In education, curriculum and instruction are two faces of a
same coin. Curriculum is ‘What to teach’ and Instruction is ‘how to teach’. They
are inextricably linked and influence each other and they must be compatible at
all cost. If the instruction does not suit the curriculum or if the curriculum
does not favor the instruction, learning process is bound to see some
setbacks. When a change is underway, both must be considered.
Leaving any one of them behind or taking any one of them ahead could create an incongruity
between the two which could have negative backwash on teaching and learning
process.
The MOE’s recent training of teachers on transformative
pedagogy is a positive move towards bringing shift in the teaching trend from
the teacher-fronted teaching to child-cantered teaching. The new teaching
technique has its roots in the constructivist and social learning theory which
are based on the premise that children learn by constructing their own
knowledge by adding onto his previous knowledge through positive interactions
with teachers, parents, friends and other social agents. This approach places
children at the heart of learning process and allow them to take control of
their learning as opposed to teacher-centric learning where teacher takes the
centre stage.
While the initiative has come as a positive change, it has
sharpened just one blade of a scissor. The present curriculum to a large extent is content-overloaded and it gives
little or practically no room for teachers to practice any innovative teaching
technique. The mandate to cover the vast syllabus in an academic year puts teachers
to race against time for syllabus completion. It exerts pressure on teachers to
move with undue pace through the curriculum and encouraging a ‘tick list’
approach to teaching. It has led to less flexibility and creativity and to a
more slavish and often frantic gallop through the curriculum. It exerts a
dominant influence on teaching and learning that other important areas such as
children’s development of higher order thinking skills, nurturing pupils’ creativity,
character, communication skills, problem solving and exploration could not be
emphasized.
Given the difference in the nature of
curriculum and instruction, there is a need to make alterations in the existing
curriculum so as to measure up with the new instructional method. Like the
instruction, the curriculum needs to be viewed and designed from the
constructivist point of view. It needs to be grounded in the principles of
constructivism and social learning theory. The current textbooks are crammed
with information making the overall curriculum congested and difficult for both
teachers and students. A constructivist based curriculum should provide space,
time and opportunity for both teacher and students for meaningful learning. It
should allow enough time for teachers and students for positive and meaningful
interaction to dig below the superficial level of understanding of concepts. It
should also provide adequate opportunities for students to apply what they have
learnt in their day to day lives. Students should engage in mini-research
projects to experience authentic inquiry and discovery. Basically the change should
aim for a light content which does not exert any pressure of completion on
teachers and students to allow teachers to effectively use innovative
teaching techniques to facilitate meaningful learning.
Content overloaded curriculum should not stand as a militating factor against the use of innovative teaching technique.
Content overloaded curriculum should not stand as a militating factor against the use of innovative teaching technique.
