Recently, the academic community has been interested in the concept, scope, and core theory of STEM and STEAM, and these successive publications provide strong theoretical support (Babaci-Wilhite, 2018; Culén and Gasparini, 2018; Milner-Bolotin, 2018; Khine and Areepattamannil, 2019; Videla et al., 2021; Anabousy and Daher, 2022). We live in a designed world. STEAM by design presents a transdisciplinary approach to learning that challenges young minds with the task of making a better world. STEAM by design develops designing minds. Designing minds work across STEAM fields developing social, cultural, technological, environmental, and economic responses to existing and future conditions. STEAM by design positions designing as world pedagogy that connects students as citizen activists in the communities in which they live and learn.

Back to field of design and creativity, since the 20th century, the German model has always occupied a pivotal position in the global design field, forming the Bauhaus–Ulm System (Bredendieck, 1962; Phelan, 1981; Harrington, 1988; Lerner, 2005; Ascher, 2015). The German design education model has become the benchmark in many countries. In Taiwan, modern design education was also influenced by the Bauhaus. It is constantly adjusted according to the development of the times, and has gradually formed a design education model suitable for Taiwan (Lu and Lin, 2010; Tsao and Lin, 2011; Wu et al., 2012). Since the 21st century, although the energy of design has flourished with the advancement of science and technology, and the style and type of design have also been constantly updated with the evolution of artistic and cultural concepts and trends, it is controversial whether the essence of design is implemented in so many new designs. Looking to the future, Bauhaus’s three propositions for modern design education: (1) art and technology: a new unity; (2) human-centered design; and (3) interdisciplinarity, their goals and values remain unchanged. This coincides with the philosophy of STEAM (Haider, 1990; Marshall, 2014; Liao, 2016; MacDonald et al., 2019; Malele and Ramaboka, 2020; Anabousy and Daher, 2022).

The philosophy of modern design emphasizes the importance of benefiting people over products, and human-centered design is prevalent in the design of products. Therefore, whether it is “product,” “design” or “evaluation,” the focus is always on humans. We also follow the above principles when evaluating products or designs (Lin, 2007). Similarly, the above points apply to the development and application of the model of design education (Hanington, 2010). To achieve benign and sustainable development, it is important to continuously adjust the design education model to meet the needs of the times. As far as design education is concerned, the goal is to implement the essence of design, and to adjust how design responds to technological development and social change (Norman, 2010, 2011, 2018).

The design of the 21st century and its educational model also face challenges, which necessitate self-reform. The STEAM model is also seen as an effective way to intervene (Haider, 1990; Marshall, 2014; MacDonald et al., 2019; Malele and Ramaboka, 2020). The definition of industrial design by ICSID has also undergone many revisions, but its statement of the essence of design has stood the test of time (WDO, 2022a,b). Lin (2011) further refines those definitions and summarizes them into the following four points, which further demonstrates the rationality and necessity of applying the STEAM model to design education. They are briefly described below, and their relationship is shown in Figure 1.

Therefore, based on the above reasons, as a theoretical framework for this study, STEAM was used, along with questionnaires and analyses, to examine the current state of STEAM in design education as well as to understand the cognitive differences between individuals and which STEAM attributes they valued. Thus, the following hypothesis is further proposed by this study:

Although the core of design education is still influenced by the Bauhaus, it is worth paying attention to how design education should develop in the future, and the concept and mode of design education also need to be dynamically adjusted, so that the essence and spirit of design can be fully reflected (Norman, 2010, 2011, 2018; Kaur Majithia, 2017). Additionally, the revision and improvement of the design education model also need to find answers from the industry. If there is a disconnect between teaching and practical application of the knowledge and skills required, it will be difficult for design schools to train students to achieve the competencies required as designers (Cross, 2011; Chiang et al., 2021).

