Tuajuanda C. Jordan, President

Project Kaleidoscope Conference, Baltimore, MD

April 14, 2017

Good morning!  I am Tuajuanda Jordan, President of St. Mary’s College of Maryland.  I am pleased to be a part of this year’s PKAL Conference. The conference theme – “Leadership and Collaborations across Boundaries” – really struck a chord with me.  The title can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and taken in a multitude of directions.  You might be surprised by the direction I have chosen to take it!

I have been associated with PKAL, in one way or another, for over 20 years.  It is an honor to be able to spend some time with you today discussing science education and how we can better prepare not only future scientists but, quite importantly, how we might prepare a more science literate society.  In that vein, I am reminded of a quote attributed to Jawaharlal Nehru in which he said, “The future belongs to science and those who make friends with science.”[1]

Nehru was the prime minister of India from 1947 to 1964.  He is credited with creating a national mindset that took the country from being a so-called third-world country to really what is an emerging first-world country in STEM.  In 1950, he coined the phrase “scientific temper” which has the attributes of creativity, rational thinking, openness to different points of view, and tolerance of others[2].

“The scientific temper describes an attitude (that) involves the application of logic.  Discussion, argument, and analysis are vital parts of scientific temper. Elements of fairness, equality, and democracy are built into it.”[3]

Why am I discussing “scientific temper”? At this juncture in our nation’s history, I am concerned about the ability of we, The People, to process information, ask questions, and make decisions based on facts and evidence.  Everyone has a role to play to ensure that The People exercise informed and effective citizenship.  Scientists, especially natural and computer scientists, do not often think about our responsibility to help prepare The People for citizenship.  In my view, we have the greatest responsibility to do just that.  Not because we should be constantly considering the ethical and moral consequences of our discoveries and inventions and not because the citizens who decide whether there will be resources available to support our work are more-often-than-not laymen.  Rather, we have an obligation to prepare The People for effective global citizenry because it is our responsibility to humanity writ large!

Many of us teach courses at the freshman level or teach courses for non-majors.  Why not take that opportunity to instill the scientific temper in these young minds while they are still malleable?  Imagine a nation operating under the principles of creativity, openness and respect, rational thinking, and tolerance!  Our nation and, I daresay, the world would be all the better for our efforts.

If we are to take on this humanitarian cause, a question becomes, how do we get students to want to engage in science?  This is a very important question because, according to economic projections issued by the Obama administration in 2016, there will be 2.4 million unfilled STEM-related jobs by 2018.  Based on this and other information, it appears that we have neither enough students in the pipeline to become productive scientists nor enough students willing to engage in scientific discourse so that they may become better-informed citizens.

Thus, to get more students engaged in science and to stay the course, we must reform our approach to science education on a massive scale.  We have all heard our students or even our own children ask at least one of two questions.  Is this important? Or, when would I ever use this information?  I am not one to advocate for letting students choose what they want to learn.  However, I am a strong advocate for providing context and, by extension, a practical application of the concept being taught, and/or its relevance.  I am also a tremendous advocate for giving students ownership of their work.

As you are all aware, there is a significant amount of effort advocating for STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) rather than STEM as a way to help individuals see a practical application of the theory that we present in many of our science courses and as a way to change student attitudes as well as garner long-term interest in STEM fields. An example of this intersection between art and STEM can be found in the work of Michelangelo, the famous Italian artist and architect known for creating masterpieces.  When we marvel at Michelangelo’s work, do we ever think about the technical aspects that went into his final product such as the painting “The Creation of Adam”? Some geometry? Physics? Perhaps, the Golden Ratio?  Michelangelo’s works, which are prime examples of STEAM, represent a good way to make science more “real”, and perhaps relevant, to students.

Recently, I read an article that discusses the importance of the STEAM concept within a collaborative learning environment.[4] Some believe that a STEAM approach instead of a STEM approach is key to ensuring that 21st-century students receive the broad, inclusive experiences they need to be empowered global citizens.  The boundaries between art, science, music, and math are fluid.  They intersect seamlessly.  A science teacher featured in the article notes:

“Most people tend to simply equate creativity with a particular art form.  If you can draw, you’re creative.  If you’re musical, then you’re creative.  But, it’s much more broad than that.  The best scientists and mathematicians are highly creative.”

