Next Article in Journal
Let’s Ask the Other Side: Teaching Gymnasium Plant Biology from a Teacher’s Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Augmenting the Impact of STEAM Education by Developing a Competence Framework for STEAM Educators for Effective Teaching and Learning
Previous Article in Journal
The Relationship between Interleaving and Variability Effects: A Cognitive Load Theory Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Impact of Integrated STEAM Education in Early Childhood and Primary Education Teachers
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Systematic Review

The Impact of Integrated STEAM Education on Arts Education: A Systematic Review

Raquel Sanz-Camarero
Jairo Ortiz-Revilla
Ileana M. Greca
Department of Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Burgos, 09001 Burgos, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(11), 1139;
Submission received: 26 September 2023 / Revised: 7 November 2023 / Accepted: 10 November 2023 / Published: 14 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Integrated STEAM Education)


Integrated Science-Technology-Engineering-Arts-Mathematics (STEAM) education, an educational approach that is steadily expanding and bringing positive results within various scenarios, is successfully implemented and promoted in various countries. However, it has often been noted in the specialized literature that the incorporation of the arts into STEAM proposals is often at the service of the other disciplines, in that authentic artistic content is scarce or non-existent. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the place of the arts within this approach, so as to move towards their inclusion in an authentic manner. Thus, with the aim of knowing the characteristics of STEAM educational proposals and determining the impact of integrated STEAM education on the development of artistic competencies, this study presents a systematic review of STEAM proposals within Primary and Secondary Education. The results show the very limited impact of this approach on arts education; although the evaluation of artistic competency development has had positive impacts, it has been contemplated in very few studies. Our conclusions reflect on some necessary considerations with which to achieve an authentic and meaningful integration of the arts within STEAM education, opening the door to a conversation on what was previously a gap in the literature.

1. Introduction

Integrated STEAM education is an educational approach based on the integration of knowledge from the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics. It is aimed at solving problems in the real lives of students. This approach is consistent with the need for a comprehensive, less compartmentalized, and more holistic literacy, which 21st century society requires to function in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.
Although it is true that the theoretical foundation of integrated STEAM education has made significant progress, there are still shortcomings—especially from the epistemological perspective—despite its relevance for understanding the nature of the production of scientific knowledge [1]. In any case, it is an approach that is expanding rapidly and good results are reported in various contexts in various countries [2,3]. In fact, more and more countries are promoting the implementation of the STEAM approach throughout all educational stages [4,5,6,7,8,9] (among others).
It has been argued that integrated STEAM education represents a more holistic and balanced approach than its predecessor, the STEM approach [10,11,12]. In fact, our position adheres to the more recent and interesting view of A in STEAM, which includes the arts and humanities, although in this paper we will limit ourselves to the arts. However, a warning has repeatedly been sounded in the specialized literature that the incorporation of the arts in STEAM proposals often takes place at the service of other disciplines and that authentic artistic content is scarce or simply non-existent [13,14,15].
The current situation of the arts within integrated STEAM education must be clarified, so as to move towards their authentic incorporation. Only in this way can we escape from the instrumentalization of the arts and continue to take full advantage of the educational potential of this approach in STEAM. A systematic review of STEAM proposals is therefore presented in this study for the two stages of compulsory education within which the theoretical foundations of STEAM have advanced most: Primary and Secondary Education. Our aim is to ascertain the characteristics of STEAM educational proposals in relation to arts education and to determine the impact of integrated STEAM education on the development of artistic competencies (in this study, we adhere to the competency theoretical framework of [16], who proposed that the competency construct covers conceptual, procedural, attitudinal, contextual, communicative, metacognitive, and epistemological dimensions of knowledge).