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is a broad term used to group together these academic disciplines. This term is typically used to address education policies or curriculum choices. The acronym STEM was suggested by Rita Colwell, Ph.D., a bacteriologist who was the director of NSF in the 1980s (Marshall, 2015). The framework of STE(A)M derived from STEM, adding the category of art to the original STEM, emphasizing that future students should develop their humanistic and artistic literacy (Humart = Human + Art) and interdisciplinary ability (Interdisciplinary). In short, it is to integrate art and humanity into “rationality and objectivity” (Lin et al., 2015), and use art, culture, and humanity to connect the rational STEM to form a strategy and thought (see Figure 2). Many designs have diverse styles, types and forms, and this replicable beauty brings a lot of inspiration to design innovation and is more likely to resonate with most people. In this study, “Arts” is critical to connecting the other four attributes in STE(A)M, and becomes the core of this system. The concept of art has a very broad meaning, and this study believes that it also has cultural implications (Leong and Clark, 2003; Moalosi et al., 2008).

The STEAM model has been applied to education and training, and there have been many mature achievements and theories. For example, the formulation and application of STEAM education policies allow STEAM to be quickly promoted in teaching in related fields, and in turn examine the rationality and appropriateness of policies (Boy, 2013; Allina, 2017; Khine and Areepattamannil, 2019; Liao, 2019; Martín-Páez et al., 2019). A large number of specific application examples, or critical thinking on the STEAM model, provide a solid foundation for selecting STEAM as the core theoretical framework in this study (Land, 2013; Henriksen, 2014, 2017; Rolling, 2016; Costantino, 2018; Colucci-Gray et al., 2019; Perignat and Katz-Buonincontro, 2019; Walshe et al., 2019; Li and Wong, 2020; Lin et al., 2021; Perales and Aróstegui, 2021).

Another reason for this study as a pilot study is to examine what are the cognitive differences between experts’ and the public’s perceptions of STEAM, and what is the relationship between the STEAM model and design education. How is the impact being made? STEAM, which is seen as a new driver, is also essential to ensure that it works as it is intended and can be corrected at any time based on audience feedback (Bequette and Bequette, 2012; Dahal, 2022).

In short, this study aims to understand the current status of the use of STEAM models in design education, further analyze the key points that need to be paid attention to when using STEAM models in design education by comparing the cognitive differences between subjects from different backgrounds, and provide a reference for the dynamic adjustment of STEAM models in design education in the future.

STEAM has been widely used in many fields, and the value and significance of this mindset have been proven many times. Since STEAM is a system and the focus will be different in different fields, it is necessary to objectively evaluate the relationship between the five attributes and determine their weight in response to different design areas.

For design education, there are also large differences between different design fields. For example, some need to strengthen the blessing of science and technology, while others pay attention to mathematical logic, and the intervention of “art” provides a new thinking mode, connecting the four attributes in STEM to form a strategy and thought, and enhance the connotation and cultural value of design through the intervention of humanities and art. Technology is the foundation of design thinking, which pays attention to “sensual technology”; human nature is the beginning of design thinking, which focuses on “human-centered design”. Finally, culture is the source of design thinking, which pursues “cultural creativity.” Therefore, designers must integrate the design thinking of “sensual technology” and “human-centered design” to create a humanized organization or living environment with friendly and cultural connotations.

This study believes that the future focus should be on how to better play the characteristics of the five attributes of STEAM, which not only meets the needs of designers in different design fields to cultivate, but also should realize that only by playing the overall thinking of STEAM can we truly achieve the goal of cultivating generalist designers. Only by achieving the above purposes can design better serve society. Additionally, the STEAM model and concept need to be realized through specific courses, and the curriculum of the design department needs to be adjusted and supplemented in time according to the STEAM model under the premise of complying with policies, regulations and the actual situation of the school. Simultaneously, researchers also must grasp the effectiveness of these courses in a timely manner through periodic return visits.

Since the number of subjects is small, and all the subjects are from Taiwan, so it is impossible to determine whether the findings and conclusions apply to other countries or regions. We hope that the above findings will inspire design educators and researchers, and will encourage more people to consider how the STEAM model can be used in design education more effectively.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

RL and YS: conceptualization and writing—review and editing. RL: methodology. YS and C-CN: writing—original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.