17
interact as an artist with other artists within the broader society (Hetland, as cited in Daugherty,
2013). Each of these habits is a creativity skill as common to STEM fields as they are to the arts.
As higher-level math and science is introduced, some students may shut down. Adding an
art component to STEM subjects harnesses creativity skills through the use of the Studio Habits
of Mind and helps engage these students. Wynn & Harris (2012) make a very important point:
when math and science become entirely quantitative, there is a disconnection between math and
real world applications. Art in combination with PBL may provide a way for students to make
these connections in STEM fields. Similarly, Wynn & Harris (2012) note that the quantitative
orientation is less interesting to students who lean towards more right brained areas. In an
interdisciplinary environment, STEAM can make mathematics and science seem less threatening
while also maintaining rigor (Wynn & Harris, 2012).
While adding an art component may help engage some learners in STEM
disciplines that may not have been previously interested, art should be more than only a hook or
entry point. Piro (2010) explains that some STEAM efforts have used art as an entry point into
STEM learning however Eisner (2002) argues against this generic use of art in the STEAM
curriculum (as cited in Bequette, 2012). The artistic process and the Studio Habits of Mind
should be cultivated in every STEM subject in order for the STEAM curriculum to make an
impact on developing creativity in students. In other words, Bequette (2012) says that the artistic
process, when incorporating the Studio Habits of Mind, should be the end goal in every
discipline. Bequette (2012) remarks that people like the idea of STEAM, but are easily put off
when it comes down to doing it because of a lack of specificity.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
18
Conclusions and Future Study
Often the arts have been considered a luxury in public schools; an arena for selfexpression, perhaps, but not a vital part of education (Daugherty, 2013). Ironically as arts
electives continue to be eliminated first in the budgetary belt-tightening, the arts are becoming
recognized as essential to innovation and creativity development (Wynn & Harris, 2012). This
paper shows that even though creativity is hard to measure in students, teachers and parents can
identify it through a combination of personality characteristics and products. Visual spatial skills
and creativity skills are critical for students to develop in STEM subjects. STEAM curriculum,
which adds the new discipline of art to the STEM acronym, is an exciting interdisciplinary
option for teachers to develop these skills by incorporating The Studio Habits of Mind. There is a
natural link between The Studio Habits of Mind developed in art classes and the creativity and
innovation skills desired by STEM teachers. By studying these thought processes developed by
art teachers, STEM teachers will begin to see the natural relationship between the thought
processes utilized in planning and evaluating art, and the design skills desired in STEM subjects.
Wynn & Harris (2012) state that school districts across the nation are pushing to recruit and
retain STEM students while art education continues to be marginalized. The nation must
reimagine the role art education plays in developing visual spatial abilities and creativity skills
necessary for STEM innovation. STEAM curriculum, where art process skills are taught in
conjunction with STEM subjects, is an exciting avenue to research creativity development
moving forward.
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
19
References
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM
conversation. Art Education, 65(2), 40-47. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com
.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/docview/1037908757?accountid=14816
Coxon, S. (2012). Innovative Allies. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 277-284.
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using?
Roeper Review, 23(2), 72-79. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.library
.vanderbilt.edu/docview/206697675?accountid=14816
Daugherty, M. K. (2013). The prospect of an "A" in STEM education. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations and Research, 14(2), 10-15. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/docview/1413417253?accountid=
14816
Dawson, L. V. (1997). In search of the wild bohemian: Challenges in the identification of the
creatively gifted Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt
.edu/docview/62533877?accountid=14816
Kania, B. D. (2013). In search of creativity measurement tools, based on the example of an
educational process. Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 2(3), 62-69. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/docview/1321075863?accountid
=14816
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity.
Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
TEACHING CREATIVITY SKILLS THROUGH STEAM CURRICULUM
20
Mishra, P., & Henriksen, D. (2012). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century:
On Being In-Disciplined. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve
Learning, 56(6), 18-21
Robelen, E. (2011). STEAM: Experts Make Case for Adding Arts to STEM. Education Week,
31(13), 8. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/01/13steam
_ep.h31.html?qs=STEAM:+Experts+Make+Case+for+Adding+Arts+to+STEM
Robelen, E. (2012). Coming to Schools: Creativity Indexes. Education Week, 31(19), 1-13.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/01/19creativity_ep2.h31.html?qs=Coming+to+Schools+Creativity+Indexes
Selby, E. C., Shaw, E. J., & Houtz, J. C. (2005). The creative personality. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49(4), 300-314,356-357. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy
.library.vanderbilt.edu/docview/212081967?accountid=14816
Sparks, S. (2011). Studies Explore How to Nurture Students’ Creativity. Education Week,
31(14),1-16. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/14/14creative
.h31.html?qs=nurture+students'+creativity
Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art
Education, 65(5), 42-47. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.library
.vanderbilt.edu/docview/1076740050?accountid=14816