conclusion about education system

Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees: Systemic Change to Support Students' Diverse Pathways (2016)

Chapter: 7 conclusions and recommendations, 7 conclusions and recommendations.

Students who enter college to earn a 2-year or 4-year degree in an area of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) face many barriers in the multiple pathways to degree completion. The pathways that students are taking to earn STEM degrees are diverse and complex, with multiple entry and exit points and an increased tendency to earn credits from multiple institutions. The barriers students face differentially affect students from underrepresented minority groups and women, as shown by the lower rates of degree completion by black, Hispanic, and female students. The barriers are particularly difficult to overcome for students with limited experience with and knowledge of higher education in general and of STEM fields in particular, such as first-generation students and many of those who are eligible for Pell Grants. The undergraduate student population has undergone significant shifts, and undergraduates who aspire to earn STEM degrees are much different than their counterparts 25 years ago. The percentage of women and students from underrepresented backgrounds who are interested in STEM degrees has been on the rise ( National Science Board, 2014 ). The number of students attending undergraduate institutions who have previous work experience, have taken a semester or more away from college, and have families is also increasing ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2013 ). And as noted throughout this report, students interested in STEM degrees are navigating the undergraduate education system in far more complex ways than previously. Increasingly, students, including those seeking STEM degrees, are combining credits from multiple institutions to earn a degree, are transferring from 2-year to 4-year institutions (often without completing a degree or certificate program), are

transferring from 4-year to 2-year institutions, are enrolling at multiple institutions both simultaneously and sequentially, and are taking college credit in high school through dual enrollment and advanced placement courses (see Eagan et al., 2014 ; Salzman and Van Noy, 2014 ; Van Noy and Zeidenberg, 2014 ).

In the face of these changes in the student population, the committee found that—although there are some notable exceptions—postsecondary institutions, STEM departments, accrediting entities, and state and federal education policy have been slow to adapt. Although there are many small- and larger-scale efforts to remove the barriers that students face, we find that the underlying causes of these barriers need to be addressed much more deeply and systematically for widespread and sustainable reform to take hold. An important reason that institutions of higher education struggle to consistently deliver high-quality education experiences for STEM aspirants is that the institutions themselves and undergraduate education more generally were designed to serve much different student populations and to help them progress along much different education pathways than are typically being used today. In a sense, higher education institutions function more like a collection of discrete practices and policies, rather than being interconnected and synergistic.

There are many examples of unchanged policies and programs:

• a “weed-out” culture in many STEM departments rather than a supportive environment;
• graduation rates that are tracked on a 2-, 4-, or 6-year time clock, uninformed by data on median time to degree for different fields or the need to account for remediation time or the reality of part-time study;
• recognition and rewards to institutions for the quantity of degrees awarded rather than the quality, relevance, and levels of learning that are expected of and provided to students; and
• completion rates that are calculated on the basis of enrollment by first-time, full-time students and so discount part-time students and transfer students.

Several facts are worth noting. Institutions that take on the challenge of providing a high-quality STEM education to students from disadvantaged backgrounds often do so with fewer resources than elite institutions. Underrepresented minority students and first-generation students are more likely to enroll at a 2-year institution than a 4-year institution ( Van Noy and Zeidenberg, 2014 ). Historically black colleges and universities award about 20 percent of all of the STEM bachelor’s degrees earned by black students in fields other than psychology and social sciences, and about one-third of

black students who have earned a Ph.D. in these STEM fields attained a bachelor’s degree in STEM from historically black colleges and universities ( National Science Foundation, 2013 ).

Two overarching findings undergird our conclusions and recommendations:

• The “STEM pipeline” metaphor focuses on the students who enter at one end of the education system and those who emerge with STEM degrees. The metaphor does not reflect the diverse ways that students now move across and within higher education institutions, the diversity of paths that lead students to STEM degrees, or the expanding range of careers for those with STEM degrees. The “STEM pathways” metaphor is a more comprehensive and inclusive way of examining how students progress through STEM degrees and the much broader kinds of supports that higher education needs to provide to enable these students to successfully complete a credential.
• Undergraduate STEM reform efforts have been piecemeal and not institutional in nature, and those that do not attend to today’s students, their challenges or to the policy environments in which the institutions operate are likely to be short-lived and largely ineffective.

In the following three sections, we present our conclusions and recommendations related to today’s students, about the role of institutions in serving those students, and about the need for systemic and sustainable change. Our conclusions and recommendations are embedded in these sections. In addition, our recommendations are presented by stakeholder group in Box 7-1 .

TODAY’S STEM STUDENTS

CONCLUSION 1 There is an opportunity to expand and diversify the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce and STEM-skilled workers in all fields if there is a commitment to appropriately support students through degree completion and provide more opportunities to engage in high-quality STEM learning and experiences.

Interest in STEM degrees among all undergraduate degree seekers at 2-year and 4-year institutions is at an all-time high, including students from traditionally underrepresented groups. Interest in STEM degrees is not only reflected in what degrees students indicate they are most interested in

earning when they first begin their undergraduate studies, but also in the fact that one-third of students who begin with an undeclared major select a STEM discipline as a major ( Eagan et al., 2014 ).

The degree completion rates for all STEM aspirants is less than 50 percent, with the lowest completion rates found among students from underrepresented groups (blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans). Three common threads among students from groups with low degree completion rates are that they have the greatest economic need, are more likely to require developmental courses, and have few if any immediate family members who completed college. Increasingly, students who aspire to earn STEM degrees are coming to college with a broad range of life experiences, are transferring among institutions at least once, and are more frequently stopping out. They are also likely to be working while attending college, especially 2-year colleges, and some are parents. Although the demographic

composition of students who are seeking STEM degrees is shifting, it remains true that on average, STEM aspirants arrive on campus better prepared and having achieved more academically than the student body as a whole. Yet only 40 percent of these students earn STEM degrees within 6 years.

Students who enter college declaring that they are interested in pursuing STEM degrees but then decide to enroll in non-STEM majors most frequently do so after STEM introductory courses (or prerequisite introductory science and mathematics courses). These students turn away from STEM in response to the teaching methods and atmosphere they encountered in STEM classes ( President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012 ; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ). Furthermore, many students who switch majors after their experiences in introductory STEM courses pass those courses. It seems that they abandon their goal of earning a STEM

degree due to the way that STEM is taught and the difficulty in attaining support. That support, such as tutoring, mentoring, authentic STEM experiences, or other supports, improves retention in STEM majors ( Estrada, 2014 ). In other words, students are dissuaded from studying STEM rather than being drawn into studying a different discipline. While some of the switching may be the result of considered choices based on opportunities to explore attractive alternatives, lack of a supportive environment in STEM likely contributes to those decisions.

Based on STEM persistence and completion rates, and research on why students leave, it seems clear that 2-year and 4-year institutions are not consistently providing all STEM degree seekers with a high-quality education experience and the supports that they need to succeed, especially in introductory and gateway courses.

CONCLUSION 2 Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) aspirants increasingly navigate the undergraduate education system in new and complex ways. It takes students longer for completion of degrees, there are many patterns of student mobility within and across institutions, and the accommodation and management of student enrollment patterns can affect how quickly and even whether a student earns a STEM degree.

An increasing percentage of STEM aspirants and those who graduate with a STEM degree or certificate begin their college career at 2-year institutions. This is especially true among black, Hispanic, and American Indian students. In addition, the rate at which STEM aspirants and graduates transfer from a 4-year institution to a 2-year institution (reverse transfer) is also increasing ( Salzman and Van Noy, 2014 ). Likewise, there is increased availability of and enrollment in high school dual-enrollment programs and Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate STEM courses, both of which provide students with college-level courses and are accepted for college credit and placement at many institutions. The increased movement of undergraduate STEM credential aspirants often leads to loss of credits earned (because some credits do not transfer), classes that may not count toward the degree requirements in a second institution, and difficulties in adjusting to new academic cultures. All of these factors influence the amount of time it takes STEM aspirants to graduate, even if they are consistently making progress toward their degree and doing well in their classes. Students who reverse transfer (from a 4-year to a 2-year institution) are substantially less likely to complete a STEM degree within 6 years. However, students who concurrently enroll in multiple institutions are only slightly less likely to complete a STEM degree in 6 years than those who attend only one institution. Students who need remedial classes also

need to take more credits, which often extends their time to graduation and increases the cost of their education. This is one reason that students with remedial needs often “time out” of federal financial aid.

