'via Blog this'
As an educator, an evaluator and a parent of school aged children this article gives me a lot to think about. As an evaluator, I am struck by the different definitions of STEM, the different calculations that are used to define whether there is a shortfall or a surplus in STEM workers, and how our biases are always present. Evaluators and researchers need to do their best not let their biases influence their results, but that it not always possible. That is one of the reasons why replication of studies is so important, so that we have results from a variety of sources and biases and can view data form different viewpoints to hopefully help us draw better conclusions. Politicians and business leaders have their own agendas and will only bring to light those studies that support those agendas. People have to look at the studies and the data themselves before making judgments and cannot blindly trust these leaders.
As a parent and educator, I agree with the author's conclusion that all students should be STEM literate, just as they should be literate in art, history and literature. The recent push for more STEM and less of the liberal arts classes worries me. I think the most successful people have a wide range of skills and knowledge. Understanding art, literature and history helps us understand how people think and behave, math and sciences help us understand how the world works. Why wouldn't we want all people to have all kinds of knowledge?
No comments:
Post a Comment