by Anne Jolly

I’m passionate about STEM – a process that offers students a chance to make sense of complex things and helps them connect their learning across subject areas. Another of my passions is professional learning teams – how teachers can work productively in teams to improve instruction. I’ve written a book about that, and I conduct workshops with teachers working in community to solve student problems and meet learning needs.

One thing I notice about PLC initiatives as I work with teaming is that PLCs have morphed into a variety of styles, some better than others. I worked with one system that mandated PLCs in every school. Rather than giving schools firm guidance, the system left it up to the schools to decide how PLCs would “look.” Schools struggled to get up to speed. Several established teacher teams and gave them time to meet during the school day. In another school, I learned, “Our faculty meeting counts as a PLC.”

Still another school decided that if two or more teachers met at lunch and discussed instruction – while monitoring students – those teachers could count that as a PLC meeting. Some mandated school improvement meetings were labeled as PLC meetings. So PLCs have taken on many faces – with a lot of schools and professional staffs just going through the motions as they wait out the latest “fad.”

The same thing could happen to STEM. Chances are, it’s already beginning. I know for certain that some schools/systems believe they have STEM programs if one subject (usually science) in the school teaches lessons officially labeled as “STEM.” Some believe they have STEM if they let kids make roller coasters or Lego robots in an after school program. Those kinds of things certainly include STEM components, but I wonder, is the meaning of STEM beginning to be diluted, from a rich stew to a thin soup?

The Ingredients of a Good STEM Stew

Different looks and approaches can be good, depending on what they accomplish for students and for the workforce. However, there ought to be some basic core principles around which STEM programs revolve.

What, exactly, makes a particular curriculum an authentic STEM program?

The answer is up for grabs in some areas, but STEM programs should focus on attaining the following 10 outcomes at the very least. That doesn’t mean that every one of these outcomes must be in place at the launch of a program, but they should be present as the program matures. They sum up the basics of solid STEM programs and represent the “bonus” or “value added” that comes from doing STEM right. Check these out and see how many your STEM program already has in place:

Basic Outcomes of Real STEM programs

1. Students gain a deep understanding of the content areas. Depth is more evident than breadth as students learn rich content that they will apply in future careers. (STEM Bonus: Students may gain real understanding of concepts rather than just knowing facts.)

2. STEM areas (science, technology, engineering, and math) are interconnected and integrated. Students are able to identify and integrate concepts and skills from content areas to understand and solve complex problems. (STEM Bonus: This will give students a reason to learn content that once seemed useless.)

3. Engineering is a driving force behind STEM challenges. The engineering design process provides an organized structure that students use in solving challenges. (STEM Bonus: There’s a high probability that students will learn how to think through problems if they use this process frequently.)

4. STEM students work to solve real-world problems. Students apply problem solving and design skills across the interrelated STEM disciplines to address real social, economic, and environmental situations in their local and global communities. (STEM Bonus: Students may actually grow up to solve some of these problems.)

5. Teachers facilitate STEM learning through hands-on inquiry and exploration. STEM teachers use inquiry-based, firsthand investigations that encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork. (STEM Bonus: This way of teaching may spread throughout the school!)

6. STEM involves teamwork. A glance in a classroom where students are involved in a STEM project will reveal students working together in teams to solve problems. (STEM Bonus: Teamwork builds skills that will be useful in almost every area of their lives.)

7. Students feel comfortable working with technology. Students view technology as more than computers; technology includes all tools used to make life easier and better. (STEM Bonus: School may be a place that feels up-to-date and students enjoy coming.)

8. Students understand how their STEM coursework relates to future careers. They believe that STEM skills are vital to their success as 21st century workers and vital to our collective future. (STEM Bonus: Students who engage in STEM coursework may become leaders who improve our economic growth, national security, and our future.)

9. Teachers are active learners. Teachers have access to, and time allotted for, collaborative professional development that sharpens their STEM knowledge and inquiry teaching approach. (STEM Bonus: Teachers may become less isolated in silos and more likely to spread expertise.)

10. The community is supportive, including both parents and private industry. The STEM program has strong leadership, sufficient resources, and support from parents, businesses, higher education, and/or private industry. (STEM Bonus: The community may find out about the good things your school is doing.)

