I have been volunteering at a school where I am teaching physical science to some 10th class children. Another NGO asked if I would help some girls in their Inter II year (equivalent of class 12). So I have familiarised myself with the syllabii of class 10 as well as Inter II yr. I am also familiar with the syllabus for BSc classes, since I used to teach them for many years.
The point is, at every level, they teach the same concepts, for example shapes of orbitals. However, it is done very weirdly in class 10. In one page, electrons are particles moving around the nucleus, and after three pages, they are in orbitals that have weird shapes. The narrative makes no sense. The Inter text book is a little better, some attempt is made to connect the dots. In BSc, it is much better and the narrative makes some sense, even if we don't deal with any of the math.
My point is, why teach it in the 10th? The way it is given would confuse anyone. This confusion can be debilitating later. They acquire some misconceptions and that stays with them all through.
A student studying for MSc in Chemistry, thinks the electron in a p orbital is a particle that moves around in figures of 8. This probably was the picture he got in the 10th class and it never went away even though he has studied some quantum chemistry in BSc and MSc. (true story)
Mis-learning is deadly, it cannot be rectified easily.
That's the danger of stuffing in "topics" just so you can boast that your syllabus is advanced.
School syllabi should teach very basic concepts, limited in number,but those must be taught well enough to engrave it in the students' memories. And children must be taught to learn on their own and enjoy the process.
As in everything else, we feel quantity makes up for quality
The point is, at every level, they teach the same concepts, for example shapes of orbitals. However, it is done very weirdly in class 10. In one page, electrons are particles moving around the nucleus, and after three pages, they are in orbitals that have weird shapes. The narrative makes no sense. The Inter text book is a little better, some attempt is made to connect the dots. In BSc, it is much better and the narrative makes some sense, even if we don't deal with any of the math.
My point is, why teach it in the 10th? The way it is given would confuse anyone. This confusion can be debilitating later. They acquire some misconceptions and that stays with them all through.
A student studying for MSc in Chemistry, thinks the electron in a p orbital is a particle that moves around in figures of 8. This probably was the picture he got in the 10th class and it never went away even though he has studied some quantum chemistry in BSc and MSc. (true story)
Mis-learning is deadly, it cannot be rectified easily.
That's the danger of stuffing in "topics" just so you can boast that your syllabus is advanced.
School syllabi should teach very basic concepts, limited in number,but those must be taught well enough to engrave it in the students' memories. And children must be taught to learn on their own and enjoy the process.
As in everything else, we feel quantity makes up for quality
2 comments:
As a student (many eons back-:)), I had a hard time understanding my physics, chemistry, and math textbooks. The explanations were cryptic, incomplete, and left me completely confused! As I grew older, I realized that some of the content is not just misleading, but plain wrong. Perhaps the textbooks are written this way in order to look complete, but it would have been so much better if they had merely stated that some concepts are just too advanced, and that the current picture is not completely accurate!
Thanks for the comment. The reason they are cryptic is that we want to cram a lot into our syllabii. Yes I agree that it is much better to simply either leave such topics out or just state them and say the explanation will be provided when you advance in your study of the subject.
Post a Comment