[Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of opportunities nonetheless

[Roy Skinner]

In UK they have been serious about STE M since before I left in 1987. I saw
students in schools linked with professional engineers to complete real
projects on site. For instance, as a school project, worth curricular marks,
one group of students designed an improvement of a valve system to operate
at the bottom of the sea for a gas rig. They eventually had it installed and
it worked. Every student in this Technology class had an engineer as a
consultant and the engineering society were happy to give their time for
liaison. I saw the same CREST system operating in New Zealand with projects
even sponsored by BMW. 

Years ago I also did a link project with Clough Engineering where some of my
students went to the Kewdale plant to take on a problem-solving project in a
world first pilot plant focusing on the extraction of titanium from
aluminium ore for a CREST project which eventually gained them a silver
medal from CSIRO. 

But who in Perth encouraged me and where did it go? 

If it had been a project on Footy I would have got sponsorship I think. I
also notice that one school in Perth is advertising the STEM focus to STEAM
so as to include the Arts which kind of waters down the emphasis. I suspect
with so little input from the Government it will all fizzle out and we will
continue to import technological innovations from other countries.

What needs to happen is to change the syllabus in science to include
electronics for instance (as in Victoria) and to allow students-centred
practical projects which involve creative thinking and open-ended projects.
In y last year at Murdoch College two of my students presented their
Biological Battery at an international alternative energy conference of
scientists and then went on to win a Gold CREST award from CSIRO and made TV
appearances on New Inventors. This is how to develop STEM but these projects
must be allowed to gain marks in conventional subjects. Creativity and
innovation must be rewarded. Investigations where students calculate correct
values for g just don't do it!

Roy

 

From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net] On Behalf Of Leon
Harris
Sent: Wednesday, 4 October 2017 12:04 PM
To: catalist at lists.stawa.net
Subject: Re: [Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of
opportunities nonetheless

 

It is an interesting document - more of a wish list than a business plan. I
would say that its is operationally close to useless because it doesn't
focus much on mechanism.

For example, consider their infographic on page 7. It is just a collection
of platitudes! Note the overlap in jurisdiction: teacher school partnership.
It looks lovely! What sort structures do you suggest to allocate
responsibility, power time and say to make that happen? My experience of
outside agencies coming into schools is that they need a lot of hand holding
or else they fall over, and that they are often off the point. That is their
advantage, that difference in view, but so often there is a lot of shimming
up, repairing and shoe horning needed by the classroom teacher to get value
out of the interaction.

I guess what I am mostly reacting to is the vagueness, the motherhood and
apple pie kind of approach to all of this STEM, coupled with the knowledge
that at the end of the day my classroom teacher fellows and I will be held
responsible for any system-wide failure to plan or provision for all of
this.

Final point: your opening remarks suggested that this report was not widely
known in secondary school, and implies a failure in such schools. I would
make the point that the producers of said report have done insufficient that
is effective in getting it out there. In other words, it is a failure to
communicate effectively, rather than a failure of SS teachers and
administrators to pick it up. I sense, that if STEM ends up all going wrong,
it will be the coalface and not the think tank that cops the blame for it!

That, of course, would be counter-productive!

Cheers,
Leon



On 4/10/2017 11:17 AM, Kim FLINTOFF wrote:

There was a fairly comprehensive document released by the Education Council
about 2 years ago that is often unknown to those in classrooms for some
reason:

 

http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/Nat
ional%20STEM%20School%20Education%20Strategy.pdf

 

Page 5 highlights that STEM is not a single "thing" to be taught:  

 

STEM education is a term used to refer collectively to the teaching of the
disciplines within its umbrella - science, technology, engineering and
mathematics - and also to a cross-disciplinary approach to teaching that
increases student interest in STEM-related fields and improves students'
problem solving and critical analysis skills. STEM sits within a broader
foundational knowledge base and the teaching of STEM is a part, albeit
important, of a balanced program of learning.

 

A "balanced program" provides relevance and caters for personal interests -
ther greatest opportunity we have is in the explanation of Goal 1:  

 

Schools have the opportunity to foster and nurture 

young people's curiosity towards STEM, and can use 

this to develop deeper engagement and learning. 

 

The secondary school flow on is stated as a supplementary goal:

 

While the primary aim of the national strategy 

is to support all young people to become more 

STEM capable, a supplementary goal is to increase 

participation in challenging STEM subjects in the 

senior secondary years.

 

Schools are ust supposed to be PART of the strategy:

 

Schools form a critical part of a broader STEM 

education ecosystem

 

And that others need to be involved:  

 

STEM cannot be achieved by schools 

alone. Parents and the broader community, industry 

and the tertiary education sector are key STEM 

education partners.

 

That is part of the rationale of the development of our
<http://www.learningfuturesnetwork.org/> Learning Futures Network.

