I. Nature and history of problem basic structures and incentives II. Potential for improvement

1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. Federal Math/Science Education Priority Framework • Strategic Objectives • 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 Public/Community Linked Programs Media Dissemination Programs for Decision-Makers Public Information Campaigns • Precollege • Teacher Preparation and Enhancement • Curriculum Reform • Organizational and Systemic Reform • Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities • Undergraduate • Curriculum Reform • Faculty Preparation and Enhancement • Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities • Organizational Reform • Graduate • Student Support, Incentives, and Opportunities • Implementation Components • Evaluation and Assessment • Dissemination and Technical Assistance • Educational Technologies

5. Has been a change! SMET has become STEM

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

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

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

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

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

11. the collateral damage Schools of Education Math, Sci. & Eng. Depts Lowest math and science requirements. Faculty with little STEM competence or interest. Attracts and accommodates most math and science averse students. 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.) Each locally optimized, but global result bad.

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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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 $$$.

17. 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

18. 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!