Introduction
The other day I repeated something I had done five years ago. I asked some upper-primary school and lower secondary school pupils to draw a picture of a âScientistâ and a picture of an âEngineerâ. Of course, not many of them had ever met a scientist and so, just as five years ago, some drew the clichĂ© often seen in films â white, male, middle aged, balding or âmadâ-haired and white-coated â a bit like Doc in Back to the Future â with Dr Frankenstein wild eyes, and a bubbling conical flask in their hand as a modern-day Dr Jekyll. But this time, there were some significant differences. Some pupils, both boys and girls, drew their scientist as female, dressed more as an âexplorerâ rather than wearing a white coat, and with a sunhat, magnifying glass, notebook and pencil. And the engineer? Well, like before, all male, with a hard hat and carrying a larger-than-life spanner. While accepting that the very act of asking for pictures to be drawn might have led them to offer me a caricature of how scientist and engineers are commonly represented in the media, I was intrigued that although it seems the stereotype of a scientist is changing, engineering is generally still seen as âmaleâ despite the impetus over the years to broaden the appeal of both engineering and the physical sciences.
The STEM subjects â Science, Technology & Engineering, and Mathematics â are separate in most national curriculum documents around the world but with common links at a range of levels, and with at least a nod to relevance in the âreal worldâ and to vocational usefulness. These links are structural too. For example, I looked up what is said about the UK Parliamentâs Science and Technology Committee yesterday wondering what it was and what it did. I found out that:
The Science and Technology Committee exists to ensure that Government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific and engineering advice and evidence. [It] scrutinises the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), which is a âsemi-autonomous organisationâ based within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. GO-Science âsupports the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and works to ensure that Government policy and decision-making is underpinned by robust scientific evidenceâ.
Notice the words âscientific evidenceâ and âBusiness, Energy and Industrial Strategyâ, Guessing that this was not unique, I wondered about thinking in the USA, which has an Office of Science and Technology:
In 1976, Congress established the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to provide the President and others within the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and use of resources, among other topics.
Again, notice âscientific, engineering, and technological aspects of the economyâ. Finally, I looked up what happens in Australia. There, I discovered that as part of the work of the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science there was a specific policy concerning STEM:
Increasing science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) capability is at the core of the governmentâs science agenda [âŠ] The global economy is changing which means new industries are emerging and new skills are required for workers at all levels.
Action on STEM is critical to:
-
Australiaâs ability to compete in international markets
-
creating new opportunities for industries
-
supporting high living standards
Ensuring all Australians can be engaged with STEM is a key priority.
Although they might not draw the same pictures of the scientist and engineers as the youngsters, it is clear that politicians, too, have some stereotypical views and often refer to âscience and technologyâ as an epistemological unit, more-or-less the same thing, a single activity inseparably linked, which is the principal driver of the modern economy.
The aims and processes of science, however, are fundamentally different from those of technology and the links between them are not as formal as many people think. Maybe the confusion is because science is seen, erroneously, as necessarily always underpinning technology â providing the foundation to develop âuseful knowledgeâ. Disappointingly, the confusion is also present in the school curriculum where, in perhaps rather crude and simplistic terms, science is often seen as âtheoryâ, i.e. âknow whyâ, and technology as practical, i.e. âknow howâ, and that in some way technology is dependent on science. Before we consider curriculum links across STEM subjects, which we will do in Chapter 2, we must first clarify our understanding of why STEM has gained such interest in recent years and, in particular discuss âscienceâ, âtechnologyâ and maths, and how science knowledge and mathematical ability is âexploitedâ in technology and vice versa. This chapter considers:
-
the birth of STEM; when did we start thinking of this area of knowledge in linked capital letters?
-
some milestones in the development of STEM subjects in schools;
-
the difference between science knowledge and technology knowledge;
-
technology before science? What does history tell us?
-
common ground between science and technology learning;
-
the contribution of M in STEM;
-
what else do the STEM subjects contribute? Affective knowledge and personal values, problem solving, and systems thinking;
-
why should all pupils learn STEM?
