Get the RSS feed | Jim Vanides Archives

Re-thinking "STEM" Education
by Jim Vanides


Tomorrow I will be attending a summit organized by the California STEM Innovation Network. It has me thinking about what "STEM" really means, and how it falls short in preparing students for their future. Here's why...
 
Classic "STEM" education refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It's a great acronym that captures some of the core "technical literacies" that all students should graduate with - even if they don't become scientists, technologists, engineers, or mathematicians. I think we all agree that today's society, and tomorrow's even more so, is driven (and we hope improved) by technology.
 
But (in today's vernacular) STEM by itself is so 20th century. Acronyms are great, but silos are not - and how we talk about education reform will influence where we go. The 21st century, and arguably the last several decades, is an interdisciplinary world. Big challenges face society that only collaborative, interdisciplinary thinkers can address. Climate change, human disease, education for all - these are all very complex social, political, and technical challenges.
 
So I propose three improvements to how we talk about "STEM" education:
 
First, let's call it "STEM+" (OK - I know it's not all that creative, so feel free to post a comment with your own suggested acronym!). In my thinking, the "+" encompasses a host of skills and experiences that students need:
  • Interdisciplinary thinking
  • Global collaboration and communication
  • Ingenuity and creativity
  • (add your own favorite "21st century skill" here)
Second, let's shift from talking about STEM+ "education" to STEM+ "learning experiences". We all know that declarative and procedural knowledge is important, but our students need that and so much more. By focusing on STEM+ learning experiences, new transformations come in view:
  • Moving from simply delivering content and memorizing science facts, math proofs, etc. to engaging students in applying scientific thinking, and mathematical logic and modeling.
  • Going beyond having students repeat science experiments as though they are recipes, to engaging students in true inquiry.
  • Going past problem sets that demand The Right Answer to learning experiences that equip students to tackle the unknown and see that often there are many good answers - and that many times, you don't even know what the question is (at first).
  • Moving from group projects where "the group" is a limited set of local, face-to-face friends, to experiences that involve global collaboration.
  • Answering the question, "Why do I need to learn this?" with powerful, personally meaningful projects that build a clear and exciting connection between science, math, and engineering literacies, and opportunities for making the world a better place. Students should know that they're not in this math class just so they can take the next one. 
To that end, my third and final suggestion (for today) is related to assessment. I am now of the opinion that if you can Google the answer, then it shouldn't be on the test. Rather, the ultimate exit exam could be a significant, open-ended real-world challenge which requires a thoughtful recommended course of action. I imagine this test as an open-book, open-internet, phone-a-friend, poll-your-personal-learning-network, work-in-groups, ask-your-mentor, type of test. (Students: For those of you who can navigate this type of challenge, we have a career waiting for you...).
 
So let's move beyond talking about "STEM Education" and begin to consciously, and urgently, focus on "STEM+ Learning Experiences" for our students. My hat's off to those of you who already are...

 

Jim Vanides is currently a Program Manager in Philanthropy for Hewlett-Packard, responsible for worldwide higher education grant initiatives (www.hp.com/go/hied-blog). He also teaches an online course offered through Montana State University for elementary teachers on the Science of Sound (www.scienceteacher.org). He holds a BS in Engineering and a MA in Education, both from Stanford University.
  • Anonymous on Mon, 05/24/2010 - 09:54

    I wholeheartedly agree with your ideas and would like to see them implemented. Between working with NASA Space Grants and discussing STEM with non-STEM adults, so much needs to change to launch us into the 21st century's 2nd decade.
    Insanity is doing the same thing day after day and expecting different results. If we want to be inventive, innovative and inspiring, we've got to get outside of the box.

    • Post new comment