STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Through which STEM/STEAM conceptual approach were the didactic interventions prepared that are used to develop student creativity?
- From which perspective was creativity evaluated, and which instruments were employed to do so?
- What reasons do the authors identify to explain the effect of interventions based on STEM/STEAM approach on creativity?
1.1. Conceptual Approach toward STE(A)M Education
- Its focus is ihe resolution of problems based on concepts and procedures from science and mathematics, which incorporate the strategies applied in engineering and the use of technology [12].
- It is an E–A approach that integrates two or more STEM areas and/or one or more curricular subjects [10].
- It is an approach that seeks to teach content from two or more STEM domains, framed within a real context, so as to connect the subject matter with the daily life of the student [13].
- Yakman and Lee [18] defined STEAM education as the interpretation of science and technology through engineering and the arts (a century that covered the humanities was studied); all based on mathematical elements.
- Zamorano et al. [19] defined STEAM as the interdisciplinary integration of sciences, technology, engineering, the arts and mathematics for the resolution of the daily life problems of students.
1.2. Creativity and Its Development in the Workshop
- Mini-c or interpretative creativity (e.g., when a student solves a mathematical problem in a different way to the example given in class).
- Little-c or daily creativity (e.g., development of a local project to solve an overabundance of pine processionary caterpillars).
- Pro-C or creativity expert (e.g., the idea of the inverted classroom that Aaron Sams and Jonathan Bergmann, both teachers, have advanced).
- Big-C or legendary creativity (e.g., the educational approach that Maria Montessori first devised).
2. Methods
2.1. Article Selection Procedure
- Journal articles or congress communications (proceedings) written in either Spanish or English.
- The terms “STEM/STEAM education” and “creativity” appear in the title, abstract or keywords.
- They present an educational intervention embedded in formal education in which the development of the creativity of students is considered.
- They use research instruments to evaluate the creativity of the participants.
- They set out conclusions on the impact of STEM or STEAM education on creativity.
2.2. Data Extraction Procedure
2.3. Description of the Articles under Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Conceptualizations of the STEM and STEAM Approaches
“EarSketch is an integrated STEAM programming environment and curriculum that teaches elements of computing and sample-based music composition (i.e., composition using musical beats, samples, and effects) in an effort to engage a diverse population of students. […] EarSketch fosters a learning environment that is both personally meaningful and of industrial relevance in terms of its STEM component (computing) and its artistic domain (music remixing).”[41] (p. 183)
“The Creations project was set up to overcome this development. In Creations, a project funded by the European Union, 16 partners from ten European countries developed creative approaches based on art for an engaging science classroom. It breaks new ground to increase young people’s interest in science, particularly by supporting the link between science and creativity.”[49] (p. 4)
“Thus, this study adopted a science and art-based approach by teaching the science topics. The technology was accessed through the use of tablet computers. Tablet computers are among the multi-sensory tools employed in STEAM education. The add-on applications on the tablet computer screen or tactile display stimulates sensory interaction (Taljaard 2016). The engineering field includes the design process (Charyton 2015). The mathematics field is included in the calculations of the STEAM design.”[46] (p. 11)
3.2. Type of Creativity Evaluated and Instruments Employed
- The process. This is attending to the creative process or, what is the same, to the procedures (actions) that the individual develops.
- The context. Environmental factors that act as promoters or limiters of creativity are evaluated.
- Person. The creativity capacity of the individual (cognitive abilities and perceptions of his creative skills) is assessed using test or questionnaires.
- The product. Attention is paid to those characteristics of the results obtained (an essay, a drawing, a model, …) that show originality and creative potential.
3.3. Effect of the STE(A)M Interventions on Creativity
4. Conclusions
- Neither the STEM nor the STEAM educational approach enjoys the conceptual clarity for researchers, academics and/or teachers to design, implement and evaluate didactic interventions based on those educational approaches with a certain degree of similarity, in so far as the didactic and pedagogical principles are concerned (for example, the number of disciplines that they should integrate or the way they should be integrated).
- Both the STEM and the STEAM educational interventions are centered on the creativity of the person, on the whole using Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, STEAM education appears to lend greater attention to the context in which the E–A process was developed, whereas STEM education was proven to be of a more finalist nature, by centering the analysis on the products created by the students.