CONCLUSION 3 National, state, and institutional undergraduate data systems often are not structured to gather information needed to understand how well the undergraduate education system and institutions of higher education are serving students.

Most large-scale data systems that include information on undergraduate students were built to track students in a pipeline model. Some systems focus primarily on gathering data on full-time or first-time students, while others do not account well for the swirling of students among institutions. These systems often rely on graduation rates as the sole metric of success for students and institutions: they do not systematically collect information on students’ goals, reasons for transferring or leaving institutions, progress toward a credential, nor do they provide access to evidence-based teaching practices or student support systems.

The limitations of the data systems make it difficult for the states and the federal government to understand how the postsecondary education system is serving students, if some students are being served better than others, and which institutions consistently do not meet the needs of their students. In addition, most faculty, departments, and institutions do not know when students encounter barriers to earning the degree they seek or what supports students may need to succeed.

RECOMMENDATION 1 Data collection systems should be adjusted to collect information to help departments and institutions better understand the nature of the student populations they serve and the pathways these students take to complete science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees.

• Colleges and universities need to more consistently leverage the information collected across their campuses (e.g., offices of institutional research, STEM departments, and student aid offices) to better understand who their students are, their movement among majors and institutions, the barriers they encounter in working toward their degrees, and the services or supports they need.
• States and federal agencies should consider how the information they require institutions to collect might enable better tracking of students through pathways they take to earn a STEM degree within and especially across institutions. In addition, they should consider

expanding measures of success, which increasingly inform funding formulas, beyond graduation rates.

There are a growing number of institutions that are using the data collected across their institutions to support student learning and identify when and where students need support to continue with their work toward STEM degrees. More campuses are identifying difficult introductory courses to provide supplemental instruction or use evidence-based instructional strategies and track students with data dashboards to improve progress toward degrees; however, systematic collection and use of such data are not widespread. With a better understanding of what barriers students typically encounter, and when and why students typically encounter them, institutions can more efficiently provide individualized support to students.

Existing data on undergraduate students and institutions are limited in a number of ways. We were not able to ascertain the success of STEM students who transferred from community colleges without earning a credential, nor could we address questions related to what happens to students who “time out” of financial aid.

A vision of success that goes beyond graduation rates and time to completion has been emerging from definitions of success developed by various stakeholder groups, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the Aspen Institute, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Governors Association, and the Association of American Universities. These stakeholders have identified a broad set of academic indicators, such as success in remedial and first-year courses, course completion, credit accumulation, credits to degree, retention and transfer rates, degrees awarded, expanding access, and learning outcomes. Much work is needed by these and other stakeholders to develop a systematic, national data source on such factors.

RECOMMENDATION 2 Federal agencies, foundations, and other entities that fund research in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education should prioritize research to assess whether enrollment mobility in STEM is a response to financial, institutional, individual, or other factors, both individually and collectively, and to improve understanding of how student progress in STEM, in comparison with other disciplines, is affected by enrollment mobility.

Many students move across institutions and into and out of STEM programs; the incidence is higher among community college students. It is often not clear what drives their decisions. One-half of community college STEM students enter into STEM after their first year of enrollment, and little is known about what factors are involved in their decisions and the

ultimate implications for student outcomes. While late decisions can force students to take more than the required number of credits for a major because many STEM programs are highly structured with various requirements, early decisions may not be possible or even desirable if students are unsure about their career paths and need time to discover their interests. These decisions may be influenced by institutional policies (e.g., on early deadlines to declare program entry), discipline-based professional societies, and accrediting bodies. Research is needed on:

• what kinds of exploration students undertake as they decide to major (or not) in a STEM field and how they make their decisions,
• why students enter STEM programs at different times,
• the factors that attract them to STEM majors,
• how institutional structures might facilitate or delay their entry into STEM, and
• to what extent the identified problems may be associated with changing student demographics.

INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR TODAY’S STEM STUDENTS

CONCLUSION 4 Better alignment of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, instructional practices, and student supports is needed in institutions to meet the needs of the populations they serve. Programming and policies that address the climate of STEM departments and classrooms, the availability of instructional supports and authentic STEM experiences, and the implementation of effective teaching practices together can help students overcome key barriers to earning a STEM degree, including time to degree and the price of a STEM degree.

Substantial research in the last decade indicates that persistence in STEM is related to a host of factors that go beyond academic preparation of the individual student. Those factors include institutional practices and supports that reinforce student identities as scientists or engineers, recognition of talent, interaction with peers, and opportunities for authentic research experiences. Instructional practices that encourage active and interactive learning are keys to improving student learning and persistence in STEM. In addition, faculty behavior and attitudes inside and outside the classroom can provide cues that help students persist toward STEM degrees.

Discipline-Based Education Research ( National Research Council, 2012 ) identifies the evidence-based practices that improve student learning and persistence in STEM programs. The study illustrates the importance of active instructional practices that engage students in the learning process

and increase their interaction with peers, faculty, and teaching assistants. The report also points to the slow adoption of these practices. Research has also shown increased effects of evidence-based teaching practices when paired with co-curricular supports.

Even when high-quality instructional practices are implemented, students often receive little guidance or support regarding how efficiently to navigate the vast array of undergraduate education options. This makes it difficult for students to know how to get from where they are academically to where they want to be or to help them explore options that they have not considered about current and future career opportunities. This situation may help explain the phenomena of students who take classes at multiple institutions, transfer between institutions, or take time off from college, but all of this “churning” is associated with lower rates of completion and longer times to degree. Time is the enemy of many undergraduate STEM students. As time to degree increases, the likelihood of graduating seems to decrease due to a host of factors, perhaps, most importantly, increasing student debt.

Long-term program evaluations of interventions now provide evidence of what can increase persistence and graduation rates among STEM students. The most promising interventions combine contact with faculty and a supportive peer group along with access to authentic STEM experiences. Undergraduate research experiences show positive effects for both persistence and intentions for graduate school, over and above faculty mentoring experiences (though the two are often combined in structured research programs). Co-curricular supports (e.g., research experiences, mentoring, summer bridge programs, and living and learning communities) have been shown to affect STEM student persistence and completion when they align with evidence-based practices in supporting student learning and interests.

The culture of STEM classrooms and departments also influences STEM student persistence. Many students interested in STEM degrees, especially those from underrepresented groups and women, decide to pursue other fields due to the instructional practices, the “weed out” culture of some introductory STEM courses, and the lack of opportunities to engage in authentic STEM experiences.

To train effective mentors and create a culture of inclusiveness, faculty need to be provided opportunities to become more aware of implicit bias and stereotyping as well as how to avoid them. Departments need to encourage greater student involvement in research and design experiences, as well as in clubs and organizations related to a discipline, which have been shown to improve retention in STEM ( Chang et al., 2014 ; Espinosa, 2011 ). The role of professional STEM clubs and organizations also points to the importance of local chapters as well as national student organizations and

the development or enhancement of professional society programs for undergraduates to sustaining interest and retention in STEM.

The need for and nature of student supports likely will differ by type of institution and student background. It would be useful for institutional leaders to collect the kind of data about students’ current interests and needs to better determine how they can offer a range of interventions that are most appropriate to the current and changing needs of their students.

In general, 2-year and 4-year institutions serve students with different backgrounds, goals, and educational preparation. Community colleges enroll more older, first-generation, and working students than 4-year colleges. They play a significant role in the pathways that a diverse population of students takes in earning STEM degrees and certificates. Science and engineering programs at 2-year institutions enrolled relatively high proportions of Hispanic, Asian, and female students but a lower proportion of black students, who were more likely to be enrolled in technical-level programs.

