Action in Teacher Education

ISSN: 0162-6620 (Print) 2158-6098 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

The Challenges of STEAM Instruction: Lessons

from the Field

Danielle Herro, Cassie Quigley & Heidi Cian

To cite this article: Danielle Herro, Cassie Quigley & Heidi Cian (2019) The Challenges of
STEAM Instruction: Lessons from the Field, Action in Teacher Education, 41:2, 172-190, DOI:
10.1080/01626620.2018.1551159

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.1551159

Published online: 03 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1316

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uate20
ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 41, NO. 2, 172–190
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2018.1551159

The Challenges of STEAM Instruction: Lessons from the Field

Danielle Herro , Cassie Quigley, and Heidi Cian
Clemson University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) education Received 18 September 2017
is gaining popularity in schools across the United States and in parts of Accepted 19 November 2018
Europe, Asia, and Australia. Despite its popularity little empirical data exists
KEYWORDS
to guide effective instructional practices, and even less is known about the STEAM challenges; STEAM
challenges associated with instruction. Drawing on results of a qualitative instruction; STEAM
longitudinal study, this article presents findings regarding instructional conceptual model
challenges faced by 33 math and science teachers when implementing
STEAM units in their classrooms during intensive yearlong professional
development. Challenges included pacing/time, student understanding of
content and process, issues relating to planning, and concerns about school
district policies. Two other challenges that were less frequent, but still
notable, included technology integration and issues related to assessment.
The article concludes with implications for educational researchers and
educators to consider when planning effective STEAM instruction.

Mr. Jared stood in front of his sixth-grade classroom at Phillips Middle School showing a short video
of tourists visiting the Trevi Fountain to introduce a unit on ancient Rome and aqueducts. Students
finished brainstorming the efficiency and aesthetic qualities of aqueducts and fountains on a Google
Doc. After the video, he posed this scenario:
According to information on the Charleston Water System website, Charlestonians began collecting water in
late 1600s using shallow wells and rainwater in large cisterns. This solution didn’t last long as the population
grew and the wells became contaminated. In the 1820s the Charleston City Council decided to look at successes
in Europe to help them design deep artesian wells, however this solution was expensive and didn’t last long as
not enough water was produced. Over the next 50 years, and a lot of trial and error, artesian wells eventually
were drilled deep enough to produce the necessary 700,000+ gallons per day. This became the basis for the
modern day Public Works system that provides clean water to Charleston today. To understand how building
on good ideas and considering aesthetics (beauty that inspires emotion) helps create solutions, your team will
design a simple machine that moves water to a vessel in an aesthetically pleasing modern-day fountain and then
propose where the fountain should be placed in Charleston.

Students formed collaborative teams to investigate the issue, “Why should cities care about water
quality?’ Throughout the unit they created a machine to carry a load over distance (science),
increased and decreased the workload and energy and calculated changes (math), wrote a script
for a multimedia presentation of their solution (English-language arts), focused on ancient Roman
architecture and compared it to modern-day Charleston (art), created a drinking vessel in their
makerspace, and collaborated with Google Docs, Classroom, Slide and Draw (technology).
With the limited success of science, technology, engineering, math (STEM) programs to attract
diverse populations of today’s younger learners students to the STEM workforce (National Science
Board, 2014), educational researchers and schools are rethinking how these skill sets might be

CONTACT Danielle Herro dherro@clemson.edu College of Education, Clemson University, 205 Tillman Hall, Clemson,
SC 29634 USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uate.
© 2018 Association of Teacher Educators
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 173

attractive to all learners. A recent effort to broaden how we think about STEM and attend to the
humanistic and social aspects of problem solving is the notion of STEAM education in which the
incorporation of the arts and humanities (the A in STEAM) is seen as central to the problem-solving
approach (Bequette & Bequette, 2012). Importantly, the “arts” in STEAM are addressed through
more than just the visual arts; this might include arts as expression, design, poetry, movement and
even language arts (Jolly, 2014), engaging learners through creative, humanitarian ways of thinking
about problem solving and learning by doing (Boy, 2013).
Similar to STEM, there is great interest in offering STEAM experiences for students (Henriksen, 2014),
yet educators and advocates have struggled with a clear conceptualization of how a “STEAM model”
might connect the disciplines (Guyotte, Sochacka, Costantino, Walther, & Kellam, 2014). Furthermore,
its novelty precludes large-scale examinations of impact across K-12 classrooms. However, we spent the
last 4 years conceptualizing a model for STEAM education (Quigley, Herro, & Jamil, 2017), conducting
longitudinal research with teachers and administrators in a variety of classrooms and school districts in
the southeastern United States to examine STEAM professional development (PD) (Herro & Quigley,
2016a), and STEAM implementation practices (Herro & Quigley, 2016b; Quigley & Herro, 2016).
Drawing on longitudinal data from our research, this article aims to inform educators about STEAM
implementation challenges in K-12 classrooms from the perspective of teachers.

Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this article is to present findings regarding instructional challenges faced by STEAM
teachers. Our research question is, “What are the challenges faced by teachers when implementing
STEAM instructional practices in their classrooms?” We choose to research challenges in instruc-
tional practices for two primary reasons: STEAM is novel and the literature on research-based
challenges is sparse, and during our PD with teachers, we had several requests from participants
asking about challenges faced by other schools as they hoped to reduce or avoid barriers to effective
STEAM instruction when adopting STEAM initiatives.

Literature Review
We begin by synthesizing the literature related to K-12 teachers’ efforts and challenges with STEM
instructional practices. Then we discuss the movement from STEM to STEAM including early concep-
tualizations and emerging research on STEAM education to demonstrate the state of the field, including
current research regarding K-12 students experiences in STEAM classrooms. We present research on
effective PD practices as teachers in this study engaged in intensive yearlong PD before implementing their
STEAM units. Finally, we present a research-based STEAM conceptual model to position our data as it
guided our work and subsequent findings from the data analysis of 33 teachers implementing STEAM
instruction, we then examine teachers implementing STEAM practices in their classrooms to elucidate
understanding of STEAM challenges. From these practices and accompanying data sets we draw common
challenges faced by practitioners and discuss what it implies for STEAM education.

K-12 Instructional Practices: efforts and Challenges of STEM Teaching

STEM education in K-12 schools has been studied extensively in the last decade, with research
indicating that despite increased funding there has been little improvement (Portz, 2015). This is, in
part, due to issues of STEM being ill conceptualized wherein teachers are not sure exactly what is and
is not considered STEM, the complexity of changing instructional models (Portz, 2015), and having
a narrow focus that typically favors math or science with little attention to engineering and technology,
which means educators often fail to offer an integrated curriculum (Bybee, 2010; Moore et al., 2014).
Integrated STEM education is seen as way to address this problem by engaging students and asking
them to solve real-world problems that are ill defined (without one correct answer). The programs include
174 D. HERRO ET AL.