- Both STEM and STEAM education generated positive effects on student creativity. However, the references upon which we relied in this review were too few and far between for us to certify with some rigor that the bonds of these educational approaches can promote the potential development of creativity within the student. Despite this lack of clarity, although the convenience of STEAM education, over and above STEM education, might appear clear, with a view to developing the creativity of students [5,52,56], it is an invalid argument.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beghetto, R.A.; Kaufman, J.C. Fundamentals of creativity. Educ. Leadersh. 2013, 70, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
- Said-Metwaly, S.; Fernández-Castilla, B.; Kyndt, E.; Van den Noortgate, W. The factor structure of the figural Torrance tests of creative thinking: A meta-confirmatory factor analysis. Creat. Res. J. 2018, 30, 352–360. [Google Scholar]
- Craft, A. The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2003, 51, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriksen, D. Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. STEAM J. 2014, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, B.H.; Kim, J. Development and validation of evaluation indicators for teaching competency in STEAM education in Korea. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 1909–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batdi, V.; Talan, T.; Semerci, C. Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 2019, 7, 382–399. [Google Scholar]
- Breiner, J.M.; Harkness, S.S.; Johnson, C.C.; Koehler, C.M. What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. Sch. Sci. Math. 2012, 112, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritz, J.M.; Fan, S.C. STEM and technology education: International state of the art. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2015, 25, 429–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bybee, R.W. The Case for STEM Education Challenges and Opportunities; National STEM Teachers Association: Arlington, VA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Sanders, M. STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. Technol. Teach. 2009, 68, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
- Martín-Páez, T.; Aguilera, D.; Perales-Palacios, F.J.; Vílchez-González, J.M. What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Sci. Educ. 2019, 103, 799–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaughnessy, J.M. Mathematics in a STEM context. Math. Teach. Middle Sch. 2013, 18, 324. [Google Scholar]
- Kelley, T.R.; Knowles, J.G. A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2016, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merrill, C. The future of TE masters degrees: STEM. In Proceedings of the 70th Annual International Technology Education Association Conference, Louisville, KY, USA, 21–23 February 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Zollman, A. Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. Sch. Sci. Math. 2012, 112, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Land, M.H. Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 20, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maeda, J. STEM + Art = STEAM. STEAM J. 2013, 1, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yakman, G.; Lee, H. Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the US as a practical educational framework for Korea. J. Korean Assoc. Sci. Educ. 2012, 32, 1072–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zamorano-Escalona, T.; García-Cartagena, Y.; Reyes-González, D. Educación para el sujeto del siglo XXI: Principales características del enfoque STEAM desde la mirada educacional. Contextos Estud. Humanid. Cienc. Soc. 2018, 41, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Kuenzi, J.J. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. In Congressional Research Service Reports; Lincoln, N.B., Ed.; University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Lincoln, NB, USA, 2008; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, J.; Knezek, G. STEAM for student engagement. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013, New Orleans, LA, USA, 25 March 2013; McBride, R., Searson, M., Eds.; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: Chesapeake, VA, USA, 2013; pp. 3288–3298. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.; Kim, Y.; Nho, S.; Lee, J.; Jung, J.; Choi, Y.; Han, H.; Baek, Y. Components of 4C-STEAM education and a checklist for the instructional design. J. Learn. Cent. Curric. Instr. 2012, 12, 533–557. [Google Scholar]
- Guilford, J.P. Creativity. Am. Psychol. 1950, 5, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craft, A. Creativity and Education Futures: Learning in a Digital Age; Trentham Books: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Beghetto, R.A.; Kaufman, J.C. Classroom contexts for creativity. High Abil. Stud. 2014, 25, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, K. How Schools Kill Creativity [Video]. 2006. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html (accessed on 6 April 2021).
