Because, no matter what industrial and commercial registration wrote, our position is first and foremost an education company, not a technology company. (If the technology products are mainly hardware, to be honest, the products may be awesome, but they may not really grasp the core of education. )
In the final analysis, the process of education is to return to the interaction of knowledge and realize the transfer of knowledge, which can not be separated from both sides, that is, teachers and students. Of course, we can carry this interactive process through various channels, such as the Internet, teaching materials and videos. If a product is just for children to play with and find out, then it is just a toy, not a teaching aid. In other words, any toy of children can have certain thinking cultivation function or value. Then we obviously can't call this process education.
To judge the standards of high-quality STEM education, I think we might as well look at these levels:
First look at the curriculum, that is, through what to carry the educational process such a carrier. If there are teaching materials and supporting teaching plans that can be implemented, it means that no matter what the quality is, at least some people are thinking and others are doing it. Enterprises with their own independent ideas or independent teaching and research teams still have a certain foundation. Note that I'm not talking about product manuals or assembly drawings.
Looking at the experience, "excellent courses can often make people immersive", and I can't help but feel involved and curious to know. This feeling should be felt by adults and children. My experience, an excellent course, takes the parent-child class as an example, not only the children have a good time, but also the parents will feel benefited a lot. It depends on the product or the course.
Of course, it depends on the system. Although many experts now believe that maker education should not have a system, because maker is a kind of culture, including freedom, and there is no need to be framed by the system. However, I still think that maker education or STEM education, as a social science, needs to be systematic. This system is not framing thinking, but guiding thinking. At present, there are basically no institutions that can do this.
Don't forget to read the content. Because STEM is an interdisciplinary research, whether the research content is interdisciplinary is also an important reference factor. If we just do a chemical experiment, I don't think it can be called STEM. This should be clearly demonstrated in the course. Not just words, but words.
Finally see the effect. The goal of education is to achieve effective teaching, and we hope all students can leave with harvest. What cannot be achieved is invalid. Some people think that as long as children have fun, it is enough. Just take them to the amusement park and the children will have fun.
As a course designer, I am working hard on this road.