Credit: Google

I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this,

which this margin is too narrow to contain.

Pierre de Fermat

Successful STEM Education: A Workshop Summary. (August 17, 2011)

The US National Academy of Sciences has released an "Advance Copy" of the report of the WORKSHOP ON SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION IN K-12 SCHOOLS which ran from May 10 to 12, 2011 in Washington DC.

The 100-pqge PDF file is available for free download from The National Academies Press.

What students learn about the science disciplines, technology, engineering, and mathematics during their K-12 schooling shapes their intellectual development, opportunities for future study and work, and choices of career, as well as their capacity to make informed decisions about political and civic issues and about their own lives. Most people share the vision that a highly capable STEM workforce and a population that understands and supports the scientific enterprise are key to the future place of the United States in global economics and politics and to the well-being of the nation. Indeed, the solutions to some of the most daunting problems facing the nation will require not only the expertise of top STEM professionals but also the wisdom and understanding of its citizens.

Although much is known about why schools may not succeed, it is far less clear what makes STEM education effective. Successful STEM Education: A Workshop Summary discusses the importance of STEM education. The report describes the primary types of K-12 schools and programs that can support successful education in the STEM disciplines and examines data and research that demonstrate the effectiveness of these school types. It also summarizes research that helps to identify both the elements that make such programs effective and what is needed to implement these elements.

The subjects dealt with by the workshop participants are list below:

Those who had hoped for the delivery of a panacea for successful STEM education in K-12 schools by the workshop would have gone away disappointed.

With regard to the broad question of what makes STEM education effective, Adam Gamoran, [from the Department of Sociology and Wisconsin Center for Research Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison and chair of the workshop] observed that definitive answers are simply not on the horizon in the short term. There is promising research in progress that can provide some help to policy makers and school leaders, and other studies will eventually yield findings about the efficacy of different school models and the different approaches taken under each of the different models. Yet neither the research findings that are available now nor even the findings that will be available when the research now under way is complete will support general conclusions about the efficacy of different school models. There will still be gaps in the knowledge base.

One possible reason for that is the significant diversity in STEM education, even within each of the basic school types. Effective schools appear to share fundamental goals—such as seeking ways to “transcend the tedium” that is all too often a part of STEM education—but there are many differences among them. It does seem clear, he suggested, that the context in which schools are operating matters. In a practical sense, that context determines the resources that are available to support the school, such as universities, research organizations, or businesses, that can provide direct support and experience for STEM students. And the context influences the policies that shape the school, such as district rules that do or do not allow school leaders and teachers the flexibility they believe they need to be effective.

Teachers matter greatly to schools’ outcomes, Gamoran added, particularly their content knowledge. Other discussions highlighted the vital importance of curriculum—particularly curricular focus—as well as a variety of ways of thinking about curriculum and instruction. He mentioned two views: some argue for tight coherence and consistency of the curriculum, while others emphasize the importance of monitoring students’ learning as they develop understanding in a particular domain.

The workshop also revealed several areas where more work is needed, Gamoran observed. Much of the discussion of school types focused on high schools, for example, although grades K-8 are also very important. There was more attention to mathematics and science than to engineering and technology education. These are imbalances that reflect the literature, and they may also reflect the emphasis of current accountability policies. The T in STEM has always been easy to overlook, one participant observed, because it is difficult to define. Is it educational technology? Is it technology as a result of engineering? Technology has not been well incorporated into science standards, and although there are separate standards for it, its place has not been clearly established.

Each of these points suggests fruitful areas for further research and analysis, but committee members ended the workshop with an appreciation for the many creative schools, educators, and others who are already hard at work preparing the next generation of STEM students and workers.