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 Creating a more STEM capable DOD workforce Carl Wieman Associate Director for Science Office of Science and Technology Policy, EOP

Starting assumption– need more and better technical capabilities at all levels. Troops on the ground ↔ scientists and engineers in labs How to get there from here? = expertise in science, technology, engineering, & math

I. The Nature and History of the Problem stem education is no worse than in the past Fraction of 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 General Public Science Literacy 1.Public/Community Linked Programs 2.Media Dissemination 3.Programs for Decision-Makers 4.Public Information Campaigns Strategic Objectives 1.Improved Science and Mathematics Performance 2.Strong Precollege Teacher Workforce 3.Adequate pipeline for the S&T workforces, including increased participation of Underrepresented groups 4.Improved Public Science Literacy Graduate 1.Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities Precollege 1.Teacher Preparation and Enhancement 2.Curriculum Reform 3.Organizational and Systemic Reform 4.Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities Undergraduate 1.Curriculum Reform 2.Faculty Preparation and Enhancement 3.Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities 4.Organizational Reform Implementation Components Evaluation and Assessment Dissemination and Technical Assistance Educational Technologies Implementation Priorities

Has been a change! SMET has become STEM

Solutions that people have been advocating for past 20+ years do not work. STEM Ed Why not? What to do instead?

K-12 school K-12 teacher prep Higher ed STEM teaching STEM Education System Interconnected pieces (school dominates) Stability because structure and incentives of each achieves local optimization.

K-12 school K-12 teacher prep Higher ed STEM teaching STEM Education System Interconnected pieces Stability because structure and incentives of each achieves local optimization. Resilient against localized push

K-12 school K-12 teacher prep Higher ed STEM teaching accountability, incentives, organization— NCLB, Race to Top effective STEM teachers? STEM Education System Interconnected pieces Higher education— K-16 STEM teachers & scientists and engineers

K-12 teacher prep Higher ed STEM teaching STEM in Higher Education 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.

Disincentives to increase number of undergraduate majors or focus education on workforce needs. Not involved in teacher training. Disincentives to change teaching methods. Lowest math and science requirements. Faculty with little STEM competence or interest. Attracts and accommodates most math and science averse students. Schools of Education Math, Sci. & Eng. Depts the collateral damage 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.) Each locally optimized, but global result bad.

Expertise and its development (cog. psych.) brain research science classroom studies Major advances past 1-2 decades  Achieving learning of high level expertise II. Potential for improvement

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. Incentives wrong in higher education K-12 teachers lack necessary subject expertise --not getting from college STEM courses. BUT NOT BEING REALIZED Same cost → tremendous opportunity

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!