Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) - aim, intent and the method

(Published in the June 7, 2015 issue of Organiser and can be visited through the following link http://organiser.org/Encyc/2015/6/13/1331814.aspx )

Higher education in India has been traditionally designed to produce academic thinkers primarily. In fact, academicians are still being produced by the present education system as individuals having a deep understanding of their subjects. However, we have collectively failed to realise that this education system does not have a copyright of producing thinkers. A degree has no relation with the amount of thinking or the extent of analysis one is capable of indulging into. We are confused between the sense of literacy and the importance of experience. We are yet to acknowledge the difference between a bookish knowledge and the confidence gained in a working environment, between a source of information and a source of wisdom. In our society, a skilled worker is invariably rated as poorer to pure-thinkers. An executor is often rated lower to an administrator. Advice of a doctor and an engineer on any other field other than their own profession never get the importance as compared to the degree-holding academic thinkers. We want the academic thinkers to rule this society. With this absurdity, we have been used to giving undue importance to the marks that we score in examinations as we use those marks to measure our overall 'value' in the society. In this system, failures opt for skills and winners enjoy a skill-free life and often keep a skill-demeaning attitude.

In view of the above, if one is asking for allowing choices in a course; allowing flexibility in the span period and place; making provision for inter-disciplinary approach; introducing innovative methods and advance technology in teaching; asking each student to complete, write and present some hands-on project during any course; giving options for skill-learning courses; maintaining some commonality in the structure and contents of those courses that are identified by identical names; bringing some highly desirable changes in our evaluation schemes, I have absolutely no reasons to oppose CBCS (Choice Based Credit System). Strangely, what is hard to accept is when it is asserted that these features can only come integrated with a semester structure. It becomes even difficult to digest when we are made to believe that these features can only come at the cost of having floating workloads for the teachers. And the most important of all, it is most stupid to imagine that these features can be introduced in any hurried manner as it has been witnessed in the recent years.

Let me address some of these issues over here. Semester system is good - beyond doubt. But it can work only where we have a one-teacher one-examination paper structure. Even IITs would fail to deliver if all of them decide to have identical examination papers in their semester examinations. Delhi University, where a paper is taught at 30 odd colleges or more and students are expected to get identical examination paper to solve, the semester system will fail to deliver the desired result. Further, let no one fool us in believing that with the same infrastructure and human resources we will ever be able to offer more choices than what we are providing the students right now. With the present constraints of manpower and infrastructure, we can only allow exchanges - allowing a choice to one student only at the cost of a choice of another student.

If we want all the features of CBCS to get embedded into the undergraduate courses in Delhi University, the first thing that we must decide uncompromisingly is to go back to the annual mode. An honest internal evaluation of the students in an annual duration, combined with their true-assessment through external evaluators in their final examinations can be used to Grade them perfectly. I would advocate for an hindrance free three years of such a scheme without failing them or holding them back in any year. They should then be allowed to 'improve' their grades and alternately allowed to even opt for around six to eight additional papers to claim a degree in their own choice of subject if they happen to clear their original degree requirements. Let time be no constraint for those interested students who after completing their History(Honours) would like to appear for additional six to eight papers of mathematics to claim a degree to pursue a career in mathematics. A choice and mobility can this way be introduced meaningfully. Further, in the annual system, summer vacations would be purposefully utilized by the students as they can be asked to do summer projects either at their parent institute or depending on the availability any other place of their choice to give them skill-training, academic-training or research-training as per their own inclination.

Many attempts have been already wasted in Delhi University, let us prepare this university first before attempting any meaningful transition. Let us decide on the contents of the syllabus in so much advance that the university is able to conduct a year of continuous refresher courses before implementation. Ensuring adequate preparedness is what makes a distinction between a meaningful transition and a failed experimentation.

LET THE SENSE PREVAIL

When all the University will have similar syllabus and courses then why on earth there will be a need for the seamless movement of the students from one institution to another? Having provision for such a movement is therefore simply erroneous and stupid. I would only conclude that the credit-scheme that are being lauded as a feature that will facilitate movements across the institutions are not meant for this at all but it is only to allow students to give extended time to accumulate credits to qualify for a degree. It seems, it is meant only to help failing students to complete the requirement for the degree at their own convenience, pace and duration. If it means that Universities should have a liberal policy towards the concept of strict 'span periods', I would gladly advocate in favour of this.