integrated math, science and technology challenges, which are developed to meet requisite standards in
math, science, and engineering (National Council of Teachers of Math (NCTM), National Science
Education Standards (NSES), International Technology and Education Engineering Association (ITEEA)
etc.), and often focus on project-based learning where an artifact or product is delivered. There are
indications that integrated STEM can positively affect interest development in youth, however results
vary greatly in STEM teaching’s impact on achievement in science and math, with less evidence toward
positive outcomes in math (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014).
A preliminary meta-analysis of 28 studies, conducted primarily in K-12 schools, synthesized
findings from existing research on integrated approaches (defined as including three or more of the
disciplines) among STEM subjects and improvements in students’ achievement (Becker & Park,
2011). Overall, the findings showed that teachers who adopted this approach positively affected their
students’ achievement in math and science, especially at the elementary level. The studies were
limitations by the small sample sizes, with calls for additional research.
Content knowledge and quality pedagogical practices play an enormous role in it the effectiveness
of integrated STEM teaching (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006; Stohlmann, Moore, &
Roehrig, 2012). Teachers’ beliefs about the efficacy of STEM instruction improve during STEM PD,
however these same teachers continue to struggle with STEM curricula, finding discipline or subject
area and technology integration difficult even when collaborating across subjects (Wang, Moore,
Roehrig, & Park, 2011). Another issue plaguing the success of STEM instruction is the lack of a clear
consensus on how STEM should be taught. This was evidenced in a large study of 203 STEM
secondary schools, ranging in size from 14 to 4,500 (SRI International, 2008). Researchers found that
the concept on an inclusive STEM school was emergent with great variance between the different
schools. For instance, there was no consensus on how STEM subjects should be integrated; some
taught STEM in a disciplinary manner, and others took a more systemic, transdisciplinary approach
asking students to transfer knowledge and skills between disciplines. Many of the high schools (74%)
described themselves as public and traditional with discipline-based departments, however
a potential limitation of this study includes the somewhat atypical nature of the schools. Most had
increased access to resources as participants received funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, and 24% of the schools targeted gifted and talented programs.
Research has identified a number of challenges with integrated STEM programs including additional
preparation time, access to resources, storage space, teacher attitudes toward STEM, learning new content,
and effective assessment (Laboy-Rush, 2011). Teachers also had difficulty with standards alignment
(Nadelson et al., 2013), lack of collaboration among colleagues (Zubrowski, 2002), and struggled to have
a solid understanding of how to teach subject matter across disciplines (Pang & Good, 2000).

Moving from STEM to STEAM

As noted above, before STEAM was acknowledged widely, educators were exploring variations of
STEM as a means of attending to more authentic integration of the disciplines, acknowledging the
importance of arts and humanities in subject integration (Sanders, 2009). The acronym STEAM is
relatively new and typically attributed to Yakman’s (2010) early conceptualization of how principles
of math and science could be explored through the arts. Yakman’s framework (2010) seeks to
remove the isolation of STEM disciplines in “silos” and develop an integrative approach that exists
authentically with the inclusion of the arts. This led her to develop the “STE@M Pyramid” in 2008
(Yakman, 2010), which consists of five categories reflecting more integration at the top and more
specialization at the base. She proposed a stand-alone STE@M course for middle schools to get
students involved with “reality-based integrated learning” (p. 9) that involves student learning with
the goal of identifying career interests.
In current K-8 STEAM instruction, the arts are often considered from the perspective of the arts
and humanities in activities involving technology such as e-textiles with circuitry to make light-up
quilts or clothing (Peppler, 2013) or “Arts and Bots” where students create and program robots with
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 175

moveable features with concepts integrated in poetry, history, or anatomy (Hamner, Cross, Bartley,
& Nourbakhsh, 2015), or arts as expression where what students create during the problem-solving
process reflects their personal feelings (Quigley & Herro, 2016). Often the arts in STEAM are
implemented simply as a way to get students interested in STEM rather than to view the arts as
an equal component of the transdisciplinary concept (Guyotte et al., 2014). This may be due to
decreased funding in the humanities, which means there are fewer opportunities for art or huma-
nities specialists to direct STEAM learning (Wynn & Harris, 2012).
A few studies have described attempts toward transdisciplinary approaches to STEM or STEAM
in regards to the arts. Keane and Keane (2016) document four case studies from STEAM by Design
workshops, mixing elements of art, design, and the environment implemented in K-12 charter
schools, libraries, and after-school programs. After presenting challenges regarding green schools,
green cities, and energy, students engaged in engineering prototypes and designs to solve problems.
In general “art” was considered through aspects of drawing and design. The researchers suggest it
engaged and motivated students, helped students realize that ideas build expertise, and extended
learning about environmental and design concepts.
Another outreach effort involved elementary students solving sustainability problems by using art
exhibits as an entry point for second graders to learn about birds. Teachers noted that this approach
engaged students who were otherwise marginalized in academic activities such as writing (Clark &
Button, 2011). Cook, Bush, and Cox (2017) presented integrated STEAM lessons that build on
existing curricula by emphasizing the arts through design. They supported elementary teachers in
developing roller coaster projects that were inspired by Walt Disney’s concept of imagineering,
describing a project where fourth- and fifth grade students draw on creativity and storytelling when
reflecting on how engineers design innovative theme parks.
In secondary schools, it can be harder for teachers to find space for STEAM because the disciplines
tend to be separated with teachers more likely to only teach one subject. However, some successful
projects have been reported. One example involves chemistry and art classes collaborating to challenge
students to represent their knowledge in unique ways across disciplines (Ochterski & Lupacchino-
Gilson, 2016). Cocreated projects involved molecular structures and landscape drawings, drawing and
chromatography, and visually re-creating the periodic table. Other successes include an activity devel-
oped by researchers to teach complementary colors using concepts in physics, visual arts, and mathe-
matics, through the use of a Smartphone’s Invert Color feature (Karabey, Koyunkaya, Enginoglu, &
Yurumezoglu, 2018), and the Watershed Project that explores human impact on the environment as
students’ design a representative mosaic, investigate natural processes (erosion, decomposition, biode-
grading, etc.), conservation, and interdependence within ecosystems (Wynn & Harris, 2012).

Effective Professional Development Practices

A widely accepted framework called Practice-based Professional Development (PBPD; Ball & Cohen,
1999) describes the shift from traditional PD to authentic opportunities for teachers to participate in
purposeful PD while practicing their skills in context. In PBPD, professional development is teacher
driven, contextualized, and multifaceted; it focuses on teacher development as they acquire and
apply new skills in the classroom (Harris et al., 2012). Combining skills such as engaging teachers
with similar needs, contextualizing PD for current needs, addressing prerequisite knowledge and
skills, modeling and independent practice, using similar materials and giving feedback directly in
classrooms, strengthens the PD’s overall effectiveness (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Darling-Hammond,
Hyler, & Gardner, 2017). Barchenger and Peterman (2015) suggest a model of PD in which teachers
work collaboratively to analyze classroom video and student work during STEM instruction to shift
practices.
Several PD efforts aimed at STEM educators demonstrate improvements in teaching using a practice-
based approach. An National Science Foundation (NSF) –funded study that examined more than 200
STEM education articles and reports identified Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) as highly
176 D. HERRO ET AL.

effective in supporting quality STEM teaching. Specifically, the PLCs effectively supported teachers in (1)
using more research-based methods to teach math and science (e.g., student inquiry models), (2)
attending to students’ reasoning and understanding when problem solving, and (3) using more diverse
ways to engage students (Fulton & Britton, 2011, pp. 8–9). The synthesized findings also demonstrated
links between PLC support and student achievement increases in math. Teacher preparation through PD
and student achievement was also positively correlated during another study of 68 K–5 teachers
implementing inquiry-based STEM. Along with increasing teacher confidence, attitudes, and knowledge,
researchers found teachers attending the PD were better able to link STEM curriculum and instruction to
learning standards and hands-on instruction, noted problems without PD (Nadelson et al., 2013).
In general effective PD programs are participant driven, sustained over time, motivating to
teachers if they build on their existing knowledge, collaborative, and contextualized to the teachers’
classroom (Zeichner, 2003). The STEAM PD provided during this study adhered to many of the key
components of effective PD as motivated teachers with similar needs (STEAM-focused schools,
similar grade levels) used modeling and independent practice to develop STEAM instructional units
and received ongoing feedback in the context of their teaching.