- Berliner, D.C. Narrowing curriculum, assessments, and conceptions of what it means to be smart in the US schools: Creaticide by design. In How Dogmatic Beliefs Harm Creativity and Higher-Level Thinking; Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 79–93. [Google Scholar]
- Barron, F. The disposition toward originality. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1955, 51, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, M.I. Creativity and culture. J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl. 1953, 36, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonton, D.K. Taking the US patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creat. Res. J. 2012, 24, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runco, M.A.; Jaeger, G.J. The standard definition of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 2012, 24, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plucker, J.A.; Beghetto, R.A.; Dow, G.T. Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 39, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, H. Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity Seen Through the Lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Ghandi; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Wolfe, R. New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. In The Systems Model of Creativity; Csikszentmihalyi, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 161–184. [Google Scholar]
- Runco, M.A.; Sakamoto, S.O. Experimental studies of creativity. In Handbook of Creativity; Sternberg, R.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 62–92. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, D.; Jindal-Snape, D.; Collier, C.; Digby, R.; Hay, P.; Howe, A. Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Think. Ski. Creat. 2013, 8, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Cochrane Collaboration & Wiley: West Sussex, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sotos-Prieto, M.; Prieto, J.; Manera, M.; Baladia, E.; Martínez-Rodríguez, R.; Basulto, J. Ítems de referencia para publicar Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: La Declaración PRISMA. Rev. Española De Nutr. Hum. Dietética 2014, 18, 172–181. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, C. Towards a theory of creativity. ETC A Rev. Gen. Semant. 1954, 11, 249–260. [Google Scholar]
- Oh, J.; Lee, J.; Kim, J. Development and application of STEAM based education program using Scratch: Focus on 6th graders’ science in elementary school. In Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; Park, J.J., Ng, J.K.Y., Jeong, H.Y., Waluyo, B., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2013; Volume 240, pp. 493–501. [Google Scholar]
- Engelman, S.; Magerko, B.; McKlin, T.; Miller, M.; Edwards, D.; Freeman, J. Creativity in authentic STEAM education with EarSketch. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA, USA, 8–11 March 2017; ACM: Seattle, WA, USA, 2017; pp. 183–188. [Google Scholar]
- Öztürk, B.; Seçken, N. Preparing an instructional design based on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) approach on the topic of “Chemistry everywhere” for 10th grade students. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2017, Special Issue, 603–613. [Google Scholar]
- Kakarndee, N.; Kudthalang, N.; Jansawang, N. The integrated learning management using the STEM education for improve learning achievement and creativity in the topic of force and motion at the 9th grade level. In AIP Conference Proceeding 1923; AIP Publishing LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1, pp. 030024-1–030024-10. [Google Scholar]
- Sattar-Rasul, M.S.; Zahriman, N.; Halim, L.; Rauf, R.A.; Amnah, R. Impact of integrated STEM smart communities program on students scientific creativity. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2018, 13, 80–89. [Google Scholar]
- McKlin, T.; Magerko, B.; Lee, T.; Wanzer, D.; Edwards, D.; Freeman, J. Authenticity and personal creativity: How EarSketch affects student persistence. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21–24 February 2018; ACM: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2018; pp. 987–992. [Google Scholar]
- Ozkan, G.; Topsakal, U.U. Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019, 31, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, H.C.; Tseng, Y.C.; Yang, Y.T.C. Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Think. Ski. Creat. 2019, 31, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinasa, S.; Srisook, L. STEM education project-based and robotic learning activities impacting on creativity and attitude of grade 11 students in KhonKaenWittayayon School. In Proceedings of the International Annual Meeting on STEM Education (I AM STEM) 2018, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 13–15 August 2018; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Conradty, C.; Sotiriou, S.A.; Bogner, F.X. How creativity in STEAM modules intervenes with self-efficacy and motivation. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altan, E.B.; Tan, S. Concepts of creativity in design based learning in STEM education. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Wannapiroon, N.; Petsangsri, S. Effects of STEAMification model in flipped classroom learning environment on creative thinking and creative innovation. TEM J. 2020, 9, 1647–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conradty, C.; Bogner, F.X. STEAM teaching professional development works: Effects on students’ creativity and motivation. Smart Learn. Environ. 2020, 7, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genek, S.E.; Küçük, Z.D. Investigation of scientific creativity levels of elementary school students who enrolled in a STEM program. Elem. Educ. Online 2020, 19, 1715–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera, D. ¿Qué evidencias existen sobre la influencia de la educación STEM en las actitudes del alumnado? Una revisión sistemática. In Inclusión, Tecnología y Sociedad: Investigación e Innovación en Educación; Marín-Marín, J.A., Gómez-García, G., Ramos Navas-Parejo, M., Campos-Soto, M.N., Eds.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2020; pp. 2021–2034. [Google Scholar]