Although community college STEM students have relatively low completion rates, their high persistence rates are notable. Students who begin their undergraduate education at a 2-year institution often take more than 6 years to complete their degrees, due to part-time enrollment, interruptions in their enrollment, and loss of course credit when they transfer between institutions. Understanding the quality of the educational experiences provided by 2-year institutions is hampered by the existing data systems that do not provide clear information on students who transfer from 2-year institutions to 4-year institutions without earning a degree or certificate. In addition, the contribution of 2-year institutions to the degrees that transfer students receive at 4-year institutions is not tracked and so is not well understood. Although there is emerging evidence regarding the characteristics of departments that support the use of evidence-based pedagogy, we were unable to find data on the relative use of such pedagogy. In fact, we were unable to even find recent national data on who teaches STEM courses (full-time tenured faculty, adjunct, or other), the level of instructional training that instructors had received, or alignment of instructor practices with evidence-based practices.

RECOMMENDATION 3 Federal agencies, foundations, and other entities that support research in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education should support studies with multiple methodologies and approaches to better understand the effectiveness of various co-curricular programs.

Future research on co-curricular programs should reflect the complexity and “messiness” of undergraduate education, and it should illuminate how the co-curricular support fits into the broader culture of institutions.

There is a need for more studies that track students over time to assess both the short-term and long-term effects of program elements across academic pathways. Such studies should include data from similar cohorts of students who do not participate in the program as a comparison or control group. When possible and appropriate, participants should be randomly assigned to co-curricular program groups.

For these studies to be useful, co-curricular programs need to identify measurable outcomes such as retention, grades, knowledge, and degree conferment, and they should identify the discipline of study. In-depth case studies or focus groups with program participants and similar students to track experiences at time of participation and shortly after can add to the research. Studies should move beyond linear models of student progress to a credential to test models that are more reflective of the kind of decision making of students. In addition, studies of long-time co-curricular programs and the nature of the sites that house them are needed to better understand how to sustain successful programs.

RECOMMENDATION 4 Institutions, states, and federal policy makers should better align educational policies with the range of education goals of students enrolled in 2-year and 4-year institutions. Policies should account for the fact that many students take more than 6 years to graduate, and should reward 2- year and 4-year institutions for their contributions to the educational success of students they serve, which includes not only those who graduate.

• The states and the federal government should revise undergraduate accountability policies so that systems of assessment, evaluation, and accountability give credit to and do not penalize (i.e., in-state funding formulas) institutions for supporting students’ progress toward their desired educational outcome. It is important that policies take into account the various ways that students are currently using different institutions in pursuit of a degree, certification, or technical skills.
• The states and the federal government should extend financial aid eligibility to graduation for students making satisfactory progress toward a degree or certificate, so that students do not “time out” of financial aid eligibility.
• Colleges and universities should shift their institutional policies toward a model in which all students who are admitted to a degree program are expected to complete that program and are provided the instruction, resources, and support they need to do so, rather than a model in which it is assumed that a large fraction of students will be unsuccessful and will leave science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics programs. This model can save money because the time to degree is shortened and the number of drops, failures, withdrawals, and repeating of courses is reduced.

Systems of accountability for undergraduate education need to better align to the pathways that students actually are taking to earn STEM degrees. To do so, more thought needs to go into how each institution can track students’ progression toward a degree or other outcome-—including gaining skills to upgrade current employment and earning a certificate while working toward an associate’s degree—recognizing the long time to degree completion among many STEM students.

STEM students are taking longer to earn degrees because of many factors, including transferring among institutions, changing majors, and the need to follow strict course sequencing. It is now uncommon for a student to complete a 2-year degree in 2 years or a 4-year degree in 4 years. The time frame of some current financial aid policies do not reflect what is now common and do not align with the pathways that students are taking to earn degrees. Providing financial aid on the basis of the number of semesters a student has spent in college has a differentially negative impact on students from underrepresented minority groups, who more frequently than other students need remedial courses due to weakness in their K-12 preparation, starting at 2-year institutions, and taking longer to graduate. Financial aid policies could recognize the current pathways by focusing on whether students are making adequate progress toward their academic goals.

The culture of many STEM courses and departments is undergirded by the belief that “natural” ability, gender, or ethnicity is a significant determinant of a student’s success in STEM . Related to this view is the tendency for introductory mathematics and science courses to be used as “gatekeeper” or “weeder” courses, which may discourage students from pursuing STEM degrees, through highly competitive classrooms and a lack of pedagogy that promotes active participation and emphasizes mastery and improvement. These courses often seek to select out and distinguish those with some perceived ability in STEM. The classroom and departmental culture needs to value diversity and be based on the understanding that all students aspiring to earn a STEM degree have the potential to succeed in STEM and provide all students the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether they want to continue pursuing STEM credentials.

RECOMMENDATION 5 Institutions of higher education, disciplinary societies, foundations, and federal agencies that fund undergraduate education should focus their efforts in a coordinated manner on critical issues to support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

(STEM) strategies, programs, and policies that can improve STEM instruction.

• Colleges and universities should adjust faculty reward systems to better promote high-quality instruction and provide support for faculty to integrate effective teaching strategies into their practice. They should encourage educators to learn about and implement effective teaching methods by supporting participation in workshops, professional meetings, campus-based faculty development programs, and other related opportunities. Instructional quality is a key aspect of a student’s undergraduate experience that could be addressed by providing incentives for more faculty members to align their classroom practices with evidence-based pedagogy.
• Disciplinary and professional membership organizations should become more active in developing tools to support evidence-based teaching practices, and providing professional development in using these active pedagogies for new and potential faculty members and instructors.
• The National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education should collect systematic data on tenured, tenure-track, and nontenure-track faculty and staff, as it previously did through the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. Such data will make it possible to understand who is teaching STEM courses and whether they have participated in professional development programs to implement evidence-based instructional strategies. The Department of Education should support research on what supports are needed to allow all educators, including tenured, tenure-track faculty, full-time nontenured teaching faculty, adjunct faculty, and lecturers, to successfully implement such strategies.
• Federal agencies, foundations, and other entities should invest in implementation research to better understand how to increase adoption of evidence-based instructional strategies.

Although a considerable body of research is emerging about the nature and effect of effective instructional practices, this awareness has not necessarily been translated into widespread implementation of such practices in STEM classrooms. More investment needs to be made in implementation research to determine how to support putting this knowledge into practice. There have been calls for working with postdoctoral scholars and graduate students during their education to ensure that professional development is available to them on effective teaching strategies. This requires departmental support and leadership across an institution, along with agreement that

future faculty should have mastered research-based teaching strategies as well as disciplinary research knowledge and skills.

RECOMMENDATION 6 Accrediting agencies, states, and institutions should take steps to support increased alignment of policies that can improve the transfer process for students.

• Regional accrediting bodies should review student outcomes by participating colleges and require periodic updates of articulation agreements in response to those student outcomes.
• States should encourage tracking transfer credits and using other metrics to measure the success of students who transfer.
• Colleges and universities should work with other institutions in their regions to develop articulation agreements and student services that contribute to structured and supportive pathways for students seeking to transfer credits.

The pathways that students are taking to earn undergraduate STEM degrees have become increasingly complex, with greater numbers of students earning credits at more than one institution. Thus, issues of transfer and articulation are now relevant to an increasing proportion of STEM students, as well as students in other majors. The range of different regional, state, and institutional transfer and articulation policies that students encounter can be dizzying, and they can extend a student’s time to completion and increase the cost of college, as well as being stressful to navigate.

Regional accrediting agencies, states, and institutions can all take steps to remove the barriers that students currently face when transferring credits among institutions. Removing these barriers may require creative and collaborative solutions, but they have the potential not only to improve students’ educational experience, but also to make higher education institutions more efficient and effective.

RECOMMENDATION 7 State and federal agencies and accrediting bodies together should explore the efficacy and tradeoffs of different articulation agreements and transfer policies.

