Conceptual Inputs for Secondary Teacher Education the Instructional Role

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The relevance of theory courses in teacher education programmes has been stressed by various Commissions, Committees and those involved in education. It is often argued that theoretical inputs as presented generally are not integrated with actual teaching and other practices in education at school stage. Also a plea is made that the situation needs to be remedied by effecting curricular changes in Teacher Education Programmes (TEPs). The NCTE, as a non-statutory body upto 1994 and later as a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament in 1995, has been addressing this concern continuously through the release of National Curriculum Frameworks from time to time, in 1978, 1988 and 1998. It has highlighted the need for concrete action at field level by universities and other institutions dealing with teacher education. While some efforts have been made in this direction, a lot more remains to be done in more concrete terms. The general expectation is that NCTE must promote this 'cause' through its proactive role and enrich the discourse in teacher education.

Three years ago, the NCTE felt that an endeavour be made to address issues of integrating theory and practice in education. Also, it was visualized that the outcomes thus arrived at would provide a basis for restructuring curriculum of TEP. To take up this academic challenge, a team of four distinguished teacher educators was constituted. The team members included (a) Prof. M.S. Yadav, Expert, NCTE, (b) Prof. A.K. Sharma, Former Director, NCERT, (c) Prof. M.B. Menon, Former Director, School of Education, IGNOU, and (d) Prof. T.K.S. Lakshmi, Dean, Faculty of Education, Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan. As is well known, these team members have specialised background of various academic areas like sciences, social sciences and open distance education apart from pedegogy and general understanding of education. This ensured the academic viability of the team to meet the challenge.

The project team took a composite view of theoretical knowledge which forms the basis to equip the prospective teacher with necessary knowledge to enable him to play his roles. Further, it involves presenting these theoretical inputs in the context of actual teaching and other practices of education. This process turns theoretical knowledge drawn from cognate disciplines to professional knowledge which is generally viewed as professional competence of the teachers. For such a delineation educational perspective has been kept in focus. Relevant details about the approach followed are spelt out quite clearly in introduction to this volume.

Team members evolved the approach to this project through intensive discussions among themselves and with other professionals. The whole process was meticulously carried out: interactions were based on technical notes prepared beforehand; Members of the Advisory Committee were kept apprised of all developments about various tasks and processes about the project.

For personal reasons, two team members had to leave the project mid-way. As a result, Prof. M.S. Yadav and Prof. T.K.S. Lakshmi had to shoulder the entire responsibility of preparing resource materials for all the five chapters, carrying out revisions and their refinement at various stages. I thank both of them for the excellent work done by them and the sense of commitment displayed for completion of the project.

Several specialists and professionals helped in the project during its various stages. Chief among these were Prof. S.B. Menon, Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Delhi, Prof. Kuldip Kumar, Former Head, Department of Educational Research and Policy Perspectives, NCERT; Prof. S.K. Panda, Director, STRIDE, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi; Prof. P.K. Sahoo, University of Allahabad; Dr. V.D. Bhat, Regional Institute of Education (NCERT), Mysore; Dr. P. Arun Kumar, Technical Teachers Training Institute, Chennai; Dr. Aijaz Masih Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi and Prof. C.K. Goswami, Former Dean Instruction, Banasthali Vidyapith. They helped ensure a measure of internal validity to concept mapping related to the project. Our thanks to them are gratefully acknowledged.

After the five chapters were ready a presentation was made at a seminar session in NCTE. The comments and suggestions made by the participants revealed encouraging acceptance of the resource materials.

The finalised draft chapters were sent to Prof. C. Seshadri, Former Principal, Regional Institute of Education, Mysore (NCERT); Prof. Jayalakshmi, Director, R.V. Educational Consortium, Bangalore; Prof. Sohanvir S. Chaudhary, Director, School of Education, IGNOU, New Delhi; Prof. P.K. Sahoo, Univesity of Allahabad; Prof. Mohammed Miyan, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi; Prof. Anand Bhushan, Punjab University, Chandigarh; Prof. Kuldip Kumar, Formerly with NCERT; Prof. N.S. Nagaraju, NCERT; Prof. S. Hom Chaudhury, Aizwal and Prof. M.A. Khader, RIE, Bhubaneswar.

0.1 Impact Potential
One of the persisting concerns in teacher education is enhancement of its impact potential. The urgency of reorganizing teacher education courses to make them impact field practices has been highlighted by all concerned with education. The National Policy on Education, 1986 (Revised, 1992) expressed this concern clearly.

"Teacher Education is a continuous process, and its pre-service and in-service components are inseparable. At the first step, the system of teacher education will be overhauled... The new programmes of teacher education will emphasize continuing education and the need for teachers to meet the thrusts envisaged in this policy."

Though the concern emphasized in the National Policy on Education is in general terms, it suggests emphatically that there is something basic in Teacher Education Programmes (TEPs) that needs to be remedied urgently. Some significant aspects of this concern that have persisted belittling the impact potential of TEPs are focused below.

Differentiation of TE curriculum across defined stages of education has not been very effective in terms of the nature of curriculum inputs or the approach to teacher preparation. Every stage relevant TEP comprises theoretical inputs and practical inputs distinctly represented, in which theoretical inputs shall include 'foundational' and 'pedagogical' aspects. Substantively, there seems to be a premise that the conceptual emphasis as well as the complexity of inputs get expanded spirally across stages as is done in the study of academic disciplines from school stage through graduation to post-graduation. However, there is little justification for this premise. The differentiation of 'theoretical inputs' of TEPs has to be in respect of how teaching-learning process operates appropriate to the respective stages. This is, the complexity dynamism and other characteristics of teaching-learning get manipulated differentially to suit the respective stages. The detailing of the curricular inputs in such a way that stage relevant emphasis becomes clear and the nature and complexity of the teaching-learning process at each specific stage is understood and appreciated by student-teachers remains to be addressed fully as yet.