2. Arts Education in Integrated STEAM Education

The STEAM approach was developed from STEM education, which initially emphasized Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics to prepare students for a world with constant scientific-technological advances. However, as the 21st century has progressed, it has become clear that problem solving cannot be reduced to STEM disciplines alone. Thus, STEAM education has broadened the STEM approach by incorporating the arts and humanities, fostering inter-disciplinary collaboration, and providing students with a more holistic understanding of problems and their solutions [17]. Integrated STEAM education will therefore intrinsically imply speaking of an arts and humanities education.
In the literature, the most frequently repeated benefits of integrating the arts in the STEAM approach are, among others, the development of creativity, an innovative spirit, critical thinking, digital competence, knowledge of engineering design, and even the promotion of positive attitudes towards science and mathematics, and the contextualization of science [12,18,19,20]. Although also developed with STEM education, these capabilities are enhanced from unique perspectives within the arts; perspectives that can help find multiple answers to problems and that offer a type of open knowledge [21] based on deep subjectivity as opposed to scientific objectivity;—a paradoxical viewpoint that invariably leads to divergent reflections upon both the self and the exterior world. Certainly, the integration of artistic disciplines enhances a series of benefits; however, it is also paradoxical that, among these arguments, the improvement and development of artistic competence is not a leading activity, as if it were something secondary. It does not happen the other way around, which is to say, the concern for the development of scientific competence has always been at the forefront of the STEAM approach [13,19]; it has even been commented that “STEAM education was proposed as an important educational policy direction for solving the low motivation for science learning and the phenomenon of avoiding science and engineering” [22] (p. 559). In any case, we can surely look for the causes of this problem precisely in the origins of STEAM; in other words, as previously mentioned, in STEM, a scientific-technological approach. Based on the idiosyncrasy of integrated STEAM education, it is, however, logical to think that the development of artistic competencies within an educational approach that pursues the integration of knowledge for holistic problem solving should not be pushed into the background.
This “secondary” place of the arts as a participant in integrated STEAM education has hardly gone unnoticed. There has been a series of calls to improve that situation in the literature [13,14,15] (among others) and, ultimately, to move towards true STEAM integration, to which we hope this research will contribute.
In summary, arts education plays an intrinsic and essential role in integrated STEAM education so that individuals can gain sufficient integral literacy to face up to the challenges of the 21st century. Attention must be paid to that situation in the design of integrated STEAM proposals.

3. Method

In the present study, a systematic review of the literature was carried out following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement [23], a set of guidelines for the selection of papers with clearly defined inclusion criteria [24].
The search was performed on the Web of Science (WoS) database of Clarivate Analytics to ensure the quality of the studies; specifically, on its Core Collection, which includes, among others, the Social Sciences Citation Index, the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, and the Emerging Sources Citation Index, in which the most important arts education journals are included. The search key entered in the WoS Core Collection was as follows: STEAM AND educati* (Topic). This search returned 1309 results. The results were then refined. First, the research area Education Educational Research was selected, which reported a total of 709 results. Second, it was restricted to the last decade, the period in which integrated STEAM education has gained greater strength, comprising publications from 2014 to 2023 inclusive, which reported a total of 673 results. Third, to obtain peer-reviewed studies of justified quality, Articles were selected, obtaining 393 results that, after filtering by English and Spanish languages (given the linguistic proficiency of the authors), were reduced to 381 articles. The systematic review began with that set of articles.
After reading the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles, the following inclusion criteria were applied:
1: The key search terms actually appear in the title, abstract, or keywords of the article.
2: The article is on the subject of integrated STEAM education.
3: The article reports the implementation of an integrated STEAM proposal with either Primary or Secondary Education students.
Using this procedure, a total of 42 articles were eliminated for not meeting Criterion 1, 67 for not meeting Criterion 2, and 204 articles for not meeting Criterion 3. The 68 remaining articles were then read in full, applying the following inclusion criteria:
4: An article that employs some instrument, technique, or tool to assess the impact of integrated STEAM education on competence development in STEAM disciplines.
Through this procedure, 41 articles were eliminated, leaving a total of 27 articles suitable for in-depth review.
Figure 1 shows the flow chart corresponding to this review.

4. Results and Discussion

The results of this review and their discussion are presented below, divided into two parts. First, a general description of the articles included in the final review is shared and, second, the data corresponding to the in-depth review are presented.

4.1. General Description of the Studies

Table 1 shows the general characteristics of the studies according to their authors, the year of publication, the journal in which they were published, the country where the study was carried out, and the educational stage at which the reported implementation took place.
As can be seen, most of the studies (n = 24) correspond to the second five years of the decade, with 2021 being the most productive year (n = 9). The emergence of the STEAM approach can be seen as an entity in itself applied to more holistic problem solving, after its period of coexistence as a “successor-dating” approach to the previous STEM approach [17]. This progressive increase in studies also coincided with a growing interest in and discussions on arts integration [52], in line with the new political-educational requirements for the 21st century.
The corpus includes studies from a variety of journals, the most representative being Frontiers in Education (n = 3), Thinking Skills and Creativity (n = 2), Education Sciences (n = 2), Interactive Learning Environments (n = 2), and Research in Science and Technological Education (n = 2). It is striking that none of the journals belong to the field of arts education. Despite the fact that there are currently more than 20 arts education journals indexed in WoS, none of them explicitly raises the line of integrated STEAM education. Therefore, this issue appears to be in line with the idea that integrated practices are still observed with some suspicion within that field [53] and the need, as mentioned above, to move towards an integration of the arts within STEAM education in a way that is not based on its instrumentalization.
Most of the studies are from Asia (n = 14): Taiwan (n = 5), Turkey (n = 4), China (n = 2), Republic of Korea (n = 1), Thailand (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). However, because of its trans-continentality, Turkey could be counted among the studies of European origin (n = 9) with Finland (n = 3), Spain (n = 2), Slovakia (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Finally, the American continent is represented (n = 4) with articles from the United States (n = 2), Mexico (n = 1), and Peru (n = 1). This panorama is congruent with the various educational policies that have promoted STEAM proposals in recent years. In addition, there are some theoretical models for integrated STEAM education from university research groups in some of these contexts; see, for example, the cases of Taiwan [54], South Korea [19,55,56], Thailand [57,58], and the United States [52,59,60]. These models address methodological, didactic and, to a much lesser extent, psychological and epistemological aspects [1].
Finally, the number of studies on students at the Primary Education stage (n = 13) and the Secondary Education stage (n = 14) was highly balanced. This scenario confronts the widespread idea that the implementation of integrated STEAM education in compulsory education at the Primary Education stage is more viable, due to the complexity of the different specialist teachers for each subject in Secondary Education. In fact, the reductionism of this idea overlooks the existence of various possible levels of disciplinary integration [61] with which these sorts of curricular difficulties can be surmounted.

