STEM is hot. Perhaps one of the most talked about issues in education. What is the reason for the meteoritic rise of this concept at this point in time?
More than a catchy acronym—even if sometimes misunderstood to relate to the more contentious topic of stem cell research—for science, technology, engineering and math, “STEM” is primarily grounded in the current education discourse, and most importantly as a driver of critical skill development for our future workforce. Admittedly, the STEM debate is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. This fact does not diminish the importance of STEM education as a visionary field of considerable economic importance across the globe. It is the very coincidence of exploding global e-trade, social networking, digital security concerns, homeland (wherever you live) security, and international comparison of educational attainment data that has brought the need for critical competency development into such sharp focus. President Obama’s repeated referral to STEM skill development as essential for the future U.S. economy has helped promote the term into household education jargon in the media. So, STEM news is tweeted, blogged, pod, and web cast daily, commensurate with an epidemic growth of new STEM education programs and initiatives that are fueled by private and public financing. Wonderful, right?
Yes, indeed! The STEM movement has very strong merit, and new and effective programs, even if implemented randomly, will better prepare many students for employment and make a contribution to a stronger economy.
But, K-12 educators are justifiably weary of trends aimed at classroom transformation. Their plate is already full as a result of historically conservative policies and testing requirements, and little, if any, discretionary time and resources are available for new activities, regardless of how much sense they make. This is a serious dilemma.
Let us explore this further.
First, do we all think of the same thing when we use the acronym STEM? Most certainly not. Not even in the education sector, where the term originated is there a common understanding of what it means. To some, it is simply a set of subjects that relate well to each other, and therefore can be conveniently boxed together under a shared department or dean. Others consider the outcomes and see STEM education as a career avenue with separate lanes leading to professions that are linked by their use of knowledge and skills. There is also a more integrative perspective held by some, which approaches the understanding of STEM, more common in the workplace.
Employers, perhaps the most important stakeholders of education, have not had good reason to consider the meaning of STEM until they became engaged in the education debate. Driven into the debate by an important business challenge: “How can we strengthen our competitive power in a rapidly changing global economy?” workplace leaders have begun analyzing which new competencies they will need to grow their future business. What has emerged is a list of competencies—which has general validity across all employment sectors—including critical thinking, analytical behavior, problem solving, creativity and innovation, inter-personal, collaborative, and communication skills. This does not surprise anyone.
However, behind this introspective analysis lies a deeper and more important realization. Successful global leaders in IT, health, energy, automotive, aviation, etc.—sectors which are traditionally dependent on STEM talent—but also in sectors such as food, finance, retail, manufacturing, hospitality—which are not typically thought of as STEM talent dependent—have a few important things in common. They all use science, technology, engineering, and math to address daily business challenges to meet their objectives. And none of these competencies are independent of the other three. In fact, they are so strongly interwoven that employees rarely think about when their use of one transfers into another. Here, STEM defines the everyday practice of task resolution using digital and mechanical tools to access information and to design and apply solutions in general business operations, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing.
This is getting to the core of the STEM education debate. While also attaching a handle to a cluster of education subjects, the term has a very specific meaning of integrated knowledge and skills necessary for any successful practitioner of the competency wish list mentioned earlier. The corollary is that in order to impart these competencies, educators must identify with the deep interdependency of the subjects in the workplace and must be able to teach students to become proficient STEM practitioners.
Since a critical understanding of STEM resides in the workplace sector, among the users of prepared talent, it is vitally important that a vibrant and continuous exchange is established with the preparers of this talent. Like any functional marketplace, that which deals in talent must be based on a close communication between producers and customers.
Considering the deep seated differences in professional culture and business practice between the two talent market partners, only a skilled translator would be able to bridge between the two. Fortunately, such a translator function is now available in the shape of a set of thoughtfully designed K-12 science and engineering standards. Again, the timeliness of this as a part of the STEM “movement” is not entirely coincidental.