There is a need to better understand the efficacy of existing and new models of articulation agreements. Currently, it is not clear which types of agreements work for different types of students (including students from underrepresented groups and veterans), and for different types of transfers (vertical, reverse, and lateral). Research on the effects of articulation agreements needs to consider not only the policies that guide the transfer

of credits, but also the supports developed to make it easier for students to navigate the policies and adjust to their different academic environments.

SYSTEMIC AND SUSTAINABLE CHANGE IN STEM EDUCATION

CONCLUSION 5 There is no single approach that will improve the educational outcomes of all science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) aspirants. The nature of U.S. undergraduate STEM education will require a series of interconnected and evidence-based approaches to create systemic organizational change for student success.

From years of attempts to improve higher education for all, many lessons have been learned. Focusing narrowly on individuals rather than on the entire system is not effective because it leads to changes of minimal scale and sustainability. Failing to leverage the many actors in education—individuals, departments, institutions, disciplinary societies, business and industry, governments—in a systematic fashion is ineffective because different levels of the education system often operate in isolation and are often unaware of how their actions can both affect and be affected by other components of the system.

In addition, focusing narrowly on pedagogical and curricular changes and not considering other variables that are related to student success, such as institutional policies, articulation, faculty culture, and financial aid, limits the potential effects of such changes. It is not productive to focus on “silver bullets”: they often lead to “fixing the student” approaches rather than identifying problems throughout the system, from mathematics preparation, to science culture, to faculty teaching, to financial aid, to articulation and transfer. Finally, it is clear that such barriers to change as the nature of the incentive structure in colleges and universities remain largely unaddressed, and studies have not been conducted to determine if addressing such barriers would facilitate large-scale and sustainable change in institutions or education systems.

CONCLUSION 6 Improving undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for all students will require a more systemic approach to change that includes use of evidence to support institutional decisions, learning communities and faculty development networks, and partnerships across the education system.

Students need a higher education system that is less fragmented—or at least has clearer road markers—so that the diverse and complex pathways they take toward a degree do not create unnecessary barriers. Partnerships with elementary and secondary schools may be able to lead to better

preparation for college, especially in mathematics. Partnerships with employers can lead to better articulation of the skills and knowledge that are relevant for their workforces, as well as opportunities for internships and work-related experiences that may improve students’ understanding of and commitment to STEM education.

At the institutional level, program faculty and administrators need to recognize that successful improvements usually include strong leadership, including support for faculty to undertake the changes needed; awareness of how to overcome the barriers to adaptation and implementation of curricula that have been demonstrated to be effective; faculty who implement instructional practices developed through discipline-based education research; and data to monitor students’ progress and to hold departments accountable for losses and recognize and reward them for student success.

Strong, multi-institutional articulation agreements, including common general education, common introductory courses, common course numbering, and online, easily available student access to equivalencies, can improve the percentage of contributory credits transferred, shorten the time to degree, and increase completion rates.

Department-level leadership is critical for systematic change. It can drive changes in rigid course sequencing requirements, transfer credit policies, degree requirements, differential tuition policies, and classroom practices. It can build connections between the reform efforts in their department and broader efforts in their institutions, as well as connect to multi-institutional reform efforts supported by foundations and disciplinary associations. The training of STEM department chairs supported by a number of programs and professional organizations has yielded promising results for departmental programs and their students.

RECOMMENDATION 8 Institutions should consider how expanded and improved co-curricular supports for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students can be informed by and integrated into work on more systemic reforms in undergraduate STEM education to more equitably serve their student populations.

To improve degree attainment rates, the quality of programs, and better serve their diverse student populations, institutions can consider a wide range of policies and programs: initiating or increasing opportunities for undergraduate student participation in research and other authentic STEM experiences; connecting students to experiences related to careers in their field of interest; expanding the use of educational technologies that have been effective in addressing the remediation needs of students; building student learning communities; and providing access to college and career guidance to help students understand the various and most efficient path-

ways to the degrees and careers they want. Students seem to benefit most from such supports when they are paired with evidence-based instructional strategies and when three or more co-curricular supports are bundled together ( Estrada, 2014 ). Such efforts will be more sustainable and effective if they are integrated into more systemic reform efforts.

RECOMMENDATION 9 Disciplinary departments, institutions, university associations, disciplinary societies, federal agencies, and accrediting bodies should work together to support systemic and long-lasting changes to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

• STEM departments and entire academic units should support learning communities and networks that can help change faculty belief systems and practices and develop sustainable changes.
• Colleges and universities should offer instructor training and mentoring to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. Participating in such efforts as The Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (funded by the National Science Foundation; see Chapter 3 ) can educate graduate students about the value of treating their teaching as a form of scholarship and to value use of evidence-based approaches to teaching.
• University associations and organizations should continue to facilitate undergraduate STEM educational reforms in their member institutions, particularly by examining reward structures and barriers to change and providing resources for data collection on student success, as well as by providing resources for interventions, support programs, and ways to share effective practices.
• Disciplinary societies should s upport the development of continuing and intensive national and regional faculty development programs, awards, and recognition to encourage use of evidence-based instructional practices.
• Federal agencies that support undergraduate STEM education should consider giving greater priority to supporting large-scale transformation strategies that are conceptualized to include and extend beyond instructional reform, and they should support both implementation research and research on barriers to reform that can support success for all students. They should increase the percentage of undergraduate STEM reform efforts and projects that focus on multiple levels—department, institution, discipline, government, and business and industry.
• Following the policies adopted by some disciplinary accrediting bodies (e.g., the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technol-

ogy), regional and professional accrediting bodies should consider incorporating evidence-based instructional practices and faculty professional development efforts into their criteria and guidelines.

The nature of the challenges of removing the barriers to 2-year and 4-year STEM degree completion can only be addressed by a system of solutions that includes the commitment to transformation. Looking from the ground up, those who teach need to be enabled to adopt and engage in effective classroom practices; co-curricular supports need to be made available for students who begin college with interest in STEM but who may lack some of the skills necessary to be immediately successful in their pursuit of study in STEM.

Money still matters: strategies need to be explored for addressing financial need in ways that connect students to STEM (such as through STEM-related work-study programs and internships and co-ops) rather than distracting them from it. Providing quality advice about courses, fields of study, careers, and navigating the many college pathways in STEM—as well as supporting learning communities—can help avoid many of the pitfalls that can delay or prevent degree completion.

Looking across institutions, the policy barriers to articulation and alignment need to be addressed. Although some removal of barriers can be promoted locally through, for example, the active commitment of individuals, (e.g., chemistry faculty in 4-year institutions working directly with chemistry faculty in feeder 2-year institutions and high schools), a negatively structured policy environment can impede such interventions. There is a clear need to explore all the policy impediments that make navigation of the pathways to STEM degrees in and across institutional boundaries especially difficult, and there are examples in various states and institutions that can be considered to smooth STEM pathways.

Looking from the top down, leadership is needed at every level to support change. Institutional leaders need to be committed to providing the supportive infrastructure that can make grassroots pedagogical and administrative changes possible (including active classrooms, technology, co-curricular supports, data systems, and teaching-learning centers). Loss of state support has negatively affected the operational model of many public institutions, forcing increased costs to be passed through to students, which disproportionately affects those who can least afford to attend, extending time to degree and may affect students’ choices of major (e.g., when there is differential tuition for programs such as engineering). National accountability structures, though well intentioned, currently reward the most selective institutions while penalizing those with fewer resources, but the latter are the ones who often enroll and succeed in enrolling STEM students from disadvantaged and less selective backgrounds. The admonishment to “first,

do no harm” should lead to a national discussion of how to recognize and honor the work of such institutions. At the same time, highly resourced institutions can be challenged to better support their STEM students through programs of active retention rather than “weeding out.”

Finally, leadership is required from all constituents, including state and federal government, funders, business and industry, and both higher education and STEM professionals, both within and across those communities. Rather than relying on failed or unsustainable structures that serve only a few or push out students who aspire to and are capable of completing a STEM degree, they should seek solutions that connect the pathways to STEM degrees.

Chang, M., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., and Newman, C. (2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (5), 555–580.

