STEM: Making Transdisciplinary Connections

Research has shown that approximately 13% of pupils in an average classroom are auditory learners, who learn best by listening to others (typically the teacher). The dominant teaching method of most schools is likely not meeting the learning needs of 87% of our students. Our brains do their best work when we are learning in by doing, not by passively listening.

Scientists, engineers, mathematicians and others STEM professionals spend a great portion of their day applying skills and concepts that fall outside the boundaries of their discipline. The National Research Center found that reading and writing comprise over half of the work of scientists and engineers (NRC 2011).  Speaking, listening, reading, writing, computing, sketching, collaborating with others, etc., make up the typical day for most professionals, where we use these competencies on an as-needed basis throughout the day. It is natural for us to engage in STEM daily if we participate in any brand of regular problem-solving.

By completing the chart below, we are reminded of this important academic reality.

By filling in the appropriate boxes of this chart with students, parents and educators, hopefully, we can reduce the number of times we hear, “Why do I need to know this?”  and “When will I ever use this?” It is through these “aha” moments that students not only appreciate STEM, but they also understand the value of a truly “interconnected” curriculum that provides a multidimensional backdrop for understanding their transdisciplinary world.

The connections their young brains make reach across numerous academic borderlines fostering what we first refer to as knowledge, and subsequently as creative thinking.

Failure IS an Option!

In keeping with our current assessment obsession, educators have unwisely borrowed the popular mantra “Failure is not an option” from the business community (where failures are forgiven, because they are “too big to fail,” but small children should pay a hefty emotional fine.) A deeper examination of this maxim reveals its glaring inaccuracy when applied to both how young brains learn and how inventors innovate.

Students may struggle in school with reading, they often fall short of a perfect score in mathematics, they will frequently misinterpret cause-and-effect relationships in science, it is not uncommon for them to repeatedly make the same spelling errors, and display developmentally-appropriate academic missteps. Occasionally, our students appear to be impervious to the best efforts of well-trained professionals.

 

The goal of academic “rigor” becomes almost rigor mortis for them. In nearly all cases, each learning difficulty is indicative of a naturally occurring neurological under-investment in the necessary brain wiring that is mandatory for successfully demonstrating a specific skill.

 

When we refer to a concept or skill that is not “developmentally-appropriate” to children of a given age, the reference we are making is to their brain development not our curriculum development. With this backdrop, certain academic shortcomings are highly anticipated outcomes.

 

However, these events foster teacher, parent and student frustrations in the meantime, since the child “doesn’t get it”. With time, maturation, and most important, the proper brain circuitry, he/she will surely "get it" quickly and with apparent ease.

 

When it comes to learning, failure is a predictable prerequisite during the lengthy course of converting new information into personal knowledge. This is particularly true when learners lack similar prior learning experiences, which prevents the new information from readily merging with neural pathways that don't yet exist. If there is nothing with which to integrate new knowledge, the conceptual development process must begin from an earlier starting point and new learning can be quite a lengthy process for some children, who are not “slow,” the brain-building process is frequently slow.

 

If learning occurred effortlessly, error-free, easily, and occurred without any naturally occurring obstacles, then wouldn't formal education from the pre-school years to graduate school fall somewhere between pointless and redundant?

In science, technology, engineering, mathematics, architecture, and the myriad other science-related fields, mistakes are not just prerequisites, they are nearly requirements for future success.

 

Most inventors and creative geniuses have a long history of failures leading to their ultimate triumph – the success that they were after from the beginning. Along the road to success, the greatest inventors looked into the face of failure for most of their journey to achievement.

Below are several famous failures, who are only known for their famous successes. Failure was an option, but they became icons for persistence and success, following their early failures.

 

STEM: Leveling the Playing Field for Struggling Students

One of the first revelations for STEM teachers has been that STEM tends to level the academic playing field quickly for students who are typically struggling learners. Distinguishing them from the high achievers in the STEM classroom is frequently difficult. These classroom events become peak motivational experiences for the less-academically proficient student.

 

For many students, feeling a sense of competence through STEM lessons can constitute the first in-school learning occasion that has a tendency to conceal their “low-achiever” stigma rather than to broadcast it. More importantly, this motivational boost can thwart the tendency toward “performance avoidance,” where academic insecurities entice struggling students to dodge classroom participation at any cost in order to mask their well-known history of learning failures.

Auditory Learners

Research has shown that approximately 13% of pupils in an average classroom are auditory learners, who learn best by listening to others (typically the teacher). The dominant teaching method of most schools is likely not meeting the learning needs of 87% of our students. Our brains do their best work when we are learning in by doing, not by passively listening.