Dr. Ruth Freeman:

I fully support Dr. Smyth's comments on the assessment methods. In looking at STEM, as I alluded to earlier in my comments to Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, the big difference we see between students who take biology versus physics and chemistry is not reflective of what we see in STEM in the world of work or in university. If we step back and think about the key capabilities we want, we are talking about developing curiosity, inquisitiveness, critical thinking, analytic and problem-solving techniques and group work. Perhaps we could have a more modular curriculum that is not fully teacher-led with a vast array of set knowledge but rather one where students can identify modules in which they are interested and curious about within the scope of a curriculum. It would not be so defined. Some of the curiosity and love of learning we have all identified as important comes from being able to spend some time exploring and learning what people are interested in.

The more modular approach was discussed in terms of microcredentials and breaking down the experience in different ways and that would certainly be beneficial in STEM. It gives a resilience as people would be learning to learn rather than just learning a set of information when, quite honestly, they could probably google much of it or it will be out of date, as we have all acknowledged the fast pace of STEM and of everything. There is also a creative piece that we see as really critical in STEM and there are hard lines sometimes drawn between STEM subjects and the skills associated with languages, arts, design and creativity, for example. We must have a more cohesive approach in bringing them together and recognising we do not just want people strong in one area but we need to foster all those skills.