LearnmoreMN Blog

STEM inequity starts early

By Yvonne Ng, January guest blogger

As a new mother, I’m seeing STEM education efforts through a slightly different lens. It is important for me to be sure that my son and his classmates have every opportunity to be employable in our high tech future (so he can get a good paying job, move out of the house, and if I raise him right, tend to my husband and me in our old age!).

But seriously, I’m not the only one. Efforts by organizations like Generation: Next and Minnesota Compass are trying to ensure that our educational system unlocks the potential of all our children.

In Minnesota, this is particularly important, not just for our bastion of biotech firms, but also for manufacturing and engineering companies. Having conducted interviews for my husband’s engineering services company, I have seen firsthand how difficult it is to find candidates with the required technology and education.

The need for a local STEM talent pool will only increase. At a recent medical convention, the buzz was about “onshoring.” China’s rising fuel costs and standard of living is bringing manufacturing jobs back to the States. This means that our educational system must produce quality STEM professionals — thus employable in the future will mean “STEM ready.”

However, I am concerned that the indicators used by these initiatives lack a key feature. Don’t get me wrong: the reading and math benchmarks make sense, though I know there is debate about whether the timing is soon enough for math to intervene. However, the items are all very, well, “heady” while studies show that it is experience in STEM related activities that affect competence, confidence and comfort — especially in currently underrepresented populations of females and those from financially challenged homes. I’m concerned that without full appreciation of certain experiences in STEM-readiness, we may unintentionally leave our population largely untapped.

For example, spatial, not mathematics, tests are considered the best indicator for success in STEM areas [Root-Bernstein, Can women be creative scientists?]. Spatial is defined as folding 2D shapes into 3D, rotating objects in one’s mind, imagining mechanical motion, and seeing spatial patterns and relationships [Newcombe, Picture this]. These are developed mainly through hands-on manipulation and investigation of devices — activities that often happen before even entering school.

Experience with tools and technology are one of the missing link for girls which prevents them from experimenting, and thus innovating with technology, a necessary characteristic of an engineer [Schreuders, Pipeline or personal preference: women in engineering]. Men cite having played with these at a young age, which makes many women feel that they cannot catch up and results in them constantly feeling like an imposter engineer, computer scientist, etc. [Margolis, Unlocking the Clubhouse].

So is a child who lacks the opportunities to play with and develop these skills doomed? Not with good teaching. Effective educators teach mathematics with tangible objects to create concrete physical experiences in the classroom and link to the abstract concepts of mathematics. Inquiry experiences in class give children who have limited at-home experiences with nature a leg up. Key art and hands-on experiences can improve spatial skills.

Indirect evidence seems to support this: Girls have scored noticeable improvement in the standardized test for mathematics over the past 20 years [Monastersky, Primed for Numbers]. Students struggling with engineering drawing classes (notably, most of the women students) saw noticeable improvement when spatial skills were explicitly taught [Sorby, A course in spatial visualization and its impact on the retention of female engineering students].

An effective teacher is the link between sound curriculum and the individual child. He/she determines the strengths and gaps in students and appropriately enhances their education to unlock the potential of each student. In every in-service class I have taught, this desire to help their students achieve is at the heart of every successful teacher.

The United States is one of the few places that gives — in theory — every student the opportunity to prepare for college. The down side is that we put more burden on the teacher to provide equal access through education, despite the fact that some children start school never having visited a park, a zoo or a museum. Some have never ridden bikes, taken apart or fixed a gadget, or made paper creations with scissors, tape or glue.

These missing experiences with nature, the designed world, and tools and technology are what teachers must identify, accommodate and measure as they try to continue to give an equal education to all. Key indicators must: 1) include some evaluation of experiences that develop a child’s spatial skills and 2) be measured earlier so we keep the STEM door open to more students rather than play catch up (or worse, resign to missing the boat) in middle or high school.

STEM education needs to get real!