Guiding the Professional Development and Instruction: A New STEAM Conceptual Model
As noted in the sections above, one challenge in STEM education has been identifying and employ-
ing a transdisciplinary instructional approach so that teachers have a research-based model to guide
their STEAM instruction. Next, we briefly present a STEAM conceptual model (see Figure 1),
developed as part of a 3-year study of middle school teachers (for details of how this model was
developed, see Quigley, Herro, & Jamil, 2017). Based on this data, this STEAM conceptual model
includes the following three dimensions (the categories within in these dimensions are in

Figure 1. Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math (STEAM) conceptual model.
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 177

parentheses, describing the specifics of the dimensions): (1) discipline integration (multiple content
areas, connected ideas), (2) classroom environment (problem based, authentic tasks, multiple
methods, student choice, technological integration, teacher facilitation), and (3) problem-solving
skills (cognitive skills, interactional skills, and creative skills). The model is presented to illuminate
the shared understanding of STEAM the teachers should have after the PD within this research and
to contextualize the data collection in classrooms.
In this model, the first dimension is discipline integration, the way that teachers present multiple
disciplines or content areas in clear and connected ways by effectively integrating content across
disciplines through a problem-based unit. In classrooms with a high level of discipline integration,
the content selection consistently utilizes the strengths of different disciplines in solving problems by
using expert knowledge, multiple sources of information, and a variety of concepts, theoretical
approaches, or methods.
The second dimension examines the ways in which the teachers structure the classroom environ-
ment to facilitate problem solving. The STEAM classroom environment includes a problem-based
approach, authentic tasks, multiple methods to solve the problem, student choice, technology
integration, and teacher facilitation. The STEAM conceptual model guides teachers to implement
a relevant, problem-based approach. By situating the task in a real-world event and having students
reflect on the local implications, the problem and, by extension, the content, is more relevant to the
students. The classroom environment should ensure that students’ understand that there are multi-
ple ways to solve a problem. Student choice might include options for topics, the types of summative
assessment, method of study, and student-designed questions. Technology integration is another
category of classroom environment, it includes practices that engage students in appropriate
technology to solve the problem, create products, or disseminate knowledge. The last category of
classroom environment is teacher facilitation, or the way teachers design instructional activities and
classroom spaces to promote student-guided learning.
The final dimension of the STEAM model is problem-solving skills. During STEAM learning,
teachers support student cognitive, social, and creative skill development through a variety of instruc-
tional activities. In STEAM lessons, teachers should support students during the development of higher
order cognitive skills, such as abstracting, analyzing, applying, formulating, and interpreting. Cognitive
skills capture how students are supported in learning complex thinking skills and given opportunities to
apply these skills in multiple ways. Interactional skills describe how students are engaged and encouraged
to communicate and collaborate with one another. Communication skills include ways in which teachers
develop students’ ability to brainstorm, communicate evidence, construct explanations, engage in
argumentation, disseminate evidence, present, respond, and explain. Collaboration skills include ways
that students collaborate during investigations, design, creation, inquiry, and how they collaborate to
connect knowledge, evidence, and experience. Creativity is present when students explore multiple paths
for solving a problem and have varied options of how to demonstrate understanding. Creative skills rely
on a teacher’s ability to offer concepts, tools, and experiences in open-ended problem-solving scenarios.
Our STEAM conceptual model is more than just a combination of science, technology, engineer-
ing, arts, and math content, it is an instructional approach that describes ways teachers can develop
and implement a transdisciplinary approach to solving real-world problems.
As noted earlier, Yakman’s (2008) STE@M model, while useful, views STEAM mathematical elements
as the basis and then incorporates science and technology through engineering and arts. Yakman defines
arts as beyond aesthetics by using interdisciplinary approaches. In our work, we found that integrating
mathematics with science and technology, and privileging mathematics over other disciplines, is difficult to
implement across the curriculum. Also, the STE@M model does not focus on broadening perspectives,
a stated goal of many STEAM education initiatives. In sum, this conceptual model is different than other
STEAM models guiding instruction (e.g., presenting a challenge to solve or a robotics or coding activity), as
(1) the scenario is authentic and foregrounded, (2) the disciplines emerge naturally from the problem
without favoring one disciplinary lens, (3) the A extends to the arts and humanities, and (4) the unit aligns
with requisite middle-school standards.
178 D. HERRO ET AL.

Methodology
Our research used a qualitative methodology to understand the challenges that teachers faced in
STEAM instruction. Qualitative research was appropriate to explore the challenges of this innovative
teaching approach as it assisted our research team in investigating, “How people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 5). Our goal was not to test a hypothesis but rather to produce an understanding
of the context, experiences, and the processes that the phenomenon (here, STEAM education)
influences. Qualitative interpretation is particularly useful if the goal is to understand behavior,
and if the researcher and phenomenon studied (here, STEAM education) is mutually interactive.
Because we led the PD and had an ongoing relationship with the teachers, our interpretations are an
important part of the process, strengthened by “full and reflexive interrogation of the data”
(Goulding, 1998, p. 56). In this manner, we view ourselves as a human instrument situated within
the research to interpret meaning by describing, decoding, and translating the context. We use our
data to “come to terms with the meaning” (Merriam, 2009, p. 13) of the challenges within instruc-
tional practices as told by the teachers through multiple data sources and interpreted by our research
team. We used an inductive strategy (Merriam, 2009, p. 15), which includes first searching for
instructional themes within our primary data sources until all data was coded and then comparing it
to other data as we searched for common patterns.

Participants and Context of the Research

Over 3 years, 43 middle-school math and science teachers participated in intensive PD courses
focused on STEAM instructional practices, digital media integration, and reflective practices, for
which they received nine graduate credits. Of the 43 teachers, 17 were in their first 6 years of
teaching, 20 were midcareer with between 7 and 20 years of teaching, and just six had taught for
more than 20 years. Table 1 provides the subjects and grade levels that the participants taught.
The partnering school district determined who could participate in the graduate courses after
adopting STEAM-focused initiatives in 14 middle schools and subsequently contacting a local college
of education for assistance with instructional practices.
Two professors with expertise in science education and digital media and learning developed and
taught the courses and conducted research during the PD and classrooms implementations. The
final course included a yearlong field placement in which course instructors or graduate students
observed all teachers, at least twice during each semester as they taught STEAM units that they
developed (see Herro & Quigley, 2016a, 2016b, for additional example units). The STEAM units
developed by teachers included a scenario that foregrounded the problem, not the discipline (i.e.,

Table 1. Grade level/subjects taught.