4.2. In-Depth Review Data

Table 2 shows the information corresponding to each of the parameters under review: the type of research design of the study, the educational context in which it was conducted, the didactic methodology used in the integrated STEAM proposal, the evaluation instrument used in the evaluation, the componential development that was evaluated, and the reported impact on artistic competence development.
As can be seen, the type of research design followed in the studies is mostly quasi-experimental (n = 13), followed by pre-experimental studies (n = 8), and a minority of experimental studies (n = 6). This all highlights the need to increase the number of qualitative or mixed studies that, by their nature, will help to deepen the understanding of the impact of integrated STEAM education on the development of artistic competence. For example, most of the research reviewed only presents quantitative assessments; however, qualitative data could be collected to refine, extend, or explain students’ competency development.
Most of the studies were carried out within a formal context (n = 20) and a minority in an informal context (n = 7). Taking into account that this review required the studies to present an evaluation of STEAM proposals, it was considered that these results, coinciding with the nature of the different educational contexts, demonstrated greater concern for evaluation in a formal rather than in an informal one. This issue is highly relevant to this study, and it should be noted that the results and interpretations presented here were largely based on a formal context. In that sense, greater control over the evaluation of STEAM proposals was encouraged in an informal context, which may well be internal. In this way, it will be possible to continue to provide evidence of the development of artistic competence in this context as well.
With respect to the didactic methodologies used in the STEAM proposals, Inquiry (n = 6) and PBL (n = 5) dominated, followed by a minority using EDP (n = 2), GBL (n = 2), and hands-on (n = 2), as well as other methodologies such as CBL, the Multiple Teaching Method, SSI education, MOEs, the multiliteracies approach, and the theoretical framework, all with n = 1. The methodology was not indicated in some other studies (n = 7). These results are in agreement with the methodological recommendations for STEAM presented in the literature, where active methodologies have always been proposed, especially the Inquiry method (which is included in the hands-on methodology), PBL, and EDP [69,70]. In that regard, these methodologies fit in perfectly with the integration of the arts through problem-solving tasks and the reconciliation of multiple solutions through aesthetic research, which are both also common tasks for designers and artists [13]. On the other hand, the number of studies in which no methodology was indicated, through which integrated STEAM education has become viable, was of concern. Generally, in those cases, the approach was erroneously confused with the methodology, pointing to a persistent misunderstanding of the nature or epistemological dimension of the approach. The same may be said of its predecessor, STEM [71,72], which was also indicated in a previous study [1].
Ad-hoc instruments (in the form of tests, scales, questionnaires, surveys, and worksheets), i.e., those developed specifically for the study itself, were the most frequently applied (n = 21), compared to a minority of studies that used instruments that have already been created and validated (n = 8). This is an observation that already constitutes a conclusion, per se, about the need for instruments to assess competence development within integrated STEAM education. However, it is worrying that among the instruments, the vast majority presented no data or validation process, so their results should be interpreted with caution. Thus, in coherence with the complexity of competence development [16] as previously mentioned, to aim for the construction of the deepest and most complete interpretation possible of the impact of STEAM education on artistic competence development, it is considered necessary to uphold rigorous evaluation in STEAM education that is integrated in the context of mixed studies.
Finally, a large majority of studies assessed different dimensions of competence development in Science (n = 19), followed by the assessment of competence development in Mathematics (n = 10), Technology (n = 6), Engineering (n = 6), and Arts (n = 6). This panorama ratifies the instrumentalization of the arts [73,74] that still prevails, in this case in integrated STEAM education (or rather in STEM studies that instrumentally incorporate the arts) which, as already indicated, is a problematic issue repeatedly mentioned in the specialized literature [1,13,52,75]. Among the six studies that evaluate some dimension of artistic competence development, one of them evaluates the aesthetic view, another one evaluates visual arts achievements and attitudes towards visual arts, and the remaining four evaluate contents and competencies related to STEAM where the arts are included, all of them reporting a positive impact on the respective artistic learning. On the one hand, this small sample shows a reduced panorama of the arts, with a predominant focus on the visual arts, traditionally considered the most accessible and popular artistic resource [76], while a wide range of artistic disciplines are not present, such as music, theater, dance, sculpture, etc. In any case, these six studies could be taken as a reference of acceptable models of integrated STEAM education.
On the other hand, these results show a reduced scope of integrated STEAM education in arts education, since, although with a positive impact, the evaluation of artistic competence development was noted in very few studies, and even those in which it was noted, it was only noted in one dimension: the attitudinal or procedural one. Very relevant dimensions of artistic competence, both for the arts and for the STEAM approach, such as the contextual, communicative, metacognitive, and epistemological dimensions of knowledge, were not evaluated. In this sense, the following conclusions reflect on some considerations that are necessary for achieving an authentic and meaningful integration of the arts within STEAM education.