 

The strategy document also provides some clear statements about the 5 action
areas and points to these high order principles for school education:

 



 

High level discussions in staff rooms, and other places are required to make
sure that local relevance, priorities and individual differences are
factroed into each context.  Its not surprising for the ambiguities between
contexts to complicate discussions - complicated discussions are necessary;
the absolute worst we can do at this time is try to reduce this to some new
standardised model. 

 

Cheers 

 

Kim Flintoff

Pronoun: it, it, its

BA, Grad Dip Ed, M.Ed, MACE, MACEL

(AUC, AARE, AAEEBL, HETL, ISOC, AoIR, ISSOTL, ISTE, WAIER, PIE, HEVGA,
ECAWA, IFORE)

Learning Futures Advisor      | Curtin Learning and Teaching

Manager, Innovation Studio     | Office of the DVC, Academic

Academic Coordinator, ACES (Achievement Centred Engagement for Students)

National Coordinator, UNEP-DHI Eco Challenge Australia

Joint Academic Lead, Education Theme | Curtin Institute for Computation

Coordinator, Learning Futures Network

 

Member, AU Technology Outlook Panel of Experts | NMC Horizon Project 2016

Sustainable Development Chair | Global Collaboration PLN | International
Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)
Advisory Board Member | Future-U

 

Office |105 Level 1

Tel | +61 8 9266 2194 (VMB only - email preferred)

 

Email |
<applewebdata://C13CAD3F-19C9-4975-BA55-F6C4FEA0B4CD/k.flintoff@curtin.edu.a
u> k.flintoff at curtin.edu.au 

Web |  <http://curtin.academia.edu/Flintoff>
http://curtin.academia.edu/Flintoff 

 



CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

   

I acknowledge the Nyungar Wadjuk people as the traditional owners of country
on which Curtin's Bentley campus sits. 

I wish to acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea and community
and I pay my respects to them and their culture; and to elders, past present
and future.

--

 

-- 

 

 

From: Igor Bray <igor.bray at curtin.edu.au <mailto:igor.bray at curtin.edu.au> >
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2017 at 10:31
To: "leon at quoll.com <mailto:leon at quoll.com> " <leon at quoll.com
<mailto:leon at quoll.com> >, "catalist at lists.stawa.net
<mailto:catalist at lists.stawa.net> " <catalist at lists.stawa.net
<mailto:catalist at lists.stawa.net> >
Subject: Re: [Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of
opportunities nonetheless

 

Leon, thank you very much for your post. It is very gratefully appreciated.

 

I am doing my part to address the prerequisite issues. We now have
Mathematics Specialist as a prerequisite for the "Advanced Physics" degree
at Curtin, and as of today our 1st preferences for 2018 are up by 60% on
2017, with the dominant cohort choosing this degree.

 

I have also raised the issue a week ago with the Australian Academy of
Science, and will meet with their leadership in mid November to discuss it.

 

Gratefully yours,

 

Igor

 

--

Igor Bray, John Curtin Distinguished Professor
PhD, FAPS, FInstP, FAIP, FAA
Head | Physics, Astronomy and Medical Radiation Science
Director | Theoretical Physics

Curtin University, GPO Box U1987 Perth, Western Australia 6845
Tel |       +61 8 9266 7747
Fax |      +61 8 9266 2377
Mobile | +61 4 0489 2862  

Email | I.Bray at curtin.edu.au
<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/V81oBDhw8DZ8Ua>  
Web Curtin | http://curtin.edu.au <http://curtin.edu.au/> 
Web Physics | <http://physics.curtin.edu.au> http://physics.curtin.edu.au
Web TP | http://itp.curtin.edu.au <http://itp.curtin.edu.au/> 


Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University
CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

 

 

 

From: Catalist <catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net
<mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net> > on behalf of Leon Harris
<leon at quoll.com <mailto:leon at quoll.com> >
Reply-To: "leon at quoll.com <mailto:leon at quoll.com> " <leon at quoll.com
<mailto:leon at quoll.com> >, Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net
<mailto:catalist at lists.stawa.net> >
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2017 9:53 am
To: Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net <mailto:catalist at lists.stawa.net> >
Subject: [Catalist] STEM - no philosophy, no definition, but a set of
opportunities nonetheless

 

Greetings to all.

I am interested in some public debate on this STEM movement that our schools
are being encouraged to adopt. I am posting this in the hope that it will
stimulate such debate.

 

In this little missive, I will outline what I see as some of the problems
with the current approach, highlight some of the opportunities and suggest
some possible ways forward. 

Problem 1: it is a case of the blind leading the blind

It seems to me that STEM in WA is not underpinned by any coherent
educational philosophy, nor even any precise definition. At a recent
conference held at Curtin, I would have spoken to at least 20 people who had
no consistent definition of what STEM was, or what it might even look like
in schools. How is it even possible to frame a coherent and effective
response to this thing, that which our political lords and masters have
asked of us, if we have no precise definition.

