What makes technical (STEM) learning different?
Different subject areas demand a different type of thinking and a different way of constructing knowledge. What makes technical, or STEM, learning different?
Most of my background in learning design and education has involved what you could call technical learning in the fields of engineering, science, mathematics, and technology.
Some might even rearrange those words and call it by a handy acronym - STEM. For the purposes of this discussion, I am choosing to broaden ‘technical’ learning to other fields outside of science, technology, engineering and mathematics when they become… more technical. For example, an English teacher teaching the precise structure of language, or an Arts lecturer teaching the science and process behind screen printing. These are technical topics within non-technical fields.
Part of being a Learning Designer in a university has exposed me to other fields of learning, and for various reasons I’ve been thinking lately about how the nature of technical learning (or STEM) compares to learning in other areas.
For me, these are the two features that distinguish technical learning (or STEM) compared to other fields.
Feature 1: Knowledge is hierarchical, specific and structured
The nature of technical knowledge is inherently hierarchical and highly structured, with precise definitions. Consider these examples from various different levels of study:
My son, who is in year 3, has learned that the measurement of time can occur in years, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds, microseconds, and so on. He is fascinated by the prefixes milli-, micro-, nano-, pico- as the measurement is subdivided into smaller and smaller units. He is also fascinated by what comes beyond years, such as centuries, millenia, and aeons (incidentally, the definition for an aeon is humorously non-specific).
As a year 8 science teacher I taught students the definition of a biological cell and what is inside of cells (organelles). My class later learned that different types of cells could form tissues as parts of organs, which in turn were parts of different body systems, and these came together to form a complete organism. There was a hierarchy and a structure to how these concepts related to each other.
As a first-year University student studying materials science I learned the definition of different properties of a material - e.g. strength, toughness, and hardness. Each of these properties had a method of testing, units of measurement, and then we learned how the internal structure of the material was responsible for those properties.
Feature 2: There is one correct solution, or solutions can be objectively compared
In technical learning, when you put your knowledge into practice, there is either a way of determining whether your solution is correct, or the potential solutions can be objectively compared. That is to say, there are right or wrong answers, or there is a way of determining which answer is better (to some objective criteria).
Again, this can be best seen by example. These are less personal but hopefully illustrate what I mean.
In year 9 Mathematics, students may be given a right-angled triangle with two side measurements. They are asked to find the third side length to two decimal places. There is an exact answer, with units, that is correct.
A class of primary school students are given a STEM challenge to build the highest tower possible using a set number of toothpicks and plasticine. Many groups can build a tower successfully, but one of them is the tallest and wins a prize.
A software engineer is tasked with writing code to enable a feature within the program. That feature is defined by specific inputs and outputs, and could include measures like response time. The code may or may not run successfully. If it does run, the software can be compared to a requirements list to determine whether the code is acceptable or not. The code may then undergo further iterations to improve its response time.
Of course, the two features above are probably a little reductive. Certainly there may be examples where the best technical solution isn’t completely clear. For example, there is often a tradeoff between cost, quality and timeliness that makes choosing the best solution difficult. However in a technical field, those factors can at least be quantified and some informed attempt at optimisation can be made. Compare this to a subjective process - for example, let’s say, parenting - where the desired outcome depends heavily on the people involved: some people may value politeness in their children, some may value creativity, some may value achievement, and so on. It would be madness to try and determine an objective measure of parenting success. But if you are designing a mobile phone tower or testing a new medication then that objective and quantifiable thinking becomes very important.
So if these two features set technical (STEM) learning aside from others, how does this affect learning design and teaching in these fields? Is there a human, subjective, aspect to technical learning? Perhaps its obvious to some, but I’m enjoying reflecting on this, and that’s what I intend to write about next.