5. Conclusions

The general objective of this study was to ascertain the characteristics of STEAM educational proposals in relation to arts education, and to determine the impact of integrated STEAM education on the development of artistic competencies. For this purpose, a systematic review of STEAM proposals of the two stages of compulsory education, Primary and Secondary Education, has been presented. The findings of this study have advanced some considerations that are needed to move towards an authentic and meaningful integration of the arts in integrated STEAM education, detached from its instrumentalism and capable of taking advantage of all the educational potential offered by this approach.
First of all, we have highlighted the problems encountered relating to a basic issue, that is, the knowledge of the nature of the STEAM approach. In that sense, it is true that, with respect to STEM, the integration of the arts adds further difficulty, it being the epistemological dimension of the STEAM approach that is precisely the most unknown [1]. In fact, no studies have been found in this review that have evaluated competence development in the context of artistic knowledge. However, it is necessary to look at this issue from a positive and enriching point of view. The variety of artistic disciplines, of different natures and with different ways of producing and understanding what knowledge is, can be a great enrichment by allowing different forms of integration and learning. Therefore, in relation to other findings here, the wide range of arts beyond the visual arts should be considered because of their potential that has still hardly been explored in integrated STEAM education.
Secondly, due to the scarcity of studies that evaluate dimensions related to artistic competence development, this review evidences the undervaluation of the integration of the arts, which may have several causes. One of them may be the consideration of the arts as a mere instrument in STEAM proposals, as some critics point out and as we have been discussing in this article. However, another cause may, we believe, be related to the difficulty of evaluating artistic content, especially in proposals where the research team does not include specialists within the field of arts education, or where there is no mixed evaluation combining quantitative and qualitative data. We therefore believe that any STEAM proposal should take into account the guidelines on arts learning, for example, the criteria proposed [77] could be used as criteria for evaluating the artistic part.
Thirdly, and related to all the above, we consider that teacher training in integrated education is of special importance, since none of the above can be remedied if teacher training is not addressed. In that sense, it is vital to begin by introducing this training in the degrees and Master’s degrees dedicated to teacher training in the compulsory educational stages and, at the same time, to establish training courses on this subject. Moreover, according to the evidence available in the specialized literature [78,79] (in press), the most effective approach to this training is through co-teaching approaches in which arts education specialists are included and that is complemented by and receives feedback from integrated STEAM education.
Among the limitations of this work, we can point to the use of a single database to conduct the review, which might imply that journals that may have led to different results could have been left aside. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no more than five journals specialized in arts education that are outside WoS, so it is unlikely that the trends could be otherwise. On the other hand, there are several arts education journals that are not included in databases such as WoS or Scopus, but we cannot assure the quality, as mentioned in the Methodology section. On the other hand, the criterion of considering articles only in Spanish or English, which might in principle be a limitation, is not one, because only 3% of the initial corpus was excluded under that criterion.
In summary, this paper adds to the contributions in defense of the integration of the arts to address the complex needs of contemporary education [53] and opens a conversation on the situation of the arts in integrated STEAM proposals and its impact on artistic competence development, which until now was a gap in the literature. In the near future, we intend to expand the corpus of studies and, with it, broaden the analysis and continue to provide relevant considerations for artistic competence development in integrated STEAM education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S.-C.; methodology, R.S.-C.; formal analysis, R.S.-C. and J.O.-R.; investigation, R.S.-C., J.O.-R. and I.M.G.; data curation, R.S.-C. and J.O.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S.-C.; writing—review and editing, R.S.-C., J.O.-R. and I.M.G.; supervision, J.O.-R. and I.M.G.; project administration, I.M.G.; funding acquisition, I.M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Innovation (Spain) who financed the research project CiNoSTEM (PID2020-118010RB-I00).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.


