Anyone who stayed awake during physics lessons can recall convection, the method of heat transfer through liquids or gases. This was taught in Form 1 or 2, before some students dropped physics for subjects perceived as more friendly. I won’t name them to avoid upsetting too many people.
However, the less friendly subjects become friendlier when you start seeking jobs or making life changes. You can shift from engineering to business or even anthropology, but you can’t shift from political science to engineering later in life.
The geography teacher must have talked about convectional rain, the reason Kakamega or Naivasha experiences rain in the afternoon. Did you realise that the convection discussed in physics and geography is the same concept? Probably not; none of the teachers likely told you, as each stayed within their subject! This is the sad reality of our education system—silos. Yet, knowledge is universal.
Treating subjects as silos prevents students from gaining deeper understanding and enjoyment in learning. If students knew that convection in geography was the same as in physics, they might have found physics more interesting.
The silos can be comical. One student innocently asked me if density in physics and that in math were the same! We used the symbol rho (ϱ) in physics and just the term density in math. See how we confuse innocent young minds?
Let’s go even further. If you have taken a basic course in finance, you must have come across the term leverage. It’s simply using money to make more money, for example, borrowing to invest with profits that exceed the interest rate paid.
To make it simpler, imagine a business is on sale for 100 million. You realise that the business is actually worth 500 million. You borrow 100 million, acquire the business, turn it around, then sell it for 600 million and pay off your debt.
Did your finance lecturer remind you that leverage comes from the lever you learned about in primary school? Levers make work easier, just as leveraging in finance makes it easier to make more money.
Failing to link subject areas is a major flaw in our education system. Another issue is failing to show practical applications.
Let’s use an example. After learning about convection, the physics teacher should follow up with applications. One application is cooling the engine using a radiator. Were you shown a radiator with so many cars in the school compound? Why not start with the application, then explain the theory? Students would reflect on the applications as you discuss the theories. This is why an MBA should come after you have work experience, allowing you to reflect on your experiences.
Another issue is failing to deconstruct students’ knowledge before constructing new knowledge. For example, as a physics teacher, I once asked students what causes thunder. I received all sorts of answers: the devil coughing, God-moving furniture, and other weird explanations. After laughing, I asked them for proof, which they had none. That’s what they were told as they grew up, with no better explanation given.
To deconstruct their explanation, we blew air into a balloon, then pricked it, causing a bang. Why the bang? The air suddenly expanded. Lightning, because of heat, causes the sudden expansion of air, resulting in thunder. Who can forget that?
The students who were not in class that day missed the deconstruction. In the CAT, they explained that we put water in the car to use it when driving downhill. Remember, “Gari inaenda na maji.” They didn’t understand the use of convection in radiators. They also gave the same funny answers about the cause of thunder.
Does it surprise you that students are more comfortable with biology or chemistry (except for the moles)? These subjects are very practical and not “strange.” Biology is about living things, which we are part of. Chemistry is closer to the mixing we do in the kitchen, the changes in color, the perfumes and their scents, and the water we drink every day. Physics does not have that familiarity. Personally, I see no difference between chemistry and witchcraft.
How can we forget integrating more technology into learning? Our children are digital natives. They are at home with the internet and computers, just as we were at home with pen and paper. Some of us started by writing on the ground with sticks, and it was fun.
One last issue is over-teaching. Call it tuition. Students learn to be helpless when we don’t give them time to learn by themselves. This is particularly important in STEM.
Tearing down borders among subjects is the future direction of learning. Unfortunately, CBC seems to be focused on specialization. We need to tone that down. If we keep showing the practical applications of knowledge and how different subjects are interrelated, learning will become more meaningful and fun. This would lead to fewer disciplinary cases, more motivated students, and better career choices. The whole country would benefit from motivated and passionate workers.
