STEAM buzzword - why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

It is not merely a matter of "some kids." When it was merely "STEM," it began to be viewed through the lens of gender equity. Viewed in that way, there were too few women and girls attracted to STEM, but likely this was also an effect of girls not being welcomed / implicit biases by both male students and male teachers.

One method of correcting that historical injustice was to make STEM more inclusive. Hence, the logical and equitable result is STEAM.

Girls and women are perfectly capable of being interested in science and math. I am all for addressing the bias but saying that A is needed to attract girls works towards the bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

Dance and music are in the arts. Hence the addition of art to STEM to make it more interesting to middle school girls. When all the projects are planned by boy nerds, they don't have the same appeal across genders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

Dance and music are in the arts. Hence the addition of art to STEM to make it more interesting to middle school girls. When all the projects are planned by boy nerds, they don't have the same appeal across genders.

And to add: appeal to ALL genders; not just the outdated and prejudicial, M/F binary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

Dance and music are in the arts. Hence the addition of art to STEM to make it more interesting to middle school girls. When all the projects are planned by boy nerds, they don't have the same appeal across genders.

And to add: appeal to ALL genders; not just the outdated and prejudicial, M/F binary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

Dance and music are in the arts. Hence the addition of art to STEM to make it more interesting to middle school girls. When all the projects are planned by boy nerds, they don't have the same appeal across genders.

And to add: appeal to ALL genders; not just the outdated and prejudicial, M/F binary.

Boy nerds does sound prejudicial though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:STEAM is better than “STEM.” But it is still not as inclusive.

The new and preferred acronym is S-STEAM, to support, acknowledge, and raise up the importance of sports for a more holistic approach to mental and physical health.

I wish that were a joke. Literature and History are important, especially for the development of critical thinking skills which are needed now more than ever.


The good thing is that it's all just marketing and doesn't mean anything. Legos are legos. But parents seem to buy it so schools will continue to pretend.

Tell us exactly why you “wish it were a joke?” Seriously, Pp: why?

And no, inclusion is not a joke. Or are you one of those who is opposed to inclusion?

What are you even talking about? I don’t get how this has to do with inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

I'm right there with you. Then someone earlier in this thread suggested sports should be added, which is clearly trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who does not get why the A was added to STEM? I thought stem was supposed to be a focus on science tech math engineering. Adding the arts now means everything? Isn’t that just “school”? What am I missing?? STEAM as an acronym seems really stupid to me.

The "A" was added in education because some kids would come into a STEM activity and be immediately turned off and unwilling to approach the activity. By adding art to STEM activities more kids are interested in the activity and it's supposed to be a gateway to getting kids interested in STEM. It's supposed to make math and science less intimidating and provide relevance to something kids want to learn about.

Does this work though? I love art and have nothing against kids learning and enjoying it, I just doubt that this is an effective gateway to science and math.

Sometimes it does. I have a middle school daughter who went to a robotics camp last summer. The other campers were boys and they built BattleBots that fought each other. My daughter and the one other girl camper decided to build a robot that would do a dance routine to a Taylor Swift song. Was that any less technically complex than the robots that battled? I have no idea. But they build an interesting robot and programmed it to dance to a particular rhythm and to do dance tricks. I'm okay with STEM being that flexible.

(PP) to me that's a perfect example of a 100% true STEM. And kids found ways to enjoy and learn from it in a way that's unique to them. I just feel like oftentimes adding A is more like adding some coloring pages to a STEM activity or implying that STEM is dry and boring and needs to be soften to become palatable, this stuff annoys me

Dance and music are in the arts. Hence the addition of art to STEM to make it more interesting to middle school girls. When all the projects are planned by boy nerds, they don't have the same appeal across genders.

And to add: appeal to ALL genders; not just the outdated and prejudicial, M/F binary.

A+ trolling. Would read again.

