Essentials versus peripherals: Our experience in basic education

(First of two parts)

In 2002, we introduced a dynamic learning program (DLP) of strategies in the high school of the Central Visayas Institute Foundation (CVIF). This was after three years of full immersion and observation that revealed the weaknesses of prevailing educational programs and strategies. With so much effort and backbreaking work, results were nil or negligible. We then designed the CVIF DLP as a package of solutions to partially solve the problem of a complex system subject to multiple constraints. In particular, we aimed at designing a low-budget yet effective educational program that:

• Is suitable for large classes (>25 students);

• Is less dependent on textbooks;

• Requires less equipment;

• Addresses the English proficiency problem without sacrificing deep understanding of science and math;

• Addresses the spectrum of students from slow to brilliant, from poor to rich;

• Is suited to physical and psychological stages of the youth;

• Reduces teaching personnel requirements;

• Is less dependent on the personalities and abilities of teachers; and

• Has built-in checks of dysfunctional behavior observed in Filipinos while boosting their natural creativity and ingenuity.

Typical of theoretical physicists, we went "back to first principles." We started with setting up targets and the standards by which to measure success. Clearly, we could not define these in terms of the national situation considering the country’s very poor performance in both national and international achievement tests (generally <50 percent proficiency marks). On the other hand, even in advanced countries, there is some alarm over the deteriorating performance of schoolchildren and declining interest in the basic and applied sciences – the driving factors for the technological advances now enjoyed by mankind. To define our goals we thus had to think deeply, distinguishing between the essential versus the peripheral, invariable versus fashionable, primary principles versus secondary, universal versus local and parochial. Schools of thought as to the ends and methodology of education were examined simply as "schools of thought" and not as binding mandates.

At present, our long-term goal is to develop our young people up to the apex of a pyramidal hierarchy of learning. Visual-kinesthetic exploratory learning forms the base, followed by qualitative-conceptual/verbal (explanatory) learning. Of higher order is quantitative/mathematical explanatory learning. The apex – quantitative-mathematical synthesis – is difficult to achieve but is the fountainhead for high-impact creativity and accelerated technological advancement.

Although we thought of these levels of learning to properly train students of physics, these may be applied to other fields such as sports and the performing arts. Athletes who undergo scientific training programs generally do better. Talent and physical endowments are not enough to be competitive when shaving off hundredths of seconds from world records.

(To be concluded)

* * *

M. Victoria Carpio-Bernido and Christopher Bernido obtained their PhDs in Theoretical Physics from the State University of New York at Albany (SUNYA) and are founding senior researchers at the Research Center for Theoretical Physics, Central Visayas Institute (CVI), Jaga, Bohol. Marivic is the principal of CVI, and Chris is the president of the CVI Foundation. Prior to their current affiliations, they were faculty members at the National Institute of Physics, UP Diliman. E-mail them at cbernido@mozcom.com.