Re “Learning What Works” (Sept. 3): While bringing more students to STEM fields is important, it cannot and should not be the major goal. All students benefit from learning science, especially science as process rather than rote memorization. Understanding and employing the critical thinking skills involved in the scientific method can help inform anyone’s life. Furthermore, we are all consumers of science. We use medicines, we vote for legislators who decide which scientific endeavors get government funding. We face issues like climate change, antibiotic resistance and genetically modified organisms. Don’t all of us deserve to really understand what we are debating? Jennifer Zinman Glen Ridge, N.J. TO THE EDITOR: I heartily agree with Salman Khan’s desire to position creativity and invention as the foci of STEM courses. To begin to address how we can do this, there are several critical success factors to consider. The most important of these is failure, since it is critical to figuring things out about the natural world or to creating a new design. Repeatedly reiterating the process used while making small changes, approaching the problem from multiple perspectives, or working backwards from the desired outcome — these are examples of strategies that we use in a wide variety of contexts, including STEM exploration. Our assessment of students needs to reward thoughtful detours and dead-ends if we want to encourage a culture of creativity and innovation in STEM classrooms. Koshi Dhingra Dallas The writer is the former assistant director of the Science and Engineering Education Center at the University of Texas, Dallas.
No comments:
Post a Comment