 

Problem 2: STEM appears to be politically rather than educationally driven

It is, of course, quite possible that the whole STEM movement (as distinct
from the individual disciplines that make up Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) is just a political construct. A cynical
observer might notice that STEM received its current great push in the USA
in 2009 just after the GFC collapse, and in Australia in 2015 when the
mining boom started to look sick. From this, one might conclude that once
again, pointing to that old ladder of success that science is, was a very
deft bit of smoke and mirrors designed to cover an option-bereft
government's behind.

 

Problem 3: There is negligible new funding of the educational sector to
achieve it

Certainly in WA, we have not seen any new investment in bringing it about.
That $1M per year STEM consortium essentially cannibalised the funding from
an earlier successful science enrichment program SPICE - no new cash was
added to the sector.

 

Problem 4: There is no STEM-specific pedagogy, or philosophy, and
particularly no deep intellectual analysis of the phenomenon

The University participants at the STEM conference were strangely lacking in
any sort of intellectual depth or rigor on this subject. Sure, the usual
platitudes about the importance of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics to WA economy were trotted out. Those old "we are educating our
children for future jobs that haven't been invented yet" memes seem to have
come back into vogue, having not been a feature since 2010 or thereabouts.
Actually, the whole shebang reminded me of a peacock spider waving its'
brightly coloured behind at its potentially lethal mate - us, the classroom
teachers being that mate! Dazzling display, where is the content? There was
no framework to hang this on - no definitions of the problem, no useful bits
of philosophy to help us the poor sods at the coalface pick what is
worthwhile. In short, the university people were decidedly lacking in any
sort of intellectual leadership. Do they think that STEM is just a passing
fad? 

  

It was quite interesting also to see how light on for analytics the speakers
collectively were. Our current students were decried for avoiding the hard
subjects and gaming the ATAR by people from the very institutions that set
the rules that govern the ATAR game. In other words, if you are a university
academic, look to your institutions lack of requirement for higher maths
prerequisites for entry rather than to the kid who wants to achieve the goal
of a vocation that your institution controls access to! However, these were
treated as student (human) failings rather than the systems failing that
they were. This suggests to me that they are unlikely to be fixed soon. 

Many of the interesting social phenomena that we see that seem to indicate
the need for STEM subjects have not been examined - no one is asking why.
Why is China rising industrially and scientifically? Why does their
technology out compete ours? Why do our students decline in ability in
mathematics and science over the last 20 years? Why do fewer of our students
choose science subjects? (hint: look at the marketplace, and the ROI for
different degrees). What criteria should we use to choose whether to adopt
or reject a particular technology? Nobody was thinking clearly about this!

  

Problem 5. No-one seems to know how to teach this.

Another interesting thing to observe was the emphasis on interdisciplinary
approaches. At least 2 of the keynote speakers decried the silo approach to
teaching. Employers like that, silo bad, multidisciplinary good. Ugg ! So
simple, only an old Neanderthal like me wouldn't get it. Except that on all
of the multidisciplinary teams that I have worked on in academic research
and industrial contexts, the thing that is valued is deep technical
expertise, held by a number of participants, brought together and working in
a collaborative team. You don't get your tea lady to do your microbiology
test for you, and you don't get your molecular biologists to commission and
calibrate your Mossbauer spectrometer. However in the ideal team, the
physicist commissions the spectrometer, the tea lady keeps the
microbiologist off the food utensils (at least until they have been cleaned
up from the lab), and the microbiologist types and tends to the cultures.
Interdisciplinary collaboration isn't dumbing down. So what is wrong with
developing deep expertise and then, once people can, bringing it across the
disciplines? That is what we do now! Be very wary that STEM doesn't lead to
dumbing down of subjects, contrary to popular opinion, there is a heck of a
lot that you can't just Google, and in science, whose knowledge base growth
has been more exponential than many other subjects, we actually need more
time not less for content and its application.

Unless there are huge and radical shifts to timetabling and DOTT structures,
there is little way an in-school collaborations between different
disciplines can happen on any systemic basis on anything other than trivial
projects. I have set up and been involved in such collaborations. The only
way we could do it is voluntarily in our own time, and I would be hesitant
to do it again without 0.2 worth of time to hand out among the 3
participants - it was a lot of work. I don't know about you guys, but I put
in around 60-ish h a week, peaking at 80 in reporting weeks. I don't have
time to do 5 subjects and pick up STEM, unless it is in a superficial
manner. 

 

At this point, I'd like to turn my attention to some of the opportunities
that STEM affords.