I agree with the “science teacher,” except I would say that all scientists are creative, and the best scientists are both creative and innovative.

Nonetheless, the STEAM model is an important example of “collaboration across boundaries.”  Both STEM and art are about exploration.  They are about making connections.  They are about pushing boundaries.

Does the transformation of STEM to STEAM really prepare students for the real world?  Many would say, “Yes.”  I would say that using the STEAM approach at least puts more bodies around the table; allows more voices to be heard.  Two years ago, one of our environmental studies professors started work with one of the art professors on a course that focused on the intersection of functional art and design in an environmentally aware context.  To take the course from theory to application, the students in the course designed and constructed two tiny houses using only recycled and donated materials.  This project took a multi-dimensional approach that required the real-world application of concepts from virtually every discipline as well as craftsman and artisans from the local community.  One of the houses is slated to be given to a local homeless veteran; the other, which is pretty much self-sufficient with respect to energy use and waste management, will serve as a living on-campus laboratory and home to the College’s sustainability fellow.

STEM to STEAM can make STEM more relevant to a broader base of students.  However, I actually believe that to truly prepare students for the real world, we should be talking about THEMAS – technology, humanities, engineering, mathematics, arts, sciences.  When educators approach instruction as a cross-disciplinary, integrated effort across departments and seemingly dissimilar fields, they prepare students for the real world.  This gets us back to my introductory remarks in which I stated that we need to instill the scientific temper in our teachings as a way to prepare a more humane society.  And, when you think about this thing dubbed THEMAS you will see that I am really talking about the value and importance of a liberal education.

Regardless of whether it is STEM, STEAM or THEMAS, what is apparent is that collaborative, multi-disciplinary approaches are required, in both “lectures” and laboratory experiences, to prepare students for 21st-century science and global citizenship.

Several years ago, Shirley Tilghman, when she was president of Princeton University, spoke on the need to reform undergraduate science education.  She said, “There must be the creation of more courses that engage [all] students in “big questions” early in their careers…[Only students with] “the persistence of Sisyphus and the patience of Job” will reach the point where they can engage in the kind of science that excited them in the first place.”[5]  Even this statement is representative of the THEMAS concept!

Dr. Jo Handlesman is a professor of Biology who has a national reputation as a science educator and advocate.  Among other things, she was the Director for Science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Obama administration. She is a leader in science education reform.

In one of her articles, Jo discusses what collaborative, cross-disciplinary teaching and learning look like in the classroom.  The strategies include:[6]

• Active lectures and discovery-based laboratories to help students develop the habits of mind that drive science
  • This is especially important in introductory classes that sometimes rely on “transmission-of-information” and “cookbook” laboratory exercises
• Technology-assisted learning to engage students
• Inquiry-based labs that require students to develop hypotheses, design and conduct experiments, collect and interpret data, and analyze results
• Opportunities for students to conduct original research in a faculty member’s research lab rather than a traditional classroom lab course
• Science master classes in which students are exposed to true experts in the field

Additionally, instructors should implement small changes like holding class outside of the standard classroom space, supplementing traditional lecture-based course components with group work, and using current events to spark interest and stimulate thinking.

These strategies lessen the divide between disciplines, resulting in more fulfilled and intelligent students across the board.

I am going to present, very briefly, a real example of collaborative, multi-disciplinary teaching and learning that incorporates virtually all of the strategies described by Jo and the impact it has had on student learning and engagement. You should also know that it positively affects faculty teaching and scholarship as well.

When I was at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, I was given the opportunity to create a new program that was designed to engage undergraduate freshmen in an original research project as part of their regular curriculum.  This specially designed, year-long laboratory course was team-taught by professors who had different disciplines or areas of expertise.  It is important to note that by “team-taught,” I mean both professors were present in the laboratory at the same time, not a “tag team”.  The students enrolled in this laboratory instead of their institution’s traditional biology lab sequence.

As mentioned earlier, the question of relevance is very important to the Millennials.  The course we designed, called the SEA NGRI, was focused on identifying new species of mycobacterial phages.  Recall that mycobacterial infections can lead to such maladies as tuberculosis.  Thus, the work was “relevant” to these students.

