More Science for More Americans

By Robert Tinker

American pre-college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is in crisis. It is not only educators who are alarmed, but also those concerned with the economy, long-term security, and equitable access to education and employment. A confluence of factors will result in irreparable damage to the U.S. in a decade or so.

The factors that are converging include: overemphasis on testing and rote test preparation; the decline of problem solving, laboratories, and inquiry; too many under-prepared teachers; segregation and inadequate funding in many urban schools; and an outmoded curriculum. The results are already evident: poor performance on international comparisons, declining numbers and diversity in STEM college majors and graduate admissions, and increased reliance on foreign-born researchers.

This decay of STEM education will adversely impact Americans in the next decade, given the increasingly technological and interconnected world. It will result in poor public understanding of science that is needed for a democracy to function, inadequate technical capacity of the workforce, and too few of the inventors and researchers who drive innovation and change.

Educators know what is needed to improve student achievement in STEM fields. There is no mystery, no need for further academic research, and no “silver bullet” waiting to be found. The prescription is fairly unanimous among experts who understand STEM education. In a nutshell, we can provide more science education for more Americans by focusing on the following:

More projects and exploration. The national content standards in math and science promote inquiry and student exploration, with an emphasis on “extended inquiry” that resembles research as closely as feasible. But as these standards filter through state and local levels, the difficulty of measuring open-ended projects and the emphasis on facts and computation have effectively eliminated these standards.

Greater depth. The TIMSS study found that in 8th grade math, U.S. schools covered 16-18 topics with no single topic receiving more than 8% of the time. Other countries covered much less in far greater depth using texts that were one-third as large. In Japan, four topics received two-thirds of the class time. We need to teach fewer topics much more deeply.

More emphasis on causal explanations. The power of science depends on the way many apparently distinct phenomena are united by a few underlying concepts. Once the interconnections are understood, science can be easy to learn. Similarly, math is built on just a few axioms and operations, but both math and science are taught as disconnected facts, algorithms, and experiences while the connective tissue is ignored.

More diversity. We need to reach more students with quality science and to make it more interesting, meaningful, and accessible. Too many students are repelled by dry content, excessive emphasis on facts and procedures, and the apparent lack of connection to the real world. For others, mathematics requirements rule out the physical sciences and engineering. Using projects, going deeper, and relying more on reasoning and less on memorization will make STEM fields more inclusive and accessible.

If the evidence is so clear and the solution so obvious, why is there a STEM crisis? The fundamental problem is that it takes resources, skill, and content knowledge to teach—and to test—using more projects, digging deeper, and concentrating on cause-and-effect logic. Schools can lack the space, instrumentation, and other resources for student projects. And it is far more difficult to assess student progress in projects and deep understanding than it is to test for facts and procedural skills. In this era of measurable standards and high stakes tests, if something cannot be measured, valuable class time cannot be “wasted” on it.

Technology can enable the needed changes. It can provide an environment for enriching and guiding student exploration of both the real world and models, it can be used to assess student understanding and problem-solving skills, it can provide a medium for collaboration and dissemination, and it can be a powerful tool for teacher professional development to support the needed changes in curriculum and instruction.

Robert Tinker (bob@concord.org) is President of the Concord Consortium.