IREX requested that we reflect deeply and select an essential question to focus our learning

during the field experience. I had so many questions! And so did my students and colleagues. I
tried to investigate as many of those as possible, but I decided that my essential question was:

How is effective STEM (Science. Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics) education implemented in Russia?
Some supporting questions that I planned to use to help me investigate this:
How do societal values impact decisions?
What is the role of experiential learning?
How is student engagement supported?
How are instructional materials utilized?
What teaching strategies predominate?

I had some initial assumptions that I wanted to test. Although, there is an increasing emphasis
on STEM in the US, I wondered if that would be even stronger in Russia. I suspected that STEM
courses in Russia might be more rigorous than ours. I wondered about the amount of voice
and choice that Russian students have in selecting courses of study, but also in selecting
project topics within courses. What about labs and hands-on activities? Group work? Field
trips? Implications of testing?
These are all aspects that interested me.

Answering my essential question proved more difficult than I had imagined. Here are my
reflections on this question from after the field experience in Russia.

Answering this question became more complex than I anticipated. I went with a definite
preconceived vision of what effective STEM education looks like. My priorities for my students
were, and remain, to promote higher order critical thinking, problem solving skills,
collaboration skills, active inquiry, and creativity. I measure their success, and therefore my
own, by their college and career readiness. In West Virginia, only a small percentage of my
students are subjected to a standardized test specifically in the content of the courses I teach.
And even, then, there is minimal personal consequence. Ironically, I suspect the Russian
students would do better on our state tests. However, keep in mind that our state, like most,
does not have the budget to adequately test the objectives we value. So, our tests are only one
small indicator, limited primarily to recall questions.


Here are the supporting questions I asked along with some of my observations:
How do societal values impact decisions? Just as in the US, many Russians see a university
education as a gateway to a better job and a better life. Thus getting in and getting funding for
this is valued. What is different is that the Russian students future is dependent on the results
of the national exam. Grades, teacher recommendations, community service, special talents,
special initiatives, extracurricular dedicationnone of this matters. So, they work hard
towards passing this one exam in the subject of their interest, say chemistry for example. They
may spend after school sessions in private tutoring for exam preparation. The exam must be
heavily weighted with detailed factual content. These students could repeat facts, and give
lengthy speeches on the properties of elements. My students would not be able to recite this
information.
What is the role of experiential learning? I observed a chemistry lab at the Michurinsk Lyceum.
A lab assistant (a school employee, not the teacher) set up all the equipment and measured out
all the chemicals in advance of the class. At the appropriate moment, the teacher led the
students in the steps of the experiment (which was to view the production of carbon dioxide by
reaction of calcium carbonate and hydrochloric acid). The students executed the lab in pairs, all
pairs adding the reactants, sealing the test-tube with the stopper, and positioning the outtake
tubing in limewater, in perfectly choreographed unison. They did not wear goggles. They did
not clean up; the lab assistant would do this.
I also observed a robotics activity with younger, middle school aged students. The activity was
to build vehicles out of Lego parts using different gear ratios. Each group of students followed a
set of directions with a prescribed set of gears. It seemed like kind of a speed contest. Each
group consisted of two girls and two boys. For the most part, a boy seemed to take charge of
the construction and relegate the rest of the group to searching for parts, even though several
girls tried to budge in on the construction. I asked the teacher if she ever had a group of only
girls. She did not think that would be a good idea because then they might be at a
disadvantage. The students raced the completed vehicles. The teacher explained why one was
the best (at least I think that is what happened).
How is student engagement supported? If you have to pass a high stakes exam and your entire
future depends on it, then you are engaged!
How are instructional materials utilized? Every classroom was equipped with a teacher
computer station and smart board. The teacher presented material and then quizzed students
via the smart board. Internet resources were used as well as teacher-made presentations, and
text provided presentations. Students used the smart boards, as well, to respond to teachers
questions and to do their own presentations. The text books were small, but jammed with
information. Students were expected to read, at home, and be prepared to repeat information.
Sometimes worksheets were also part of the homework. The computer lab was used exclusively
for programming classes. Internet activities were not done at school. Students seemed to have
internet access at home and they used it there to complete research assignments.
What teaching strategies predominate? Direct instruction was a predominate strategy. My
host teacher, Yaroslava, participated in an exchange program to the US and spent several
months observing, collaborating, and teaching in California. While there, she incorporated a
variety of strategies into her English teaching repertoire which she now enthusiastically uses
with her students. There are four other teachers in her department which she fondly refers to
as my girls. She is clearly an inspiration to them urging them to try alternative strategies and
to present at regional conferences. They are excited about this divergence from straight direct
instruction and recognize the benefits for their students English proficiency. That being said,
they are still bound to that national exam and feel that any time spent on more interesting
activities must be quickly and efficiently made up in order to remain on target for that.

I have described what it looked like to me. As for any conclusions, I am still trying to process my
ideas on this. I am left thinking that, if I were a chemistry teacher in Russia, I would probably
have to change my ways. I currently tell my students not to memorize things that are easy to
look up and that there are often multiple paths to the solution of a problem. When chemistry
students at Michurinsk were doing a problem using a strange step by step prescription that
involved way too much work, in my opinion, their teacher explained that they needed to do it
that way in order to be successful on the national exam. So, if success on that exam is the goal
and the students future depends on it. Well, there you have it.