Jo Boaler says that there is this thing called Classroom Math, which is a child-eating monster, that is quite different from Real World Math. Perhaps something similar can be said about sciences depending on the teacher and HOW the subject is taught. What you find in this little essay is my failed past relationship with math and sciences and how we have decided to have another go at our relationship.

 

I have always felt that math was the bane of my existence ever since Grade 9. I was also taught in a system, where the dominant philosophy was to get the correct answer. The process was never the focal point, despite the fact that it is where all the hard work manifests itself. Math had also been the un-fun subject.

 

As for sciences, I was somewhat equivocal about sciences through elementary to middle school, but when the subject split to chemistry, geology, biology, and physics, at high school, I loved the former two and hated the latter two. I liked chemistry because I was partial to the planetary look of atomic structure (I have always partial to space exploration stories - The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, etc. - and even quite recently, read, watched, and re-read The Martian) and the beauty of chemical formulas - it was quite fascinating to see all the atoms and electrons fall into place to make up a new molecule. I was fond of geology because we had a months-long project where I was able to sand down a slice of a rock sample in order to make a slide so that we could observe our rock sample under a microscope.

 

I did not like biology because I was quite grossed out by the possibility of dissecting a fly with a teacher who reminded me of a dragonfly with abnormally large eyes (if you are thinking of a male and Asian version of Professor Trelawney, you are not off) who also never smiled. Physics was made too difficult for me with all the formulas that led to non-linear graphs (this observation might not be true but it sure seemed that way to me). It also didn’t help that the teacher was so soft-spoken and somewhat monotonous that I had a hard time believing that there was anything exciting and fun about physics. It is a shame, really, because I strongly believe that a right teacher could have made me fall in love with either subjects.

 

My Mum still tells me fondly of the time I became “the earth” to the Moon made of a tennis ball stabbed with a stick in middle school. Apparently, I was spinning in my rolling chair, because the chart on the textbook which showed when we should expect to see which phase of the moon did not make any sense and I had to see it for myself. So I turned to the tennis ball and was twirling in my chair in order to understand what was going on. It is a shame that I was not allowed to bring this to my test!

 

In fact, there are loads of things that we are discouraged or prohibited to do or to bring to exams, which would help us demonstrate how we make connections as we tackle math and science problems. By cutting off the processing part, by not looking at how and when learning takes place, the traditional education system seems to frame “referring to notes” or “using visual aids” as cheating. A case in point - Jo Boaler mentions how many teachers discourage or even punish students for using their fingers when counting. I was also taught to look down upon those who needed to use their fingers to count during math classes. We were also not allowed to use calculators in class and we lost complete marks even when we solved a very complicated math problem if we dare write down a wrong answer because we messed up simple arithmetic! It almost seems as if teachers got some kind of malicious pleasure out of punishing students for what they called “careless mistakes” - messing up a simple addition or multiplication. I had a tendency to write down “6” whenever I saw 3+2 because my brain processed it as multiplication instead of addition. I cannot tell you how many times I lost marks because of this, even though I solved a complex problem (well, if “solving” is measured as coming up with one of the correct solutions instead of writing down a correct answer in a box, that is). Recently, I was speaking with my spouse about the power of 10 versus the power of 2 (binary) and it suddenly (and belatedly) occured to me that the power of 10 has been implemented long ago because we have 10 fingers - whether this is true or not, if there is a reason we have 10 fingers, we should be encouraged, instead of being shamed, when we use our fingers to count! (Go Jo Boaler! I am with you on this!)

 

Looking back, I was wired to dislike math because of the “there is one absolute correct answer” approach, not necessarily because I had something against the subject itself. This has become increasingly clear as I observe how my AT teaches math in class and how “math” problems were introduced in our Thursday class - Yup! Your Class! Apparently, I like solving “math” problems when they are presented as puzzles and riddles.

 

The water question below is something that was in Jo Boaler book. I could not help but see whether I could solve it because I saw it as a puzzle problem - not a “math” problem. I was going to use measuring cups but I was able to solve this one mentally without using the measuring cups.

 

How to measure 4 litres of water using a 5-litre jug, a 3-litre jug, and unlimited source of water?

1. Fill the 3 litre jug with water and move it to the 5-litre jug.

2. Fill up the 3-litre jug water once again and fill up the 5-litre jug.

3. Now you have 1 litre left in the 3-litre jug (the 5-litre jug already has 3 litres of water and has space for 2 litres out of 3 litres in the 3-litre jug).

4. Empty the 5-litre jug and move the 1 litre of water in the 3-litre jug to the 5-litre jug.

5. Fill up the 3-litre jug and move the water to the 5-litre jug.

6. Voila! You have 1+3=4 litres of water in the 5-litre jug.