In a previous blog, I proposed the idea of teaching STEM with a purpose. In this blog, I want to take a step back to evaluate how traditional STEM education fails to prepare students for life and propose an alternative way forward: Integrated STEM education.
One of the cardinal sins of our 19th century based education system is its inherent fragmentation. Western academia has compartmentalized the questions of “why” and “how” into separate disciplines.[note] While I am speaking based on my experience in the US, I suspect these issues are also prevalent in the Majority World as well.[/note] Let STEM students focus on the “how”(skills) and let the questions of “why”(critical thinking) to philosophers, ethicists and theologians. This way, students are left to make the connection between these questions on their own.
I understand that this will vary for different subjects. The technical rigors and complexity of some disciplines may leave little space for reflection. Yet, if STEM education is all about raising detached observers of nature or obsessed makers of new gadgets, then we have failed. GDP may grow and the economy may benefit from them, yet have we really enriched the world?
One could argue that Liberal Arts colleges already do that. As one who graduated from a Liberal Arts program, there is some truth to this statement. Students are required to take a variety of courses that span Science, Literature, Social Studies, Art and Math. Even so, students take these classes separately with little to no help in integrating them. Rarely they have opportunities to engage in multi-disciplinary projects that challenge them to bring together what they learned. The professors themselves are specialists in a small subset of their discipline often having little experience in interacting outside their disciplinary guild. Furthermore, while a Liberal Arts education does a good job in exposing students to a variety of academic disciplines it does a rather poor job in teaching practical skills. Some students come out of it with the taste and confidence to continue learning. Yet, many leave these degrees confused and end up having to pursue professional degrees in order to pick a career.
Professional training does the opposite. It is precisely what a Liberal Arts education is not: highly practical, short, focused learning for a specific skill. As one who took countless professional training courses, I certainly see their value. Also, they do bring together different disciplines and tend to be project based. The downside is that very few people can efficiently learn anything in week-long 6 hour class days. The student is exposed to the contours of a skill but the learning really happens later when and if that student tries to apply that skill to a real-world work problem. They also never have time to reflect on the implications of what they are doing. Students are often paid by their companies to get the skill quickly so they can increase productivity for the firm. Such focus on efficiency greatly degrades the quality of the learning. Students here are most likely to forget what he or she learned in the long run.
Finally there is learning through experiences. Most colleges recognize that and offer study abroad semesters for students wanting to take their learning to the world. I had the opportunity to spend a summer in South Korea and it truly changed me in enduring ways. The same can be said for less structured experiences such as parenting, doing community service, being involved with a community of faith and work experiences. A word of caution here is that just going through an experience does not ensure the individual actually learns. While some of the learning is assimilated, a lot of it is lost if the individual does not digest the experience through reflection, writing and talking about it to others.
Clearly these approaches in of themselves are incomplete forms of education. A Liberal Arts education alone will only fill one’s head of knowledge (and a bit of pride too). Professional training will help workers get the job done but they will not develop as individuals. Experiences apart from reflection will only produce salutary memories. What is needed is an approach that combines the strengths of all three.
I believe a hands on project-based, ethically reflective STEM education draws from the strength of all of these. It is broad enough like Liberal Arts, skill-building like professional training and experience-rich through its hands-on projects. Above all, it should occur in a nurturing environment where young students are encouraged to take risks while still receiving the guidance so they can learn from their mistakes. To create a neatly controlled environment for learning is akin to the world of movies where main characters come up with plans in a whim and execute on them flawlessly. Real life never happens that way. It is full of failures, setbacks, disappointments and occasionally some glorious successes. The more our education experience mimics that, the better it will prepare students for the real world.