Grade Level Number of teachers
6 17
7 17
8 15
Instructional coach 2
Subject type
Science 21
Algebra 8
Honors Math/8 3
Honors Math/7 5
Honors Math/6 6
6th-grade math 8
7th-grade math 8
8th-grade math 9
Note. Several teachers taught more than one grade
level and subject type.
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 179

they weren’t necessary based on solving an integrated math or science problem, the problem dictated
the necessary disciplines to solve it) that was locally relevant to the students (e.g., honeybee colony
collapse after a local pesticide was sprayed killing many bees or engineering issues with local bridges
collapsing after hurricanes). Each teacher implemented two units per year of varying lengths, often
codeveloping the units, choosing the scenario and general content with purposeful alignment to
required state standards.
Teachers also reflected on their teaching weekly, completed a peer observation of other STEAM
teachers, and participated in a leadership activity required by the district (e.g., short onsite PD or
workshops, sharing STEAM units at regional conferences) as a way to increase understanding of
STEAM teaching among colleagues. Generally, the initial research (Herro & Quigley, 2016a; Quigley &
Herro, 2016) conducted on the STEAM instructional practices with all 43 teachers demonstrated that
(1) before the PD, STEAM was not well conceptualized, after the PD teachers could clearly define
STEAM; (2) problem-based learning and collaborative technologies greatly assisted teachers in under-
standing STEAM principles; (3) initially incorporating the A during STEAM unit development was
challenging, however teachers found it less challenging to enact in their classrooms; (4) intensive PD
helped teachers improve their understanding of how to approach transdisciplinary teaching, but
teachers believed they needed to move incrementally toward it; (5) teachers used technology for
instruction and assessment far more than facilitating students’ collaboration and media creation during
initial implementations. During initial interviews, the teachers demonstrated positive attitudes and
a commitment to reflect on and refine their practices. The challenges that they discussed were often
followed with them suggesting enthusiasm for STEAM teaching, saying things such as, “This is
something I will adjust next time I teach the unit” or “I am constantly striving to improve my
STEAM teaching as my students are excited about the learning.”

Data Collection and Data Sources

For this study, the data sources were teachers’ reflective journals, observations of STEAM teaching,
and postobservation summaries. Data was collected online throughout each semester that the units
were implemented using Canvas (https://www.canvaslms.com/) as our online platform to collect and
store the data for later analysis (e.g., teachers wrote in weekly reflective journals directly in Canvas,
observations and postobservation summaries were uploaded after completion by the researcher or
teacher completing them). In this article, we examine challenges from 33 of the teachers involved in
the prior studies who teach at 14 different schools within a variety of contexts (e.g., newly built
schools designed for STEAM learning, teachers collaborating with other discipline experts to
implement STEAM instruction, teachers implementing STEAM instruction with limited support
from their colleagues). Five of the teachers are male, and 27 are female; 19 primarily teach science,
and 14 primarily teach math. Although 43 teachers participated in STEAM graduate courses and unit
implementations, 33 identified challenges throughout the data sources. Each data source and
frequency of data collection is detailed below.

Reflective Journals
Teachers kept weekly reflective journals in which they were encouraged to write about the planning,
process, successes, challenges, questions, and areas they would like additional support. The entries
ranged from one to three paragraphs, and most teachers completed them weekly for a semester,
providing 14 to 18 entries. This assisted us in tracking the trajectory and frequency of the
implementation.

Observations
A member of the research team observed each teacher twice during the STEAM unit implementa-
tions, for a total of 86 observations using a digital observation tool designed to track instructional
practices aligned with methods taught in the graduate courses that could subsequently be uploaded
180 D. HERRO ET AL.

for later analysis. The observation tool included a brief description about the class (i.e., class size,
grade level, and content area), the purpose of the lesson and activities, and student arrangement in
the room (group work or teacher directed), and a narrative portion detailing what happened during
the lesson. In the narrative portion we focused on successes with the various components of STEAM
aligned to the conceptual model (i.e., discipline integration, technology integration, problem sol-
ving). Observations were also video-recorded to view if necessary to fully complete the observation
tool. After each observation teachers met with the researchers to discuss teaching practices and
receive assistance in honing instruction. Meetings typically lasted one hour, and observations
included researchers’ notes regarding the observation and ensuing discussion.

Postobservation Summary
After each observation and meeting with a researcher, teachers completed a one-page reflection
summarizing their teaching experience and their thoughts about the postobservation suggestions,
which offered them opportunities to reflect on strengths, challenges, and future modifications to the
lesson based on feedback. Teachers then uploaded them in Canvas. Each of these data sources
regarding the process and challenges toward STEAM instruction, as guided by our conceptual
model, assisted in answering our research question.

Data Analysis
We collected the data from the two cohorts of teachers from PD courses and implementation time
periods over 2 years. Three researchers analyzed all of the data sources separately and then used
investigator triangulation (Merriam, 2009, p. 216) to compare the findings and reach consensus. We
qualitatively analyzed the data in two ways; first, we used a priori codes that were determined during
prior analysis (in Year 2 of our longitudinal study) in which we used instructional practices taught
within the courses (e.g., transdisciplinary approaches, problem-based learning, technology integra-
tion, and attention to arts and humanities) to identify five consistencies, or themes, in their
instructional practices. The consistencies in teachers’ STEAM practices included student choice,
technology integration, problem-based and authentic assessment, and relevance (Quigley & Herro,
2016). Second, we analyzed the data sets looking at the entire entry in reflective journals, observa-
tions, and postobservation summaries to code each instructional theme with challenges teachers
faced. Of the 43 participants, only 33 mentioned challenges significant enough to be tagged with data
codes. Even though teachers were prompted in their reflective journal to write about the implemen-
tation “process, successes, challenges and questions,” not all teachers discussed challenges, nor were
they noted in observations, postobservations summaries, or artifacts. In most cases, the same teacher
reflected on a challenge multiple times in numerous journal entries. Often they wrote a significant
portion (two to three paragraphs) of the entry about a particular challenge, or it was mentioned
frequently and observed by researchers. During this round of analysis codes were categorized into
the common themes of challenges related to their practices. The six themes were identified as
pacing/time, planning and discipline alignment, student understanding, assessment, policy, and
technology. We note that as developers of the conceptual model there is inherent bias in exploring
the challenges and successes based on this model. To attempt to reduce this bias, we involved two
researchers in data analysis who did not engage in the conceptualization of the model. This outside
perspective helped to reduce potential bias by engaging in inter-rater reliability. First, two members
of our research team coded the data set to develop our coding system described above, then our
entire team coded the data independently before meeting to discuss disagreements and further refine
coding decisions. We coded and reviewed every coding difference to arrive at a consensus. During
the coding discussions, the boundaries and definitions of the codes were defined and refined if
necessary. In this way, we aligned our data analysis with an interpretivist method providing a “full
and reflective interrogation of the data” (Goulding, 1998, p. 56) to maintain the experience of the
participants and the interpretation of the researchers.
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 181

The challenges faced by STEAM educators may be similar to those faced by any teacher trying to
innovate in traditional classrooms such as pacing, time, policy, infrastructure) (Collins & Halverson,
2009) or a lack of disciplinary knowledge and mismatched assessments as noted as challenges in
STEM classrooms (Laboy-Rush, 2011). Although these general challenges are not new, the specific
challenges contextualized within STEAM classrooms are important in light of the recent increase in
interest in adopting STEAM education and suggestion that is not well understood (Bequette &
Bequette, 2012). In short, this calls for a more complete and contextualized understanding to
overcome barriers. We further argue that nuances of STEAM instruction present slightly different
challenges that may dictate different solutions.

