Need For Livelihood-Ensuring Education
Perspectives on education have substantially changed as a result of the Covid pandemic. Technology has long been considered a possible aid to pedagogy, but Covid lockdowns forced countries around the world to adopt an “only online” model for all levels of education. The period varied by country and level, from a few months to a year plus; everywhere, though, online education has left an indelible mark. Most people now expect that some hybrid form - combining digital and online with traditional face to face - will be the future of pedagogy.
In India we are amidst another important change. The last few years have seen a lively discussion on a new education policy triggered by the work of the Kasturirangan Committee. Emanating from this is the National Education Policy (NEP 2020). It has made a number of suggestions and recommendations, some with potential for a far-reaching impact.
These two developments - one related to pedagogy and the other to policy - will clearly affect education in a big way in the years ahead. One change is the move to expand teaching in the mother tongue and ensuring that it is the medium of instruction in schools, at least upto Grade 5. Concern about compulsion has led to clarifications that there will be alternative choices. With regard to higher education, at least two states are translating medical textbooks into their local language, so that students can do the course in their mother tongue. Doubtless, this will soon be the norm for all courses. The reality, though, is that most parents prefer English medium since that is seen as the means of jobs, geographic and economic mobility.
Another feature flowing from NEP is the concept of multiple entry and exit points. Thus, one can take up an engineering course, for example, and leave with a certificate after one year, a diploma after two or three years, and a degree after four years. Further, those with a diploma from an ITI could seek lateral entry into an engineering degree course. At school level, following past failures to popularise vocational courses, it is now planned to integrate these into the mainstream, enhancing employability of school dropouts.
Over the years, there has been a steadily increasing privatisation of education, from primary schools to universities. This trend seems set to accelerate. However, it is doubtful if this means an unshackling of the rigid regulatory framework, though the NEP mentions “light but tight” regulations.
On the other hand, the training and coaching segment has minimal regulation, and is flourishing. Here, the need to scale up as also the growing access to devices (computers, tablets and smart phones) combined with low prices for data transmission, has led to an explosion of on-line coaching. This, and intense competition, is making it major driver of the use of technology for education.
Experience during lockdowns over the last two years has helped to refine and improve on-line teaching in ways that enhance learning outcomes. Merely streaming a video of a chalk-and-talk lecture is now obsolete. The minimum additions are re-plays, graphics, animation, and outside-classroom footage. On-line tests, feedback, and interaction (with teachers and amongst students) is becoming standard. Use of AI and data analytics to identify segments which are difficult to comprehend, and also do more sophisticated granular analysis, will help to make modifications that maximise learning.
The lockdown marked a period of great advances in the practice of digital remote learning. Yet, it also threw up some serious issues. Millions – especially school students - were deprived of education because of lack of access: not owning an appropriate device and/or poor connectivity to the Internet. Homes that owned a device often had only one, which was shared, and children – especially girls – got the lowest priority. These problems of affordability, availability and access further widened existing learning gaps between well-off city-based students and their poorer rural counterparts.
Further, while on-line took teaching to students confined to their homes by the lockdown, it was clearly not an adequate substitute for the classroom. Learning outcomes were generally poorer and – especially important for children – so was development of social skills which require peer and teacher interactions.
As students return to the classroom, what changes might we see in pedagogy in the coming years? Certainly, it seems that integration of on-line degree into education is inevitable. Listening to a lecture can now be done with greater flexibility - and learning enhanced by a simple thing like re-playing – than an in-classroom version. Recorded lectures have the advantage of using the best possible teacher and being viewed by students at times and places convenient to them. Tutorials in the classroom could be the means for clearing doubts and answering questions. With such integration of online with classroom learning, the future classroom teacher may be more a coach and guide.
As more jobs, including some that require specialised skills, are automated, we will face the challenge of creating enough employment opportunities for a huge youth population. This is a challenge to educationists, in terms of providing a relevant education. The future for not-easily-automated jobs will require skills like critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and compassion: areas in which humans are likely to score over machines. The education system also needs to prepare students for gig work and entrepreneurship, focussing on livelihoods rather than on “regular” jobs.
The importance of inter-disciplinarity is well-established. NEP 2020 too advocates Multidisciplinary Education and Research Universities. In the years to come, this is a challenge for many of our top institutions, which began – and most continue - as single area or discipline Institutes (for example, engineering, law, management, architecture, or medicine). Some – including a few IITs – have begun to make a transition by introducing varied disciplines, including medicine, law, and management. Such “broadening” has its pros and cons; however, when one looks around the world, the top institutions are all multi-disciplinary universities. How best – even, whether - to do this is an issue that many of our institutions will have to grapple with.
The importance of inter-disciplinarity is obvious when one looks at a host of new developments. As an example, consider med-tech: it requires knowledge of health sciences and technology. AI is based on an understanding of neurology, computer software, electronics, and psychology. Many innovations too originate at the intersection of disciplines. Today, cross-disciplinarity courses are constrained by rigid regulations and diverse regulators (UGC, AICTE, NMC, BCI). A single apex body for education, cutting across science, humanities, technology, law, medicine, etc., has been discussed for years. However, in this the NEP makes no move forward: the proposed “umbrella” body explicitly excludes medical and legal education. Also, while its goal is promotional, the specifics make it a regulator rather than a facilitator. Again, while recognising the vast diversity of India, the thrust is yet towards centralisation and uniformity. This means control, little scope for innovation and a high likelihood of standardised mediocrity.
If India is to achieve the ambitions outlined in NEP and leverage its demographic dividend (a large and growing working-age population), it must provide livelihood-ensuring education to its youth. This calls for scale, relevance, quality, and innovation in its education system. These goals require regulation which is minimal and aimed at promoting rather than controlling and centralising. Only then can institutions innovate, capitalise on India’s diversity, and strive for excellence.
The author is a public policy analyst, columnist and author. He chairs the Board of Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi (IIIT-D). His most recent book is ‘Decisive Decade: India 2030, Gazelle or Hippo’ (Rupa, 2021).