Let us consider the merits of this convergence of events, but first, a quick step back in time. Since “A Nation At Risk,” science education leaders have worked tirelessly to improve teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms everywhere. By translating the processes of R&D into teaching and learning through questioning and exploration, teachers trained in inquiry-based science education have replaced rote memorization and helped students develop a love for science. This revolutionary transformation was in large part the result of visionary organizations, including the Smithsonian Science Education Center and the National Academies in the U.S., collaborating with their counterparts in national around the world under the Inter Academies Panel, a global network of 119 science and engineering academies.
The first National Science Education Standards, released in the U.S. in 1996, stated what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Then in 2012 came the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). NGSS is remarkable because it combines achievement standards for the learning of both science and engineering. Performance expectations are defined for four grade level bands K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for science and engineering practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Importantly, the language used throughout the document, and the examples offered, are written with language clearly understood by both educators and other workplace professionals. Further, it strongly emphasizes the applied use of knowledge and skills for creative thinking, analysis, and problem solving. Hence, this document is perfectly suited as a translational tool in the collaboration of educators and employers to match future supply and demand for developed talent. The multidisciplinary team of contributors to NGSS, consisting of professionals from K-12, academia, business/industry, non-governmental organizations, and government is ready and available to chaperone its adoption and implementation.
While this scenario is specific to the U.S., other nations are also deeply concerned about the challenge of meeting future talent demands. OECD continues to fuel the global discussion with reports of trends in education and workforce development. Regardless of whether national and international discussions specifically address STEM, the core idea of its use as a multidisciplinary competency with significant value in all areas of the global economy is likely to live on. It is also safe to assume that every country aspiring to global economic competitiveness based on domestic talent development will come to depend on effective collaboration between their education and workplace sectors.
Anders Hedberg, Ph.D., is an experienced pharmaceutical industry executive, who now applies his science and corporate social responsibility expertise to international STEM education. By linking business and education together for better talent preparation, he helps strengthen the global workforce pipeline. He is a member of the STEMconnector Innovation Task Force.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February 2015 print edition.
a global affairs media network
So You Think You Know STEM?
February 11, 2015
STEM is hot. Perhaps one of the most talked about issues in education. What is the reason for the meteoritic rise of this concept at this point in time?
More than a catchy acronym—even if sometimes misunderstood to relate to the more contentious topic of stem cell research—for science, technology, engineering and math, “STEM” is primarily grounded in the current education discourse, and most importantly as a driver of critical skill development for our future workforce. Admittedly, the STEM debate is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon. This fact does not diminish the importance of STEM education as a visionary field of considerable economic importance across the globe. It is the very coincidence of exploding global e-trade, social networking, digital security concerns, homeland (wherever you live) security, and international comparison of educational attainment data that has brought the need for critical competency development into such sharp focus. President Obama’s repeated referral to STEM skill development as essential for the future U.S. economy has helped promote the term into household education jargon in the media. So, STEM news is tweeted, blogged, pod, and web cast daily, commensurate with an epidemic growth of new STEM education programs and initiatives that are fueled by private and public financing. Wonderful, right?
Yes, indeed! The STEM movement has very strong merit, and new and effective programs, even if implemented randomly, will better prepare many students for employment and make a contribution to a stronger economy.
But, K-12 educators are justifiably weary of trends aimed at classroom transformation. Their plate is already full as a result of historically conservative policies and testing requirements, and little, if any, discretionary time and resources are available for new activities, regardless of how much sense they make. This is a serious dilemma.
Let us explore this further.
First, do we all think of the same thing when we use the acronym STEM? Most certainly not. Not even in the education sector, where the term originated is there a common understanding of what it means. To some, it is simply a set of subjects that relate well to each other, and therefore can be conveniently boxed together under a shared department or dean. Others consider the outcomes and see STEM education as a career avenue with separate lanes leading to professions that are linked by their use of knowledge and skills. There is also a more integrative perspective held by some, which approaches the understanding of STEM, more common in the workplace.
