STEM education: A tale of two paradigms

Abstract

Higher education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines has been in a turbulent period for several decades. Pressures for reform include declining STEM student enrollments, high attrition rates from STEM curricula, and the rise of powerful alternative teaching strategies shown by cognitive science and educational research to promote learning and curricular retention better than traditional teaching methods do. In addition, research has shown that online and face-to-face courses on average produce comparable learning outcomes, and hybrid courses that combine the best features of both are more effective than either face-to-face or online courses by themselves. Motivated by these and other pressures, many faculty members have adopted the new teaching methods, and distance education had become widespread well before the 2020 coronavirus pandemic forced most educators at all levels to teach online. As might be expected, however, many faculty members and administrators have resisted change, arguing that the traditional approach has always worked well and needs no major revision. Before the pandemic, most STEM courses were still being taught using the traditional methods, and many course instructors are eager to return to them. These different responses to calls for education reform have led to heated debates among university instructors and administrators regarding how STEM curricula and courses should be designed, delivered, and assessed, and the role technology should play in all three functions. This essay outlines two competing paradigms on each of these issues—the traditional paradigm, which has long dominated STEM education, and the emerging paradigm, which has become increasingly common in the last 30 years but is still not predominant at most universities and colleges. The essay concludes with speculation about the eventual outcome of the competition.