Integrating the arts into STEM is a pedagogical approach that gives students the opportunity to grapple with real-world science-based problems by cultivating students’ creativity and ingenuity. Thibaut et al. (2018) determined that the interdisciplinary work of STEAM is premised on several key methodologies writing that “collaborative work, inquiry-based learning, problem-solving and design-based learning were the most used methodologies” within STEAM (p. 6). Social constructivism is the underlying theory that unites each of these methodologies. Collaborative work is premised on the notion that generating shared insights and working interdependently supports rigorous engagement in science classrooms. Inquiry-based learning is also aligned theoretically to social constructivism (Pahrudin et al., 2021). Lastly, problem-solving and design thinking “involves students solving ill-defined problems that are complex and cognitively challenging” (Chiu et al., 2021, p. 153). Problem-solving and design thinking also derives its theoretical basis from social constructivism, as each of those pedagogical approaches requires deep collaboration between students.

My research questions are: how do teachers with varying levels of their own teaching self-efficacy conceive of the value of engaging students in arts-integrated STEM classes? What is the relationship between a teacher’s self-efficacy and their perception of the value of STEAM? Bandura (1978) pioneered self-efficacy theory, and teacher self-efficacy is defined by Calkins et al. (2024) as “a teacher’s beliefs about their abilities to impact student achievement and motivation and bring about specific desired results” (p. 427). As those authors write, a teacher’s behaviors tend to be a reflection of their sense of self-efficacy.Teacher self-efficacy is specifically a measure of a teacher’s perception of their efficacy in classroom management, instructional strategies and student engagement. As social constructivism, the theoretical underpinning of STEAM, requires facilitating collaboration and co-creation of meaning between and among students, it will be meaningful to examine how perceptions of each of these subdomains within teacher self-efficacy interfaces with perceptions of the value of STEAM. The methodology which will guide this investigation is that of both a survey to ascertain teacher self-efficacy levels in the three subdomains, as well as semi-structured interviews with twenty public charter middle school math and science teachers. I also plan to examine lesson plan artifacts from those educators. 

Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Therapy & Research, 1(4), 139–161. British Education Index.

Calkins, L. Wiens, P. Parker, J, & Tschinkel, J. (2024). Teacher motivation and self-efficacy: How do specific motivations for entering teaching relate to teacher self-efficacy? Journal of Education, 204(2), 427–438. ERIC.

Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., & Jamil, F. M. (2017). Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. School Science & Mathematics, 117(1/2), 1–12. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson).

Royalty, A., Chen, H., Roth, B., & Sheppard, S. (2019). Measuring Design Thinking Practice in Context. In C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking Research: Looking Further: Design Thinking Beyond Solution-Fixation (pp. 61–73). Springer International Publishing.

Wynn, T., & Harris, J. (2012). Toward a STEM + arts curriculum: Creating the teacher team. Art Education, 65(5), 42–47. JSTOR.