OPINION

New paradigms in teacher development

Are the teachers prepared to face the challenges thrown by present day society? Have they taken the responsibility of catering to the emerging needs and requirements of the student population in particular and social demands in general? Is there a comprehensive teacher development process designed and implemented to bring in the clearly defined educational goals of the country? After all, are the teachers willing to accept the changes exerted on them by the education authority in different areas concerning the teaching and learning process? These are pertinent questions when assessing and evaluating the existing formal education system of the country.

New trends in education

Admittedly, people from various walks of life opine that introducing reforms in education is critical to steer the country through the 21st century. Intellectuals and the public have the similar views regarding what they term as 'ills of education', and constantly criticize the structure of the system and its operations.

They are undoubtedly correct when they point out that the concept of education itself has undergone drastic changes and what education meant a few decades ago is not what it is today, for old concepts inevitably get caught in whirls of revolutionary changes. Sadly enough, in teacher development institutions, the concept of education is still defined dwelling on what has been explained and described by educationists and philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, Dewy and others.

My argument is not to contradict what they have expressed regarding what education is. We should not forget the fact that ideas and ideals are generally coloured by the socio-cultural and geographical conditions prevalent in society. However, the society we live in today has undergone rapid changes and the very fabric of society is moulded by the advancement of science and technology on the one hand and the resultant new values born with modernization.

We have miserably failed to comprehend this reality, and still blindly use the concepts which in today's context seems rather anachronistic and out of date. Why do we not make endeavours to reshape and restructure the concept of education to suit the present day world? How is this then related to a teacher's work?

This shows that what is expected from a teacher in the classroom in modern society is not what it was in the past, and if teachers are trained focusing on the concepts rooted in the educational landscapes which no more exist, what will happen to the future generation of the country?

Conformism and constructivism

Observation of lessons done by teachers in the school set up and the interviews and discussions I had with teachers and others concerned with the country's education reveal that the majority of teachers are still inclined to believe that teaching means imparting or transmitting knowledge to students depending on textbook contents.

They continually place emphasis on 'learning', which, according to child-centred learning has to be on the 'learner.' Analysis of their work in the classroom portrays that their main job seems to make students conformers of the existing knowledge and thereby make them slaves to knowledge, killing their ability to be critical thinkers and creative active learners. That is why we say that school today kills the students' creativity.

If this situation is to be changed, what can be done? Today we need a student population who can challenge the existing knowledge and create new knowledge based on our social and cultural context. Does a classroom teacher today work towards this goal? When examining the work of teachers' in many parts of the world, we see that they give freedom to students to decide on what to learn and how to learn, whereas in the Sri Lankan context it is still the teacher who decides how students should learn. How can we then produce a creative student population unless we introduce changes to the existing education system?

The teachers' main job today should be to facilitate students so that they can create knowledge of their own and take the responsibility of their own learning. In other words, this is the constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Unfortunately, though many teachers are not aware of the fact that they are expected to use child-centred teaching learning methodology, they do not know that it is based on constructivist approach, an approach developed on the findings of psychologists such as Piaget, Vygotsky and Brunner.

Thus, if teachers are not equipped with the basic knowledge and competencies of how concept formation occurs in individuals and their knowledge construction process is 'scaffolded' by them while allowing students to incorporate their cultural knowledge, they tend to fail in their work in the classroom. Although these areas are included in many teacher development courses, teachers lack the practical skills of how this theoretical knowledge can best be integrated into the teaching-learning process.

They must possess a good understanding of how students assimilate new experiences into their existing knowledge models and how they restructure these models to accommodate them while developing their cognitive structures through social constructivism, a theory based on humanistic psychology. That again places emphasis on yet another important aspect, that is, a basic knowledge of the fundamentals of humanistic psychology is required by all the teachers to understand what they are expected to do in the classroom.

NlE

The national Institue of Education (NIE) is responsible for developing syllabi and implementing them particularly in National Colleges of Education and other teacher development courses conducted by it. It must be given accolades for introducing a constructivist approach to the school system and to teacher training institutes.

However, certain changes to what it is presently doing must be introduced to produce a generation of teachers with competencies suited to the demands of the 21st century.

This writer once spoke to over 125 principals of a certain education zone and wanted to know whether their teachers were using the 5Es models in the classroom, and none of the principals had replied in the affirmative. This situation raises a number of questions to ponder to evaluate what has been done with the purpose of restructuring the process.

Did it happen because of the teachers' reluctance to use the new model? Or else is it because they have not been given a proper training on how to use it in the classroom? Many teachers complain that constructivist approach is time consuming and since they have to complete a heavy load of work in a short period of time. The 5Es model is not practically applicable.

Have the NIE or other teacher development institutes of the country made a comprehensive study, on a national scale on how modifications can be introduced to use the constructivist approach according to the socio cultural milieu of the country?

Teacher development institutes are there not only to carry out what is imposed on them by the authorities but also to carry out research in their own disciplines to evolve a suitable model or models to the school system. The teacher development syllabi of the NIE still tend to employ the 'conformist methodology' that moulds prospective teachers to the 'old concepts' of teaching and learning.

For example, what the NIE has to do is not to train teachers to accept what Piaget has done but to research into what Piaget has not done. Then only can the teachers become their own masters with a 'home-made' knowledge for them to work in their own cultural landscapes.

In conclusion, revamping teacher development in the country has become a must in the light of the unfolding changes in every aspect of education. Since teacher is still the only resource for many students in the country, teacher development has to be restructured to produce a creative teacher.

- Anil Pagoda Arachchi