- Torrance, E.P. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition-Verbal Tests, Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B; Personnel Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Conradty, C.; Bogner, F.X. From STEM to STEAM: How to monitor creativity. Creat. Res. J. 2018, 30, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, A.L.; Dumford, A.D. Creative cognitive processes in Higher Education. J. Creat. Behav. 2016, 50, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çeliker, H.D.; Balım, A.G. Adaptation of Scientific Creativity Test to Turkish and it’s assessment criterias. Uşak Üniversitesi Sos. Bilimler Derg. 2012, 5, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
- Sousa, D.A.; Pilecki, T. From STEM to STEAM: Using Brain-Compatible Strategies to Integrate the Arts; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jho, H.; Hong, O.; Song, J. An analysis of STEM/STEAM teacher education in Korea with a case study of two schools from a community of practice perspective. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 1843–1862. [Google Scholar]
- Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Adúriz-Bravo, A.; Greca, I.M. A framework for epistemological discussion on integrated STEM education. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 857–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira-Gauchía, C.; Vilches, A.; Gil-Pérez, D. Teachers’ conceptions about the Nature of Technology and the Science-Technology-Society-Environment relationships. Enseñanza De Las Cienc. 2012, 30, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moore, T.; Tank, K.; Glancy, A.; Kersten, J. NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2015, 52, 296–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In The Systems Model of Creativity; Csikszentmihalyi, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 47–61. [Google Scholar]
Unit of Analysis | Sections under Analysis | Coding |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| e.g., TTCT (Torrance, 1966) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authors | Year | Country | Educational Stage | Study Design |
---|---|---|---|---|
Oh, J., Lee, J. and Kim, J. [40] | 2013 | South Korea | Primary Education | Quasi-experimental |
Engelman, S., Magerko, B., McKlin, T., Miller, M., Edwards, D. and Freeman, J. [41] | 2017 | United States | Secondary Education | Quasi-experimental |
Öztürk, B. and Seçken, N. [42] | 2017 | Turkey | Secondary Education | Quasi-experimental |
Kakarndee, N., Kudthalang, N. and Jansawang, N. [43] | 2018 | Thailand | Secondary Education | Quasi-experimental |
Sattar-Rasul, M., Zahriman, N., Halim, L. and Abd-Rauf, R. [44] | 2018 | Malaysia | Secondary Education | Quasi-experimental |
McKlin, T., Margerko, B., Lee, T., Wanzer, D., Edwards, D. and Freeman, J. [45] | 2018 | United States | Secondary Education | Case study |
Ozkan, G. and Topsakal, U.U. [46] | 2019 | Turkey | Secondary Education | Quasi-experimental |
Kuo, H.C., Tseng, Y.C. and Yang, Y.T.C. [47] | 2019 | Taiwan | University | Case study |
Pinasa, S. and Srisook, L. [48] | 2019 | Thailand | Secondary Education | Pre-experimental |
Conradty, C., Sotiriou, S.A. and Bogner, F.X. [49] | 2020 | Italy, Greece, United Kingdom and Malta | Primary and Secondary Education | Case study |
Altan, E.B. and Tan, S. [50] | 2020 | Turkey | Secondary Education | Case study |
Wannapiroon, N. and Petsangsri, S. [51] | 2020 | Thailand | University | Quasi-experimental |
Conradty, C. and Bogner, F.X. [52] | 2020 | Greece and United Kingdom | Primary Education | Pre-experimental |
Genek, S.E. and Küçük, Z.D. [53] | 2020 | Turkey | Primary Education | Pre-experimental |
Study | Definition |
---|---|
Oh et al. (2013) [40] | “Smart STEAM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics and means learning the fused knowledge of various fields.” (p. 494) |
Engelman et al. (2017) [41] | “The integration of STEM with the arts, called STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and math), is gaining momentum as a method to increase student engagement in STEM topics through personal expression, aesthetic, and interdisciplinary projects.” (p. 183) |
Öztürk and Seçken (2017) [42] | “STEM education which is considered as one of the biggest educational movements of the late years is a multidisciplinary approach aimed at training students to integrate their disciplines in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In this approach, the four disciplines are not taught separately and with different subjects, but instead, together and at the same time in real life situations.” (p. 604) |
Kakarndee et al. (2018) [43] | “STEM education […] is a curriculum based on the idea of educating students in four specific disciplines—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—in an interdisciplinary and applied approach. Rather than teach the four disciplines as separate and discrete subjects, STEM integrates them into a cohesive learning paradigm based on real-world applications.” (p. 3) |