Pertinent aspects of the course are depicted here.  The scientist presented the “big picture”, posed the research question, and worked with the science educators on thinking through the types of experimental techniques would be required to address the main question.  The science educators worked on the concepts that should be covered and the pedagogy.  The students, primarily college freshmen, did the actual work with the science educators around to do just-in-time-teaching as necessary.  The experiments the students did were in the areas of microbiology, molecular biology, electron microscopy, and bioinformatics.  The freshmen interpreted the data, discussed it with their peers, teachers, and, when very complex or extraordinary, the lead scientist.  In this iterative process, the data got vetted, and then broadly disseminated via conference presentations and publications.  What is important to note is that scientists and science educators worked together to define and refine the original research question, the faculty were in the classroom together with the students every day, and the students took ownership of the experiments and the direction the research led them.

The impact on the student is depicted here.  We find that, when compared to the comparison group, i.e., the students who were enrolled in the traditional biology lab sequence, the SEA NGRI students were retained at a higher level both during the respective semesters and over the winter break. Traditionally, concepts from lecture get reinforced in the associated laboratory course. The NGRI students were not enrolled in the traditional lab. Thus, one would hypothesize that these students would either not do as well in the lecture course or have to work harder on the lecture material to succeed.  I don’t have data indicating whether they had to work harder on the lecture material.  We do know these students spent more time in the lab working and bonding.  The data indicate that they performed better in lecture than the comparison group students.  We also saw that the NGRI students were more likely to declare a STEM major and persisted in STEM at a higher rate than the comparison groups.  Overall, the impact of this integrated, collaborative approach on student learning, retention in, and engagement with the sciences was measurable, notable, and positive.

There was also a positive impact on faculty research productivity and engagement in pedagogy.

Were there challenges?  Of course!  Time is always a major deterrent in trying to develop any cross-disciplinary endeavor.  The faculty had to be committed to making the time, and the administration had to be willing to allow them to work together and to receive full credit for their efforts. College and university administrators must provide leadership and resources.  Specifically, they should:[7]

• Foster collaboration between faculty and administrators “to overcome the barriers and create an educational ethos that enables change”
• Provide venues for experienced instructors to share best practices and effective teaching strategies by, for example, forming educational research groups
• Collaborate with distinguished researchers; “dispel the notion that excellence in teaching is incompatible with first-rate research”; stress that “esteemed researchers can also be innovative educators and bring prestige to teaching”. This strategy is the foundation of the HHMI SEA NGRI course.
• Create more vehicles for educating faculty in effective teaching methods
• Align rewards system for reform; reward the efforts of those who are teaching with tested and successful methods, learning new methods, or introducing and analyzing new assessment tools

If colleges and universities “marshal their collective will to reform science education, the impact could be far-reaching.”  As Nehru said, “The future belongs to science and those who make friends with it.”  By reforming science education using a collaborative, multi-disciplinary approach, we will be able to address questions never before imagined because we are viewing them from different perspectives simultaneously (THEMAS).  Additionally, we will increase the pipeline of engaged students committed to pursuing careers in the STEM areas and, equally important, we will create a society that is both more science-literate and instilled with the Scientific Temper –capable of being open to different viewpoints, tolerant of others with whom they may differ or disagree, rational in their thinking and able to take creative approaches to solving the challenges of the world.  And Nehru, the man referred to as the “architect of modern India”, could be credited with saving the world.

Thank you.

 

References

[1] Fakhri, A. (2009, November 13). Why Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s concept of ‘scientific temper’ is very critical to the future of our children.  Retrieved from www.sastwingees.org.

[2] Nehru, J. (1989). The Discovery of India.

[3]  Scientific temper and the argumentative Indian (2005, September 22). Chennai, India: The Hindu.

[4] Henriksen, D. (2014). Full STEM ahead: Creativity in excellent STEM teaching practices. The STEAM Journal, 1(2), article 15.  DOI: 10.5642/steam.20140102.15.

[5] Tilghman, S.M. (2010, January 6).  Speaking at the Council of Independent Colleges. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from www.insidehighered.com.

[6] Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S. Stewart, J. Tilghman, S.M., Wood, W.B. (2004, April 23). Scientific teaching. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org.

[7] Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S. Stewart, J. Tilghman, S.M., Wood, W.B. (2004, April 23). Scientific teaching. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org.