Secondly, even if the question of desirability is set aside for a while, all those features that are being sought to be introduced in the higher education through CBCS, I can challenge, will work in a far more meaningful manner if the format is kept annual in the context of Delhi University where there are more than handful colleges running such courses. Isn't it stupid to allow students to hop in and out from any course twice in a year and five times in a three year-course?

And lastly, apart from 'suggesting' model syllabus and model courses at a centralized web-site, UGC can also provide an exhaustive list of all the courses being run in this country along with their detailed syllabus. Our education is already a victim of forced teaching - parents expect the teachers to forcibly teach students, students themselves chose courses that are forced by their peers and societal pressures and these are often get decided by the marks only, that they eventually achieve in their qualifying exams. 

When there is an urgent need for this country to switch on to interest-driven mode of study, these forced strategies are going to yield undesirable results that will never help India to become a developed nation. It's time that we remove all hurdles of age and financial requirements for all those who are really interested in learning specific skills, a particular subject or show interest to become independent professionals.

Education reforms - Kitchenette vs Cafeteria approach

(The edited version of this was also published in the Organiser that can be visited using the following link
http://organiser.org//Encyc/2015/5/2/Column---Yielding-New-Education-Approach.aspx)

The Cafeteria approach

The academic reforms in the name of CBCS is on the verge of being implemented in the higher education. The new system as proposed by the government will basically need us to review our old single-discipline oriented approach in higher education. It demands, what they call, a cafeteria approach in our education. What is meant thereby is that the new system would encourage a multi-disciplinary approach and it is claimed further that it would give the students the much desired flexibility in terms of choice of the discipline papers. In addition to this, it also boasts of leaving the issues of choosing the span period and the place to acquire education, entirely on the students. While nobody can deny the desirability of these features in our higher education but the feasibility, the state of preparedness of our institutions and other costs in terms of infrastructure and other resources to provide these choices have always remained in doubt. 

Assessment of The Present system

Our present education system follows a strict strait-jacket approach. It has little scope for any flexibility in the choice of papers. The span period to complete a course is also predefined in our institutions that gives very little scope to those who prefer to learn at their own speed. It is due to this that generally Indian students go through a forced-study approach - wherein choices are often forced by the parents, by the peers, by the teachers and many a times even forced by the ease with which marks can be scored therein. The studies here therefore are largely teacher-centric, parent-driven and forced by the societal-preferences. Some major aspects that need to be addressed immediately by any new system are given as under:

1) We need to do away with the concept of having a fixed time frame for acquiring degrees. Those who realise their passion, potential and interest a little late find the doors of learning options closed. Despite our general agreement with the common perception that an interested and motivated student learns much faster, restrictions still rule against this provision in India.

2) In the absence of even a quasi-uniform acceptable standard of a particular degree in this country, it becomes really impossible to compare identical degrees issued from different institutions of India. What adds to this problem is that students find it impossible to use a part of their studies at one place while continuing studies at another place. 

3) We are so used to relate studies only with academics that any deviation from this is considered as a blow on our education system. The higher studies in India aims at producing only academics. Skill-learning are considered sub-standard and are never preferred over academics. There is an urgent need to break this hierarchy and treat academics as only one of the areas for the students to choose from.

4) We need to look at our examination system also urgently. The invention of electronic gadgets have exposed many holes in our university examination system. Moreover our examinations work as a dampener for the spirit of learning. Understanding becomes a casualty in our examinations. Knowing well that we can only group students under a handful of categories such as (extraordinary, good, above-average, average, below average, poor and worthless) our system make them waste their useful energy, time and ideas to get exhausted in a process of rote-learning just to acquire a rank within a category. 

Past Experience

We must also learn from the failed attempt to implement FYUP ( Four Year Undergraduate Program ) in Delhi University. The tall claims could not be realised as the reforms were carried out in isolation and with inexplicable hurry. An apprehensive Delhi University now has developed an attitude that is hardly conducive to carry out a fresh round of reforms. The lesson must be learnt from this failed exercise that whenever such a change in the system is proposed, its implementation must precede with a series of refresher courses to prepare the teachers and the infrastructure according to the requirement. Although there is an urgent need to attempt reforms, instead of a piece-meal approach we must keep a holistic vision starting right from the primary education. The whole idea of forced-study in India needs to change towards encouraging a self-study attitude in higher education. Primary and secondary education curricula should also be developed so that they complement the student-centric approach in the higher education. However, Keeping in view our own state of affairs, I would suggest that instead of the celebrated cafeteria approach we must explore a kitchenette approach. 