Eagan, K., Hurtado, S., Figueroa, T., and Hughes, B. (2014). Examining STEM Pathways among Students Who Begin College at Four-Year Institutions. Commissioned paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_088834.pdf [April 2015].

Espinosa, L.L. (2011). Pathways and pipelines: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81 (2), 209–241.

Estrada, M. (2014). Ingredients for Improving the Culture of STEM Degree Attainment with Co-curricular Supports for Underrepresented Minority Students . Paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_088832.pdf [April 2015].

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research. S. Singer, N.R. Nielsen, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. NSB #14-01. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation and National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013 . Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Report to the President. Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf [April 2015].

Salzman, H., and Van Noy, M. (2014). Crossing the Boundaries: STEM Students in Four-Year and Community Colleges. Paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_089924.pdf [April 2015].

Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Van Noy, M., and Zeidenberg, M. (2014). Hidden STEM Knowledge Producers: Community Colleges’ Multiple Contributions to STEM Education and Workforce Development. Paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2- and 4-Year STEM Degrees. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_088831.pdf [April 2015].

This page intentionally left blank.

Nearly 40 percent of the students entering 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions indicated their intention to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in 2012. But the barriers to students realizing their ambitions are reflected in the fact that about half of those with the intention to earn a STEM bachelor's degree and more than two-thirds intending to earn a STEM associate's degree fail to earn these degrees 4 to 6 years after their initial enrollment. Many of those who do obtain a degree take longer than the advertised length of the programs, thus raising the cost of their education. Are the STEM educational pathways any less efficient than for other fields of study? How might the losses be "stemmed" and greater efficiencies realized? These questions and others are at the heart of this study.

Barriers and Opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees reviews research on the roles that people, processes, and institutions play in 2-and 4-year STEM degree production. This study pays special attention to the factors that influence students' decisions to enter, stay in, or leave STEM majors—quality of instruction, grading policies, course sequences, undergraduate learning environments, student supports, co-curricular activities, students' general academic preparedness and competence in science, family background, and governmental and institutional policies that affect STEM educational pathways.

Because many students do not take the traditional 4-year path to a STEM undergraduate degree, Barriers and Opportunities describes several other common pathways and also reviews what happens to those who do not complete the journey to a degree. This book describes the major changes in student demographics; how students, view, value, and utilize programs of higher education; and how institutions can adapt to support successful student outcomes. In doing so, Barriers and Opportunities questions whether definitions and characteristics of what constitutes success in STEM should change. As this book explores these issues, it identifies where further research is needed to build a system that works for all students who aspire to STEM degrees. The conclusions of this report lay out the steps that faculty, STEM departments, colleges and universities, professional societies, and others can take to improve STEM education for all students interested in a STEM degree.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Conclusion and Recommendations: Implications and Way Forward

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 November 2020

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Brajesh Panth 22  

Part of the book series: Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects ((EDAP,volume 55))

10k Accesses

3 Altmetric

The Asia and Pacific Region has made impressive gains in education and schooling in the past 50 years.

Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Education in China, India and Indonesia: an Overview

Conclusion: Key Outcomes, Challenges, Ways Forward, and Future Research

Key achievements.

The Asia and Pacific region has made impressive gains in education and schooling in the past 50 years. Footnote 1 The mean years of schooling for population 20–24 years increased from 3.5 years in 1960 to 8.9 years in 2010. Enrollments have increased at all levels of education with a much better gender balance. Almost all countries have achieved universal or near-universal primary education, while many have also achieved universal or near-universal secondary education. Many countries have also significantly expanded their technical and vocational education and training (TVET) and higher education . Footnote 2 The performance of participating economies in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that some of the best education systems in the world are in the Asia and Pacific region, such as in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. Footnote 3 In recent years, while some participating cities in the People’s Republic of China are among the best performers, Viet Nam is widely viewed as being the best-performing lower middle-income country in the world. Many of these achievements have been possible largely due to public policy and investment but also due to the heavy involvement of the private sector which remains a major player in many countries, particularly in post-basic education.

Major Challenges

Despite remarkable progress in improving access at all levels of education, developing Asia is facing four major challenges. First, most of the worlds’ 15–24 years youth with low reading proficiency are in the Asia and Pacific region, and a significant percent of 10-year-olds attending schools in the region cannot read a simple story. These learning deficits are so serious that there is a “learning crisis.” Footnote 4 Second, the region is facing serious skills mismatches . Footnote 5 In some cases, a majority of education and training providers indicate that they are providing the skills needed by the employers, while the employers indicate that only around one-third of job applicants meet their job requirements. Footnote 6 Third, many Asian countries are underinvesting in education. While UNESCO recommends that countries need to spend around 4–6% of their gross domestic product, or 15–20% of the annual budget, on education to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 4 by 2030, many countries in the region are spending less than this recommended level, making it difficult to make good progress by 2030. Along with an adequate share of the budget, the quality of expenditure to ensure that resources are prioritized on proven strategies is equally important. Finally, many countries lack a capacity to undertake and sustain reforms that require new, innovative thinking, and new approaches to equip learners with twenty-first-century skills and to forge effective new partnerships to sustain reforms .

Moving Forward

As noted in the introductory chapter, and as implied throughout this book, education systems that were founded 100–150 years ago to meet the needs of the first and second industrial revolutions (which is the case for most education systems in countries throughout the world) are failing to meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and twenty-first-century skills that go beyond the three Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic) to include digital and soft skills. Against this backdrop, the book has attempted to provide the following messages.

1. It is important to rethink and reimagine education and training (Part I) . At a time when technological change and automation are disrupting virtually all spheres of daily life, there is a need to rethink and reimagine education and training to make sure it meets the needs of all types of students, to prepare them for current, emerging, and future skills and jobs. The risk of proceeding with a “business as usual” approach is likely to exacerbate inequity since those that have access to twenty-first-century skills will have a much greater edge over those without such opportunities.

Research referred to in this book clearly shows that, more than school attainment, the quality of schooling is more closely associated with economic growth (Hanushek, Chap. 4 ). This relationship is a more powerful indicator of how investments in human capital can serve as a robust predictor of nations’ ability to sustain economic development and innovate. A two-pronged strategy is necessary for developing countries to “go back to the basics” to improve learning outcomes for all students while paving opportunities for leapfrogging. It is not only important to ensure learning for all in schools but also to ensure that they are ready to meet the changing needs of today’s job market, is key (Lee, Chap. 5 ). Education systems need to produce self-directed learners because learners need the right skills and they should also know how to apply such skills as a foundation for sustainable development (Schleicher, Chap. 7 ). Due to rapid advancements in education technologies, there is a real opportunity to leverage such technologies, especially through online and blended learning, to improve teaching and learning at scale (Kim, Chap. 3 ).

While the mean years of schooling have increased in all developing countries, they still have a small share of people in the workforce with higher level skills. Ultimately, for developing countries to accelerate development, they will need to “leapfrog industrialization to the high-tech economy” and this will require prioritizing investments in people for higher level skills (Frey, Chap. 2 ). This is consistent with labor market projections around the globe which indicates that there will be less demand for lower level skills and more demand for higher level skills in the coming years. To develop such skills, universities have to transform and enable “academic entrepreneurs in close partnerships with industry” to provide a mix of hard and soft skills including entrepreneurship skills to innovate (Koh, Chap. 6 ).

2. Schools need to customize rather than standardize education to meet the learning needs of all types of learners (Part II). The main criticism of the current school system, which has little changed over the past 100–150 years, is that it treats all students as one assembly-line product. But there is an increasing recognition that a “one-size fits all” approach is leaving the majority of learners behind since they come with diverse learning needs and backgrounds. According to the multiple intelligence theory, all students have the potential to learn and excel, but teaching and learning need to cater to the different learning styles of learners—some learners are logically mathematically oriented, some are verbally oriented, and some are physically oriented. Footnote 7 Similarly, some are fast learners and some are slow learners. This means that current education systems have to transform by moving away from classifying all learners into one category—as average learners. Footnote 8 Brain science research asserts this line of thinking and that teaching and learning have to be adapted to the needs of learners. In the absence of continuous formative evaluation, and understanding the learning needs of different students, many teachers in developing countries are unable to teach at the grade level.

