I recently came across one of the many reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM): this report, released last year, is titled “Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education: Supporting Equitable and Effective Teaching.” I haven’t been able to really dive into the full report, but its summary, principles of equitable and effective education, and major recommendations already offer a lot to write about and reflect on.
The point of the report is that, while STEM education has made major strides in the past several decades, aspects of it remain inequitable and ineffective. Some of these aspects include barriers to entry and lingering discrimination that adversely affect underrepresented groups, rigidity in program curricula at odds with the unpredictable nature of how students navigate through STEM education, and a lack of professional development that perpetuates ineffective teaching and grading practices.
I’ll highlight one small part of the report that I think is a microcosm of these main problems and—serendipitously—is about mathematics education! It concerns the mathematics courses that practically all STEM programs are required to take. I am a strong proponent of all people learning some mathematics, and particularly for other STEM programs, this I feel is necessary, not just for the mathematical modeling prevalent in science and engineering, but for the critical thinking and creative problem-solving that underlie a mastery of mathematical concepts.
However, the report notes that offering “remedial” courses for students deemed not up to snuff for the standard required mathematics courses creates an inequitable environment, where those starting in remedial courses have fewer opportunities to take advanced courses later on. This limits future pathways, and also may deter students from continuing in a STEM program — particularly if the teaching is ineffective in these first courses at the college level. Many of us also know all too well how the big lecture-hall format of these core mathematics courses isn’t ideal either.
The report champions such reforms as active learning environments (rather than passive learning through lectures), assessments that better test student growth (rather than traditional exams, which reflects a regressive view of a mastery “curve” that students often do not neatly fall into), and continued professional development and rewards for strong teachers (rather than treating instructors as secondary to research faculty). This makes sense especially for mathematics, where coming up with one’s own strategies to solve problems, with the help of a supportive teacher and engaged peers, is far more fulfilling and valuable than learning a formula that only works in a few special cases. This creativity and persistence should also be the primary ways students are assessed. Particularly in my graduate education, I’ve experienced many times where I didn’t get everything right with a proof or problem on assignments, but still received positive feedback for thinking critically or putting forth some clever ideas. This should be reflected at the undergraduate level too.
More broadly, higher education faces a moment that, in my view, calls for bold, comprehensive reform. Universities will need to think critically about how to offer high-quality education and research opportunities despite hostility from the federal government, a growing skepticism of the value of a college degree, and the increasing ubiquity of AI as students outsource work (and with it, critical thinking) to LLMs.
I would argue that the path forward is to return to the basics of education. Promote in-class learning through problem-solving with just pencil and paper or markers and a whiteboard, limiting the use of AI models for assignments. Have students talk to each other rather than listen idly to the instructor. Let students participate in research from the beginning to further build STEM creativity and learn new things on the fly. I could write about many other ideas, but ultimately, we will need to see new ideas actually put into practice to keep universities thriving as institutions and producing graduates adept to solve the great challenges facing the modern world.