  1. Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Sanz-Camarero, R.; Greca, I.M. A critical look at theoretical models on integrated STEAM education. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. 2021, 87, 13–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. García-Fuentes, O.; Raposo-Rivas, M.; Martínez-Figueira, M. STEAM education: Review of literature. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2023, 34, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kang, N.-H. A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education in South Korea. Asia-Pac. Sci. Educ. 2019, 5, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Commonwealth of Australia. Sculpting a National Cultural Plan. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  5. Corfo & Fundación Chile. Preparando a Chile Para la Dociedad del Conocimiento: Hacia una Coalición Que Impulse la Educación STEAM. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  6. Espinal, L.M.; Silveira, F. La generación de prácticas, proyectos o programas en educación STEM-STEAM en el marco de una diplomatura virtual para América Latina. In Enseñanza y Aprendizaje de Las Ciencias en Debate; Macedo, B., Silveira, S., Astete, M.G., Meziat, D., Eds.; Universidad de Alcalá: Alcalá de Henares, Spain, 2019; pp. 622–631. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gobierno de España. La Respuesta a las Nuevas Exigencias Sociales. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  8. Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity. Policy Directions of STEAM Education: Introductory Training of KOFAC STEAM; Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Morales, M.P.E.; Anito, J.C.; Avilla, R.A.; Sarmiento, C.P.; Palisoc, C.P.; Elipane, L.E.; Ayuste, T.O.D.; Butron, B.R.; Palomar, B.C. The Philippine STEAM Education Model; Philippine Normal University: Manila, Philippines, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Adúriz-Bravo, A.; Greca, I.M. A framework for epistemological discussion around an integrated STEM education. Sci. Educ. 2020, 29, 857–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Madden, M.E.; Baxter, M.; Beauchamp, H.; Bouchard, K.; Habermas, D.; Huff, M.; Ladd, B.; Pearon, J.; Plague, G. Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 20, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Quigley, C.F.; Herro, D. Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 410–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bequette, J.W.; Bequette, M.B. A place for art and design education in the STEM conversation. Art Educ. 2012, 65, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hunter-Doniger, T. Art infusion: Ideas conditions for STEAM. Art Educ. 2018, 71, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Land, M.H. Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 20, 547–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Greca, I.M.; Adúriz-Bravo, A. Conceptualization of competencies: Systematic review of research in primary education. Profesorado. Rev. Currículum Form. Profr. 2021, 25, 223–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maeda, J. STEM + Arts = STEAM. STEAM J. 2013, 1, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chien, Y.-H.; Chu, P.-Y. The different learning outcomes of high school and college students on a 3D-printing STEAM engineering design curriculum. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2018, 16, 1047–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chu, H.-E.; Martin, S.N.; Park, J. A theoretical framework for developing an intercultural STEAM program for Australian and Korean students to enhance science teaching and learning. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019, 17, 1251–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, B.-H.; Kim, J. Development and validation of evaluation indicators for teaching competency in STEAM education in Korea. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 1909–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Acaso, M.; Megías, C. Art Thinking; Paidós Educación: Barcelona, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Song, H.-S.; Kim, S.-H.; Song, Y.-J.; Yoo, P.-R.; Lee, J.-Y.; Yu, H. Effect of STEAM education program using flexible display. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2019, 9, 559–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Cochrane Collaboration & Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Başaran, M.; Erol, M. Recognizing aesthetics in nature with STEM and STEAM education. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2023, 41, 326–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, C.C.; Huang, P.H. The effects of STEAM-based mobile learning on learning achievement and cognitive load. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Holguin-Alvarez, J.; Cruz-Montero, J.; Ruiz-Salazar, J.; Ledesma-Pérez, F. Robotic ecology from the coast: Results of a science skills strengthening program. Publicaciones 2023, 53, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Salmi, H.S.; Thuneberg, H.; Bogner, F.X. Is there deep learning on Mars? STEAM education in an inquiry-based out-of-school setting. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 31, 1173–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Szabó, T.; Babály, B.; Pataiová, H.; Kárpáti, A. Development of spatial abilities of preadolescents: What works? Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chung, C.C.; Huang, S.L.; Cheng, Y.M.; Lou, S.J. Using an iSTEAM project-based learning model for technology senior high school students: Design, development, and evaluation. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020, 32, 905941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, X.; Qiao, C. Enhancing computational thinking skills through artificial intelligence education at a STEAM high school. Sci. Educ. 2022, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hughes, B.S.; Corrigan, M.W.; Grove, D.; Andersen, S.B.; Wong, J.T. Integrating arts with STEM and leading with STEAM to increase science learning with equity for emerging bilingual learners in the United States. