🐴 Are we teaching STEM backwards?

If you enjoy this edition, forward this email to a friend! First time reading? Subscribe and learn more at OpenEd.co.

Countries around the world are locked in a high-stakes race for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) talent. The U.S. government is pouring billions into STEM education initiatives, from Kindergarten through higher education. Leaders everywhere warn that tomorrow's economic winners will be determined by who builds the strongest STEM pipeline today.

But in the obsession over test scores and global rankings, could we be losing something more fundamental—namely, a child’s natural curiosity?

Meet Jack Casdorph, a mechanical engineer who's experienced nearly every type of education firsthand. Now developing hands-on physics kits at Clean Your Craft, Jack's approach was shaped by a childhood experience where his father transformed a simple treehouse request into a multi-step learning journey that taught real skills through authentic projects.

Joining him is Rachael Davie, a former high school math teacher and Student Success Team Lead.

In this debut episode hosted by our Director of Learning, Andrea Fife, Jack and Rachael reveal how the traditional approach to science education might be backwards—suggesting that instead of starting with theory and formulas, we should begin with projects that ignite curiosity and make learning inevitable.

Listen to the full episode, or read the edited transcript below:

Andrea: Jack, tell us a little bit about how you feel science education is going in the world today.

Jack: I think science should be fun, and it often isn't. It should be the subject where you get to do stuff, touch things, play with things. Science should be the break that kids get from book work.

When I was in third grade, I was convinced that I didn't like science. We did an experiment where we magnetized a needle and put it on a foam packing peanut in water to make a homemade compass. The experiment took maybe 25 seconds, but then we spent half an hour doing a writeup where the teacher dictated verbatim what we were supposed to write.

Even though matter and energy were not created or destroyed, my interest in science at that time was totally destroyed.

Rachael: I agree completely. Learning math and science should be fun, and so often it's just not.

When I was teaching high school, my first few years focused on ensuring students were proficient – teaching them exactly how to approach a problem, follow the steps, check every box. But over time, I realized this approach was limiting. Their thinking became almost robotic. If given a question that didn't look exactly like examples they'd seen before, they would freeze up.

Jack: I swear every science class I had, we'd spend a week or two going over the steps of the scientific method, memorizing each one. It felt redundant, and those steps didn't match up well with real investigating. My favorite version actually comes from watching Sesame Street with my kids: "I wonder, what if, let's try." I really like that simpler version of just "let's try it."

Andrea: What should we be doing to improve how STEM is approached?

Jack: I consider all STEM subjects – science, technology, engineering, math – to be on different portions of a spectrum. On one end you have the completely theoretical or abstract (math). Next is science, which describes how the world works. Then engineering, which is the "so what" side of science – how can we manipulate the world to make it what we want? Finally, technology is the application of engineering and science, including making and building.

Traditional education spends too much time on the theoretical end. It tends to start with theory and then maybe move toward application and problem-solving. The practical side often isn't even touched. This leads to two problems: kids become robotic in their thinking, and you get that constant question, "When are we gonna use this in real life?"

Rachael: What if people didn't start on the left hand side of that spectrum? What if they start on the right with a problem they don't have skills to solve yet, and work backwards?

Jack: Yes, you totally can – and you often should. To illustrate this, I want to share how my dad taught me.

When I was about eight or nine, I asked my dad if he could build me a treehouse. His response was, "Nope. But I can help you build a treehouse."

I was confused but thought, "Whatever, I'm getting a treehouse."

He told me that before we could start building, he wanted me to get better at climbing trees. We went out, he showed off his climbing skills, and gave me benchmarks to meet before I'd be "monkey enough" to build a treehouse. I spent the next couple days climbing trees, swinging from branches, and practicing dismounts to prove I was ready.

After I'd been officially pronounced "monkey enough," he gave me a cordless drill for my birthday, along with Phillips bits and screws. Then he said, "I need to replace some deck boards on the back deck, and I need someone with a brand new drill who needs to learn how to use it. Do you know anybody like that?"

Once I was okay with the drill, I asked, "Can we build the treehouse now?" He said, "Mostly, but before we get materials, we need a design."

Read the rest of the transcript or watch/listen.

📺️ CLIP OF THE DAY

openedhq

1,559 followers

View more on Instagram

Richard Feynman's chilling prediction to David Deutsch: standardized education is killing the creativity that makes scientific breakthroughs possible. What future geniuses are we losing today?

That’s all for this week!

– Charlie (the OpenEd newsletter guy)

P.S. If you’d prefer to just receive the weekly edition, you can change your subscription settings here.