Child Centered Pedagogy: An Approach To Achieve Quality
By Swaleha Sindhi & Adfer Shah
28 January, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Introduction:
One of the important inputs that contribute to learning outcomes is pedagogical process. In this approach, quality is determined by the teaching procedures adopted by teachers and the extent to which these are made child-centered, here teacher respects each individual child and their perspectives, social environment, needs, ideas, learning styles, etc. It is in this context of the concept of quality, asserts Shotton, that, instead of performance indicators and attainment targets, “respect” should be the main indicator to identify effective school and the extent of its effectiveness would depend on the degree of respect it affords to its learners of diverse background and abilities which is signaled in different ways (Shotton, 1998). This respect is communicated when teachers listen to students and are ready to take their ideas seriously. It is demonstrated in the care teachers take to ensure that curriculum content links in an important way with students own lives and developing perspectives. And it is reflected in the extent to which teachers make accessible to learners the logic behind the structures and procedures that shape, but often remain implicit in classroom practice (Rudduck, 1995). Such a pedagogic process that respects the student and facilitates their growth in their own unique ways without any barrier is indicative of quality education. This is further clarified by Alexander that teaching that is truly child-centered is indicated not by materials or grouping procedures, but at a much more fundamental level in a consistent pattern of relationship between teacher and student, and by a deep and sympathetic engagement with the way children think, feel and act, which informs every single aspect of the teacher‘s work from task preparation to interaction and assessment. Child centeredness is a pervasive attribute of teaching, not a specific teaching method (Alexander, 2008).
Pedagogy practices in the Indian Classrooms
Contrary to the speeches of the government on educational provision and achievements, in Shotton‘s research on Indian primary schools it was found that child-centeredness was almost completely missing from classrooms and thus quality of education was not satisfactory (Shotton, 1998). It was observed that the nature of pedagogy followed in these classrooms bore remarkable resemblance to the model which Freire has labeled as ―pedagogy of the oppressed, essentially a pedagogy where teachers and students are trapped as different entities within the boundaries of authoritarianism, where one is either leader or led. and the milieu resembles a banking system of education (Freire, 1974). In Freire‘s model, knowledge is a thing which a person acquires by cognition and then it becomes his private property. The learner in this model is restricted to receiving, filing and storing ―deposits‖ and his role is essentially passive and submissive. Here, the teaching process is viewed as merely the transfer of information where the teacher is only to make a deposit in the mind of the learner and lastly, the model disregards the continuum of experience, that is, the banking approach will never propose to learners that they consider reality critically (ibid). Shotton‘s work led him to conclude that pedagogically the typical Indian primary school classrooms follow the banking model. The teachers in this research were found completely alienated from the architects and thrusts of the government policy; regarded themselves as lowest status public servants; and had little professional regard for themselves and teaching, and children as drudge to be tolerated. This mind-set and pedagogic competence and practice of teachers need to be changed in the first priority to achieve the goal of quality education.
Current realities of Teachers Professional Development in India
In the drive for quality and for implementing educational programmes and educational organization, declares the national education policy of 1986, teachers are the principal means (Government of India, 1986). As key players in this enterprise, they need to be duly equipped and continuously motivated to use the child-centered pedagogy in rural schools, as also in the other ones, through their initial preparation and continuous professional development. The culture in teacher training institutions, as well as in professional development centers like District Institute of Education and Training (DIETs), Block Resource Centers (BRCs), Cluster Resource Centers (CRCs), etc., is not truly geared to empower teachers to follow these pedagogic practices. The new National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE) developed by the NCTE (2009) addresses the concerns and stresses on training of teachers in child-centered pedagogy, has so far been adopted only by a handful of institutions across the nation. The quality of teachers who undergo training in most of these institutions is therefore not up to the mark and the training does not develop the required professional skills and attitudes and does not enthuse confidence in the teachers. During the last decade, school teaching has also received another big blow in some states of the country (Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and in North Eastern states) where the state governments have appointed more than half a million teachers in elementary schools, popularly known as para-teachers, on ad-hoc terms, a majority of whom are untrained and deployed to rural schools. Recruitment of such teachers gained currency in many states, which found in their deployment a good cost saving device and preferred financial convenience over the quality of teacher and teaching (Khadar, 2008).
With a view to train these serving para teachers in pedagogic knowledge and skills, the state governments were later permitted to get them trained through an open and distance learning (ODL) programme specially designed and organized for them by IGNOU (Indira Gandhi National Open University). Evaluation of this programme by NCTE, however, revealed that the curriculum and delivery of this programme were seriously compromised by both the Open University and the state governments and the net effect of this poor training was that it failed to bring any visible change in the classroom practices of teachers (NCTE, 2010). As a sequel to the provisions made in the NPE-1986, a network of institutions, including SCERTs, IASEs, CTEs and DIETs, was created with central funding for pre-service and continuous in-service training of teachers. In an evaluation done by the NCERT (2010), these institutions were found to be still operating in project mode and the in-service programmes organized were hardly incremental in nature and thus did not visibly enhance professional competence of teachers.
The commercially oriented private sector, which today runs most of the teacher education institutions in the country, the past experience suggests, is least interested in taking any initiative for improvement and change in their training culture. In the Indian political setting where education, particularly at the school stage, is recognized as a public good and a right of children, the need for a highly pervasive engagement of the government with all those initiatives and strategies that ensure delivery of this good at high quality can hardly be overemphasized. It is needless to mention that these initiatives essentially include preparation of teachers and their continuous professional development. Verma Commission on Teacher Education (2012), while expressing its concern about the proliferation of sub-standard private teacher education institutions in the country and the training culture and practices obtained in them, has rightly observed that the curriculum and its transaction in these institutions are both serious impediments to fulfilling the objectives of NCF 2005 and RTE Act 2009. The Commission has therefore pleaded for a much greater engagement of the government with initial teacher preparation responsibility and for a substantially higher investment by the State on this subject of fundamental significance.
It has recommended that, this peculiarity (of organization of poor quality teacher education by sub-standard private teacher education institutions) can be addressed by increasing manifold the State’s active involvement in teacher education. States need to take necessary concrete steps to ensure the building of institutional capacity for pre-service teacher education in a phased manner within a stipulated time frame (Government of India, 2012). The recommendation seems to be in tune with the general trend in provisioning of teacher education across the world. However, the Working Group on Teacher Education for the 12th Five Year Plan appointed by the Ministry of Human Resource Development has made a proposal to set up only around 200 new pre-service training institutions for elementary teachers in rural development blocks as Block Institutes of Teacher Education (BITEs) by the government.
Conclusion
Thus, the role of teacher in imparting quality education needs to be transformed through four strategies, namely, involve the teacher in decision making process in the school, place the teacher at the heart of the child centered pedagogical and curricular development, accord the teacher greater professionalism and involve him in active research (ibid, 1998). These strategies would empower both the teachers and students so that together they will come to understand the nature and possibilities of learning and teaching and strive to maximize their potential. Teachers’ engagement in their role in this manner would herald visible improvement in teaching and learning and would ensure education of satisfactory quality as envisaged in the RTE Act. This requires a transformation of the culture of training in teacher education institutions along the lines visualized in the NCFTE (National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education) 2009.
(Swaleha Sindhi is Assistant Professor at The M.S.University of Baroda & Adfer Shah is Researcher at SNCWS, JMI, New Delhi, Email:[email protected])
Comments are moderated