By Yvonne Ng, January guest blogger

As an engineer and computer science professor at a liberal arts institution — and a women’s institution to boot — it was heartening to learn that the White House is focusing much-needed resources and energy to bear on a challenge with which I have been grappling for years.

In early December, the Obama administration designated increasing the number of students earning undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by one million over the next decade as a Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) goal.

Based on recommendations made by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, “Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,” these CAP goals specify women and under-represented minorities of particular interest as they represent an untapped pool of college graduates.

This can only help and support Minnesota students seeking higher education and attracting them to STEM fields, which Minnesota’s workforce urgently needs.

When I first started teaching computer science at St. Catherine University, I taught, as most professors do, the way I was taught: lectures, example programs/problems and standard homework questions. As my initial overfull classes dwindled by half by the end of my second year, it was clear that something needed to change or I would put myself out of a job. Luckily, students shared with me their brutal feedback — GET REAL!

Lessons revolving around inputs, outputs, variables, conditionals and iteratives were interesting and the way they could make the machine do tricks was nifty, but how, they asked, did it relate to computers in the real world?

Drawing on my time in industry, I realized they needed projects that would engage them creatively. Motivating projects combined with good curriculum design results in students who don’t whine, “Why are we doing this?” but instead demand, “When are you going to teach us this?” “Are you sure that gives us enough time to get our project to work?” Students become collaborators in their learning.

And you know, that’s how it is in the real world — you learn what you need to do to make your project a success. And it’s not just personal pride that motivates: It’s the sense of doing what’s needed for the company and its workers; your success means something real. A former boss reminded me of this every time our computer-automated system broke down: every minute down was food out of customers’ mouths — their bread and butter depended on our systems working reliably and accurately.

The young women in my classes thrive on this. While nobody starves, it’s important that their projects involve something that they care about — something they want to work. When they say, “Gosh, this will be SO COOL,” then I know I have them. They will push themselves to master the concepts, make the connections and put in the grunt programming time needed to code their masterpiece.

This kind of project-based learning and careful curriculum design has been critical to the success of “Engineering for Everyone” courses I teach at St. Kate’s. The secret to success again is real projects that allow students to see the applications of the theory in something they have a vested interest. They get their hands dirty; they spend long hours “in the shop” (or at the kitchen table); and they test-redesign-test again to get the device to work.

It’s not surprising that reality is important for females. The majority has not had these experiences as children so they need to have the time to play in reality. As adults, they learn more from this play in a shorter period of time, so a college course with planful “hands on” components can jumpstart a “disadvantaged” student.

It’s not just women who statistically lack these experiences with STEM reality: students from lower economic backgrounds often lack these experiences, and interestingly, we now find those from upper class backgrounds are equally lacking.

The former don’t have enough money to own “things” like bicycles to have a context for mechanical concepts like gears or crankshafts. The latter have so much money that they don’t fix things, so how things work is just as big a mystery.

I once heard that insanity was doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. It’s time to stop the insanity of teaching STEM topics the same way and expecting women and other under-represented students to flock to them. The decades long track record of this method of teaching shows it is successful at NOT encouraging them into STEM.

As the president’s PCAST report recommends, we need “a diversification of teaching methods” that are “more effective in reaching all students.”

So let’s replace the insanity with a good dose of reality. After all, if the students are excited about doing real STEM projects, then won’t they love their STEM jobs?

Elementary teachers play key role in STEM education

By Tony Murphy, March guest blogger

In the last entry, I talked about the situation with STEM in our schools and now I want to offer one solution to how we keep up kids’ interest in these fields. Although there are many strategies available, teachers need to play an important role in a solution.

We know that effective teachers and content knowledge in science and mathematics can play key roles in student achievement. At the high school level, STEM teachers have a graduated with a major in their subject area. At the middle school level, teachers have the equivalent of a minor in their subject area. At the elementary level though, teachers are generalists and they typically major in education.