Sattar-Rasul et al. (2018) [44] | “Sanders [10] defines STEM education as a process of integrating technology and engineering design concepts into teaching and learning of science and mathematics.” (p. 82) |
McKlin et al. (2018) [45] | Not specified. |
Ozkan and Topsakal (2019) [46] | “STEAM education comes to the forefront by conceptualizing in the form of (1) project-based learning, (2) technology in the context of creativity and design, (3) a multi-faceted approach to question a problem, (4) science, technology, engineering, art/human sciences and mathematics, all of which must be embedded in the problem (5) cooperative problem solving (Herro and Quigley 2016).” (p. 5) |
Kuo et al. (2019) [47] | Not specified. |
Pinasa and Srisook (2019) [48] | “Office of STEM education is Integration of integrated teaching across disciplines. Science (S), Technology (T), Engineering (E), and Mathematics (M), with the emphasis on nature and that interdisciplinary teaching approach that are supported by a large number of research.” (p. 1) |
Conradty et al. (2020) [49] | Not specified. |
Altan and Tan (2020) [50] | “STEM educational approach defined as integrating two or more disciplines when solving real-life problems (Sanders 2009; Shaughnessy 2013; Smith and Karr-Kidwell 2000).” (pp. 3–4) |
Wannapiroon and Petsangsri (2020) [51] | “STEAM Education is an educational approach that integrates science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics in order to provide learners with creative skill, investigation skill, debate skill, critical thinking skill, and creativity and innovation [3].” (p. 1648) |
Conradty and Bogner (2020) [52] | “The keyword “STEAM” refers to the integration of arts (A) and creativity in the classical STEM teaching (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). It is supposed to enrich science classrooms with creative interventions and by that way to counteract the low reputation of science teaching as abstract, difficult or even boring (Bennett & Hogarth, 2009; Henriksen, 2014).” (p. 1) |
Genek and Küçük (2020) [53] | “The integrative approach to STEM education involves integration of at least two STEM disciplines by taking the interests and experiences of both students and the teacher into account while maintaining the central focus of the discipline taught (Çorlu, Capraro, & Çorlu, 2015).” (p. 1715) |
Study | Creativity Evaluated | Instrument |
---|---|---|
Oh et al. (2013) [40] | Creativity of the person | Torrance’s TTCT Creativity Test |
Engelman et al. (2017) [41] | Creativity of the person | Ad hoc questionnaire |
Creativity of the context | ||
Öztürk and Seçken (2017) [42] | Creativity of the person | Ad hoc questionnaire |
Creativity of the context | ||
Kakarndee et al. (2018) [43] | Creativity of the person | Creative Thinking Ability Test (CTAT) (ad hoc) |
Sattar-Rasul et al. (2018) [44] | Creativity of the person | Ad hoc questionnaire |
McKlin et al. (2018) [45] | Creativity of the person | Ad hoc questionnaire |
Creativity of the context | ||
Ozkan and Topsakal (2019) [46] | Creativity of the person | Torrance Verbal and Figural Creative Thinking Test (TTCT) (Torrance 1966) [55] |
Kuo et al. (2019) [47] | Creativity of the person | Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA) (Chen 2006 cited in Kuo et al., 2019) [47] |
Pinasa and Srisook (2019) [48] | Creativity of the person | Ad hoc Questionnaire |
Conradty et al. (2020) [49] | Creativity of the person | Version adapted from CPAC (Cognitive Processes Associated with Creativity) (Conradty and Bogner 2018) [56] |
Altan and Tan (2020) [50] | Creativity of the product | Ad hoc Rubric |
Wannapiroon and Petsangsri (2020) [51] | Creativity of the person | Torrance Verbal and Figural Creative Thinking Test (TTCT) (Torrance 1966) [55] |
Conradty and Bogner (2020) [52] | Creativity of the person; Creativity of the context | CPAC questionnaire (Miller and Dumford 2016) [57] |
Genek and Küçük (2020) [53] | Creativity of the person | Turkish adaptation of Scientific Creativity Test SCT (Çeliker and Balım 2012) [58] |
Study | ES * (d) | Effect | Reasons |
---|---|---|---|
Öztürk and Seçken (2017) [42] | ª | Positive |
|
Kakarndee et al. (2018) [43] | 6.97 | Positive |
|
Sattar-Rasul et al. (2018) [44] | ª | Positive |
|
Kuo et al. (2019) [47] | 1.26 | Positive |
|
Pinasa and Srisook (2019) [48] | ª | Positive |
|
Altan and Tan (2020) [50] | - | Positive |
|
Genek and Küçük (2020) [53] | - | Positive |
|
Study | ES * (d) | Effect | Reasons |
---|---|---|---|
Oh et al. (2013) [40] | 0.62 | Positive |
|
Engelman et al. (2017) [41] | 0.74 | Positive |
|
McKlin et al. (2018) [45] | 1.23 | Positive |
|
Ozkan and Topsakal (2019) [46] | 0.56 | Positive |
|
Conradty et al. (2020) [49] | ª | Positive |
|
Wannapiroon and Petsangsri (2020) [51] | ª | Positive |
|
Conradty and Bogner (2020) [52] | ª | Positive |
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Aguilera, D.; Ortiz-Revilla, J. STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331
Aguilera D, Ortiz-Revilla J. STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(7):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331
Chicago/Turabian StyleAguilera, David, and Jairo Ortiz-Revilla. 2021. "STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review" Education Sciences 11, no. 7: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331
APA StyleAguilera, D., & Ortiz-Revilla, J. (2021). STEM vs. STEAM Education and Student Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review. Education Sciences, 11(7), 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070331