Creating a more STEM capable DOD workforce
Carl Wieman
Associate Director for Science
Office of Science and Technology Policy, EOP
I. Nature and history of problem
basic structures and incentives
II. Potential for improvement
why there is hope, why hard to reach
II. How DOD might bring about change
unique combination of research needs and workforce needs
Starting assumption– need more and better technical
capabilities at all levels.
Troops on the ground ↔ scientists and engineers in labs
= expertise in science, technology, engineering, & math
How to get there from here?
I. The Nature and History of the Problem
stem education is no worse than in the past
• Fraction of 20-24 year olds going into physical sciences and eng
had bump after Sputnik. Essentially unchanged last 30 years.
• K-12 Math and science scores, ~flat for as long as have data
How to improve?
Federal Math/Science Education Priority Framework
Strategic Objectives
1.
2.
3.
4.
Improved Science and Mathematics Performance
Strong Precollege Teacher Workforce
Adequate pipeline for the S&T workforces, including increased
participation of Underrepresented groups
Improved Public Science Literacy
Implementation Priorities
General Public Science
Literacy
1. Public/Community
Linked Programs
2. Media Dissemination
3. Programs for
Decision-Makers
4. Public Information
Campaigns
Precollege
Undergraduate
1. Teacher Preparation
and Enhancement
2. Curriculum Reform
3. Organizational and
Systemic Reform
4. Student Support,
Incentives, and
Opportunities
1.
2.
3.
4.
Curriculum Reform
Faculty Preparation
and Enhancement
Student Support,
Incentives, and
Opportunities
Organizational
Reform
Implementation Components
•Evaluation and Assessment
•Dissemination and Technical Assistance
•Educational Technologies
Graduate
1. Student Support,
Incentives, and
Opportunities
Has been a change!
SMET has become
STEM
Solutions that people have been advocating
for past 20+ years do not work.
Why not? What to do instead?
STEM
Ed
STEM Education System
Interconnected pieces (school dominates)
K-12
school
K-12
teacher
prep
Higher ed
STEM
teaching
Stability because structure and incentives of each
achieves local optimization.
STEM Education System
Interconnected pieces
K-12
school
K-12
teacher
prep
Higher ed
STEM
teaching
Stability because structure and incentives of each
achieves local optimization.
Resilient against localized push
STEM Education System
Interconnected pieces
K-12
school
accountability,
incentives,
organization—
NCLB,
Race to Top
effective STEM
teachers?
K-12
teacher
prep
Higher ed
STEM
teaching
Higher education—
K-16 STEM teachers &
scientists and engineers
STEM in Higher Education
Higher
K-12 ed
STEM
teacher
teaching
prep
Simplified History:
Rise of research university
→separation of STEM departments and teacher preparation
STEM departments—optimized to research productivity,
graduate training. Department & faculty incentives aligned.
Schools of education— optimized to most students = $$.
Incentives aligned.
the collateral damage
Schools of Education
Lowest math and science
requirements.
Faculty with little STEM
competence or interest.
Attracts and accommodates
most math and science averse
students.
Each locally optimized,
but global result bad.
Math, Sci. & Eng. Depts
Disincentives to increase number
of undergraduate majors or focus
education on workforce needs.
Not involved in teacher training.
Disincentives to change teaching
methods.
Institutions (research univ.’s)
Administrator focus on research,
not learning.
Shift $$ from ed to research.
($5000/undergrad per yr AAU. 2/3
to subsidize fed research.)
II. Potential for improvement
science
classroom
studies
brain
research
Expertise and
its development
(cog. psych.)
Major advances past 1-2 decades
 Achieving learning of high level expertise
Results when tested in college STEM courses ( ~1000 papers)
• Measure how reason like experts → twice the learning of
conventionally taught courses.
• Substantially improved STEM course success rates
• Indicate how to attract and keep more students in STEM.
Same ongoing cost
→ tremendous opportunity to improve
Results when tested in college STEM courses ( ~1000 papers)
• Measure how reason like experts → twice the learning of
conventionally taught courses.
• Substantially improved STEM course success rates
• Indicate how to attract and keep more students in STEM.
Same cost
→ tremendous opportunity
BUT NOT BEING REALIZED
•Incentives wrong in higher education
•K-12 teachers lack necessary subject expertise --not getting from
college STEM courses.
III. How DOD might achieve change
Identified:
• Goal-- greater STEM expertise
• Potential solution --advances in teaching and learning
• Barriers to implementation – metrics & incentive system
due to federal R & D funding
STEM
Ed
Need new incentives
--knobs that can turn
But incentives require metrics
Only current metric for research universities:
• research output
(why divert money from education to research)
To optimize research and workforce training
need metrics and incentives for both.
DOD unique agency-- needs both & only lever big
enough to move system is research $$$.
Linking R&D funding to education performance
(already linked but wrong sign on feedback)
Must directly impact departments and individual faculty
e.g.
• Data on departmental STEM teaching practices required
for research funding
(preference if use best practices & increase STEM grads?)
• Incentives to Schools of Ed & STEM depts to jointly create
new teacher preparation programs:
Recruit good STEM students
STEM mastery and STEM teaching mastery
joint ed and STEM curriculum and best pedagogy
rigorous clinical experience
Not easy things to carry out.
But all the easy stuff (“poking the Jello”) has been tried
and failed (usually multiple times).
Time to get serious!