 

Opportunity 1: STEM provides the possibility of innovating and refreshing
old curricula. Most of our science practicals were a thing since the time of
the Unit Curriculum in the 1970s. (I note that a few from the STEM
consortium projects date from that time too - maybe there is nothing new
under the sun!) Perhaps STEM is an opportunity to modernise. Certainly in my
past my students have enjoyed measuring "little g" by programming an Arduino
to flash 100 times per second, and then filming it fall past a ruler with an
iphone. There is science technology, engineering and mathematics in that! At
a past school, my students enjoyed my rehash of the energy efficient house
assignment, by taking the Arduino-based thermal imaging camera I built for
them, and modifying it to get an image of heat loss from their house.
Certainly STEM can enrich projects! The project that my extension students
won the 2015 STS with, namely designing and building a device to short
circuit a zinc/air hearing aid battery and then measure the curve of time
versus terminal voltage to make it into an oxygen concentration sensor was
an excellent example of a mix of engineering, science, mathematics,
technology and research. If we can tap the innovation, and avoid the 1-2
lockstep dumb down, then the focus on STEM could be positive.

 

Opportunity 2. If properly resourced, STEM offers the possibility of
interdisciplinary collaboration, but probably only after hours unless one or
more teachers has extra DOTT/TOIL. You can't be in 2 places at once, and
collaboration outside your field increases the teaching work, not decreases
it. If schools administrations get this, and maybe give time off in lieu,
then perhaps after school curricula may work. In-school collaborations seem
problematic for 3 or 4 teachers to work together at y9 or y10 level, largely
due to lack of collaboration and planning time.

 

Opportunity 3. Extra attention for science particularly, and other
disciplines involved as well can be a good thing! In the STEM conference at
Curtin, I noticed a lot of presentations which took current approaches and
branded them as STEM. In other words, good quality teaching, led from the
classroom, could be rallied under the STEM banner and recognised/rewarded as
such. It seemed that many good teachers are doing what teachers always do by
pinning the bits of the curriculum onto current events and contexts in the
outside society. We can use the focus on STEM to reward and acknowledge
them.

 

 

After examining some of the problems and opportunities, I would like to look
at some possible ways forward.

 

Possibility 1.  We need to re-engineer interdisciplinary interaction for
teachers. We don't get it in the staff room - we are just too busy. It is
the nature of people to be territorial, and different departments always
have their own territories that aren't always inviting to others. We need a
structure that brings people together, and we need to design that structure
so that it works with human nature rather than against it. The Coderdojo
model looks good, and could be expanded to other contexts. The aspects of
this model that make it work is that it has assigned roles that allow
different people to come together. It makes a place at the table for
everyone. If you expanded the "champion" role to a math champion, a science
champion, a technology champion, and an engineering champion, then you have
a place for all areas. If run after school, but with time off in lieu, you
could have a very successful model.

I am thinking of a solar car challenge that could be configured this way,
run for example on a Wednesday in Term 1 and then entered into the Solar Car
Challenge that STAWA run.

 

Possibility 2. We run STEM within our current framework, just as a
"recognition of worth"thing for each of the disciplines. So the maths
department occasionally acknowledges a science context, the science
department occasionally uses a data logger in one of their experiments, and
technology let their kids build a model for a science or math contest or
competition. Each discipline focusses on building skills and depth in its
own area, and offers friendly but passing support to its fellow STEM
disciplines. In other words, the same old show. 

 

Possibility 3: Some schools differentiate into STEM specific schools and run
tightly integrated timelines, largely abandoning the formal curriculum with
project-based learning as a central pedagogy. In this model, choice is the
important thing. At this conference, we were shown an exemplar in the states
where staff who didn't agree had the choice to leave to other schools, and
students who couldn't cope in that environment (aka had special needs that
weren't compatible with that style of learning) were sent/encouraged/given
the choice to go elsewhere.

 

Possibility 4: We fund the subject associations to run contests,
competitions and prizes, and treat STEM integration from outside of the
school. In other words, make it a project-based learning, that schools can
configure their staff to run optionally. If those associations were to study
the Coderdojo model, and explicitly make space for teachers of each
discipline when setting up the framework, that could work.

 

So is STEM more than a passing fad? Maybe in its' current form, but the
underlying disciplines upon which it built are not. 

Is it something that a whole load of people can rebadge their hobby horse
as, and continue along as before? To some extent we see this with the
universities, all the project-based learning people, with the D&T
departments and their new laser cutters that can make the most amazing
things as they stink out the corridors with their fumes. 

 

In my opinion, and I recognise that it is contentious, there are a whole
load of non-teaching camp followers hitching a lift on the STEM movement. I
think it is also important for those in the class to have a say. 

What do you want from STEM? How would you like it to play out in your
classroom?

 

 

 

 

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20171005/c9bf18ff/attachment.html>