The biggest challenge for most low-income and middle-income countries is the learning crisis that they are facing, despite remarkable progress in access to education. In their blog on learning deficits, the director of UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Report, and the director of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, have cautioned that “without a shift from ‘business as usual’, the world will miss its goal of a quality education for all by 2030.” Footnote 9 Their concern is based on their projections on progress countries are making toward Sustainable Development Goal 4. Similarly, a report by the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity notes that “if current trends continue, by 2030 just four out of 10 children of school age in low- and middle-income countries will be on track to gain basic secondary-level skills.” Footnote 10

Rote learning is rampant in most developing countries and, in many cases, it has been difficult for teachers to apply a learner-centric pedagogy. Some evaluation of teacher professional development shows that such training is not leading to improvements in learning outcomes. National student assessments show that over 50% of 10-year-olds cannot read a simple story. Footnote 11 For many developing countries that have participated in PISA tests, their poor performance is calling for a rethinking of their approach. “Boosting student learning starts with a good understanding of challenges that countries face, and best practices that could be learnt from the experiences of others” (Belfali, Chap. 8 ). For example, “Viet Nam has made excellent progress in developing a teacher assessment system based on national professional standards” and it aims to “unify that system with the professional development of teachers.” (Cammaert, Nguyen, and Tanaka, Chap. 12 . Similarly, in the Philippines (Bernido and Bernido, Chap. 9 ) and Pakistan (Aziz, Chap. 11 ), nongovernment organizations are complementing the government’s efforts to provide good quality education. Building on such partnerships, and with the use of educational technologies, it is possible for teachers to use assessment tools to continuously monitor students’ learning levels and align classroom instruction to ensure that every child is effectively learning (Kumar, Chap. 10 ).

3. Technical and vocational education and training requires public–private partnerships to respond to industry 4.0 needs (Part III) . All governments in the region are concerned about quality jobs. Since rates of youth unemployment are usually 2–3 times higher than regular unemployment rates, governments are very keen to enhance the employability of the youth. However, the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) systems in many developing countries are supply-driven and fragmented due to the involvement of multiple agencies, and they are generally underfunded. Rapid changes in technologies, automation, unprecedented labor mobility, and aging populations are prompting governments to rethink workforce development. Labor market projections indicate that, due to increasing automation, lower order skills of a repetitive nature will be replaced by machines, while there will be a shortage of workers with higher order skills. This has huge implications for how education and training need to respond to the future of skills and jobs to reduce growing skills mismatches in an age of continuous digital disruptions and short shelf life of skills.

The dual training system that Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have successfully implemented is seen as one promising model for preparing job-ready workers. In the Philippines, the dual training program that the government is promoting under its flagship K-12 reform shows how the 6-month to 2-year certificate programs with technical support from GIZ are preparing job-ready learners through partnerships between employers (Philippine Chamber of Commerce), government (Technical Education and Skills Development Authority), and selected training providers (Don Bosco, German Confederation of Skilled Crafts and Small Businesses) (Dernbach, Chap. 13 ). In New Zealand, the industry training organizations are recognized for working with industries to develop occupational standards and training and assessment packages, as well as in promoting on-the-job training and school to work transitions (Williams, Chap. 15 ).

Countries with large shares of youth population realize the urgency to provide their youth with employability skills to reap the benefits of demographic dividends. This requires not only providing occupational skills but also soft skills since many youths may come with inadequate skills due to weak schooling. In India, where over 80% of the workforce is in the informal sector and there is a high attrition of skilled workers, Gram Tarang Employability Training Services, a social entrepreneurial partnership approach with Centurion University in Odisha, India is skilling and upskilling migrant workers from disadvantaged groups in close partnerships with industries to provide job-ready skills in sectors such as manufacturing, automotive, and hospitality (Madan, Chap. 16 ). In Bangladesh, another country with a large percentage of the youth population, the Ministry of Finance is directly engaging selected industry associations in priority growth sectors to skill and upskill the workforce with relevant education and skills to improve productivity and to address the emerging skills needs to be propelled by IR 4.0 (Lee, Chap. 17 ).

In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), where the population is aging fast, the Government is focusing on several complementary areas to strengthen the quantity and quality of TVET graduates. The Government has expanded the capacity of TVET at the senior secondary level by developing a sound legal framework that requires TVET trainers to have industry experience, promote work-based learning with quality assurance and credible assessment and certification, in close collaboration between industry and TVET institutions, and enhance the use of information and communications technologies in the delivery of TVET programs (Maruyama, Chap. 18 ). Since the PRC has been improving the quality of compulsory education up to grade 9, the improved foundational skills from better schooling provide a good foundation needed for TVET programs. Where students are coming from weak schooling, it is important to complement occupational skills with foundational skills.

4. Higher education needs to be practically oriented to prepare graduates for higher level skills with an innovative and entrepreneurial mindset (Part IV). Successful countries like the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Singapore have transitioned from “low skill equilibrium” to “high skill equilibrium” by building a solid school system followed by market-responsive TVET and a high-quality higher education system. These countries have demonstrated how they have evolved as economic powerhouses by investing in human capital despite lacking natural resources, and with the availability of cheap labor being short-lived. While other countries in the region are trying to emulate this success, for such a strategy to work well, it is important to consider different innovative models of universities to develop higher level skills and entrepreneurs and to spur innovation. In other words, high-quality universities can help leapfrog development by preparing high-tech graduates in priority areas such as modern agriculture, biotechnology, and information and technology.

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong, China, demonstrates how a well-funded university in a vibrant city led to high-quality science and technology and business programs by attracting world-class faculty, and how it adopted a unique entrepreneurial research culture that promoted transfer and the commercialization of technologies (Postiglione, Chap. 19 ). In the ROK, high-quality universities such as the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology have contributed to the ROK’s transition into a knowledge-based economy by promoting science, technology, and entrepreneurship. In Indonesia, the Institut Teknologi Bandung is institutionalizing innovation and entrepreneurial spirit that has led to 70 start-ups and 6 spin-off campuses. ETH Zurich is yet another example of a high-quality university that has been a driving force of industrialization in Switzerland since its establishment in 1855.

The collaboration between Shenzhen Municipal Government and Tsinghua University provides another example of how the municipality has successfully evolved from a fishing village to a thriving commercial and innovation hub by attracting high-quality universities that have collaborated successfully with industries in promoting innovation and joint research and the commercialization of new products (Kang, Chap. 20 ). In the Pacific Region, the University of the South Pacific (USP) serves as a regional university, owned by the governments of 12 Pacific island countries, by adopting a regional cooperation strategy to support small island countries to provide good quality higher education through a network of branch campuses in all the member countries (Thonden, Chap. 21 ). By also linking with different networks (American, Australian, New Zealand), USP has been able to maintain its quality and achieve high recognition. Similarly, the State University of New York is fostering high-quality entrepreneurial ecosystem in the ROK through a Center of Global Entrepreneurship which was launched in 2017 in collaboration with a global and domestic network of entrepreneurship communities (Hsieh, Chap. 22 ).

5. Education Technology has the potential of transforming teaching and learning and in providing twenty-first-century skills by supporting personalized learning and helping teachers to customize learning (Part V) . Unlike in the past, education institutions are not the only place where students learn. Students come from different backgrounds with diverse learning styles and needs. At the school level, in addition to the 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic), schools are also required to provide twenty-first-century skills such as soft, digital, and entrepreneurial skills. Developing countries that are struggling to attract qualified teachers with strong content knowledge are facing an additional challenge of ensuring learning for all. Given that many developing countries are facing a learning crisis, it will not be possible to make the desired progress in improving learning levels by 2030 without major transformative changes.

