When I was in third grade, I had a 5-inch-thick deck of colored index cards that I used as my science quiz bee reviewer. Each color corresponded to a type of question: green for multiple choice, orange for fill-in-the-blanks and pink for essay-type questions.
If you will ask me now what chlorophyll is or why lighting comes before thunder, I can still give you an answer straight from a textbook. That was how I passed my science subjects and aced quiz contests in grade school — through memorization of textbook definitions.
Science was easy, at least for my 10-year-old self who was studying in a public elementary school. But little did I know that I was not that good in science; all I had back then was a reliable memory.
In elementary, all we had were general science textbooks that were so outdated, Pluto was still considered a planet. We even had to rely on the rusty drawing skills of our teacher to illustrate the butterfly’s metamorphosis on the board.
We were lucky if our teacher would let us touch the lone microscope that had already collected dust from having sat in the cabinet for years.
One science workbook existed for the whole class, so the class president had to painstakingly write everything on the board for everyone to see.
There were no other references like modules or encyclopedia, no computer and internet for updated information, and no laboratories for further application.
It was this lack of science learning resources and facilities that probably prompted the objective-memorization type of science instruction that I got accustomed to.
It wasn’t until I transferred to a private Catholic high school that I realized science was not just about memorization. I was introduced to a new learning approach — one which required application, exploration and a lot of questions.
Of course, I learned a lot in grade school, and some knowledge was still helpful until high school. It was just that, in my private school education, we all had access to fast internet connection, a monthly subscription to scientific journals or magazines, and laboratories where the microscope to student ratio was 1:1.
I did not top my science subjects in high school, but I definitely enjoyed learning more than I ever did in grade school.
For the first time, I was able to view and observe a blood sample under a microscope. I touched and used an actual laboratory equipment, and it was way different from simply viewing a black-and-white photo on textbooks. I had fun presenting our own science project on hydroponics at the annual science fair, and got exhilarated while launching our DIY water rockets.
The teaching style of our science teachers was also a lot different. We were introduced to the Socratic method, wherein we were encouraged to ask questions and answer with more questions, rather than simply memorize concepts.
In my senior year, we were required to present a scientific research paper which would be fully funded by the school if deemed outstanding. This whole new approach was challenging, but at the same time more encouraging for me.
I was happy with the thought of learning with the new perks that my paid private education gave me. But I was also saddened by the fact that all of these could only be experienced through privilege.
I cannot help but imagine how many Filipino scientists can be produced if the foundation of their science education is more experiential in nature and supported with adequate resources and facilities, just like what I had in my private high school.
I was fortunate enough to experience this duality in my science education. But deep in some remote province in the country, a fifth grader is probably dreaming of becoming the next Neil Armstrong, or perhaps dreaming of launching his own rocket.
But in the meantime, that student has to be contented with the worn-out pages of the science textbook he or she is viewing under the light of a burning candle.
* * *
Pinkle Therese Evangelio, 21, is a senior communication arts student at the University of the Philippines Los Baños.