I asked my little son a little while ago, "How much is 10÷20?"
He said, "Mashey."
"How much is 20÷10?"
"Two."
"So, how much is 10÷20?"
"Two. Same."
"So, Chunu, if you had ten sweets and there were twenty of you, how much would each get?"
He finally said,"Half!"
I said, "Yes!"
Then I asked, "How much is two divided by one?"
He said,"One!"
He was having toast at that time. I said, "Look. You have two slices of that toast. There is just you. How many slices do you have?"
"Two! Ah mummy, what's all this? Nga misheybey."
As I'm writing this, my son is reading and saying, "Aaaa mummy, ngagi mashey malap wai."
My son is a brilliant student in school, going to class five. Imagine! I'm a worried parent, although an excited teacher at this moment for discovering the magic of mathematics. I'm thinking, "Is this the kind of excitement that Jean Jacques Rousseau of the 18th century might have felt with Emily?"
__________________________________________
And, while I am at the subject of mathematics, let me share another incident. I happened to visit a primary school (within Thimphu). I think it was in the early 2000's. I was standing outside right next to a basketball rink. The Principal and a mathematics teacher were with me. I looked at the basketball rink and said in excitement, "Children could learn mathematics here."
The teacher (Indian) quickly responded, "No, Ma'am, they can't learn maths here. They have to learn it in the classroom." I was flabbergasted. I had thought he would share the same excitement.
I said, "Oh yeah! What about the shapes you can see? What about the measurements? Are you sure they can't learn maths here?"
"I'm sorry, Ma'am, I never looked at it that way. I think it is possible."
I was a disturbed educator that day. I felt sorry for the children, who I imagined going through a boring learning process with the chalkboard filled with the teacher's writing.
_________________________________________
And then there was another incident I experienced with a trainee teacher during teaching practice. It was in 1996. I was one of the supervisors from the teacher training college in Samtse. We were practising at Jigme Losel Primary School. The lesson was on social studies. Students were required to observe the scenery outside and draw, so they were all seated outside with a paper and pencil in hand. I observed that the students were having a tough time looking at the mountains around and drawing with dust getting into their eyes and paper almost flying off. It happened to be a windy day, but the teacher's manual prescribed this lesson. Did it say weather no bar? No! The teacher has to use common sense. I wondered if the manual system was actually making our teachers robotic rather than creative. Teachers need to be creative and spontaneous too!
I was attending a workshop at the Rinchen High School one day where I got to meet several of my high school teachers who had left their old job for the better paying ones. One of them said
ReplyDelete"You know. Teaching is no more fun. In the olden days, our kids used to be so competitive, bright and lively. Nowadays, the kids are least interested in studies and seem to concentrate more on other matters"
After reading your article, I am thinking if he has tried at all...
You could be right, Kinga, about him not trying. And I really wonder what he meant by "...seem to concentrate more on other matters." What other matters? If he meant other than books, then he's surely one of those traditional teachers. As a teacher, there are ways of turning those other matters students are interested in into constructive lessons. Teachers are meant to be crafty too, and students are not to be misunderstood for being interested in all sorts of things other than books. The biggest mistake we make with our children is binding and choking them with our own interests/hobbies/dreams.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, did you watch the hindi movie '3 Idiots'? Fantabulously superb movie with good educational messages conveyed powerfully but in simple small ways.
I beg to differ and differ strongly with you over your statment on "other matters". Let me mutter in an undertone that you are generalizing about the "other matters". Let's be honest although nowadays honesty isn't the best policy always. Not all "other matters" than books are worth pursuing, at least while as students. Not all "other matters" are something that students cannot do without, now and ever. By "other matters", she/he may have meant drugs, juvenile delinquency, romance, etc. - those extra-curricular activities.
ReplyDeleteStudents/children cannot be, seriously,given free rein to experiment with new things or "other things" on their own. They will doubtless learn many things, but as many such things are of little or no use. Yes, they will learn to try marijuana at an age far younger than their friends; yes, they will understand what teenage pregnancy is; and yes, they can tell which bottle contains what.
But let's remind ourselves that there is time for everything. They say timing is everything in politics. I say it's everything in everything. Parents need not bind or tie their children, but parents must TETHER their children so that they can move about freely within a designated boundary only. A Bhutanese aphorism tells us: Bu langsho tangpa cheythruk mein, a rough direct translation of which could be - a pampered kid is not a loved kid.
By the way, this is just my view based on observation. I'm still on the horns of procreation dilemma.