Employers, perhaps the most important stakeholders of education, have not had good reason to consider the meaning of STEM until they became engaged in the education debate. Driven into the debate by an important business challenge: “How can we strengthen our competitive power in a rapidly changing global economy?” workplace leaders have begun analyzing which new competencies they will need to grow their future business. What has emerged is a list of competencies—which has general validity across all employment sectors—including critical thinking, analytical behavior, problem solving, creativity and innovation, inter-personal, collaborative, and communication skills. This does not surprise anyone.
However, behind this introspective analysis lies a deeper and more important realization. Successful global leaders in IT, health, energy, automotive, aviation, etc.—sectors which are traditionally dependent on STEM talent—but also in sectors such as food, finance, retail, manufacturing, hospitality—which are not typically thought of as STEM talent dependent—have a few important things in common. They all use science, technology, engineering, and math to address daily business challenges to meet their objectives. And none of these competencies are independent of the other three. In fact, they are so strongly interwoven that employees rarely think about when their use of one transfers into another. Here, STEM defines the everyday practice of task resolution using digital and mechanical tools to access information and to design and apply solutions in general business operations, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing.
This is getting to the core of the STEM education debate. While also attaching a handle to a cluster of education subjects, the term has a very specific meaning of integrated knowledge and skills necessary for any successful practitioner of the competency wish list mentioned earlier. The corollary is that in order to impart these competencies, educators must identify with the deep interdependency of the subjects in the workplace and must be able to teach students to become proficient STEM practitioners.
Since a critical understanding of STEM resides in the workplace sector, among the users of prepared talent, it is vitally important that a vibrant and continuous exchange is established with the preparers of this talent. Like any functional marketplace, that which deals in talent must be based on a close communication between producers and customers.
Considering the deep seated differences in professional culture and business practice between the two talent market partners, only a skilled translator would be able to bridge between the two. Fortunately, such a translator function is now available in the shape of a set of thoughtfully designed K-12 science and engineering standards. Again, the timeliness of this as a part of the STEM “movement” is not entirely coincidental.
Let us consider the merits of this convergence of events, but first, a quick step back in time. Since “A Nation At Risk,” science education leaders have worked tirelessly to improve teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms everywhere. By translating the processes of R&D into teaching and learning through questioning and exploration, teachers trained in inquiry-based science education have replaced rote memorization and helped students develop a love for science. This revolutionary transformation was in large part the result of visionary organizations, including the Smithsonian Science Education Center and the National Academies in the U.S., collaborating with their counterparts in national around the world under the Inter Academies Panel, a global network of 119 science and engineering academies.
The first National Science Education Standards, released in the U.S. in 1996, stated what students should know and be able to do at each grade level. Then in 2012 came the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). NGSS is remarkable because it combines achievement standards for the learning of both science and engineering. Performance expectations are defined for four grade level bands K-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 for science and engineering practices, core ideas, and crosscutting concepts. Importantly, the language used throughout the document, and the examples offered, are written with language clearly understood by both educators and other workplace professionals. Further, it strongly emphasizes the applied use of knowledge and skills for creative thinking, analysis, and problem solving. Hence, this document is perfectly suited as a translational tool in the collaboration of educators and employers to match future supply and demand for developed talent. The multidisciplinary team of contributors to NGSS, consisting of professionals from K-12, academia, business/industry, non-governmental organizations, and government is ready and available to chaperone its adoption and implementation.
While this scenario is specific to the U.S., other nations are also deeply concerned about the challenge of meeting future talent demands. OECD continues to fuel the global discussion with reports of trends in education and workforce development. Regardless of whether national and international discussions specifically address STEM, the core idea of its use as a multidisciplinary competency with significant value in all areas of the global economy is likely to live on. It is also safe to assume that every country aspiring to global economic competitiveness based on domestic talent development will come to depend on effective collaboration between their education and workplace sectors.
Anders Hedberg, Ph.D., is an experienced pharmaceutical industry executive, who now applies his science and corporate social responsibility expertise to international STEM education. By linking business and education together for better talent preparation, he helps strengthen the global workforce pipeline. He is a member of the STEMconnector Innovation Task Force.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February 2015 print edition.