Findings
From the data of the two cohorts, we found four major themes related to challenges with STEAM
instruction: pacing/time, student understanding of content/process, and issues relating to planning
and to district policies. Two other themes that were less frequent but still notable across the cohorts
included technology integration and issues related to assessment. Finally, students’ off-task behavior
and unproductive group work were noted a few times throughout the data. Surprisingly, arts or
humanities integration (the A in STEAM) was seldom mentioned as a significant challenge nor was
addressing engineering. The former may be attributed to the comfort teachers felt in writing STEAM
scenarios, which offered the problem in a manner that naturally addressed the arts or humanities,
the latter may be because the region lacks engineering standards and curricula.
The table 2 offers a summary of the themes, and number of teachers noting the themes three or
more times with representative data coded for each theme.
Next, in our Findings section we discuss each theme, contextualizing the themes with descriptive
examples drawn from teachers’ reflective journals (all names are pseudonyms) observations, and

Table 2. Examples of instructional challenges evidenced in data.

Instructional Challenge
Pacing/time issues
Student understanding
(content or process)
Planning and discipline
alignment
Policy issues
Technology issues
Assessment issues
# of
Teachers Examples/Data Tag (Pseudonym/Data Source/Date)
25 How can I teach all of STEAM in a science class, and still stay on the pacing guide?
For the zoo project, I left too much math out. I wanted them to determine the cost
of building the exhibit, daily feeding cost, any extra employees if needed,
transportation for the animal, and to determine if the zoo needs to raise admission
due to the new exhibit. (Evie/Reflective Journal/Week 17)
21 I have been working on trying to find the best way to understand the STEAM way of
learning and teaching in my classroom. Many of the students are not independent
thinkers. Some of the students need assistance every step of the way. (Alisha/
Reflective Journal/Week 3)
17 The ideas are not well connected to the project scenario in this class, students are
actively solving problems with integers but the math problems are not aligned well
to scenario. The teacher might consider ways to direct students to how integers are
embedded in the problems, ask students how they need them to solve the problem,
and plan for overt ways to connect the skills and disciplines to the problem. (Janet/
Observation/Week 9)
16 Having 50-minute class periods (which really translates into 45 minutes of class time
due to class change and set up time) makes it extremely difficult to make it around
to each group and be able to assist and give feedback, which is extremely necessary
with this type of teaching. (Carol/Post Observation Summary/Week 6)
13 I just received our MAP testing schedule. All computer labs and all 4 class sets of
Chrome carts are being used for testing starting next Wednesday through the end
of the month. The students will not have access to technology needed for
collaboration or to build their presentation through Google Slides. (Kerri/Reflective
Journal/Week 2)
10 I am not sure whether the assessment needs to have more clear directions/
checkpoints, or the early instruction and prerequisites need to be clear to make sure
I know if students are making the connections between the concepts and
applications. (Seth/Postobservation Summary/Week 6)
182 D. HERRO ET AL.

postobservation summaries. Examples are representative of what most teachers noted; we also
acknowledge that there is some overlap between themes, particularly with pacing and planning.

Pacing/Time
Twenty-five of the 33 teachers expressed concerns over the pace and amount time required to
adequately implement their STEAM unit. They believed it took longer than they anticipated to plan,
implement, or refine the unit, which often prevented them from covering other concepts required
during the semester. The teachers felt pressured to prepare for tests, compress projects when time
was shortened because of breaks in the school calendar or inclement weather, or to move on to other
non-STEAM instructional units. A few teachers discussed the developmental level of the students,
English-language learners, or students receiving special education services as taking more time than
anticipated to fully comprehend STEAM concepts. In a few classrooms we noted teachers directing
group members to watch portions of a video, pause it, and translate from English to Spanish for their
classmates. Many also noted that shifting their instructional role from direct instruction to facilita-
tion was time consuming. We provide representative examples from teachers’ reflective journals and
observations that typify what the data showed:
The students have been hired by the zoo to create a zoo exhibit. The students research the biomes, structures,
defenses, and physical and behavior responses of an endangered species. I wanted to make this a true STEAM
project and have the students look at the cost of an exhibit, cost of feeding an animal, space needed for the
exhibit (scale mapping), and the cost of admission. However, I already took a week for the students to work on
the project as I created it, and I couldn’t justify any more class time, as I am already behind in our pacing guide.
(Evie, 7th grade science teacher)

I want to become more a facilitator and am working to realign my mindset and give students the time to learn
in new ways. Until I have a better set of STEAM activities developed, I am still concerned how to balance the
amount of time this process is taking and how to make sure all of the standards are covered before testing.
(Carla, 7th grade science teacher)

The comments from Evie and Carla demonstrate how STEAM instruction’s attention to foreground-
ing the problem and serving as a facilitator interfere with standards-based instruction from the sense
of pacing and time. The challenge was not in meeting standards per se but instead in meeting
standards by timelines dictated by pacing and testing. As noted above, there was a great deal of
overlap between pacing/time and many of the subthemes.

Student Understanding
When analyzing teacher reflections and observations we noted 21 teachers describing challenges that
involved students struggling to understand the process or concepts within STEAM activities.
Typically the teachers wrote about, and we observed, students who had difficulty with self-directed
inquiry or collaborating with their peers to problem solve instead of heavy reliance on their teachers.
In some cases, students simply did not understand the content presented or explored. Here, we see
Sam, a grade science teacher discussing how students struggled being independent learners, an
important component of STEAM:
I would like to develop ways to make students even less dependent on me. I spend a lot of time during class
helping students. I don’t mind doing it from the standpoint of my work. I think if I was involved less, they
would learn more. The reason I am involved is because of their requests, not because I am ‘jumping into’ their
work. I have attempted several solutions to this issue this year, but to no avail.
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 183

Jaclyn, a sixth-grade math, teacher wrote in her journal about a portion of a STEAM unit requiring
students to change fractions to decimals. She discussed the difficultly students had in following steps
of a process, believing it prevented them from directing their own learning:
Even though I had grouped them with at least one strong math student many were not able to correctly
complete the processes during the group time. After allowing them to struggle for a short time (not too long as
I didn’t want to lose their attention), I pulled the groups back to the class and guided them through each
process. I was surprised that very few students remembered the processes even after going over them.

A few days later, she added,

“On Thursday, students participated in an activity in which they rotated to different stations and found the are
of composite figures. One of my classes really enjoyed the activity, but my inclusion class did not. They found it
extremely difficult. They struggle with any process that involves multiple steps and analyzing information.
I think it is a struggle for them to [sic] get ahold of their own learning.

In these instances, Sam and Jaclyn point to the difficulty of having students direct their own
learning, especially with different ability levels. It was challenging for them to find ways to meet
individual developmental levels and ensure students understood processes and content, while
allowing for student inquiry—an important tenet of STEAM learning.

