Posts Tagged ‘classroom practices’


June 18th, 2009

National Curriculum Framework (2005) – who’s listening?

The National Curriculum framework (2005), a watershed document, provides a basis for radical changes in the Indian education system. The Indian Education Review (Volume 44, No.2, July 2008),the latest published edition as on date of writing this blog, makes some interesting observations, recommending some radical changes from how education is imparted in Indian classrooms. These recommendations include:

i. Linking school knowledge with the child’s out-of-school experiences;

ii. Discouraging rote learning;

iii. Broadening the scope of classroom learning so that it does beyond the prescribed textbook;

iv. Making the examination system flexible and responsive to the child’s overall development; and

v. Developing a participatory [school] identity consistent with democratic governance

Those familiar with the evolution of educational psychology, philosophy and pedagogy know that none of these recommendations are new, but have been endorsed by eminent international (Bruner, Einstein) and national (Gandhi, Tagore) educationalists. It is a pity that, in India, we have at best been paying lip service these theories that have been propounded and effectively practiced around the world since the ancient times.

However, a beginning has been made by NCERT by acknowledging the merits of child centered approach to education and the framers for the NCF 2005 should be commended for vocalising some of the problems rooted in our system. As they say in India Der Aaye Drust Aaye (better late, than never), even though, in this, case we are struggling to reach the start line, while other countries started on their journey a long while ago.

If we were to evaluate the changes that the schools have tried to bring about in their classroom practices in the past three years post the acceptance of the recommendations of NCF-2005, we would get to know the progress we are making towards creating a student centric classroom. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any statistics or research on implementation practices or know of any school that is actively and consciously seeking to implement such a classroom environment. If you have any information related to this I would love to hear from you.

In my assessment, the challenges of moving away from a “prescribed textbook, the traditional methods of teaching which encourages rote learning and the examination system which ignores individual interest and profile of [student] competencies” , cannot be overcome without paying special attention to the needs and mindset of the 3 influential stakeholders of the Indian education system.

The School - The primary consideration for schools in India is performance in 10th and 12th class examinations. The performance of schools is purely judged by how well the students have done in these examinations and the breadth of success achieved. All classroom activities and teaching methodologies are dictated by how much they contribute towards students scoring high in the “boards”. Child centric teaching practices and the development of creativity is not a consideration; nor a priority.

The Parents – The primary criterion for the selection of a school by a parent for his child is the school’s ability to prepare the students for the 10th and 12th class examinations, i.e. if the school has a good track record in producing students who score highly in these examinations; it is considered a good school. This is because these examinations are milestones in a child’s life and have an unduly high weightage on career options of the child and/or the quality of the institution for higher studies that he/she would attend. All other factors like inculcation of values, emphasis on creativity, co-curricular / extracurricular achievements, and social involvement are inconsequential in the selection of a school.

Institutions of higher learning – The majority of higher education institutions in India grant admission on the basis of board examination results and consider performance in these examinations as the summation of student’s accomplishment till date and a proxy indicator of his future potential.

As evident, the common thread between the stakeholders mentioned above is performance in board examinations, which is considered a measure of success by schools, parents, institutions of higher learning and society in general. As a society we know better, but as individuals we fail to take cognisance of the fact that there are many qualities that define a person and his ability to achieve success.

I would think that if we as a community continue to treat board examinations as the holy-grail of education, it would be extremely difficult to change the mindset of schools and parents. For any changes to occur, it is important that reforms be initiated and at the onset be implemented at the level of institutions of higher learning as well. It is crucial to make systemic changes at this level as this group has significant influence on the thought process of the other two significant stakeholders (parents and schools) and has the added advantage of being more independent in its decision making. The institutions of higher learning would also benefit by selecting a diverse-ability group of students on parameters beyond board results.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Curriculum, National Curriculum Framework | No Comments »

June 3rd, 2009

Differentiated learning is about differentiated teaching

Most of our classrooms adopt one-size-fits-all delivery system which breeds disengagement and detachment from learning and is detrimental to learning.

