STEM:Twig or Branch?
I am currently involved with designing a commercial aimed at seventh and eighth graders showing the importance of taking advanced science, technology, (pre-)engineering, and math courses while in high school. The commercial is using real students in eleventh and twelfth grade, with a focus on non-traditional participants, who can apply science, math, and engineering concepts while engaged in technology. Local role models employed in business and industry will show the possibilities of success. I realize my grand plan requires a tremendous amount of trust and cooperation from students, role models, the local community college, teachers, and businesses, but I am a risk taker.
I received a big jerk on my reins last week when a co-worker commented that she was not sure that she actually believed in promoting STEM courses to high school students. I was surprised by the comment and have been forced to re-examine my own educational and philosophical position on the focus and theme of the commercial.
As an educator, counselor, and student of psychology, I have become a great friend of the normal curve. I also know and believe that not everyone learns in the same way, at the same rate, or during the same time frame. If I know this, and you know this, why is that we have allowed a student’s performance in a sterile, non-productive snap-shot testing situation become a more valuable marker of assessment than the overall assessment of the building blocks that combine to form skill sets?
This snap-shot testing idea is in direct opposition to the understanding that multiple educational components must be individually collected to build career pathway choices. A strong core allows additional layers, like STEM coursework, to be added for growth. Falling back to the concept shown by a glance at the normal curve indicates that the layers added to each student’s core will be of various depths. Understanding a portion or a part of a concept can be valuable when working as a member of a team.
Because of high-stakes testing, educators are being forced to think that average is not good enough. If you cannot score in an 80-100% range, then you are a failure. So basically, we are being told to view most of our students as failures. Great way to motivate!
This is where we come in. We need to encourage the teaching of STEM courses following the pattern established by career and tech ed teachers as they assess skill building through occupational grids. Breaking apart the concepts in pyramid fashion will allow many students to learn the basic concept, maybe some of the advanced concepts, and add a layer of growth to their core. Skill building through application of concepts has been shown to increase retention. Using the occupational grid concept will clearly display concepts in building block style. We cannot expect everyone to know everything because we are humans and we all have limitations.
My understanding of career pathways leads me to believe that STEM courses will lead to additional career opportunities and options. When we do not teach those students who are “average” or below, we are failing to develop the whole student and we are basically failing our own economic progress. We have been forced to change what we teach and how we teach it. Maybe we need to change the method of reporting progress.
We have lost our way with our attention to making grades and test scores more important than learning. We need to utilize the importance of STEM courses and teach the whole child in order to increase their chances of finding successful career options.
The March, 2008 issue of neatoday on page 13 refers to an international assessment of student achievement. The US ranked 25th in science and 21st in math. The article supports my premise and states that the top achievers in the US can hold their own with other top achievers across the world. Our ranking dips when considering the lower level achievers.
We have put our achievers who score less than 80% out on the most fragile twigs. Concept teaching, especially concept teaching of the STEM areas, can supply the nutrients needed for developing a sturdier branch on our economic tree.