Planning and Discipline Alignment

Planning posed a challenge for seventeen of the 33 teachers in two different ways. Teachers discussed
challenges in planning a project aligned with requisite content for particular disciplines, and
difficulties planning a project with their colleagues who were either less interested or less informed
about STEAM education. We often noted that the two challenges went hand-in-hand. For example,
teachers who discussed challenges with discipline alignment believed if they were able to plan with
interested “other content experts” such as a science teacher collaborating with math and art
specialists, or a math teacher working with social studies, science, and music teachers, the STEAM
unit would pose fewer challenges in discipline integration or transdisciplinary teaching. The exam-
ples below demonstrate this finding.
Chuck typically taught eigth-grade science and implemented a “geologic time and fossil” rock unit
for his first STEAM unit, writing a scenario in which students took on the role of local archeologists
and news media personnel trying to identify, classify, and preserve a nearby historical site. As the
unit progressed Chuck frequently reflected on and discussed some of his biggest obstacles in
implementing STEAM as related to planning:
The hardest thing has been setting up the project to be successful. It has taken quite a few hours
of planning, but I am now reaping the benefits of the prep work. However, I am still at a loss as to
how I can infuse math into the project without it feeling like an afterthought.
Ali, a seventh-grade science teacher wrote about the messiness of planning STEAM units aligned
to her content, believing following standards made planning difficult:
Sometimes it seems that the nature of the standard dictates the ease with which STEAM can be implemented.
This week is case in point. The standards we covered involved “seeing” and “hearing” in relationship to the
structure of the eye and ear and in correlation with waves and wave behaviors. Simply put, the essential
questions we need to answer are how does hearing and seeing take place. In terms of planning, these standards
don’t lend themselves to being drawn out and made into a STEAM unit.

Many of the teachers commented on the challenge of planning with colleagues who showed less
interest of understanding in STEAM instruction, citing coworkers who “are resistant to allowing the
students to have too much control,” or saying colleagues complained that, “STEAM assignments take
up too much time,” or that content partners “do not seem thrilled to add it to list of projects we do
during the school year.”
184 D. HERRO ET AL.

Interestingly, teachers described challenges with aligning math content or standards to authentic
scenarios more often than any other discipline, whether their primary area of specialization was in
math or science. For example, one math teacher noted:
There is always a lot of art integration in these lessons. Science and technology is also used a lot. Math is usually
the weakest area in the STEAM process. The main subject that I teach is math. I know it always hardest for the
other teachers to connect the math. Guest speakers we have (to assist connecting STEAM learning the real
world) can never relate to math teachers. They always do some elementary thing that we cannot use. It is sad
for me because I love math.

Two teachers noted that creating authentic problems with engineering as part of the lesson design
was challenging; this is likely because they did not have a required “engineering” curricula at the
middle school level and had little prior experience incorporating engineering in project-based
learning or STEAM instruction. We also noted that though each teacher’s STEAM unit included
connections to mentors from local or online communities (serving as guest speakers, experts in the
field, simulated government panels for employment or project critique), they were rarely discussed as
supports or “leaned on” to assist with challenges.
These excerpts demonstrate the planning challenges some teachers, like Chuck, faced when
attempting to plan an effective unit individually that addressed multiple disciplines. Although pacing
and time contributed to this challenge, aligning disciplines with unwilling colleagues when attempt-
ing to coplan units, frustration because the content or discipline was forced or the standard was hard
to meet (similar to Ali and the math teacher) within the STEAM unit seem to cause the greatest
challenges.

Policy
Policy challenges were apparent in data from 16 of the teachers and typically related to pacing and
assessment, with a few teachers also discussing funding issues related to district or classroom
allotments. We noted issues of pacing/time and assessment in other areas of our Findings section
if they were related to teachers’ perceived skill level versus district mandates. The teachers below
discussed the impact of policy issues affecting STEAM teaching, mostly related to policies mandating
curriculum and scheduled testing windows:
This unit, according to our district’s curriculum guide should have been completed in December. I’m just now
in the early stages of this unit. So pressure to complete the unit in a timely manner is an impediment for me.
This has to include calendar interruptions, inclement weather, absenteeism due to [sic] flue virus and mono,
etc. (Edith, sixth-grade math teacher)

This week has been a real challenge. Two days [sic] had our class schedules completely turned upside down because
of MAP testing policy and for two others we had students in and out of class for MAP make up testing. We spent
a lot of time getting students back into the regular class routine. (Greta, seventh-grade science teacher)

Here, we see Edith and Greta’s frustration over policies that dictate when and how STEAM units can
be implemented, and we acknowledge these challenges share a number of commonalities with pacing
and assessment. That said, we note how policy challenges often meant that the authenticity of
problem solving through STEAM instruction became secondary to mandatory curricular units, tests,
and school schedules, or the units were affected by lack of funding.

Technology
Thirteen of the 33 teachers discussed technology impeding the flow of the unit citing unreliable
Internet access, blocked websites, inability to schedule time in the computer lab, or secure enough
devices as challenges they needed to work around. A few teachers cited students’ lack of knowledge
about using a particular technology or issues remembering passwords, but neither was prevalent
across data sets.
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 185

Janet, a seventh-grade math teacher wrote about difficulty accessing technology networks:
Another impediment that I encountered was technology issues. We had a power outage and Wi-Fi issues which
made it virtually impossible for them to work in the unit for that day. We did utilize textbooks for reference,
but when the assignments were on Google Classroom they could only do so much without access to the
Internet. There were many frustrating times dealing with the technology. Many groups had difficulty getting
their videos to upload using the school’s Wi-Fi and had to do it at home.

Seth, an eighth-grade science teacher reflected similarly about technology access issues, this time
related to sharing devices and differences the devices affordances:
The biggest obstacle that was thrown our way was that Android devices (phones and tablets) do not work in
our school. Until IT (instructional technology) fixes the issues students are sharing devices. I teach 130 kids,
and realized very quickly that sharing a document when they had to submit an assignment was not going to
work, it would mean 130 emails at a time for everything turned in. I have discovered that the Google Apps for
drive, classroom, docs, sheets and slides only work correctly on Apple products.

As noted by Janet and Seth, issues with technology rarely centered on teachers attitude or lack or
confidence using the tools as often cited in literature (Hutchinson & Reinking, 2011), or student
abilities with technologies. Access was the biggest technology challenge, and likely solvable.

Assessment
Ten of the 33 teachers talked about the challenges of STEAM assessment from the perspectives of
creating appropriate formative or alternative assessments and considering fair ways to assess
students working in groups. Formative assessments were not new to the 14 school sites involved
in this study, however creating assessments for STEAM learning was new.
Kayla articulated the challenge of assessing group work in her 6th grade science class, believing it
difficult to know how to determine individual accomplishments:
Assessing STEAM is hard! As a team, we have been trying to figure out the best ways to assess individuals
rather than give a group grade. We are really struggling with this concept of how to assess content of a project
without giving a “group” grade.

Carol, a seventh-grade math teacher was concerned about whether she was assessing her student
work adequately, believing it challenging to always know what students were learning:
As before I am still using many of the same informal and formal assessments. The students have to write
summaries about mini lessons, what they research and the essential questions. These are counted as classwork
grades. I give weekly quizzes to make sure they understand the material and see what needs to be reviewed.
Depending on the project, different parts must be checked off and reviewed so we can move on. The class
discussions have surprised me this year because of the number of students who are engaged in the discussion
and are critically thinking. How do I assess the discussions? Do I assess the discussions?

Kayla and Carol articulate how STEAM instruction posed new challenges that they typically did not
encounter in traditional teaching as collaborative work and student discussions, common to STEAM
learning, and required them to rethink the types of assessments and grades given to students.

