On why we must inspire children to study technology

As part of their ongoing series on innovation, General Electric, together with The Economist Group, interviewed Singapore based technologist/educator Ayesha Khanna for her thoughts on why we must inspire children to study technology. Aysha believes that if Australia does not invest in STEM subjects then it will lose its competitive edge. This is based on the idea that future industries are being transformed and disrupted by technology and students will need both the technical skills and the creative inspiration to remain at the core of these changes.

Main points are:

• Silo-ed education: we currently teach education in silos – each subject is taught in isolation when, in the real world, there is massive crossover. The interview references examples of how people need design skills and basic engineering to create prototypes, then research skills to test products etc. This concept was raised recently as part of the Commonwealth Government review into the curriculum – how could we ensure teachers are skilled in their ability to use (for example) robotics to teach applied maths or science as a means to teach art (colour matching).
• Creativity: Aysha also raises the oft discussed concept of STEAM – adding Arts to the standard Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics grouping. The Arts element ensures that students don’t disappear down a technical rabbit hole. That they remain creative, open, inquisitive, exploratory – that the technical concepts they are developing are applied to real life situations. This is where the entrepreneurship element of digital literacy lives.

How to address the issue:

• Expose children to real life examples: whether its through careers fairs, office tours or mini-internships – students need to see a ‘day in the life’ of real careers. This helps ground the diversity and complexity of roles available to them through STEM (STEAM?) education fields.
• Ensure active use of technology: Aysha touches on the idea of active vs passive use of technology – something I have previously referred to as ‘making’ vs ‘using’ tech. Her thoughts are that technology is a wonderful thing as long as students are ‘active’ users – instead of using iPads for games/movies etc – load them full of apps that teach coding, drawing or are used for Khan Academy lessons.
• Gender imbalances: gender in STEM was also referenced. That there is still the latent belief that boys are more suited to these careers than girls. This seems to be a generational belief that is being passed down to young girls by their parents. There is no evidence to suggest that girls are any less competent than boys at what they do. Aysha’s recommendation is that parents/teachers just need to let go – allow girls to find their own ways of making technology instead of trying to enforce an history approach (the reference here is to allow girls to put tiaras on robots if they wish – I’m hesitant to mention it as that alone sounds pretty gendered to me).

This was a short article – but I thought it was worth publishing because a) it showed that companies like General Electric see STEM education as essential for Australia’s future, b) it added the concept of creativity to the standard discussion on STEM and c) it rephrased the ‘making’ vs ‘using’ discussion on technology as ‘active’ and ‘passive’.