EdTech solutions offer effective ways of transforming teaching and learning in a number of ways: (i) students can improve learning outcomes at their own pace and learning level through adaptive learning programs; (ii) rich contents can be drawn from global good practices and in partnership with employers in close alignment with national curriculum; (iii) teachers can continuously enhance their knowledge and skills through blended online teacher professional development programs; (iv) teachers can use EdTech programs to continuously assess student learning to align their teaching at the grade level; (v) teachers can use learner-friendly content to improve their instructions; and (vi) the governance and accountability of education systems can improve by sharing the performance of students, teachers and schools on a regular basis with key stakeholders.

With growing investments in EdTech solutions, the emerging trends show promising results. During the early stages of online learning, the emphasis was overshadowed by too much of a focus on hardware and an inadequate support on software and content. However, with time, there is growing evidence of EdTech programs having a positive impact on student learning outcomes (Garcia, Chap. 23 ). Footnote 12 There are different examples of good practices in ICT-based learning that look promising: (i) there are several online and blended learning providers of massive open online courses that can be useful in ramping up skills in high demand courses such as machine learning, artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and coding and (ii) there are learning management systems that enhance governance and accountability of teaching and learning institutions (Pavlova, Chap. 24 ). While it is important to take calculated risks with the use of EdTech solutions , it is important to embed research with such programs to build evidence and demonstrate what works and what does not.

To address the needs of the 4IR, there is growing recognition among key stakeholders that the traditional education systems require total transformation. Mobile learning is increasingly promising given the easy access it provides to millions of learners in a flexible way and at a fraction of a cost for traditional education. The “ubiquity of digital software and mobile technologies have created a new set of rules, a new world order, that is unlike anything we have seen before” (Pohjavirta, Chap. 25 ). Similarly, the massive open online course providers are innovating to create a robust lifelong learning ecosystem to upskill and reskill the workforce around the globe with micro-credentialing of curated courses that continuously respond to emerging labor market needs (Qiu, Chap. 26 ).

With the growing demand for workers with information and technology (IT) knowledge and skills, many countries are requiring their education systems to include coding from an early stage to prepare students for future jobs in IT (Nambiar, Chap. 28 ). In India where a large percentage of engineers joining the IT industry do not come with the expected skills to work in customer projects, there is a big demand to train them so they are able to understand systems, solve problems, communicate effectively with customers, and relate to real-world problems (Parthasarathy, Chap. 27 ). To address the acute problem of a lack of qualified teachers in many developing countries, online blended programs are emerging as an effective way of promoting teacher professional development programs at scale without losing the quality that cascade training face (Lim et al, Chap. 28 ).

6. Technology platforms can reduce skills mismatches by better anticipating and preparing for emerging skills and jobs (Part VI) . In the current age of digital disruptions, the nature of work is changing rapidly, with a growing demand for higher order skills and decreasing demand for lower order, routine skills that can be automated. While the technologies that emerged from previous industrial revolutions also displaced workers using manual labor, the question now is, is it different this time? (Khatiwada, Chap. 32 ) Singapore is reducing skills mismatches by developing real-time labor market information systems using artificial intelligence and big data analytics to help job seekers match their skills profiles with the skills that potential employers are seeking (Gan, Chap. 31 ). In the ROK, there are continuous efforts to enhance collaboration between skills development and public employment services to reduce skills mismatches using a combination of different approaches: (i) regular labor demand surveys, (ii) long-term labor demand surveys, and (iii) AI and big data analytics to replace traditional approaches to promote job-matching (Lee, Chap. 33 ).

Another important side is how schools and training providers are responding to 4IR challenges in reducing skills mismatches. Due to a lack of information, access, and guidance, a large percentage of Filipino youth are not entering higher education. To reverse this trend, and to capitalize on the digital exposure of Gen Z (those borne from 1995 onward), it is possible to provide online information on schools, courses, and careers to encourage them to acquire higher level skills (Motte-Muñoz, Chap. 30 ). There is a need for training institutions to focus on the regular renewal of curriculum to match with emerging industry needs and to foster close collaboration between government, industry, and training providers to support lifelong learning for continuous reskilling and upskilling of the existing workforce.

Finally, according to UNESCO, around 1.5 billion students were out of school in over 180 countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In some countries like the People’s Republic of China, online learning has surged and, for the first time, this also forced public education to seek online learning at an unprecedented scale. Many governments are now more open to online learning and EdTech solutions, which will require rethinking education, promoting innovations, and developing evidence for improving teaching and learning. Drawing lessons from such experiences will be important to building on this momentum to improve the quality of education particularly for those students that are lagging behind. This will also require strong coordination and partnerships to develop a flexible learning management system that can interface with some of the best available multi-channel platforms (online, Offline, TV and radio, delivery of printed materials), experts, and teachers and trainers.

7. Education and training is a major catalyst that can bust silos and promote cross-sectoral collaboration for sustainable economic transformation in developing countries (Part VII) . Education is key to unleash the full potential of human capital since it provides the foundation for gender equality, healthy lifestyles, employability, innovation, peace, and sustainability. Therefore, education is seen as a catalyst, and the master key , to achieve all the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Education is a prominent component of the global competitive index (interrelationship between education, skills, and work), as it is for the global innovation index (education’s close relationship with skills, entrepreneurship, science & technology, and research & development).

Part VII highlights five interrelated examples of how education drives cross-sectoral collaboration. First, the example of a pilot in Mongolia (Build4Skills) shows how TVET can be integrated with infrastructure projects to drive workforce development through on-the-job training in partnership with industry (Edel, Chap. 35 ). Such an approach provides excellent opportunities to companies to not only improve the quality of infrastructure but also help develop skills of the workforce, particularly in countries that rely on foreign labor.

Second, the example of how a university can use STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education to prepare youth with employability as well as entrepreneurship skills in Thailand demonstrates how twenty-first-century skills can be developed while promoting sustainable development (Liu, Chap. 36 ).

Third, the example from Tajikistan on how TVET can train women in non-traditional, higher paying technical fields and occupations demonstrates a promising strategy to provide more inclusive TVET to women (Izawa, Chap. 37 ). This approach promoted the combination of social marketing, campaigns, stipends, dormitories, and female-friendly facilities. Fourth, the example of the Torino Process promoted by the European Training Foundation shows how a combination of traditional and nontraditional approaches can make TVET more inclusive while addressing the different needs of diverse students (Onestini, Chap. 38 ).

Finally, in light of the massive disruption of IR4 on the future of skills and jobs, there is a need to reskill and upskill the existing workforce in a continuous manner as part of lifelong learning. Singapore’s SkillsFuture demonstrates how this can be done through a voucher scheme that incentivizes individuals and companies to reskill and upskill through a choice of highly relevant courses offered by national and international training providers through blended learning platforms (Fung, Chap. 39 ). Such an approach is gaining traction everywhere, as a result of which reskilling and upskilling is developing into one of the largest industries in the world.

The future world of work requires agile and independent workers who are ICT literate and readily able to upskill and/or retool. To prepare for this future, higher education and TVET systems need to be conducive for lifelong learning, enabled by various learning and training modalities of skills development. At the same time, national qualifications systems, learning pathways, and recognition and validation systems of learning also need to be enhanced to motivate learners and workers to continuously learn. Linkages among governments, industries, and educational institutions would be critical in ensuring that curricula and learning interventions are relevant. Finally, development cooperation would be instrumental in addressing learning inequities among regions and countries as well as in sharing good practices and replicating effective models for lifelong learning through continued investment in human capital development.

Asian Development Bank. 2020. Asia’s Journey to Prosperity: Policy, Market and Technology Over 50 Years.

McKinsey & Company. 2007. How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on the top.

World Bank. 2018. World Development Report: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise.

Manpower Group. 2015. 2015 Talent Shortage Survey.

Asian Development Bank. Forthcoming (2020). Assessing skills and technology for high-growth industries in South-East Asia: Insights from Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Viet Nam

Howard Gardner. 2011. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.

Todd Rose. 2016. The End of Average. Harper and Collins Publishers.

Manos Antoninis and Silvia Montoya. July 2019. The World is Off Track to Deliver on its Education Commitments by 2030.