Nowadays, the students profile in the schools is more diverse in terms of background and needs than ever before. Most come to school both impoverished and enriched by their environment. They span a wide spectrum in readiness, interests and experiences. Ensuring optimization of learning of each one is a challenge for any teacher. But the challenge is not a new one – teachers grappled with it one hundred years ago and they continue to grapple with it today. What is new is the preparedness of the teachers to respond to different learning needs armed with the developments made in the field of education and resources available for differentiating teaching and learning. Not taking into account these developments while designing our classroom practices would be unfair to the children whose learning we are entrusted with.

In this writing I would like to dwell a little longer on how a differentiated classroom works vis-à-vis a traditional classroom.

1. In the traditional classroom, student differences are acknowledged when problematic; whereas a differentiated classroom has individual students’ learning profile drawn upfront which drives classroom instruction and assessment plan. 

2. A traditional classroom is curriculum driven. In a differentiated classroom, modifications and accommodations are made for student individualism keeping in mind the learning needs of the students. 

3. In a tradinional classroom, all students are assessed on a common task which is very rigid in terms of time and “right responses”; whereas variety of tasks and flexibility of time is the norm in a differentiated classroom.

4. Finally, a traditional classroom prepares children more for tests than for life and teachers are more loyal to the curriculum than to students’ learning. The differentiated classroom prepares children for lifelong learning and the teacher understands the needs of the curriculum as well as the needs of her learners. A differentiated classroom is based on respect for all students and equity of learning.

As Howard Gardner (1997) suggests, it is no point trying to make everyone into a brilliant violinist, an orchestra needs top-quality musicians who play woodwinds, brass, percussion and strings. The aim of education is achieving excellence in diversity that we are presented with in the classroom and not homogenization of that diversity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Differentiated Learning | 1 Comment »

May 18th, 2009

Inquiry-based teaching

“The school needs to have more student-initiated inquiries than teacher-driven ones”, was the observation of the visiting team of IB experts who had come to study classroom practices in the school that I work with. Teacher training is an important part of my job description and is one of the aspects of teachers’ professional development that I have struggled with for the past couple of years. Coming from veterans in the field, persons whose work I have been following for a number of years, made me reflective and empathetic to see it from the lens of the teachers in the classroom who are trying, with varying degrees of success, to adapt to the inquiry-based approach of teaching-learning. 

Our perception of adults in general and teachers in particular, is that they ought to know better than children. As adults, we have experienced life more and therefore ought to have all the correct answers. So in our interactions with children, we assign ourselves the role of “answer provider”. Since there is only one “answer-provider” in a classroom, by implication there can only be one correct answer. Also then only some kind of inquiries can be raised, the ones that the “answer-provider” knows the answer to, and the rest are discarded and disdained as “silly” or “impertinent” or “irrelevant”, no matter how intelligent and relevant they are to the question-poser. 

Even when we do, there is little patience with or faith in the child to facilitate his search for the answer or construction of meaning. It is so much easier and acceptable to provide the answers to the child. Then there is the other element of student led enquiries – how does a teacher assess the work of the student when there is “multiple correct answers”? I will elaborate more on this topic in my next blog. 

Some of the difficulty in letting children initiate and take charge of their inquiries stems from our difficulty in accepting that the child is an individual today with his own perspective, and education should bring out more of his individuality. The urge is to mould him into our image of “a somebody”, so that he can be “that somebody” in the future – with complete disregard to “the somebody” that he is a today. 

Teachers trained and raised with such beliefs, therefore, find it very difficult to adapt to the inquiry-approach which celebrates “multiple correct answers” as the child directs his inquiry and charts the course of constructing meaning. Unlearning the teacher-taught methodology takes longer and is more difficult than learning how to help students generate and find their own answers to those inquiries. But the latter cannot happen without the former. 

So, to the teachers who are working to adopt the inquiry-based approach to teaching-learning and adapting yourselves for it, I commend your efforts.

Keep up the good work……it only gets better!!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Teacher Training | No Comments »