Tag: STEM

Be more critical of STEM initatives

I have long disagreed with the unique focus on STEM, the actual STEM needs that should be addressed, and the identification of the issues limiting getting those with potential into STEM careers.

This NYTimes article by Queens College professor Andrew Hacker arguing that the expectation for advanced math courses in high school is misguided encouraged me to combine and restate some of the arguments I have already made. Trends tend to feed on themselves, but education is close to a closed system so what is offered in one area is subtracted from another. It is important to be careful when jumping on a bandwagon.

When I consider what I feel are the most significant problems facing humanity, I am not convinced that many or perhaps even most are issues that will be solved by math, physics, chemistry, biology or coding. The inequities that exist in society, the corruption in the finance sector and our ineffective political system are not STEM problems and require far greater attention. Challenging future generations with the critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity necessary to deal with these core issues is being neglected.

There is no doubt that the science and math problems of our time need individuals of great talent and dedication. Addressing these issues whether as a matter of national competitiveness or human need requires a different approach than “more STEM for all”. A broad focus on STEM is inefficient and does not focus educational opportunities on the individuals best suited to these careers.

I agree with Hacker, the number of students taking advanced math is unnecessary. A greater focus on statistics and research methods (quantitative reasoning) would have far more general value. The general public needs to have the mental tools necessary to interpret the data that we all encounter daily. These quantitative skills are ignored in the main line STEM courses.

Perhaps we should be asking why talented students ignore STEM careers. Why are women so underrepresented in computer science? Why do so many talented college students pursue an MBA rather than a science major? These are the real problems and these issues have more to do with values and social acceptance than the number of courses available. But again, recognizing root causes do not follow from a STEM perspective.

Loading

Balancing STEM

fetcrobota

fetcrobotsbSTEM, STEM, STEM, robots, robots, robots.

I was walking through the FETC exhibit hall looking at what the vendors had to offer and I had a strange thought. I wondered if many of the educators taking in the same sights felt left out. So much of the focus was on coding, robots, and science. What about reading and writing, the humanities, and the social sciences. Perhaps those who might recognize the narrow focus were not in attendance.

Yes, I understand some have noticed that STEAM is also a word and try to use this as a logic to include the arts. Kind of a strange approach, but if that is all you have you give it a try. It is clear where the companies believe the money is at this point. The message the vendors have embraced becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that appeals to parents and perhaps more importantly, politicians. Perhaps educators should be satisfied that politicians see any reason to invest in education. Here we go with another trickle down model.

Yes, I understand some have noticed that STEAM is also a word and try to use this as a logic to include the arts. Kind of a strange and weak argument, but if that is all you have you give it a try. It is clear where the companies believe the money is. The message they bring becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that somehow has appealed to parents and perhaps more importantly, politicians. Perhaps educators should be satisfied that politicians see any reason to invest in education. Here we go with another trickle down model.

I wonder just what problem the emphasis on STEM is supposed to solve. Some see this as an economic issue with science and technology allowing the nation to gain some kind of economic advantage and providing the solutions to some significant problems. I agree, but I just do not see the universal emphasis on STEM for all students providing an efficient benefit. Realistically, most students will not move into STEM careers. If advancing science or technology is the goal, STEM for all is likely less important than offering options for more capable and interested students.

Another argument suggests that technology is part of so many areas of life we need more programs and all need to better understand how technology works. When it comes to the suggestion that coding providing insight into technology-enabled challenges I believe this to be a weak argument. For example, computer literacy is a very different thing from programming. Those promoting computer science make this argument all of the time. It should be recognized that the argument works both ways. Programming is a vocational skill. Many problems associated with technology (e.g., privacy) or even areas of application are really more issues of computer literacy than programming experience.

K12 education is, in reality, a zero sum game.  Increasing a focus on STEM means subtracting time and resources from other subjects. Many of our most serious problems are economic, behavioral, and/or political in nature. The social sciences and humanities folks presently lack strong advocates and can offer fewer sparkly toys to impress parents and politicians. Too bad!

Loading

STEM, STEAM and Beyond

The origins for this post came from my annoyance with the STEAM argument. I can understand the concern of those who are interested in art and music and that these areas are underfunded and even dropped from the curriculum. However, it sometimes seems that we focus more on what makes a legal acronym than what skills are most useful in the long run. How do arguments for the importance of courses that emphasize the understanding of human behavior (psychology, sociology, economics, history) enter the conversation when the letters representing these areas do not seem to extend STEM – e.g., SSSTEM or STEAMSS do not seem to work.

I, like anyone, examine issues through the lens of personal experience. I was originally educated as a “STEM type” and make (now made) my living as an academic psychologist. It is informative to consider how most assume the two areas ended up connected. When I discuss my background most jump to the conclusion that my work must have emphasized brain function. It seems assumed that the science, if there is any, in psychology must involve the study of the brain. This was not the connection. I became a psychologist because I was interested in science education. The undergraduate degree in biology would have taught me little about the brain and as I now understand the curriculum of both programs there is a greater consideration of brain function in psychology. Anyway, this was not my interest. I was interested in the relationship between learning activities and learning and the analysis of this connection was what I was found in the study of human cognition.

It is interesting to consider the likely relationship between vocational activities and academic preparation. The notion that STEM skills are necessary in the 21st century certainly makes some sense, but I think shows flaws when pressed. For examples, consider the value placed on the vague concepts of problem solving and critical thinking. Where in the STEM areas are such skills acquired? I would argue that Calculus offers far less value than would a course in Statistics. I would also argue that the research methodologies emphasized (in combination with statistics) in psychology and sociology offer far more for understanding real world problems that the research methods of biology or chemistry. The methods of science applied in the chemistry laboratory assumes simple relationships. One of the core problems in understanding human issues is the reliance on anecdotal examples of behavior without consideration of sampling bias and other methodological flaws not considered in “STEM” research.

We seem to be drifting toward a technical school model of education, but seem to understand that skills change quickly a traditional vocational education will not have long term value. What we resort to is a focus on math and science because these areas seem the basis for productivity advantages. What seems missing is an analysis of the diversity of skills that go into keeping the entire enterprise going. Few will make contributions based in math and science. Other areas end up being more universally important.

Loading