We know from research that the elementary grades are critical in maintaining student interest level in STEM. Yet, if teachers at the elementary level are generalists, are they prepared effectively to teach this way? Do they have the STEM knowledge and the teaching skills to do this? Research shows that many don’t. In fact, elementary teachers often express anxiety teaching the STEM areas.

At St. Catherine University’s National Center for STEM Elementary Education, we have developed a program that helps elementary teachers overcome this anxiety. All of our elementary education majors are required to enroll in a STEM certificate consisting of three courses: biology, chemistry and physics/engineering. The latter course is a unique part of the certificate. All are rigorous courses that meet various sets of state and national standards. They are co-taught by STEM and education faculty who have worked together as a team to create a positive and productive learning environment for the majors.

The certificate gives the elementary majors the content, but they also need an experience teaching science. This comes in the form of a program called Eco-STARS, which occurs prior to student teaching. Teachers in partner schools mentor the elementary majors in an active and engaging way. Our education faculty are also in the schools with the elementary majors when they are teaching science. The St. Kate’s faculty, elementary education majors and school teachers have all undergone training in a specific science program so that all are on the same page in relation to the content being covered.

St. Kate’s elementary majors emerge from this experience more confident and comfortable in teaching science. In fact, many of them are being asked in their student teaching to teach science and engineering — something that is new.

We are now working with local school districts to offer a Graduate STEM certificate for both elementary and Montessori teachers. This is a professional development sequence of courses with implementation and support for the teachers.

The need is clear. If we want to create a strong and wide pipeline for STEM, we need to begin at the elementary level. This is the aim of the programs at the National Center for STEM Elementary Education. What other successful efforts to prepare elementary teachers to effectively teach STEM are you aware of?

STEM: Is elementary too soon?

By Tony Murphy, March guest blogger

We hear a lot about science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), both as a K-12 education issue and a challenge to meet future business personnel needs. The Obama administration is clearly focused on this as a major initiative. Equally at the state level, there is a focus on STEM education, particularly with the introduction of engineering standards in the recently revised K-12 science academic standards. Why this focus and why now?

There are numerous reasons for this. Many reports over the last decade have pointed to the low numbers of STEM graduates in this country and the low numbers of people of color and women in particular STEM areas. If the U.S. is to maintain its economic power, then we need a well-educated workforce that can meet the demands of business in a growing technological era. In this state, one of the largest achievement gaps exists between white students and students of color in science and mathematics. As a state with many of the nation’s top STEM companies located here, we need to tackle this issue, as the students in the current classrooms are our future workforce, business leaders and policymakers. Finally, and by no means the least important is that we live in an era where technologies develop and evolve at an ever-increasing rate. Just witness the growth of the cell phone industry since the early 1980s or our almost total dependence on the internet for personal, educational and business matters. These technologies and associated developments have both positive and negative consequences on our lives, society and environment. Students in K-12, and indeed in post-secondary education, need to be STEM literate so that they have the skills and knowledge required to live in this technological age, and also the critical thinking skills to consider and decide about our growing reliance on STEM areas.

Given all this, how do we introduce our students to STEM — and equally as important — when do we start? As a high school life science teacher and university professor, I have come to realize that we need to begin as early as possible with our children, certainly in elementary school, and even possibly before that. Children, at birth, are natural scientists, engineers, and problem-solvers. They consider the world around them and try to make sense of it the best way they know how; that is by touching, tasting, probing, building, dismantling, creating, discovering, exploring and so on. Yet, by the time they reach 4th grade, a third of them have lost an interest in science and by 8th grade this has increased to almost 50%. By this point in the K-12 system, the STEM pipeline is reduced to half of what it should be. So, how do we go about reversing this? How do we encourage more children to maintain their interest level in STEM? In my next blog, I will propose one possible solution, but what do you think? Is elementary too soon or not soon enough?

Welcome to a new year…and a new economy

By Margaret Anderson Kelliher, January guest blogger

As I prepare to start this new year in a new role as president and CEO of the Minnesota High Tech Association (MHTA), all of us need to start preparing for a new economy powered by a new-look workforce. Those who succeed in this new economy will be those who are consistently finding ways to innovate, and this new workforce must have the skill set to perform the jobs of the 21st century.

