Everything boils down to science learning

While the Philippines is greatly alarmed by the falling-off of its performance in science and mathematics, it is surprising that other seemingly invincible  nations are likewise hit by the very issues that are crippling our basic science education, issues that are trending worldwide!

Such include the declining interest in science, indifferent social perception of science, drastic reduction in science career options, poor primary science, low performance in international assessment studies, lack of qualified teachers, overcrowded curriculum, lack of quality textbooks and instructional materials, low student’s motivation, high drop-out and repetition rates, lack of time for planning lessons and evaluations, poorly defined learning objectives, and lack of teachers’ training.

Common Issues, Varied Approaches

Despite communalities of issues, several countries approached the same problems differently. For example, France has its LAMAP (La main a la Pate) that focuses on inquiry pedagogy and reasoning which brought its teachers and scientists together, thereby reconciling the former with science and awakening their own curiosity. Another interesting example is the way Switzerland uses clowns as mediator in humanizing science concepts. And perhaps, the most interesting of all is Brazil’s Sangari method or the creativity science which transforms the classroom into a science laboratory. What makes it worthy of note is that Argentina and some schools in the Unites States are adopting the Sangari method. It just flatters that a certain intervention with humble origin like this is emulated by other countries, USA as that. The rest are also commendable like the establishment of a sharing environment among teachers in Spain to improve students’ motivation and interest in learning science; Brazil’s peculiar way of introducing science as a process in its primary schools and its interdisciplinary approach in teaching botany; Madagascar’s ecopedagogy; Argentina’s maximization of language in learning science; and the Philippines’ practical work approach and collaborative lesson research and development or lesson study.

Issues in Science Learning: No Quick Fix

If there is no proof of scientific literacy among the above interventions, then they could not have reached UNESCO. Therefore, I should say that all these trends boil down to science learning. Learning then is the core of all our efforts to improve science education. But should we jump immediately into the boiling water by adopting this and that so that science education in the country will be fixed right away? No! There is no quick fix but apparently, we are resorting to that. Let me discuss my points.

Biyo and the Bernidos: Proudly Philippine-Made

I am convinced that there are science teachers in the field who are exceptionally embracing ‘learning’ as the heart of the educational process such that they carefully choose science contents for learning; they teach for learning; they assess for learning; they develop devices and instructional materials for learning; and foremost they are helping the students in learning how to learn. These are the teachers who are clueless about ‘labels’ but whose experiences can give light to what technological pedagogical content knowledge is all about better than our theoretical frameworks can do. What happens to Dr. Josette Biyo’s international award for excellence in science teaching, if we do not make a way to have the ‘Biyo’s method’ taught among our pre and in-service science teachers? For what that the Bernidos’ won the Magsaysay Award if we don’t give their Dynamic Learning Program (DLP) a chance to work in our science curriculum? DLP holds a lot of promise of addressing the above-mentioned issues in science education. Its package of paradoxes just stuns me: to teach more, teach less; to cover more, cover less; to speed up, first slow down; and to master more, study less. I think we have to endeavour to let the world know that we have something in the Philippines that they can learn and emulate, too.

Interest: an overlooked factor?

I was surprised that UNESCO did not report the declining interest in science as one of the reasons why the performance of the Filipino students in international tests is consistently low. Can this be one of the ignored factors in our efforts to hastily improve science education? Interest is among the antecedents of performance. It is important therefore that before an intervention is introduced, our learners should be engaged first by heightening their interest. Will the old school of motivating students do the work? Why do most students actively engage themselves in products of science and technology like gadgets and everything but disengage in classroom science? The widening gap between the two is disturbing and the school cannot get away from the fact that ICT forms a ubiquitous factor of students’ learning. In reimagining science education however, digital divide is becoming less of an issue but the premium is placed on the ‘ability divide’ of using technology in a more creative way to support learning, perhaps, as a tool to win learners’ interest. More and more teachers are complaining about the apparent addiction of students in computer and video games and gadgets but few are making something out of the ‘computer game’ principles to have their place in pedagogy as an aesthetic mode of presenting concepts in a socio-cultural context. Good that gamication is now gaining ground in the country.

Context and Primavera’s ecopedagogy

The term context-based (content, learning and assessment) is all around in the science curriculum. But what is meant by ‘context’ in the eyes of an ordinary science teacher? And what is the guarantee that our contextual approach in learning will find place in national and international assessment studies? How serious is DepEd in promoting context-based learning? Let me take the case of J.H. Primavera, the mangrove scientist from Iloilo who in 2010 sought the help of DepEd to mainstream the mangrove modules her team developed in 2009 but was just given a ‘run-around’ at the end. According to her, mangroves can be used as an entry point to introduce students to continental drift, earthquakes, tsunamis, storm surges, greenbelts and other scientific concepts or phenomena. She believed that the modules are rich in lessons that can ground a child to his native ecology.

This could have been an excellent example of science content reimagined: one that is based on relevant context; investigates beyond illustrative practical work; operates within a socio-scientific and community setting; provides real-life exploration; promotes conceptual change; and requires innovative assessment regimes.

Fixing that which is not broken

Our teachers who are supposed to narrow the gap between the ‘intended’ and ‘attained’ curricula are rather confused because of national impositions to embrace something that is going to work. I am talking about the K to 12 science curriculum. The rationale for adding two years in our basic education is really relevant for global competitiveness. It’s been a while that the new curriculum was rolled out yet our teachers are still grappling what content integration and spiral sequencing of concepts are all about. Some philosophical schools of thought just view these as ‘bastardized and ineffective versions of the pure subject matter one should be learning.’ K to 12 as far as I understand is also a response to an overcrowded curriculum which is being blamed for our students’ poor performance in science and math. But integration and spiralling? Why should we fix something that isn’t broken? Just because that is what progressivism is all about? I believe that students will benefit more if we are going to introduce science to them as a discipline to be covered in one school year. For example, the subdisciplines of biology can even be integrated and spiralled per grading period. I am afraid that the way biology is presented in the current K to 12 science curriculum might not give students that optimum experience of appreciating the subject in gestalt.

Context-based analyses = context-based solutions 

The international trends in science education are driven by problems that emerged in their respective contexts which have been discovered when countries started to standardize learning outcomes and began comparing one system from another. This is not bad after all because we were able to have a window to see how other countries are coping with these global challenges. However, we should not be blinded by the ‘labels’ and the ‘jargons’ claiming that they are the quick solutions to these problems. Rather, we have to practice scientific inquiry in our own house. Let’s identify and define the problem objectively. Given our available resources and natural creativity, let’s design a novel and workable way of addressing the problem within our context. And if it works, let us share it generously.

My point is simple: For as long as what we do results in science learning, let’s keep it that way. Otherwise, let’s reinvent.