{"id":2307,"date":"2012-06-16T10:59:09","date_gmt":"2012-06-16T16:59:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=2307"},"modified":"2014-09-12T11:58:35","modified_gmt":"2014-09-12T17:58:35","slug":"a-new-definition-for-stem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2012\/06\/16\/a-new-definition-for-stem\/","title":{"rendered":"A New Definition for STEM?"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

There’s a discussion going on on on of the LinkedIn forums. Someone is trying to come up with a definition for STEM. Here’s the draft:<\/p>\n

STEM Education Defined: STEM Education is the integration of the interdependent educational disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math; with the aim of optimizing student learning relevancy for both college and career readiness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It seems to me this is related to my last post<\/a> about the tendency Educators have to obfuscate perfectly straight-forward terminology for…. well, I’m still not sure exactly why. Becuase it’s cool?<\/p>\n

Here’s my response:
\nWhat’s wrong with defining STEM as simply:<\/p>\n

The combined disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math? <\/strong><\/p>\n

Why is a new definition needed?<\/p>\n

The most useful and enduring terms tend to be the simplest ones.
\nYou’re not going to fix what’s wrong with education in these disciplines by re-defining what they should mean. What needs to be fixed is what and how we teach.<\/p>\n

I’ve been a scientist and computer science instructor since 1979. My first two degrees are in Computer Science. I’ve only recently become an ‘official’ educator by earning my terminal degree in Education.<\/p>\n

My approach is that of someone who has been living and teaching these disciplines my entire adult life.<\/p>\n

Let’s decompose this definition and see where it takes us:<\/p>\n

the integration of the interdependent educational disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We can probably agree that it is helpful to name the disciplines that make up the acronym, so:<\/p>\n

S = Science
\nT = Technology
\nE = Engineering
\nM = Math<\/p>\n

OK so far. What about the first part?<\/p>\n

integration of the interdependent educational disciplines<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They’re not really educational disciplines – they are disciplines in their own right. You can get PhD’s in them. The acronym STEM is often paired with the word Education to produce “STEM Education”.<\/p>\n

The integration of things that are interdependent seems redundant to me. In computer science, as in math redundancy is to be eliminated – so we don’t really need that phrase at all. It doesn’t add anything to our understanding of the term STEM.<\/p>\n

That leaves us with:<\/p>\n

with the aim of optimizing student learning relevancy<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is a worthy aim, but I would think it’s a given in education. Do we ever NOT want to do this? If true, it also adds nothing to the definition (except more words).<\/p>\n

for both college and career readiness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is also a given. Do we ever NOT want to do this when we are teaching? See above.<\/p>\n

That leaves us with:<\/p>\n

STEM: The combined disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math?<\/h3>\n

The rest should be discussions about the details and the how’s and why’s. Those discussions absolutely need to take place. I think that would be more useful than a new definition for STEM.<\/p>\n