By Stephen Portz
2013-2014 Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow
Presented to the 43rd Space Congress, Cape Canaveral, Florida,
April 29, 2015
| “For over a century, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education have established and steadfastly defended their sovereign territory [and]
it will take a lot more than a four letter word to bring them together.” (Sanders,
2009) |
|
STEM’s
Identity Crisis
In the 1990s the National Science Foundation moved
to identify critical subject areas which most directly impacted the economic
development in our nation. Science,
math, engineering, and technology were recognized and combined to form the
acronym - SMET; unfortunately, SMET sounded too much like smut, so the NSF
wisely decided to find a better acronym, and STEM was born. So since inception it seems, STEM has
struggled with its identity. As a
result, the first and most pressing challenge of STEM Education is recognizing
what STEM is and what it is not.
STEM’s identity crisis is evidenced by its
many variants: There is STEM, STEMC –
because computer science and coding is really important for our technological
development; there is STEAM – add an ‘A’ for the arts because no great products
were ever created without artistic sensibilities, just ask Apple; STREAM – add
the ‘R’ for reading because no one can be successful without knowing how to
read. It would seem that everything in
the curriculum is important, but the problem is when everything is important,
essentially nothing is.
This identity problem is further evidenced by
the misunderstanding that so many have in thinking STEM is about emphasizing
certain subjects at the exclusion of others.
That was never the intent. The purpose
of STEM was to take advantage of the effectiveness that these critical subjects
can have when they are integrated in real world applications by modeling the
way they are used in industry.
Districts and states are really
struggling with “what STEM is” to the detriment of the movement. Well said one wise
person, “If the
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for
the battle?” If STEM is not understood, implementation will unavoidably
suffer. The reason for this
struggle is that clearly, districts have no idea what the technology and
engineering pieces are supposed to look like. Science they know, math they
know, but engineering and technology are elusive subjects for academically
minded people if they do not have an industrial background. The biggest difficulty with enacting STEM Education
programs is that many professional teachers don't know how engineering skills
are used in industry so they cannot relate them to their students or deploy
them properly as part of an effective STEM strategy.
For example, many believe that if
they give their students iPads to use in a science or math class they have
covered the technology piece of the STEM equation. Technologies are the
products of engineers. The work of scientists is to make discoveries in their
questioning of WHY. The work of engineers is HOW to take scientific discoveries
and design them into products (technologies) for economic and societal
benefits. Technology and engineering are not just additional subjects to be
added to the academic mix, they are integrating members of the strategy - they are in fact, the context. Technologies are the product of
engineering design activity. It goes without saying that if a STEM
strategy is not making the requirement that students design, iterate, and
create technologies as part of their program of study, they are simply not
engaging in STEM.
Poor leadership in education perpetuates
these misunderstandings and the status quo.
“Educational institutions unfortunately have
little incentive to produce more and better STEM graduates, especially
graduates with the kinds of skills needed by industry. It’s not a failure of
imagination or knowledge; it’s a failure of will on the part of institutions.” (Atkinson, Mayo, 2012). Without
direct ties to industry there is little incentive in education to change these
attitudes despite our President identifying the STEM initiative as a critical
National Security Issue – “if we do not
improve the quality and quantity of science, engineering and math students as
well as the general technological literacy of our workers, our country will
lose significant quality of life and world leadership standing.” (Moravec,
2010).
The STEM movement requires systemic change and a
fundamental upheaval in the way we view our purpose and our methods in
educating. “For over a century, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education have established and steadfastly defended their sovereign territory [and]
it will take a lot more than a four letter word to bring them together.” (Sanders,
2009)
 |
| Author at the Astronaut's Hall of Fame Museum with Kevin Simmons - an Alan Shepard Awardee |
The Essential Importance of
Integration
The Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS) speaks highly of the importance of content integration in STEM learning.
The NGSS refers to content that spills over into multiple subjects as
“crosscutting concepts.” The fact that a major portion of the standards address
the need to recognize crosscutting concepts is both affirming and condemning.
