STEMD even better than STEAM

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!

Design Thinking: An Introduction (Crafted for NAIS)

Design Thinking: An Introduction

Why "Variables" instead of Critical/Creative/Design Thinking?

Welcome!

So why “Variables Thinking” and not critical thinking or creative thinking or design thinking?

I want to zoom out in today’s BLOG.  So many topics, it is easy to get side tracked into major asides on teaching styles and all the great things in education that are already being done, like the move toward “guide on the side” teaching.  But I need to paint with a bigger brush for a moment to begin to reason through my goal to create a curriculum throughline about Variables.

These 3 established kinds of thinking would make great throughlines:

Critical Thinking

Creative Thinking

Design Thinking

Any school that holistically embraced any of these would be a better school for it.  That is to say any school that picked one of these and taught it throughout grade levels and disciplines would graduate students with a toolbox for life.

So why do I have my mind set on navigating uncharted waters and trying to “popularize” Variables Thinking?  It’s a meta thing.  And a changy thing.  (whole BLOGS on META & CHANGY later)

When one approaches a piece of History from a “critical” perspective one asks questions: what is the context of this report or document or diary entry?  Whose point of view?  Did the interpretation of this piece of history change over time?  Is this true or false?

When one approaches a problem from a “creative” perspective one might think: brainstorm, try things out, think outside the box, play, embellish.

When one approaches anything from a “design” perspective one immediately thinks of needs, uses, how can we build a solution, let’s follow a process. 

When we indoctrinate students into any methodology we provide a profound opportunity for learning.

Here’s how Variables differs.  Understanding all the variables in any given problem or person or action or thing is literally impossible and indescribably mind-boggling.  That’s why it may be the kind of thinking that is going to rock kids' worlds!  Identifying parts, aspects, factors and their relationships is like meta critical thinking.  Ouch that hurt my brain... how about we keep it simple.....

Curriculum:  9^th Grade Science - Play doh for PHD students. 

Pretend you are a group of Phd students.  Identify all the factors when considering the “nature”  of Play Doh.  The nature of this product can include but is not limited to: ingredients, their origins, chemical make up and pathways to the factory, marketing and design, intended uses, unintended uses… that should be enough prompts.

The winning team lists 254 factors/aspects…..  Can you name them all?  Do they affect each other? Are they "constants"?

Thanks for reading (more soon) – L