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Duo-Terron, P.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; López-Núñez, J.A. STEAM in Primary Education. Impact on linguistic and mathematical competences in a disadvantaged context. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, 792656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liao, X.; Luo, H.; Xiao, Y.; Ma, L.; Li, J.; Zhu, M. Learning patterns in STEAM education: A comparison of three learner profiles. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ozkan, Z.C. The effect of STEAM applications on lesson outcomes and attitudes in secondary school visual arts lesson. Int. J. Technol. Educ. 2022, 5, 621–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Çakır, N.A.; Çakır, M.P.; Lee, F.J. We game on skyscrapers: The effects of an equity-informed game design workshop on students’ computational thinking skills and perceptions of computer science. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 2683–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Choi, S.; Won, A.; Chu, H.; Cha, H.; Shin, H.; Kim, C. The impacts of a climate change SSI-STEAM program on junior high school students’ climate literacy. Asia-Pac. Sci. Educ. 2021, 7, 96–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Donia, D.T.; Scibetta, E.V.; Tagliatesta, P.; Carbone, M. Chemistry through tattoo inks: A multilevel approach to a practice on the rise for eliciting interest in chemical education. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 1309–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Greca, I.M.; Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Arriassecq, I. Diseño y evaluación de una secuencia de enseñanza-aprendizaje STEAM para Educación Primaria. Rev. Eureka Sobre Enseñanza Divulg. Cienc. 2021, 18, 1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khamhaengpol, A.; Sriprom, M.; Chuamchaitrakool, P. Development of STEAM activity on nanotechnology to determine basic science process skills and engineering design process for high school students. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021, 39, 100796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ozkan, G.; Topsakal, U.U. Investigating the effectiveness of STEAM education on students’ conceptual understanding of force and energy topics. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 39, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Piila, E.; Salmi, H.; Thuneberg, H. STEAM-learning to Mars: Students’ ideas of space research. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tran, N.H.; Huang, C.F.; Hsiao, K.H.; Lin, K.L.; Hung, J.F. Investigation on the influences of STEAM-based curriculum on scientific creativity of elementary school students. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 694516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tran, N.H.; Huang, C.F.; Hung, J. Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM-Based courses on junior high school students’ scientific creativity. Front. Educ. 2021, 6, 666792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mierdel, J.; Bogner, F.X. Simply InGEN(E)ious! How creative DNA modeling can enrich classic hands-on experimentation. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2020, 21, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Rudd, J.A.; Horry, R.; Skains, R.L. You and CO2: A public engagement study to engage secondary school students with the issue of climate change. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2020, 29, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tan, W.; Samsudin, M.; Ahmad, N. Gender differences in students’ achievements in learning concepts of electricity via steam integrated approach utilizing Scratch. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 2020, 78, 423–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Serrano Pérez, E.; Juárez López, F. An ultra-low cost line follower robot as educational tool for teaching programming and circuit’s foundations. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2018, 27, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bati, K.; Yetişir, M.I.; Çalişkan, I.; Güneş, G.; Gül Saçan, E. Teaching the concept of time: A STEAM-based program on computational thinking in science education. Cogent Educ. 2018, 5, 1507306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Thuneberg, H.M.; Salmi, H.S.; Bogner, F.X. How creativity, autonomy and visual reasoning contribute to cognitive learning in a STEAM hands-on inquiry-based math module. Think. Ski. Creat. 2018, 29, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shih, J.; Huang, S.; Lin, C.; Tseng, C. STEAMing the ships for the great voyage: Design and evaluation of a technology integrated maker game. Interact. Des. Archit. J. 2017, 34, 61–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Constantino, T. STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design education. Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 2018, 119, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sanz-Camarero, R.; Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Greca, I.M. The place of the arts within integrated education. Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lin, C.-L.; Tsai, C.-Y. The effect of a pedagogical STEAM model on students’ project competence and learning motivation. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2021, 30, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, H.; Chae, D.-H. The development and application of a STEAM programbased on traditional Korean culture. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 1925–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kim, P.W. The wheel model of STEAM education based on traditional Korean scientific contents. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2016, 12, 2353–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wannapiroon, N.; Petsangsri, S. Effects of STEAMification model in flipped classroom learning environment on creative thinking and creative innovation. TEM J. 2020, 9, 1647–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kummanee, J.; Nilsook, P.; Wannapiroon, P. Digital learning ecosystem involving steam gamification for a vocational innovator. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2020, 10, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quigley, C.; Herro, D.; Jamil, F.M. Developing a conceptual model of STEAM teaching practices. Sch. Sci. Math. 2017, 117, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Trott, C.D.; Even, T.L.; Frame, S.M. Merging the arts and sciences for collaborative sustainability action: A methodological framework. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1067–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gresnigt, R.; Taconis, R.; van Keulen, H.; Gravemeijer, K.; Baartman, L. Promoting science and technology in primary education: A review of integrated curricula. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2014, 50, 47–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yıldız-Yılmaz, N.; Mentiş-Taş, A. Primary School Environment Awareness Scale Validity and Reliability Study. Hitit Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Inst. 2017, 10, 1355–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Korkmaz, Ö.; Bai, X. Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level. Particip. Educ. Res. 2019, 6, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yanal, S. Türk ve Suriyeli Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Görsel Sanatlar Dersi Kazanımları, Tutumları ve Akademik Benlik Kavramlarının Incelenmesi. Master’s Thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye, 2019. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  65. Demirel, İ.N. Köy ve Kent Okullarında Öğrenim Gören Ilköğretim ii. Kademe Öğrencilerinin Görsel Sanatlar Dersine Ilişkin Tutumlarının Karşılaştırılması. Master’s Thesis, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli, Türkiye, 2011. Available online: (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  66. Loyd, B.H.; Gressard, C. The Reliab. and validity of an instrument for the assessment of computer attitudes. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1985, 45, 903–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Greca, I.M. La evaluación del desarrollo competencial escolar: Propuesta de un instrumento. In Innovación Docente e Investigación en Educación; Pérez-Fuentes, M.C., Ed.; Dykinson: Madrid, Spain, 2019; pp. 365–374. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hu, W.; Adey, P. A Scientific Creativity Test for Secondary School Students. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2002, 24, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Connor, A.M.; Karmokar, S.; Whittington, C. From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. 2015, 5, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Diego-Mantecón, J.M.; Blanco, T.F.; Ortiz-Laso, Z.; Lavicza, Z. STEAM projects with KIKS format for developing key competences. Comunicar 2021, 29, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aguilera, D.; Lupiáñez, J.L.; Vílchez-González, J.M.; Perales-Palacios, F.J. In search of a long-awaited consensus on disciplinary integration in STEM education. Mathematics 2021, 9, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martín-Páez, T.; Aguilera, D.; Perales-Palacios, F.J.; Vílchez-González, J.M. What are we talking about when we talk about STEM education? A review of literature. Sci. Educ. 2019, 103, 799–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Burnaford, G.; Brown, S.; Doherty, J.; McLaughlin, H.J. Arts Integration Frameworks, Research & Practice: A Literature Review; Arts Education Partnership: Denver, CO, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  74. Catterall, J.S. Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? A response to Eisner. Art Educ. 1998, 51, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zeidler, D.L. STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cult. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2016, 11, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bresler, L. The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Educ. Policy Rev. 1995, 96, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Eisner, E.W. Arts and the Creation of Mind; Yale University Press: New Haven, CO, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  78. Alonso-Centeno, A.; Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Greca, I.M.; Sanz de la Cal, E. Perceptions of STEAM+CLIL integration: Results of a co-teaching proposal during initial teacher training. In Controversial Issues and Social Problems for an Integrated Disciplinary Teaching; Ortega-Sánchez, D., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Greca, I.M.; Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Alonso-Centeno, A.; Sanz de la Cal, E. Co-teaching for teacher training in integrated education: An experience with STEAM and CLIL. Ápice. Rev. de Educ. Científica 2022, in press. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Flowchart of article selection procedure.
Figure 1. Flowchart of article selection procedure.
Education 13 01139 g001
Table 1. General characteristics of the studies.
Table 1. General characteristics of the studies.
Author/sYearJournalCountryEducational Stage
Başaran and Erol [25] 2023Research in Science & Technological EducationTurkeyPrimary education
Chen and Huang [26] 2023Interactive Learning EnvironmentsTaiwanPrimary education
Holguin-Alvarez et al. [27]2023PublicationsPeruPrimary education
Salmi et al. [28]2023Interactive Learning EnvironmentsFinlandPrimary education
Szabó et al. [29]2023Education SciencesSlovakiaPrimary education
Chung et al. [30]2022International Journal of Technology and Design EducationTaiwanSecondary education