It is affirming in that it recognizes how powerful it is when our students make
connections with other concepts, applications, and disciplines. It is
condemning in that by raising the notion of crosscutting concepts to such a
level of importance in the standards, it is an admission that it previously was
not being done. NGSS gives further encouragement for the ideas of subject area integration:
“Students should not be presented with
instruction leading to one performance expectation in isolation, rather bundles
of performances provide greater coherence…also allow(s) students to see the
connected nature of science and the practices.” (NGSS, Volume 1,
2013)
And, “…advocates of a more connected approach
argue that teaching STEM subjects in a more integrated way, especially in the
context of real-world issues, can make these fields more relevant to students
and ultimately increase their motivation and achievement. Integration should be made explicit. Students do not spontaneously integrate
concepts across different representations and materials on their own. The
people who design integrated STEM experiences should provide intentional and
explicit support to help students build knowledge and skills within and across
disciplines; currently, such supports are often missing or implicit. In
addition, programs that prepare educators to deliver integrated STEM
instruction need to help these educators make the connections among the
disciplines explicit to their students.” (National Academies Press, 2014)
We often have the tendency in education to cater to
lower achieving students by finding methods which are especially effective to
these populations of students. A
compelling finding from teaching using an integrated model, is that not only
low performing students improve learning gains, it is being shown that all
students in fact benefit. According to the National Science Foundation, “…raising academic achievement levels for
all students is a top priority for education reform at all levels across the
United States. Interdisciplinary education can increase learning gains among
low achieving minority students while increasing engagement and problem solving
skills for all levels of students. Interdisciplinary education has the potential
to increase STEM literacy levels among all students.” (Mehalik, Doppelt
& Schunn, 2005).
Are Science
Teachers Qualified to Teach Engineering?
While the NGSS recognizes the
prominence that engineering must have in the curriculum to satisfy the
President’s charge, its solution is to have science teachers teach engineering
in addition to their science curriculum: “Science and
engineering are integrated into science education by raising engineering design
to the same level as scientific inquiry in science classroom instruction at all
levels and by emphasizing the core ideas of engineering design and technology
applications.” (NGSS, Volume 2, 2013).
As far as this model goes to
support STEM, the fact remains that science teachers are very poorly equipped
to teach engineering: “Few science
teachers have had even one engineering course. The faculty members who prepare
future teachers…have limited experience with engineering education. Thus the
current generation of teachers has not been prepared to incorporate engineering
into science teaching”… and, “Even if
science teachers did have appropriate preparation in engineering education…the
science curriculum is already filled. There is insufficient time to do justice
to current science topics, much less add a new layer of new requirements.” (Bull
and Slykhuis, 2013).
Another concern with the “have
science teachers teach engineering” model is the imperative that whoever
conducts engineering instruction have a background in the requirements of industry
– how is engineering used in the workplace? “Studies are
converging on a view of engineering education that not only requires student to
develop a grasp of traditional engineering fundamentals, such as mechanics,
dynamics, mathematics, and technology, but also to develop the skills
associated with learning to imbed this knowledge in real-world situations.”(NGSS,
Volume 2, 2013, p. 16).
Since a traditional science
educator would have gone through the typical teacher preparation program in
college, it is unlikely that many have had any industrial work related
experience. How is a science teacher in this situation going to be able
to effectively model and explain the work of an engineer when they do not
understand it and have never done it themselves?
Overcoming
Barriers with Essential Industry Ties
Engineers understand the worlds of math
and science because they had to go through those worlds to get to
engineering. The same cannot be said of
scientists and mathematicians – there is no engineering requirement in their
programs of study. This speaks to the
essential need of our academic teachers having experience and understanding in
the means and methods of industry. “They need to have more access to
experiences within real organizations where technology is being developed and
used. Clearly, industry appears willing to be part of this process, if
permitted. A large number of U.S. technology companies from a variety of
industry sectors have active programs to help improve STEM education…but if
STEM education is to be… effective, partnerships with industry need to be more
systemic and deeper [and we need to] shift accountability measures for high
schools from a content-based to a skills-based paradigm.” (Atkinson, Mayo, 2012).
Another barrier which prevents
effective STEM implementation in the US is not a problem with our global rival
China: “Chinese officials recognize that STEM is more important than other
subjects because the overall societal contribution from a STEM graduate exceeds
that of a social sciences or humanities major. Such a view is rejected in elite
policy circles in Washington (which are populated largely by individuals with
law degrees).” (Atkinson, Mayo, 2012).
Understanding and overcoming this bias is essential for us to make
headway on the STEM front.
As previously mentioned, a significant
barrier to the integration of engineering and technology in math and science
classes can be with the math and science instructors themselves - if they
cannot communicate to their students how the skills they are teaching are
utilized in the world of work. This is where
industries can help with teacher externing, inservices, and summer industrial
fellowships. A vocational business
exchange program (VIBE) matches teachers with industry and grants a number of
hours paid placement with a local industry.
