STEM?

by Rick Pomeroy

What is STEM? Besides the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), STEM is the hot topic in science education circles. Representing an ethereal notion of teaching that integrates Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM, as the next big idea, has taken on a life of its own. As science educators and science professionals, we live in an increasingly STEM-centric world. Political leaders and pundits alike tout STEM as the wave of the future, the elixir to return California to an age of prosperity, and the solution to what ails public education. STEM will engage and motivate students, increase the number of people entering post-secondary education with majors in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, and create a new reality in schools. Unfortunately, defining STEM education, identifying what STEM will look like in schools, and distinguishing it from current instructional practices are extremely difficult tasks.

Those of you who have been following the development of the new standards will recognize the similarity between the goals and dreams of STEM and the desired outcomes described in the Framework for K-12 Science Education, the document developed by the National Research Council and used to guide the development of the NGSS. Similar in concept, the Framework and ultimately, the NGSS provide a detailed view of what the educated member of society should know and be able to do, whereas the current conversations about STEM focus more on defining what a STEM classroom will look like, the kinds of things STEM-enabled students will be able to do, and the format of STEM instructional practices. Are these two mutually exclusive or are they two different ways of describing the same desired outcome?

Over the past three months, I have attended no less than four STEM summits, conferences, and meetings designed to fuel the flames of excitement about STEM. At these meetings, we have been shown videos of students designing and programming robots, we have seen how technology engages students, and we have heard that digital technology in the classroom will promote collaboration. There have even been whole meetings on how to prepare teachers to “teach STEM.” Each conference has included its share of descriptions about what is wrong with the current system, statistics about where California ranks nationally and internationally on assessments and per pupil spending, and attempts to develop definitions, lists of resources, and policy changes that need to be made to enact a STEM enabled curriculum. Each meeting has introduced industry partners who have a tool or technology that is “perfect” for enabling STEM education. We have used collaborative decision making software, blogged our conversations, created collaborative documents, and seen tablets and notebook computers that promise to be the tool of the future. Each of these has been a powerful demonstration of what can be. The videos of students in action have been inspirational and the collaborative research projects give me ideas for great things to do with my students.

Through all of these experiences, a definition of STEM that teachers can use as they plan future learning experiences for their students has been elusive. This may be changing. While attending the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s STEM Task Force meeting, a wide range of science education stakeholders were asked to define STEM education. Gleaned from the descriptors of those definitions, the “Wordle” below shows the relative frequency of terms associated with STEM education. The similarity of descriptors between the STEM Wordle and the Science and Engineering Practices included in the Framework cannot be overlooked. Are we talking about the same things? If NGSS is adopted in California, can we also say that we are moving towards a STEM-enabled curriculum? Furthermore, will students who study science, math, engineering, and technology as defined by the Common Core Standards, and the NGSS be competitive in the post-secondary environments of college and careers? At this time, it is difficult to answer this question.

Click image to enlarge:

Subsequent meetings have given more meaning to this random collection of words with key elements emerging. For many, STEM education is grounded in a real world context. It prepares future citizens and decision makers with the skills necessary to be successful in the 21st century. It is focused both on preparing more people to enter STEM fields through post-secondary colleges and universities, as well as equipping those who forgo higher education with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute to society. From these components, I believe a final definition of STEM will emerge. From there, we can begin to address the resources, training, and policies that will be necessary to truly say that STEM has arrived in California classrooms. Equipped with the structure and content of the Framework and the NGSS, and a commitment to grounding science instruction in a real world context, we have a much better chance of enacting a new vision for STEM education. We should not approach this as an all or nothing reform of every classroom. The implementation will look different in different contexts. Some schools will become STEM centers, others will integrate the tools and strategies developed as STEM emerges, and still others will tweak what they have for something that they want. In the end, our goal should be an education for our students that prepares them for the future, not more knowledge about the status quo. We should be preparing students now with the knowledge, skills and tools to develop solutions for problems that don’t yet exist (paraphrased from Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education, 2009).

Rick Pomeroy is science education lecturer/supervisor in the School of Education, University of California, Davis and is CSTA’s president.

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by Rick Pomeroy

Rick Pomeroy is science education lecturer/supervisor in the School of Education, University of California, Davis and is CSTA’s president.