Abstract:

The STEAM framework— Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics—has gained recognition as a key educational approach worldwide, including in Spain. This interdisciplinary framework seeks to integrate these fields, aiming to foster their development and engagement, particularly among girls. Consequently, many schools have implemented STEAM initiatives in recent years. However, research highlights challenges in ensuring high-quality learning, as well as an imbalance among disciplines, primarily emphasizing technology over the others. Indeed, in some cases, simply using digital tools appears to be considered as a promise of improved learning. For this reason, various specialists in science and mathematics education advocate for STEAM initiatives that prioritize STEM competencies, as defined in the Spanish curriculum, focusing on mathematical and scientific-technological skills. The STEM competency includes developing scientific and mathematical models, conducting investigations, analyzing data, constructing arguments, and fostering critical thinking—key practices in science, mathematics, and engineering. Hence, students should be encouraged to generate hypotheses from their models, design and carry out investigations to evaluate them, analyze patterns in data to clarify phenomena and draw evidence-based conclusions. In this context, the current study examines the development of scientific skills through the integration of inquiry-based practices. 15 students of 4th course of primary education (9-10 years old) performed a series of 5 experiments (E1: add water to the soil and mix; E2: test soil consistency and texture; E3: add oxygenated water to the soil and observe; E4: measure soil temperature and E5: measure soil seepage) related to the fertile soil model in spring 2024. The written individual reports were examined. In the report, the students were required to formulate hypothesis, explain the procedure and describe the results for each of the experiments. No student formulated any hypothesis in any of the experiments performed. The majority made predictions (E1:6; E2:10; E3:2; E4:13; E5: 8), and only 2 students provided some partial explanation in E1. On several occasions, students formulated predictions that were not related to the expected results (E1:2; E3:7; E5:2). Regarding the results, in E1 all students except 1 provided descriptive results with no additional explanations; in E2 all students described observations that were not related to the expected results except 1 that did not include any results at all; in E3 all students except 1 provided descriptive results and 9 of them explained or interpreted them; in E4 all students provided quantitative results specifying the soil temperature with no more explanations and finally, no student presented qualitative or quantitative results in E5, although, curiously, all of them gave an interpretation indicating that the soil was partially permeable. However, no student formulated any conclusion related to the fertility of the soil at the end of any of the experiments. It is concluded that the main difficulty students face is in distinguishing hypotheses from predictions and in formulating conclusions after analyzing the results obtained in their experiments. Some strategies to address these difficulties are being worked on with the teachers and are expected to be implemented in the near future.

Keywords:

STEAM, primary education, inquiry.