THE STEAM PARADOX: ARTISTS AS PRIMARY STEM EDUCATORS IN CROSS-DISCIPLINARY PEDAGOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i1.1077Keywords:
STEAM education, cross-disciplinary pedagogy, arts integration, creative teaching methods, case studies in educationAbstract
This paper explores the phenomenon I term the “STEAM Paradox,” in which artists and creative professionals increasingly assume leadership roles in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, particularly within interdisciplinary and project-based learning environments. The study investigates how artist-facilitators employ arts-informed and design-oriented approaches to cultivate innovative thinking, deepen conceptual understanding, and enhance student engagement by rendering technical content more meaningful, experiential, and aesthetically grounded. Drawing on multiple case studies across diverse educational contexts, including K–12 and higher education settings, the research analyzes instructional strategies, collaborative structures, and learning outcomes associated with artist-led STEM initiatives. Findings suggest that such approaches can demystify complex scientific concepts, promote holistic problem-solving, stimulate creativity, and broaden participation among underrepresented learners. At the same time, the study identifies tensions related to professional legitimacy, disciplinary boundaries, assessment standards, and the integration of traditional STEM educators. The paper concludes by proposing a framework for collaborative research and co-teaching models that more systematically integrate artistic and scientific practices into formal curricula, thereby advancing transdisciplinary pedagogy and fostering competencies aligned with 21st-century educational goals.
References
[1] Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2021): Thematic analysis: A practical guide. – SAGE Publications 15(6): 24-37.
[2] Chappell, K., Ben-Horin, O. (2023): Global science opera: Enacting posthumanising creativity. – Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education 7(3): 78-94.
[3] Creswell, J.W. (2002): Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. – Prentice Hall 650p.
[4] Gammelgaard, B. (2017): The qualitative case study. – The International Journal of Logistics Management 28(4): 910-913.
[5] Lee, B., Fillis, I., Lehman, K. (2018): Art, science and organisational interactions: Exploring the value of artist residencies on campus. – Journal of Business Research 85: 444-451.
[6] Liao, C. (2016): From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary: An arts-integrated approach to STEAM education. – ART Education 69(6): 44-49.
[7] Lichtman, M. (2023): Qualitative research in education: A user's guide. – Routledge 404p.
[8] Mishra, P. (2012): Rethinking technology & creativity in the 21st century: Crayons are the future. – TechTrends 56(5): 13-16.
[9] Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J. (2017): Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. – International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 13p.
[10] Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K. (2021): Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in implementation research. – Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 48(5): 652-661.
[11] Saldaña, J., Omasta, M. (2016): Qualitative research: Analyzing life. – Sage Publications 360p.
[12] Shin, S.H., Sim, J., Moon, C., Kim, N., Hwang, J. (2024): Effects of STEAM Programs Emphasizing Data Science and AI on Students’ Attitudes toward Mathematics and Science. – KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 21(2): 89-110.
[13] Zhou, S., Dong, Z., Wang, H.H., Chiu, M.M. (2025): A meta-analysis of STEM integration on student academic achievement. – Research in Science Education 55(5): 1273-1302.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JI ZHE, JURIANI JAMALUDIN, XINGZHI GUAN, YUETONG GUO, XI WANG

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.