Discussion
Our research sought to uncover the challenges faced by teachers when implementing STEAM units
in their classrooms to better understand the challenges germane to STEAM instruction; it may assist
teacher education programs and the increasing number of school districts moving forward with
STEAM initiatives (Delaney, 2014). Teachers in this study did not suffer from conceptualization
problems such as those noted by Portz (2015) and also understood the rationale for integrating
various disciplines toward quality learning outcomes for students. This was likely due to the heavy
emphasis on conceptualization during their prior PD, continued support, and use of a STEAM
186 D. HERRO ET AL.

model, however they still believed their instruction often fell short. In general, teachers noted
difficulties similar to challenges that are faced when implementing integrated STEM or other
innovative curricula such as collaborating with colleagues (Zubrowski, 2002), managing pacing,
time and policy issues (Collins & Halverson, 2009), integrating subject matter across disciplines
(Pang & Good, 2000), and effective assessment (Laboy-Rush, 2011). Yet, much like Nadelson et al.
(2013), teachers within all 33 classrooms were committed to implementing STEAM instruction. The
teachers did not view STEAM instruction as warranting a stand-alone class, as proposed by Yakman
(2010), instead they wanted to improve their ability to integrate it within requisite standards-based
curricula.
The conceptual model guided instruction by helping teachers create STEAM units focused on real-
world problems that naturally included the arts or humanities and were aligned to content and standards.
Specifically, the dimensions (within the model) of discipline integration, classroom environment, and
problem-solving skills provided teachers with an overall approach and specific strategies to promote
problem-based learning with integrated content and connected ideas, while offering a variety of tasks and
skills to assist student learning. To that end, the model served as a conduit to develop quality STEAM
units. The teachers also were afforded intensive PD, aligned with tenets of effective PD programs that
included building on their existing knowledge, STEAM unit development and implementation in
context, and encouragement to collaborate when teaching and refining the units (Ball & Cohen, 1999;
Zeichner, 2003). Despite understanding that the goal was to integrate the disciplines within STEAM
instruction in a transdisciplinary manner, and thus meet subject area requirements, they sometimes felt
compelled to force disciplines into the problem scenario or risk falling well behind in their pacing. They
often struggled with connecting content and discipline integration with the problem to be solved,
a finding consistent with other studies in which, despite intensive PD and follow-up support, teachers
struggle to integrate the disciplines and their subject area (Wang et al., 2011). Likewise, teachers found it
difficult to plan with other discipline specialists, shift from direct instruction to “facilitators,” and align
the STEAM units to requisite content—again, causing issues with time, pacing, discipline integration,
and student understanding. District policies exacerbated issues with pacing and at times made the
STEAM instruction seem inauthentic as teachers fell back into relying on requisite curricula. Polices
also interfered with the type of assessments or access to technology appropriate for the STEAM unit.
Similar to STEM education research the complexity of systematically changing instructional models to
provide an integrated curriculum that attended to the various disciplines proved challenging (Portz,
2015; Williams, 2011).
Returning to our initial example of Mr. Jared who implemented a STEAM unit on water quality
in Charleston, we note how he clearly conceptualized STEAM to focus on a real-world problem,
providing collaborative student activities to solve the problem in a manner that naturally connected
the disciplines and addressed requisite content. By all accounts, the STEAM unit was high quality.
Yet Mr. Jared ended up planning and implementing much of it alone, occasionally cutting out
activities that might offer deeper learning as he faced the reality of limited planning time and
pressure to stay “on pace” with other curriculum. At times, he found it challenging to ensure all of
his students understood concepts in the various disciplines. That said, he persisted and improved his
STEAM teaching, overcoming some challenges with administrative and peer support. We detail
possibilities to support STEAM efforts below.

Implications for K-12 Educators and Teacher Educators

Based on our findings, we offer considerations for K-12 educators and teacher educators. We also
suggest what this implies for K-12 students.

Administrative Support
The challenges above suggest a distinct need for administrative support from the outset of planning
for STEAM instruction. At the district level (superintendents, directors of instruction, curriculum
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 187

coordinators, etc.) and site-level (principals, assistant principals, etc.) administrators can alleviate the
challenges by offering policies that support flexible planning, pacing, and scheduling and additional
resources. This might include supporting block scheduling or changing the schedule for short
periods of time to avoid interruptions, or release time for teachers to observe or work with one
another, or increased special education supports to mitigate discipline integration concerns and
students’ lack of understanding of the content or process in STEAM.

Ongoing Professional Development

As evidenced in this study, offering intensive STEAM PD by experts who then provide feedback
contextualized in teachers’ classrooms is not enough to ensure success. Follow-up support with time to
reflect upon and refine teaching practices in collaborative environments with peers would likely
strengthen instruction and affect student learning (Fulton & Britton, 2011; Zeichner, 2003). Using
teacher-driven PD (Harris et al., 2012) such as common planning time within PLC formation is a way
forward for teachers to plan and refine STEAM units and move toward transdisciplinary teaching.
These efforts could also include experts and mentors from the broader community to support STEAM
learning and strengthen STEAM curricula. For example, teams could be comprised of grade levels
partnering with an art, music or theatre teachers and a community expert (topic dependent), or math,
science, English-language arts, and social studies teachers working with experts. Challenges with
STEAM initiatives could be lessened if teacher educators’ embedded STEAM activities and unit
creation within coursework with pre- or inservice teachers focused on alignment of content, standards,
and assessment. Furthermore, teacher educators could direct efforts to form partnerships between
schools and community members to further support the schools’ PLC’s.

Assessment Support
Transdisciplinary learning calls for a formative and authentic assessments so teachers can accurately
gauge student learning in STEAM activities. At the same time, teachers are required to meet content-
specific standards, thus STEAM units must address their content and standards or it will continue to
be an add-on, extracurricular, or elective course. Intentional PD, including targeted, ongoing work-
shops, can support the creation and refinement of formative and alternative summative assessments
aligned to STEAM units would ensure that the assessments accurately measure the learning goals.
Offering flexibility in types and frequency of tests that are not mandated will also allow teachers time
to develop and accurately assess STEAM learning. Teacher educators could begin and support this
important work by teaching about formative and authentic assessments in both pre-service and
graduate education.

Increased Attention to Technology Availability and Access

Planning with technical support, instructional technology coaches or media specialists at the outset
of STEAM units may lighten challenges and frustration during instructional blocks. STEAM units do
not have to include all high-tech options or offer individual access. Students sharing devices when
problem solving or cocreating products aligns with the collaborative nature of STEAM learning and
makes this less of a challenge.

Implications for K-12 Students

Supports for All Learners
Addressing the challenges to STEAM instruction detailed in our research implies two considerations
for K-12 students related to supporting all learners. First, carefully considering supports for strug-
gling or reluctant learners in inquiry-based, analytical, and multistep learning processes from the
outset of STEAM unit planning and implementation alleviates some of the challenges of students
understanding of content or processes. Second, though not explicitly noted as a challenge within this
study, relying on students’ interests in the arts, humanities, and technology-enabled learning (stated
188 D. HERRO ET AL.

goals of STEAM), and drawing from successes in STEAM literature where students represent their
knowledge in new ways (Ochterski & Lupacchino-Gilson, 2016) as they prototype, create, design,
and engineer solutions (Keane & Keane, 2016) may increase engagement and lessen learning
challenges. Teachers’ educators can assist pre- and inservice teachers in understanding technology-
enabled and interest-based learning drawing on successful STEAM initiatives where the approaches
are used as entry points to strengthen other disciplines (Clark & Button, 2011; Cook et al., 2017).

