Sometimes semantics are just that, semantics. And sometimes words and their meanings are crucial to pointing one's thinking in a clear articulate direction. Last week I lead design thinking workshops at a K-8 STEAM conference. STEAM is the updated acronym that adds art and design to the popular Science, Technology, Engineering and Math shorthand.
When John Maeda (MIT, RISD) first proposed that STEM become STEAM, it was a welcome initiative. The addition of art and design seems like a no-brainer for those of us in the arts.
My question is for educators trying to add the arts and design to STEM through curriculum design: is STEMD with D design a more articulate, targeted and easily integrated vision? Is it clearer?
I admit a post like this might seem pretty self-indulgent due to the fact that STEAM is already such a useful addition to STEM. But below are a few reasons why it would be as inspiring to use STEMD in addition to STEAM.
Art implies creativity with the maker as the spark and driving force.
Design puts a user, function and purpose at the center of process.
Art has intrinsic value.
Design is a means to an end.
Art is play and discovery driven by the human need for personal expression.
Design is the meta process of problem solving in the service of solution making.
Art can be collaborative and use feedback and revision.
Design is collaborative and relies on feedback and revision.
STEAM adds the A. STEMD is grounded by D.
For curriculum design, I would argue that bringing a design throughline to science, technology, engineering and math skills may be a clearer and more useful way to bring the arts to the sciences.
I told you, indulgent post!