The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. 2016. The Learning Generation: Investing in Education for a Changing World.

There are a number of research findings that show the potential impact of EdTech solutions on learning outcomes: (i) J-PAL. 2016. Will technology transform education for the better?; (ii) Karthik Muralidharan et al. 2016. Disrupting Education? Experimental Evidence on Technology-Aided Instruction in India. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22923; (iii) Maya Escueta et al. 2017. Education Technology: An Evidence-Based Review. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23744; (iv) Rob Sampson et al. 2019. The EdTech Lab Series: Insights from rapid evaluations of EdTech products. Central Square Foundation and ID Insight.

Antoninis, M., & Montonya, S. (2019). The world is off track to deliver on its education commitments by 2030.

Google Scholar  

Asian Development Bank. (2020a). Asia’s journey to prosperity: Policy, market and technology Over 50 Years.

Asian Development Bank. (2020b, Forthcoming). Assessing skills and technology for high-growth industries in South-East Asia: Insights from Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

Escueta, M., et al. (2017). Education technology: An Evidence-Based review. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 23744.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . Basic Books.

J-PAL. (2016). Will technology transform education for the better?

Manpower Group. (2015). 2015 Talent Shortage Survey.

McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on the top.

Muralidharan, K., et al. (2016). Disrupting education? Experimental evidence on technology-aided instruction in India. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22923.

Rose, T. (2016). The end of average . Harper and Collins Publishers.

Sampson, R., et al. (2019). The EdTech lab series: Insights from rapid evaluations of EdTech products. Central Square Foundation and ID Insight.

The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. (2016). The learning generation: Investing in education for a changing world.

World Bank. (2018). World development report: Learning to realize education’s promise.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Education Sector Group, Asian Development Bank, Metro Manila, Philippines

Brajesh Panth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brajesh Panth .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Rupert Maclean

Rights and permissions

The views expressed in this Chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent.

ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this Chapter and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term "country" in this Chapter, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ . By using the content of this Chapter, you agree to be bound by the terms of this license. For attribution, translations, adaptations, and permissions, please read the provisions and terms of use at https://www.adb.org/terms-use#openaccess .

This CC license does not apply to non-ADB copyright materials in this Chapter. If the material is attributed to another source, please contact the copyright owner or publisher of that source for permission to reproduce it. ADB cannot be held liable for any claims that arise as a result of your use of the material.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Asian Development Bank

About this chapter

Panth, B. (2020). Conclusion and Recommendations: Implications and Way Forward. In: Panth, B., Maclean, R. (eds) Anticipating and Preparing for Emerging Skills and Jobs. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 55. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7018-6_40

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7018-6_40

Published : 03 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-7017-9

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-7018-6

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The turning point: Why we must transform education now

Global warming. Accelerated digital revolution. Growing inequalities. Democratic backsliding. Loss of biodiversity. Devastating pandemics. And the list goes on. These are just some of the most pressing challenges that we are facing today in our interconnected world.

The diagnosis is clear: Our current global education system is failing to address these alarming challenges and provide quality learning for everyone throughout life. We know that education today is not fulfilling its promise to help us shape peaceful, just, and sustainable societies. These findings were detailed in UNESCO’s Futures of Education Report in November 2021 which called for a new social contract for education.

That is why it has never been more crucial to reimagine the way we learn, what we learn and how we learn. The turning point is now. It’s time to transform education. How do we make that happen?

Here’s what you need to know. 

Why do we need to transform education?

The current state of the world calls for a major transformation in education to repair past injustices and enhance our capacity to act together for a more sustainable and just future. We must ensure the right to lifelong learning by providing all learners - of all ages in all contexts - the knowledge and skills they need to realize their full potential and live with dignity. Education can no longer be limited to a single period of one’s lifetime. Everyone, starting with the most marginalized and disadvantaged in our societies, must be entitled to learning opportunities throughout life both for employment and personal agency. A new social contract for education must unite us around collective endeavours and provide the knowledge and innovation needed to shape a better world anchored in social, economic, and environmental justice.  

What are the key areas that need to be transformed?

• Inclusive, equitable, safe and healthy schools

Education is in crisis. High rates of poverty, exclusion and gender inequality continue to hold millions back from learning. Moreover, COVID-19 further exposed the inequities in education access and quality, and violence, armed conflict, disasters and reversal of women’s rights have increased insecurity. Inclusive, transformative education must ensure that all learners have unhindered access to and participation in education, that they are safe and healthy, free from violence and discrimination, and are supported with comprehensive care services within school settings. Transforming education requires a significant increase in investment in quality education, a strong foundation in comprehensive early childhood development and education, and must be underpinned by strong political commitment, sound planning, and a robust evidence base.

• Learning and skills for life, work and sustainable development

There is a crisis in foundational learning, of literacy and numeracy skills among young learners. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, learning poverty has increased by a third in low- and middle-income countries, with an estimated 70% of 10-year-olds unable to understand a simple written text. Children with disabilities are 42% less likely to have foundational reading and numeracy skills compared to their peers. More than 771 million people still lack basic literacy skills, two-thirds of whom are women. Transforming education means empowering learners with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to be resilient, adaptable and prepared for the uncertain future while contributing to human and planetary well-being and sustainable development. To do so, there must be emphasis on foundational learning for basic literacy and numeracy; education for sustainable development, which encompasses environmental and climate change education; and skills for employment and entrepreneurship.

• Teachers, teaching and the teaching profession

Teachers are essential for achieving learning outcomes, and for achieving SDG 4 and the transformation of education. But teachers and education personnel are confronted by four major challenges: Teacher shortages; lack of professional development opportunities; low status and working conditions; and lack of capacity to develop teacher leadership, autonomy and innovation. Accelerating progress toward SDG 4 and transforming education require that there is an adequate number of teachers to meet learners’ needs, and all education personnel are trained, motivated, and supported. This can only be possible when education is adequately funded, and policies recognize and support the teaching profession, to improve their status and working conditions.

• Digital learning and transformation

The COVID-19 crisis drove unprecedented innovations in remote learning through harnessing digital technologies. At the same time, the digital divide excluded many from learning, with nearly one-third of school-age children (463 million) without access to distance learning. These inequities in access meant some groups, such as young women and girls, were left out of learning opportunities. Digital transformation requires harnessing technology as part of larger systemic efforts to transform education, making it more inclusive, equitable, effective, relevant, and sustainable. Investments and action in digital learning should be guided by the three core principles: Center the most marginalized; Free, high-quality digital education content; and Pedagogical innovation and change.

• Financing of education

While global education spending has grown overall, it has been thwarted by high population growth, the surmounting costs of managing education during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the diversion of aid to other emergencies, leaving a massive global education financial gap amounting to US$ 148 billion annually. In this context, the first step toward transformation is to urge funders to redirect resources back to education to close the funding gap. Following that, countries must have significantly increased and sustainable financing for achieving SDG 4 and that these resources must be equitably and effectively allocated and monitored. Addressing the gaps in education financing requires policy actions in three key areas: Mobilizing more resources, especially domestic; increasing efficiency and equity of allocations and expenditures; and improving education financing data. Finally, determining which areas needs to be financed, and how, will be informed by recommendations from each of the other four action tracks .

What is the Transforming Education Summit?

UNESCO is hosting the Transforming Education Pre-Summit on 28-30 June 2022, a meeting of  over 140 Ministers of Education, as well as  policy and business leaders and youth activists, who are coming together to build a roadmap to transform education globally. This meeting is a precursor to the Transforming Education Summit to be held on 19 September 2022 at the UN General Assembly in New York. This high-level summit is convened by the UN Secretary General to radically change our approach to education systems. Focusing on 5 key areas of transformation, the meeting seeks to mobilize political ambition, action, solutions and solidarity to transform education: to take stock of efforts to recover pandemic-related learning losses; to reimagine education systems for the world of today and tomorrow; and to revitalize national and global efforts to achieve SDG-4.

• More on the Transforming Education Summit
• More on the Pre-Summit

Related items

• Future of education
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Other recent news