In another example, STEM teachers are provided with industrial work
experiences during their summer break.
This model provides a win, win, win, solution as businesses and industry
does its part to enhance education and provide for a strong pipeline of future
talent; Teachers benefit by better understanding how academic skills are used
in the workplace and they realize enhanced credibility with their students as
they relate the experience to classroom practice; but the real beneficiary are
the students who can then make better connections between the classrooms skills
and future jobs.
In
Conclusion
It is very likely that the STEM crisis
in our educational system did not happen despite our best efforts at educating
students, but was more likely caused by the way we educate students.
Our silo thinking philosophy of
academic instruction, which leaves many students behind, is not founded in research
in how students learn best or in the requirement of real-world application. Continuing
to use an academic model with discrete educational “silos”as the solution to a
problem that was most likely caused by this mindset is flawed. Clearly, if the challenge
to effectively teach engineering education along with an integrated math and
science content is beyond the scope of what teachers are qualified to perform, what
should be done?
The T and E of STEM are the applied portions. Just as in college, many science courses
cannot be adequately covered without the lab course which is taken concurrently
with the academic course; so to, for STEM to work it must include opportunities
for hands on engineering design work creating technologies. One way to do this would be require a T and E
lab course concurrent with math and science offerings. By having a dedicated engineering course of
study along with their academic courses, students learn to ply their academic
and technological skills in the context of how they will be used in the world
of work.
Similarly, career academies with an
engineering or technology focus gather student cohorts and establish a school
within a school small learning community.
History has shown that if you desire to build and accelerate growth and
capacity in an area, one of the best ways to do it is to gather it as a community. STEM career academies accomplish this by
attracting students with similar career interests and structuring their
academic program around the interest.
STEM academy students share common academic teachers along with an
engineering or technology teacher. This
teaching team coordinates curriculum and instruction to align with the students
shared career interests to focus the instruction where it will be of the most
usefulness and interest to the academy students. Some examples of how STEM career academy
teams can do this are with thematic units that are cross curricular. Students studying Greek and Roman
civilizations in history class can find intersections with the literature of
those times in language arts class as well as the civil engineering, warfare,
and weapons technologies in their CTE class.
There are very successful models across
the nation that integrate academic instruction with an engineering CTE program
to create effective STEM instruction.
Such programs replicate engineering design activity through the use of
project based learning (PBL) which naturally integrate STEM subjects: “…the STEM PBL challenges provide students
with authentic real-world problems captured and re-enacted in a multi-media
format designed to emulate the real-world context in which the problems were
encountered and solved.” (Massa, DeLaura, Dischino, Donnelly, Hanes, 2012).
Anytime a teacher makes a requirement
for students to learn, collaborate, or produce a project using the appropriate
technology, they leverage the learning gains by not only providing learning
content in a compelling way, but in the context of how it is used in the world.
As we do this, we provide our students
with the skill set for tomorrow’s workplace.
To be sure, the secret of an effective
STEM program is understanding STEM Education is really a euphemism for
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. Teaching our
students necessary workplace skills, integrated, applied, and contextual, just
as they are used in the real world, is the greatest possible outcome of the
STEM Movement.
Atkinson, R and Mayo, M. (2012).
“Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education” ITIF – Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Bull, G. and Slykhuis, D. (2013).
NTLS Design Challenge: Science & Engineering Strand.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., &
Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Massa, N., DeLaura, J., A.,
Dischino, M., Donnelly, J. F., Hanes, F., D. (2012). Problem Based Learning in
a Pre-Service Technology and Engineering Course. American Society of Engineering
Education.
Moravec (2010) “Obama: Education
is a National Security Issue.” Educational
Futures. Jan 7, 2010.
Next
Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. 2013. Volume 1: The Standards.
Achieve Press Inc., Washington DC.
Next
Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. 2013. Volume 2: Appendixes.
Achieve Press Inc., Washington DC.
Sanders, M. (2009). “STEM, STEM
Education, STEMmania.” The Technology
Teacher Dec/Jan 2009.
“STEM
INTEGRATION IN K-12 EDUCATION STATUS, PROSPECTS, AND AN AGENDA FOR RESEARCH” Report Brief 2014 National Research
Council, National Academies Press. Washington DC.