You can find more about what goes on with outstanding STEM initiatives at these websites:

• Carolina Curriculum and the Smithsonian Institution National Science Resources Center

• Washington State STEM Education Foundation

• A Compendium of Best Practice K-12 STEM Education Programs

If you know of a STEM program with some successful components, tell us about it here or share a link to the site.

by Anne Jolly

If you like to read business/leadership books, you may have deduced that I just finished reading a thought-provoking book, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Brafman and Beckstrom.

As any life science teacher can tell you, if you cut off the arm of a starfish, the creature will grow a new arm. In fact, in some starfish, the severed arm will grow a new body. A starfish doesn’t have a head because the nervous system is decentralized and each arm contains all the organs it needs to operate independently.

Spiders may look somewhat similar, but their nervous system is centralized. If you cut off a spider’s leg, you simply have a seven-legged spider. If you whack off its head, the spider dies.

The purpose of the book is to contrast decentralized organizations with organizations where power and control is concentrated in a central location or group. However, this idea intrigues me from a STEM education standpoint. As we increasingly implement STEM curriculum in our classrooms, how does that look? Does our approach use the starfish as a model? The spider? Or maybe a hybrid – something in between? And does it matter?

Consider these classrooms:

Classroom A. The teacher shows students a short video about a real life problem that catches their attention. She carefully explains the STEM problem for which the students need to find a solution. She then leads a group discussion and an activity, making sure students cover the content information they need for the project. The teacher places students in teams, assigns team roles, and gives teams guidelines or norms to guide behavior. She then gives each team a handout with directions for how to proceed as they work on finding a solution for the problem. She also shows teams what materials they will have to work with when they choose a solution and construct their prototypes. She circulates to provide advice and help as teams work.

Classroom B. The teacher shows students a short video about a real life problem that catches their attention. She then asks students to work in teams to articulate the problem. She checks for understanding, then turns teams loose to begin brainstorming multiple solutions. As they work she circulates and acts as a catalyst by asking questions as needed to help teams drive toward solutions, although she doesn’t step in to prevent them from making mistakes. Students identify information they need in order to better understand and solve the problem and the teacher provides resources to help students learn, including a wide variety of materials from which they might choose to construct a prototype. Team members decide what roles they need to play, make sure that everyone has a role, and set their own norms based on behaviors they like in other team members.

Classroom C. The teacher shows students a short video about a real life problem that catches their attention. He then asks students to work in teams to articulate the problem. To make sure students have the information they need to make decisions, he leads a group discussion and an activity. In order to spur ideas for solving the problem and help teams choose solutions, the teacher provides each team with a variety of materials. He then circulates and asks questions to help teams arrive at solutions as needed. He also provides a list of team member roles and norms, and makes sure that all team members have a role before they begin building their prototypes.

What models do these classrooms represent?

In my thinking, Classroom A represents the spider model. The teacher controls almost every aspect of the lesson. Power and control are primarily centralized in the teacher, and the students receive instructions on how they are to perform and what they are to do — even in the way their team operates. The teacher is obviously caring and helpful, and plans carefully to be sure that all students successfully solve the problem. This classroom would allow hands-on activity within parameters. Team members would likely follow instructions, and then wait for further instructions or teacher advice before proceeding.

Classroom B represents a starfish model. The teacher presents an environment within which students can work, but provides a more hands-off approach as teams work to solve the problem. Teams decide on their own norms and roles. Through their brainstorming and efforts to arrive at solutions, teams are able to decide what content and information they need to know in order to solve the problem. This teacher has a tolerance for “productive chaos” and is comfortable with allowing teams to make mistakes on their learning journey. This classroom would be a good incubator for creative, innovative, and sometimes wacky ideas. Teams could learn to work autonomously and would not depend on the teacher to move forward with their work. They would dare to make mistakes.

Classroom C is something of a cross between the Classroom A and Classroom B. The teacher exerts control in some areas and allows teams to work autonomously in others. This approach is probably the most utilized approach in STEM classrooms today, partially due to the lack of time for students to muck about and find solutions on their own. Most likely, teams in this classroom would be able to work independently to some extent, but would still look to the teacher for regular guidance.

So I wonder — which model would be most likely to produce the type of citizens and workers we need?