Cafeteria and the Kitchenette approach

The cafeteria approach symbolizes a student-centric approach but at the same time it often means a pocket-centric and in the Indian context a parent-unfriendly approach. The choices in a cafeteria come at a price and playing around with the choices such as even sharing a plate is often discouraged in a cafeteria approach. It also includes paying penalty for any cancelled order and therefore in an honest analysis this cafeteria approach turns out to be primarily a market-friendly approach at all costs.

Instead, India needs a kitchenette approach wherein the government can play a role of provider and the users will have all the options available before them. Depending on their choice they would not only be able to prepare items of their choices but they would additionally be encouraged to explore into the unexplored territories. With raw materials available to them, users of a kitchenette are provided with options that are  not limited by the pocket but only by the availability of food items.

To indulge into this, the government will have to explore ways to provide learning materials free on the internet sites in the form of lecture series of interactive and non-interactive variety, demonstration of experimental procedures, generous discussion on cutting edge technologies, providing scope for developing useful industrial ideas and other job-providing skills. We must create an environment where at least those who have realized their potential or interest are not deprived of an opportunity to acquire the relevant knowledge. The most regressive attitude is that we often relate age of a student with her ability to acquire knowledge. A person who realises that he should have chosen medicine as a field of choice in his late 40s finds his/her dream inexplicably unrealizable. Now that will be an injustice in a kitchenette approach. Whenever one realizes hunger, there must be a scope of preparing food making use of the available items in the kitchenette along with things available with her. Let us think of setting the students free to accumulate credits and once someone successfully acquires the required credits let an appropriate degree be given without any other unnecessary requirements. Let the working experience also provide some credit to a student in this system. Let an electrician start with some credit already in her kitty while attempting a degree in science/technology. Let an electronics equipment-repairing professional, a worker with an experience in building brick/steel/concrete structures, a plumber or a mechanic start with some advantage if they decide to study for a relevant degree. Let a nurse or a person having experience in pathology start with some advantage on the others aspiring to become a doctor. Let skills be treated at par with academics so that the preference for academics is not unjustifiably driven by an expectation for getting respect in our society. Let only the passion and interest rule the choice in this kitchenette approach as while preparing food only taste and quality governs our choice and not the cost of the food items involved.

Even though CBCS is being claimed to have been addressing some of the concerns discussed above, a cautious approach allowing wider consultation and discussions will only help in realizing its aims better.

Cafeteria vs Kitchenette approach

Let us not avoid discussion any more. We have suffered enough for keeping this approach. Sheer criticism devoid of any vision to carry out the much needed reforms, gives a false impression that we are not serious about the very idea of reforms.

But are they serious? I have a serious doubt in this regard as a preliminary analysis would suggest that at least two years of preparation must precede a change in the structure, content and intent of a magnitude such as those proposed in the CBCS. This period must be utilized for improving the infrastructure required for such an implementation along with holding a continuous series of refresher courses throughout the period to make any shift of this scale of its intended worth.

But do we need such reforms in the name of allowing the students to have a cafeteria approach in studies? 

I would rather advocate for a kitchenette approach instead of the much talked about cafeteria approach. A cafeteria requires the user to pay for each optional toppings and this restricts the choice whereas the kitchenette approach allows you to choose from whatever is made available to the user.

Why do we need a change? 

In this new era only those would be able to survive as 'learned' who would learn how to unlearn and relearn with ease. A new educational policy must focus on encouraging self-study instead of the present forced-study approach in our country. With this in mind, stress on online studies must be given its due importance within the courses. The colonial era concept of having a "fixed span period" must be done away with to give everyone a chance to acquire a degree in a discipline of one's own choice. The age bar for admission and a span period to accumulate the required credits will have no meaning if one is to be given a choice to keep on accumulating credits "at one's own pace" to finally become eligible for a degree. We have enough of this forced concept of studies. Forced by parents, forced by peers, forced by teachers and forced by examinations! It is now known that those students who take admissions under 'working professionals' category wherein the admission itself is earned by them out of their choices are seen to be far more motivated than the others. And a motivated students can learn at a much faster speed and in a more meaningful manner. And for them who want to learn a subject - our examinations work as a spirit dampener. Understanding becomes a casualty in our examinations - thanks to the undue importance to the marks that we have become so used to now. Knowing well that we can only group students under a handful of categories (such as - extraordinary, good, above-average, average, below average, poor and worthless) our system makes them waste their useful energy and time to get exhausted in a process of rote-learning to acquire a rank within a category.

Come on - let us lead the change - otherwise they would succeed in their design to paint us wrongly as a group that is always opposed to the reforms.