Limitations
We acknowledge some limitations in our research in that this study was completed in middle school
classrooms, though the schools represented diverse rural and urban populations, elementary or high
school populations with varying instructional practices and goals might face different challenges.
A larger study examining a variety of teaching environments and grade levels implemented across
diverse populations may offer increased generalization. Additionally, portions of the data relied on self-
reporting and may reflect what participants choose to share. Although we made efforts to engage
outside researchers to reduce bias, as researchers designing the professional development and observing
in classrooms, we also acknowledge the possibility of confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998), in that we
may have unwittingly interpreted data in a manner that confirms our belief about STEAM instruction.

Final Thoughts
STEAM instruction is complex and difficult. This work is significant as it reveals the difficulties of
enacting STEAM instruction in classrooms to inform the research community, K-12 educators, and
teacher educators of challenges before broad adoption of STEAM initiatives. This research suggests
that for STEAM initiatives to be successful and avoid some of the same pitfalls of STEM education
a number of measures might be put in place before adopting STEAM practices. Importantly, this
study provides a more in-depth, site-based view of inclusive STEAM classrooms, in a similar manner
to the call for additional research in STEM inclusive schools (SRI, 2008). Our hope is that this
research offers colleges of education and K-12 school districts useful information to adjust their
programs of instruction to assist schools in visioning and planning for STEAM initiatives in an
organized manner and better prepare teachers to systematically and effectively enact STEAM
instruction in their classrooms. In this way, STEAM instruction can be less challenging and more
rewarding for teachers and the tens of thousands of students who may benefit over the years.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Danielle Herro is an Associate Professor of Digital Media and Learning in the College of Education. Her research
focuses on ways to move STEAM education and game-based learning into classrooms.

Cassie Quigley is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the College of Education. She is particularly
interested in STEAM education from the lens of equity and ethics.
Heidi Cian is a Doctoral Candidate in the Curriculum and Instruction PhD program at Clemson University.

ORCID
Danielle Herro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1268-816X
Heidi Cian http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-2712
 ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 189

References
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of
professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp.
3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barchenger, C., & Peterman, T. (2015). Professional development that supports teacher learning about the new vision for
science education. Retrieved from http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/13
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 12(5/6), 23.
Bequette, J. W., & Bequette, M. B. (2012). A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art
Education, 65(2), 40–47. doi:10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167
Boy, G. A. (2013, August). From STEM to STEAM: Toward a human-centered education, creativity & learning thinking.
Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (p. 3). Toulouse, France: ACM.
Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30.
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job
satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44,
473–490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001
Clark, B., & Button, C. (2011). Sustainability transdisciplinary education model: Interface of arts, science, and
community (STEM). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(1), 41–54. doi:10.1108/
14676371111098294
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling
in America. Columbia University, New York: Teachers College Press.
Cook, K., Bush, S., & Cox, R. (2017). From STEM to STEAM: Incorporating the arts in a roller coaster engineering
project. (engineering encounters: Creating a classroom culture for engineering). Science and Children, 54(6), 86.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017, June). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto,
CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files
/Effective_Teacher_Professional_Development_REPORT.pdf
Delaney, M. (2014). Schools shift from STEM to STEAM. EdTech, April 2 (pp. 1–4). Retrieved from http://www.
edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2014/04/schools-shift-stem-steam
Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From good teachers to great
teaching. Washington, DC: National commission on teaching and America’s future.
Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50–57. doi:10.1108/13522759810197587
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. doi:10.1080/00043125.2014.11519293
Hamner, J., Cross, E., Bartley, C., & Nourbakhsh, I. (2015). Arts & Bots: Application and outcomes of a secondary school
robotics program. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), El Paso, TX (pp. 1–9).
Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Practice-
based professional development for self-regulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled
study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 103–119. doi:10.1177/0022487111429005
Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEAM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2),
Article 15. doi:10.5642/steam.20140102.15
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016a). Exploring teacher perceptions of STEAM: Implications for practice. Journal of
Professional Development in Education (PDE), 43(3), 416–438. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1205507
Herro, D., & Quigley, C. (2016b). Innovating with STEAM in Middle School Classrooms: Remixing education. On the
Horizon, 24(3), 190–204. doi:10.1108/OTH-032016-0008
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects,
and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technol-
ogies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333.
doi:10.1002/rrq.2011.46.issue-4
Jolly, A. (2014). STEM vs. STEAM: Do the arts belong? Education Week: Teacher. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.
org/tm/articles/2014/11/18/ctq-jolly-stem-vs-steam.html
Karabey, B., Koyunkaya, M. Y., Enginoglu, T., & Yurumezoglu, K. (2018). Discovering complementary colors from the
perspective of steam education. Physics Education, 53(3), 035001. doi:10.1088/1361-6552/aa97bf
Keane, L., & Keane, M. (2016). STEAM by design. Design and Technology Education, 21(1), 61–82.
Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through project-based learning. Retrieved from https://www.
rondout.k12.ny.us/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16466975
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research. In A guide to design and implementation. New Jersey, US: Wiley.
190 D. HERRO ET AL.

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation
and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research,
policy, and practices (pp. 35–60). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and
preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. The Journal of Educational
Research, 106(2), 157–168. doi:10.1080/00220671.2012.667014
National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014 (Vol. NSB-14-02). Arlington, VA: National
Science Board.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2
(2), 175. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Ochterski, J., & Lupacchino-Gilson, L. (2016). Getting an A in STEM: Beginning a steam collaboration between art and
chemistry students. The Science Teacher, 83(7), 39. doi:10.2505/4/tst16_083_07_39
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implications for further research.
School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73–82. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17239.x
Peppler, K. (2013). STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. Computer,
46(9), 38–43. doi:10.1109/MC.2013.257
Portz, S. (2015). The challenges of STEM education. Proceedings of the 2015 (43RD) Space Congress: A Showcase of
Space, Aviation, Technology, Logistics and Manufacturing. Paper 3, 1–9. Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Digital Commons. Retrieved from http://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings
/proceedings-2015-43rd/
Quigley, C., & 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 (JOST), 25(3), 410–426.
doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9602-z
Quigley, C., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. (2017). Developing a STEAM classroom assessment of learning experiences. School
Science & Mathematics, 117(1–2), 1–12. doi:10.1111/ssm.12201
Sanders, M. E. (2009). STEM, STEM education, Stemmania. Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.
SRI International. (2008). STEM high schools: Specialized science technology engineering and mathematics secondary
schools in the US. Menlo Park, CA: Means, B., Confrey, J., House, A., & Bhanot, R. Retrieved from https://www.sri.
com/sites/default/files/publications/imports/STEM_Report1_bm08.pdf
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal
of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J- PEER), 2(1), 28–34. doi:10.5703/1288284314653
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice.
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 2.
Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: an International
Journal, 16(1), 26–35.
Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM+ arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5),
42–47. doi:10.1080/00043125.2012.11519191
Yakman, G. (2010). What is the point of STE@ M? –A brief overview. Steam: A framework for teaching across the
disciplines. STEAM Education, 7, 1–28.
Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 educators in the USA [1]. Educational
Action Research, 11(2), 301–326. doi:10.1080/09650790300200211
Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design
process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 48–67. doi:10.21061/jte.v13i2.a.4