[Anonymous]

The acronym is the least worst part of this evolution over the past 20 years. Whats really terrible is the shift away from teaching any creativity, the arts in any depth, writing, literature and history. My kids are at nw dcps schools that have more or less eliminated reading full books. My kid in AP lang is finally reading a couple books, but it’s mostly texts. Writing is taught like a math formula. Research is nonexistent. Schools used to have full orchestras and band- now you have to go to an outside program or an arts school.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s just another lame way schools have transitioned into the era of lazy teaching. Now they can dump out a bucket of Lego, say the kids did a STEM/STEAM activity, and call it a science lesson. And parents think their kid actually learned something

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The acronym is the least worst part of this evolution over the past 20 years. Whats really terrible is the shift away from teaching any creativity, the arts in any depth, writing, literature and history. My kids are at nw dcps schools that have more or less eliminated reading full books. My kid in AP lang is finally reading a couple books, but it’s mostly texts. Writing is taught like a math formula. Research is nonexistent. Schools used to have full orchestras and band- now you have to go to an outside program or an arts school.

STEM education has nothing to do with not reading books in English or not having a strong music program.

Kids still have to go to English class and what they learn in that class is up to the English department (in HS at least). The math and science teachers aren't taking the English books away.

I think music and art have really suffered from an over importance being placed on sports. I don't think that has anything to do with STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The acronym is the least worst part of this evolution over the past 20 years. Whats really terrible is the shift away from teaching any creativity, the arts in any depth, writing, literature and history. My kids are at nw dcps schools that have more or less eliminated reading full books. My kid in AP lang is finally reading a couple books, but it’s mostly texts. Writing is taught like a math formula. Research is nonexistent. Schools used to have full orchestras and band- now you have to go to an outside program or an arts school.

STEM education has nothing to do with not reading books in English or not having a strong music program.

Kids still have to go to English class and what they learn in that class is up to the English department (in HS at least). The math and science teachers aren't taking the English books away.

I think music and art have really suffered from an over importance being placed on sports. I don't think that has anything to do with STEM.

But they’ve taken math and science books away too. Reading actual books and writing on actual paper should be happening in every single subject. Kids learn math better when they have a text book to reference and read detailed explanations, see example problems, flip back to a previous chapter, look at the answer key and compare their answers. Plus the act of copying problems out of a book and hand writing them on the paper in an organized fashion helps reinforce learning, memory, and the process. Plus this enables parents to easily see what their child is learning, which problems they are working on, and if they are struggling. Same with science. There is next to no actual science instruction or reading/writing happening. It’s all “hands on” stem BS. Reading non fiction books and having actual science and math (and history) lessons that involve reading books and writing improve knowledge and test scores in ALL subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The acronym is the least worst part of this evolution over the past 20 years. Whats really terrible is the shift away from teaching any creativity, the arts in any depth, writing, literature and history. My kids are at nw dcps schools that have more or less eliminated reading full books. My kid in AP lang is finally reading a couple books, but it’s mostly texts. Writing is taught like a math formula. Research is nonexistent. Schools used to have full orchestras and band- now you have to go to an outside program or an arts school.

STEM education has nothing to do with not reading books in English or not having a strong music program.

Kids still have to go to English class and what they learn in that class is up to the English department (in HS at least). The math and science teachers aren't taking the English books away.

I think music and art have really suffered from an over importance being placed on sports. I don't think that has anything to do with STEM.

But they’ve taken math and science books away too. Reading actual books and writing on actual paper should be happening in every single subject. Kids learn math better when they have a text book to reference and read detailed explanations, see example problems, flip back to a previous chapter, look at the answer key and compare their answers. Plus the act of copying problems out of a book and hand writing them on the paper in an organized fashion helps reinforce learning, memory, and the process. Plus this enables parents to easily see what their child is learning, which problems they are working on, and if they are struggling. Same with science. There is next to no actual science instruction or reading/writing happening. It’s all “hands on” stem BS. Reading non fiction books and having actual science and math (and history) lessons that involve reading books and writing improve knowledge and test scores in ALL subjects.

I'm supportive of math and science textbooks, but that's not what the post I was responding to was about. #readingcomprehension