Activity-based learning hazards

Following the example of Tamil Nadu, many states in the country are experimenting with Activity Based Learning (ABL) in primary education. Education administrators in Tamil Nadu, encouraged by admiration of their programme, nationally and internationally, have expanded ABL to middle schools. This effort and attention to improve education quality needs to be encouraged and applauded.

However, the prime objective of all education is to improve learning outcomes. Therefore, it is important to conduct a no-holds barred evaluation of ABL before this revolutionary pedagogy programme is rolled out nationally and extended to middle schools.

Undoubtedly the positives of ABL are numerous. This pedagogy/programme has forced educators and administrators countrywide to focus on the quality of teaching dispensed in primary classrooms. It has highlighted the importance of transforming the ordeal of education into joyful learning in a hitherto teacher-centric system characterised by teacher absenteeism and indifference. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students, irrespective of potential and ability, have a greater sense of belonging in ABL class-rooms than they did in traditional classroom sett-ings. ABL is child-centric and supports all students with varying degrees of potential. Mixed grade classrooms offer excellent opportunities for peer group learning. They are also the second best solution to the acute nationwide scarcity of primary teachers, the best solution being a massive recruitment drive of well-trained teachers.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that ABL has improved pupils’ learning outcomes. The most liberal evaluations of the programme indicate that it has had a modestly positive effect on learning outcomes in primary classrooms. More rigorous evaluations, however, suggest nil to negative improvement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and clearly, ABL lacks several basic ingredients.

The features of ABL which distinguish it from traditional teaching have their strengths as well as weakness. Take for instance, mixed-grade classrooms with children aged five-nine in classes I-IV. The range of ability and potential in such diverse classrooms is so high that the benefit of group learning is unlikely to be realised. Students just beginning to become familiar with numerals are mixed with students who are ready for the challenges of three or four digit multiplication. There is always a risk that in such a system, older and more advanced children will not be as challenged as they were in the previous system. There is also some risk that younger and less advanced children may not receive sufficient motivation to learn.

In the traditional school system, academic rigour increases as students learn and enter higher grades. In same-age classrooms, teachers often challenge more gifted students by giving them tougher assignments. However, in a mixed-grade system which relies on peer and group learning, such challenges are unlikely to be posed to older and advanced students.

Therefore one wonders if ABL pedagogy will work better if classes were divided into I-II and III-IV? The pilot programmes of ABL for grades I-II which many states are introducing, will undoubtedly generate valuable data to understand why ABL spanning classes I-IV has not been successful. Tamil Nadu educators need to be open to adjusting their curriculums if splitting ABL classes into I-II and III-IV results in improved learning outcomes.

Moreover, ABL has resulted in a much diminished status for teachers, although it can be argued that teachers have themselves to blame. Their indifference towards teaching as reflected in teacher absenteeism in many parts of the country has lead to a system that has to move away from teacher-centric pedagogy.

In the circumstances, teachers will have to carve a new role for themselves in the ABL system to regain their diminished glory by creatively making education relevant, interesting, and progressive for their pupils. The challenge is to ensure that every child derives as much learning as she requires according to her potential. In either setting, teachers need special skills to push precocious or gifted students to do better while simultaneously motivating weaker students so they are not left behind. It’s not easy to do this even in traditional homogenous classrooms and is likely to be even more challenging in mixed-age classrooms.

Yet the paramount challenge for education administrators is how to minimise political interference. In Tamil Nadu, even as efforts are being made to transform education, political interference with the school system has become flagrant. In 2010, former chief minister Karunanidhi introduced a uniform system of education (USE) in the state. Jayalalitha, the new chief minister, who was elected to power in May 2011, opposed USE on the grounds that it was substandard and politically motivated. It took four months and verdicts of the Madras high court and Supreme Court for the chief minister to yield.

At the receiving end are students — who didn’t have textbooks for months after the start of the academic year — as politicians tampered with textbooks and school curriculums to settle political scores.

(Dr. Neeraj Kaushal is associate professor of social work at Columbia University, USA)