According to an article I read, on students dropping out of the science and math fields, it seems that some universities are attempting to change how they deliver instruction to these students in order to improve retention rates in these fields of study. http://nyti.ms/sciencemajors The article gives evidence of the need for inquiry based/hands-on learning even at the collegiate level. In this article it discusses the attrition rate of engineering and science majors (40%) and pre-medical students (60%). Part of the problem was described as the math and science "death march" students encounter as soon as they get on campus along with lectures with 400 people followed by one to two years of abstract courses leading to senior research or design projects. I am guessing that for most students this would be the area/work that led them into the field. Why do they have to wait until they are seniors to work on this portion of their craft?
Progress is being made at some universities as they attempt to adjust their curriculum in this field in a manner that will hopefully mitigate the loss of their top prospects in these fields. At the University of Notre Dame, freshman engineering students creating design projects and lectures have gone from 400 students to groups of 80. As an outsider looking in, I would think that these two changes would do a lot for student morale and serve as a reminder of why they had chosen this field in the first place.
A question we, as K-12 educators, might ask ourselves is what else can we do to help prepare these students for these fields of study? One thing that was pointed out was how these are generally the high achieving students who have taken advanced placement courses and/or scored very high on the ACT or SAT. One thing I see as an elementary teacher is the high achieving or gifted student not truly being challenged as we try to make sure no child gets left behind. Some of these students eventually settle in to this routine of not working hard and accept it, and develop poor study habits along the way. When we don't differentiate for these students to find their appropriate level of learning they never fully reach their potential. And what about the bright students who completely lose all ambition in elementary school due to their boredom and don't even attempt to go into these fields? I like what the universities are doing to make the studies more hands on from the beginning, but we can also do more on our end to prevent these bright minds from withdrawing from learning while they are under our care.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about not challenging ELP students. We have seen a drop in our ITBS scores from ELP students over the past few years at Western Hills. We are beginning to address the problem, but these students sometimes get lost because they can do what is necessary already when other students are struggling.
One observation I have made is that in some cases, ELP students struggle more in band than non ELP students. I believe this is mainly due to the fact that regardless of intelligence, you have to have a good work ethic to play a musical instrument. Because some of these students aren't being challenged in their ELP programs, they haven't developed a work ethic; therefore, they are carrying over their mental model of what it takes to learn.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI am a HUGE advocate of interdisciplinary instruction. My experiences with the Upward Bound Math & Science program at Central really changed the way I think about relevance in instruction and content. If possible I would create cores within a high school that were dedicated to cooperative learning and followed an integrated, project-based curriculum. Students would learn inquiry and critical thinking skills while further developing their interpersonal communication skills. Certainly these experiences would assist students in preparing for the collegiate path of study.