Legimus intellegam ea est, tamquam appellantur nec ei. Dicant perfecto deserunt quo id, ea etiam impetus pri. Mel ne vidit laboramus definiebas, quo esse aeterno
STEM Education grows from the Root – edu|FOCUS
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-513,single-format-standard,edgt-core-1.1.1,kolumn-ver-1.3.1,,edgtf-smooth-page-transitions,ajax,edgtf-theme-skin-dark,edgtf-blog-installed,edgtf-header-standard,edgtf-fixed-on-scroll,edgtf-default-mobile-header,edgtf-sticky-up-mobile-header,edgtf-animate-drop-down,edgtf-search-covers-header,edgtf-side-menu-slide-from-right,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2,vc_responsive

STEM Education grows from the Root

When the world talks about STEM education for the most part they talk around elementary teachers rather than to us.  Not as an insult or slur upon our value, simply as a mater or course. Most “real” science does not start until middle school or even high school; and for schools in poverty perhaps not even then. However, with the need to develop more students ready to step into STEM careers, and the corresponding efforts to grow educational foundations in those area elementary science will play a pivotal role.

A 2012 report on student motivation toward STEM careers, out of The University of Nevada (How to Motivate US Students to Pursue STEM Careers by Md. Mokter Hossain, Michael G. Robinson) seems to disagree. Their paper suggested “Students need to be inspired in STEM subjects beginning in the middle school grades with course work extracurricular activities focusing on honing problem solving skills in the high school grades.” While I have no issue with the research of the Nevada team I believe their conclusion is short-sighted on two fundamental points. Students are not inspired by course work and extracurricular programs. They do those things because they have already been inspired.  Perhaps more importantly, waiting to provide inspiration until middle and high school is a large part of the problem.

Where the extracurricular programs studied by the Nevada team found success were in projects where students could create and own their projects and therefore their success. These programs, like Science Olympiad and First Robotics are building and inspiring students to continue to pursue lofty and rigorous goals. However these activities are limited to those teens that already see appeal in such groups. In effect, they enhanced the growth rate of the STEM but not the root.

A child’s opinion and attitude toward both math and science is formed long before they enter middle school.  Even the most conservative estimates suggest that student perceptions of their own abilities are established by seven or eight years old. While there is a clear distance between perceived ability and inspiration, there is also a tangible link connecting the two. Students, who do not feel they can be successful in math or science are less likely to be inspired to do math and science.

Planning to ignite a flame in the belly of young science students in middle school is akin to trying to gather firewood on a rainy day.  The task is restricted to those that have been sheltered from the storm unless someone was smart enough to plan well ahead.  If parents and teachers do not create a receptive and fertile field for STEM inspiration in elementary school the quality and quantity of science programs in middle school and beyond will only serve the a same small percentage of the population.

When we are successful we feel empowered to continue; the rush of dopamine through our brains masks the memory of painful struggles and past loss to convince us that we our masters of our own destiny. Students that are successful in math and science work harder than those that have not shared that success because they have tasted victory. What doubts they carry are over shadowed by the more powerful memories of success. Meaningful success is a tricky thing in the earliest of grades. Gold stars given for participation are shallow victories that mean little and inspire less in a five year old.

Business schools have extensively studies success over the years and while there definitions are different from those in education, many of the findings are transferrable. In a Harvard Business Review study from 2011, Teresa Amabile and Steven J. Kramer found two factors that affected the importance, or value of a success:

  • It’s relation to a larger goal
  • Genuine praise from peers.

Our goal should be to inspire students to study math and engineering. We should endeavor to reach beyond the pool of individuals who identify with Sheldon Cooper or Mr. Spock to the masses that are entertained and inspired by them. To achieve that ambition we need to make certain the science we offer to elementary students offers the same kinds of success that inspire their middle and high school peers.

I think a rigorous, project based, curriculum set up with tiers of increasing complexity and decreasing adult support is the right formula for success and inspiration. A formula that has been used by extracurricular programs from Tee-ball to the Math Olympiad. Come to think of it, every story of inspiration, real or imagined used those same formulaic elements: there is struggle (rigor), there is a quest (project base), and there is a dynamic component of instruction until the student proves his or her mastery.

Real science may not start until middle school, but preparing students for real science must begin in the primary grades.

So what do you think? Share your thoughts.

Brian Cleary
No Comments

Post a Comment

Happy Teacher Appreciation Week! Previous Post
Full Speed Next Post

Follow us on Instagram