One major reason for the struggling economy is the current mismatch between the skills needed to fill the jobs and the skill set of those seeking employment. In order to begin closing that gap, and keep it closed in 2011 and beyond, we must provide our future workforce with the high-tech skills necessary to fill the jobs of the new economy. Companies depend on having the necessary talent available to fuel their ongoing growth and profitability. Skilled and motivated workers that are able to combine technical skills with business skills are essential for innovating new products and services, discovering new business opportunities, and synthesizing multiple pieces to solve business challenges. Having the right talent to deliver products and services to customers today will be essential to create the innovation necessary to succeed tomorrow.

For over a quarter century, MHTA has worked diligently to promote the growth, sustainability, and global competitiveness of Minnesota’s technology-based economy through advocacy, collaboration, and education. The 350 member companies that make up MHTA have joined together not to promote their own organizations, but to ensure that Minnesota’s economy is able to thrive. Priority number one for our organization is science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education; because we understand that the workforce of the new economy will require proficiency in these subjects if Minnesota is to remain globally competitive.

There are a number of education-related policy principles that we have laid to out as part of our mission of keeping Minnesota’s tech-based economy growing and competitive. For example, we specifically advocate for:

• high standards for all E-12 students, and endorse statewide standards, particularly in math and science;
• measuring Minnesota student performance against international student performance;
• availability and use of technology in schools;
• investment for research in higher education that leads to commercialization of technologies in the private sector; and
• ubiquitous broadband access.

We are strong advocates for these issues; however, advocacy alone is not enough for our proactive member companies, so through our web portal, www.getSTEM-mn.com, they and other community leaders are connecting directly with STEM teachers across Minnesota to bring resources and industry expertise into the classroom to get students excited about fields in science, technology, engineering, and math.

As the mother of two teenage children who I want to make sure are getting the education they need to be able to compete for 21st century jobs, and as the president and CEO of a business organization whose members depend on a constant stream of uniquely skilled workers, I am distinctly aware of the need for strong STEM education for Minnesota students. In the new year, MHTA will continue to be a voice on business and education issues facing the new economy. I encourage you to create a profile on getSTEM, receive the weekly emails from STEM teachers looking to enhance the learning experience for their students, and contribute time or resources as you are able. The students of today are the workforce of tomorrow, and we cannot sit back and hope they will have the skills for the new economy — we must ensure that they do.

Tap low-income students for careers in STEM

By Kathy Glampe, August guest blogger

During the past year, I have heard many warnings in the news, at conferences and even in Readers Digest, that the U.S. is losing its competitive edge in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). Whether it is the number of engineers the U.S. graduates compared to China, India and South Korea or the investment that U.S. companies are making in research and design, the message is clear—we are losing ground. The U.S. must take very seriously its ability to compete in STEM if it is to remain a global leader.

An important part of maintaining our competitive edge is preparing the virtually untapped pool of low-income students for study and careers in STEM. According to the Louis Stokes Institute for Opportunity in STEM Education, for every 10,000 low-income students starting 9th grade, only 30 will earn a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field and only 1 will begin graduate school in a STEM field the year after earning the bachelor’s degree. We need to invest in this vast pool of potential scientists, mathematicians and engineers not only to boost the U.S. ability to compete on a global basis, but because it is the right thing to do.

What can we do?

• Encourage your legislators (both at the local, state and federal levels) to support and expand initiatives that assist low-income students to pursue and succeed in STEM fields (i.e. TRiO Math and Science Upward Bound programs, SMART grants to encourage low-income student engagement in STEM, NSF funded S-STEM programs, etc.)
• Support and expand non-federally funded programs (i.e. Pipeline Summer Camp Programs)
• Support and assist K-12 educators to expand the pool of students prepared for STEM fields
• Reach out to students you know and suggest science and math

I would love to hear your ideas for what can be done to address this important issue!