You have the freedom to express your opinion, Dawa. And, yes, 'other matters' could mean what you've expressed too. They could mean anything. However, I was really talking about extracurricular and cocurricular activities kind of things, which by the way are not wrong at all and definitely do not include drugs, juvenile delinquency, etc. And, I would like to know how something natural like romancing can be prevented or stopped. I can, of course, understand the need for teenage pregnancy to be prevented.
ReplyDeleteTravelling by Freedom Express I come again to disgaree over a matter that's more often than not sweet. What is natural is not always desirable; if it is, why have artificiality!
ReplyDeleteRomance cannot be prevented or stopped altogether. It must not be prevented/stopped. It's disastrous. But romance shouldn't be taken as something natural in an educational edifice that is school. It's here where all parents - biological, educational, foster, adoptive - can and should put a spoke in their children's romantic wheels. School is not a hotbed of hot romance.
I understand it's difficult. So it's almost near-impossible or a case of human rights abuse to ban romance from schools. Therefore, the next alternative is to discourage it or manage it - let's tread on the seldom-trodden, near-virgin Middle Path!
I agree, Dawa, that school is not a place for encouraging 'hot' romance and no teacher encourages that anyways. What I'm trying to say is that falling in love just happens to human beings in general. Of course, there might be exceptions for whatever reason. And I'm not even sure if you and I are on the same wavelength with the understanding of 'romance.' It doesn't necessarily have to be hot. It can be sweet innocent too. But, yes, in order to avoid it turning 'hot' the school needs to put in place a system that will hardly provide the opportunity for those students in love to indulge in 'hot' romancing. And that is the difficult part, my dear. Therefore, at higher secondary and college levels when students are physiologically more developed and biologically more responsive, it is wiser to at least educate them on the consequences of teenage pregnancy and HIV/AIDS.
ReplyDeleteOf course, in some societies sex before marriage is taboo, but I'd really like to know what successful measures have been taken and where (which country) to ensure that doesn't happen. It ought not to happen, we adults believe, but it does happen, doesn't it? And, don't you think it's ironical in some ways that BOYS should experiment it before marriage and on whom? GIRLS, of course! Yet, men think women must be pure virgins till they get married. Now isn't that hypocritical? And, by the way, do you know about MEN who make school/college girls vulnerable? The all time available freely mingling married middle aged and old hags!!! On one hand, we are protective over our own daughters in school/college and on the other hand, we pounce on others' daughters. That's hypocritical! If we must be honest, Dawa, let’s begin with that.
We want schools to take care of everything when education actually begins at home and is simultaneously happening in the environment we live in. A child picks faster the habits s/he lives and schools/teachers have to bear the brunt of it ALWAYS, many a time unjustifiably. This is something I feel about very strongly as an educator by profession. And, even if I'm just voicing my own opinion, I stand by it firmly.
So do I, firmly and with no second thoughts! Some of the points you've raised here have already been addressed in one of my earlier posts.
ReplyDeleteJust shows we converge and diverge at many points, like most other people in dialogue or conversation.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And the dialogue is never deadlocked.
ReplyDeleteThe rises and the falls; the highs and the lows; the bulges and the bumps; the peaks and the troughs. Life goes on.
What a monotonous existence it'd be if there were no convergence and divergence! Convergence and divergence are the twin coordinates of our existence!
From that of a bumpy ride to the beginning of this "dialogue" the end was relatively smooth.... kudos to both of you for being able to accept facts and compromise...wish most homes adopted this strategy...we would then have less broken homes...
ReplyDeleteLPTashi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I agree with you - on wishing this strategy could be adopted at home. I admit it's much much more difficult doing this at home. I really don't know why, though. We tend to be less patient or tolerant or understanding with your loved ones at home. Every little matter between husband and wife leads to an uproar, with each one trying to prove the other wrong. Small matters with children also tend to blow out of proportion at times. I wonder if it is because ...
1. ...we take each other for granted. (may be)
2. ...family arguments are usually more 'emotionally' charged than 'intellectually' charged. (not sure if this can be generalized...)
My sense is at home, in family matters, we 'think' with our heart and with others, outside of home, we think with our head...hence the different reactions and accommodating capacity at these two different locations....
ReplyDeleteAgree with you, LPTashi. It's a fact I have no concrete explanation for nor any point to debate/argue or even discuss.
ReplyDeleteI can only give a few often-heard examples, such as...
...it's easier to learn driving from a friend than from your own spouse;
...it's easier to teach children in school than your own children at home.
In both the above cases, we prove ourselves highly impatient with our own loved ones. Is it because we feel the responsibility lies elsewhere?
"Not my responsibility to teach my wife/husband how to drive!"
"Not my responsibility to teach my children!"
Just wondering.......