The state of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in the United States has seen some unflattering appraisals in recent years, and deservedly so. In early February, the House of Representatives heard testimony on undergraduate and graduate education. The message from the panel, which included experts from academia, STEM-based industries, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), was clear: the problems in STEM education are well-known, and it‘s time to take action.

Both the hearing’s charter and its chair, Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), pointed out the obvious problem in higher education: students start out interested, but the STEM programs are driving them away. As the National Academies described in its 2007 report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, successful STEM education is not just an academic pursuit—it’s a necessity for competing in the knowledge-based economy that the United States had a key role in creating.

The potential for action comes thanks to the fact that the America COMPETES Act of 2007 is up for reauthorization. Its initial focus was on STEM education at the K-12 levels, but efforts at the undergraduate and graduate levels are needed to retain students to fill the jobs left vacant as baby boomers retire.

Undergraduates

Noah Finkelstein of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a physicist and STEM education researcher, handled undergraduate education. He outlined UC’s efforts to reform undergraduate physics education, undertaken with the imperative to "move away from the teacher-centered and passive-student pedagogy to a student-centered, inquiry oriented, discipline-based model of pedagogy that is research-based and research-validated."

Research into physics education yielded their innovative Tutorials in Introductory Physics, a group-based method where students work through a physics concept without the aid of lectures—hands-on group work lets them teach each other face-to-face. The text for this was authored by the University of Washington physics department, where I used it, and I will vouch for its effectiveness. Compared to the rest of my science classes, I performed better in physics, and have retained much more information from them to this day.

Finkelstein also pointed out that we can’t expect these sorts of measurable improvements without the appropriate approach. Cramming a single, nation-wide program down the throats of individual departments won’t work; education is a highly personal affair, and a generic approach won’t work everywhere. The NSF, however, may be able to drive programs to adopt reforms with the most powerful motivating forces known to academia: prestigious titles and money.

By breaking the endless cycle of money-for-journal-papers, the NSF could infuse money and prestige into the study of science education, making teaching worth a professor’s time, rather than a roadblock to their pursuit of research dollars. This would also drive the creation of programs that encourage science teaching at the undergraduate level, where the vast majority of our K-12 educators are groomed. Chiding the government for its boom-bust model of science spending, Finkelstein called for sustained funding that would spark long-term change in undergraduate STEM education, with reform occurring from the inside out.

I do not believe that we can continue in this way if we want to truly advance the STEM knowledge and skills of the nation broadly.

A kinder, gentler post-doc

Graduate studies were discussed by Karen Klomparens, the Dean of the Graduate School of Michigan State, and Robert Mathieu, chair of the Department of Astronomy and a STEM education researcher at University of Wisconsin. Mathieu opened by stating that learning is occurring in spite of our graduate system, not because of it:

There is virtually no “teacher preparation” model in higher education. Those who

can do research well receive PhDs, and then teach. To the credit of deeply committed higher education faculty and students everywhere, much learning has occurred. But I do not believe that we can continue in this way if we want to truly advance the STEM knowledge and skills of the nation broadly.

Mathieu pointed out that graduate programs are a critical lever of change because 4000 colleges and universities will draw their STEM faculty from a small handful of graduate programs. But graduate programs have a flawed incentive system: there is no credit given for teaching skills, nor is there any training provided for them. Graduate education in a STEM discipline is wildly skewed towards a career in academic research, and we do not prepare anyone for industry or to teach.

Komparens discussed the Center for Academic and Future Faculty Excellence (CAFFE), an NSF initiative at Michigan State, which aims to address the shortcomings in graduate students' “soft skills.” In CAFFE, grad students study the art of teaching in an academically rigorous way, helping them drive change in other departments once they become faculty. The hallmarks of good scientific research apply to the research of science education: a high level of rigor plus openness and vetting from the research community.

Mathieu and Komparens complimented each other well, and their message was extremely clear: we have a system and a culture of researchers and not educators, and a culture shift is needed or we risk driving off potential students. Mathieu cited data showing that 90 percent of students that leave STEM disciplines cited bad teaching as a primary reason. 73 percent of those who stayed also complained about the poor teaching.

The programs at Michigan State and Wisconsin have produced measurable improvements, but they will remain exceptions unless the NSF continues to expand and fund its focus on teaching research. As it stands now, faculty are hired to chase research dollars and generate results—teaching is a distant second, if that. The NSF is uniquely positioned to change that, and attach the sort of prestige to teaching that we currently give to research.

An industry perspective

The wild card on the panel was the industry representative: Rick Stephens, senior vice president of human resources and administration at Boeing. The aerospace industry employs a major portion of the nation’s STEM workforce, but Stephens presented a bleak picture of an aging workforce and little domestic engineering talent to fill that void. Because of defense spending, two-thirds of the jobs in the aerospace industry require US citizenship.

Stephens detailed Boeing’s efforts to recruit talented STEM employees and outlined its study of the performance of STEM employees hired from 150 schools. As the academic participants suggested, places with hands-on work, student-driven learning, and mentoring by faculty and other students provided the best employees (and, incidentally, had the highest graduation rates).

Beyond education, Stephens recommended a concentrated effort to change the perception of STEM professionals in the minds of our youth. A few decades ago, an engineering position was something to strive for, and things like the Apollo program inspired awe in the minds of the young. Now, there’s a steady decline in interest and performance in STEM subjects from pre-school onwards.

Stereotypes are everywhere in the media children are consuming: “In movies and on TV, 10 percent of characters are scientists and engineers,” Stephens said. “Unfortunately, of those, more than 70 percent kill others, are killed, or are overcome by lay people.” STEM professionals are portrayed as nerdy, socially inept and generally not normal—he called out the TV show The Big Bang Theory as an example. The Aerospace Industries Association is now working with the Entertainment Industries Council (EIC) to correct the stereotypes.

The NSF

Representing an organization that had attracted the lion’s share of attention, the NSF’s Joan Ferrini-Mundy rounded out the testimony. She outlined the NSF’s existing programs, several of which were covered in more detail by other panelists. The NSF provides direct student support at the undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels, as well as institution-wide and national programs that are attempting to a move science away from the lecturer-audience model. Graduate education was a weak point in the NSF’s portfolio, but the programs generally aligned with the calls for a strong focus on the non-science parts of science: teamwork and interdisciplinary experience.

Overall, the panel showed a unified front on STEM education: the old, publish-or-die model has failed, a new model is already being experimented with, and the results are encouraging. Oh, and we need money. The ball is now in the government’s court, which will have to decide whether to fund the NSF’s attempts to foster better STEM education.

Graphics by Aurich Lawson.