Huang and Qiao [31]2022Science & EducationChinaSecondary education
Hughes et al. [32]2022International Journal of STEM EducationUnited StatesPrimary education
Duo-Terron et al. [33]2022Frontiers in EducationSpainPrimary education
Liao et al. [34]2022Education SciencesChinaPrimary education
Ozkan [35]2022International Journal of Technology in EducationTurkeySecondary education
Çakır et al. [36]2021Education Technology Research and DevelopmentUnited StatesSecondary education
Choi et al. [37]2021Asia-Pacific Science EducationSouth KoreaSecondary education
Donia et al. [38]2021Journal of Chemical EducationItalySecondary education
Greca et al. [39]2021Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las CienciasSpainPrimary education
Khamhaengpol et al. [40]2021Thinking Skills and CreativityThailandSecondary education
Ozkan and Topsakal [41]2021Research in Science & Technological EducationTurkeySecondary education
Piila et al. [42]2021Education SciencesFinlandPrimary education
Tran, Huang,
Hsiao et al. [43]
2021Frontiers in EducationTaiwanPrimary education
Tran, Huang and Hung [44]2021Frontiers in EducationTaiwanSecondary education
Mierdel and Bogner [45]2020Journal of Microbiology & Biology EducationGermanySecondary education
Rudd et al. [46]2020Journal of Science Education and TechnologyUnited KingdomSecondary education
Tan et al. [47]2020Problems of Education in the 21st CenturyMalaysiaSecondary education
Serrano Pérez and Juárez López [48]2019Computer Applications in Engineering EducationMexicoSecondary education
Bati et al. [49]2018Cogent EducationTurkeySecondary education
Thuneberg et al. [50]2018Thinking Skills and CreativityFinlandPrimary education
Shih et al. [51]2017Interaction Design and Architecture(s) JournalTaiwanPrimary education
Table 2. In-depth review data.
Table 2. In-depth review data.
StudyDesignEducational ContextMethodologyInstrumentEvaluated Competence Development *Impact on Artistic Competence Development
Başaran and Erol (2023) [25]Quasi-experimentalFormalProject-Based Learning (PBL) and Context-Based
Learning (CBL)
Primary School Environmental Awareness Scale [62] and ad-hoc scaleEnvironmental awareness and aesthetic viewPositive
Chen and Huang (2023) [26]Quasi-experimentalFormalGame-Based Learning (GBL)TestScience and Technology content knowledge-
Alvarez et al. (2023) [27]
ExperimentalFormalMultiple Teaching MethodTest and scaleScience skills and environmental awareness-
Salmi et al. (2023) [28]Pre-experimentalFormalInquiryTestSTEAM content knowledgePositive
Szabó et al. (2023) [29]Quasi-experimentalFormalInquiryTestSpatial skills-
Chung et al. (2022) [30]Pre-experimentalFormalProject-Based Learning (PBL)TestSTEAM competencesPositive
Huang and Qiao (2022) [31]ExperimentalFormalaCT Skills Scale [63]Computational thinking skills-
Hughes et al. (2022) [32]ExperimentalFormalInquiryTestsLife and physical science knowledge-
Duo-Terron et al. (2022) [33]Quasi-experimentalFormalaStandardized tests by National Institute of Educational Evaluation of SpainLinguistic and mathematical competencies-
Liao et al. (2022) [34]Quasi-experimentalFormalProject-Based Learning (PBL)QuestionnaireComputational thinking performance-
Ozkan (2022) [35]Quasi-experimentalFormalaSecondary School Visual Arts Lesson Scale [64] and Visual Arts Lesson Attitude Scale [65]Visual arts achievements and attitudes towards visual artsPositive
Çakır et al. (2021) [36]Quasi-experimentalInformalaTest and Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) [66]Computational thinking skills and attitudes towards computing-
Choi et al. (2021) [37]Pre-experimentalFormalSocio Scientific Issues (SSI) EducationQuestionnaireClimate literacy-
Donia et al. (2021) [38]Pre-experimentalInformalMulti-outcome experiments (MOEs)SurveyChemistry concepts-
Greca et al. (2021) [39]Quasi-experimentalFormalInquiry and Engineering Design Process (EDP)Competence development evaluation instrument [67]Development of key competenciesPositive
engpol et al. (2021) [40]
Pre-experimentalFormalEngineering Design Process (EDP)WorksheetsBasic science process skills and engineering design process on nanotechnology-
Ozkan and Topsakal (2021) [41]ExperimentalFormalHands-onTestForce and energy conceptual knowledge-
Piila et al. (2021) [42]ExperimentalFormalaTestNatural Sciences knowledge-
Tran, Huang, Hsiao et al. (2021) [43]ExperimentalFormalProject-Based Learning (PBL)Scientific Creativity Test [68]Scientific creativity-
Tran, Huang and Hung (2021) [44]Quasi-experimentalFormalProject-Based Learning (PBL)Scientific Creativity Test [68]Scientific creativity-
Mierdel and Bogner (2020) [45]Quasi-experimentalInformalInquiryQuestionnaireScience content knowledge-
Rudd et al. (2020) [46]Quasi-experimentalInformalMultiliteracies approachScaleAttitudes toward carbon footprint reduction-
Tan et al. (2020) [47]Quasi-experimentalFormalaTestElectricity content knowledge-
Serrano Pérez and Juárez López (2019) [48]Pre-experimentalInformalTheorical and hands-onTestEngineering Knowledge-
Bati et al. (2018) [49]Quasi-experimentalFormalaTestComputational thinking skills-
Thuneberg et al. (2018) [50]Pre-experimentalInformalInquiryTestMathematical knowledge-
Shih et al. (2017) [51]Pre-experimentalInformalGame-Based Learning (GBL)TestSTEAM performancePositive
* Extraction of the literal information; - Not applicable; a Not specified.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sanz-Camarero, R.; Ortiz-Revilla, J.; Greca, I.M. The Impact of Integrated STEAM Education on Arts Education: A Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1139.

AMA Style

Sanz-Camarero R, Ortiz-Revilla J, Greca IM. The Impact of Integrated STEAM Education on Arts Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(11):1139.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sanz-Camarero, Raquel, Jairo Ortiz-Revilla, and Ileana M. Greca. 2023. "The Impact of Integrated STEAM Education on Arts Education: A Systematic Review" Education Sciences 13, no. 11: 1139.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop