Journal 3A – Sushil Upreti
Discuss key obstacles faced around science/mathematics/technology education in Nepal in terms of promoting meaningful, authentic and inclusive education. In doing so, please refer to the paper by authors discussed in this module.
Why do we teach students? We have some objectives. As we know, students are our future problem-solvers. Their learning should be meaningful and authentic. Meaningful learning refers to the knowledge which can be applied in our context based on the learners’ situations. The main aim of meaningful learning is to make problem-solvers who can apply their education beyond the classroom. Using Technology, the learners can search new information relevant to them, organize and analyze them to create new learning (Ntuli, E., & Nyarambi, A., 2018). As a technology educator, I found the main problem in the curriculum. Technology is a dynamic subject.
We have been teaching the same curriculum from the last ten years. On the other hand, most of the chapters in different grades are repeated. For example, the same chapter “History of Computer” is taught from Grades Six to Nine. Likewise, another drawback I found in our curriculum is its area. Most of the chapters are application based and we teach how to use a particular tool developed by a private company. The curriculum does not have a primary focus on creativity though there are some chapters to enhance learner’s creativity. The curriculum should give some sort of flexibility to the learners as well. For instance, the learners should be allowed to make a computer program using any programming language they want. But we are trying to give computer programming concept through QBASIC which was developed during the early 70s, before my birth. So, this type of practices does not support meaningful learning. Meaningful learning suggests that information can be controlled and applied to an assortment of circumstances and settings. Students should be able to explore themselves in a self-paced mode, which brings the learner in a free environment where they can choose their path and the way of tonal interest. By using the current curriculum, we are unable to align student’s learning with the present context as we are compelled to work in outdated tools and technologies such as QBASIC, MS-DOS etc.
In the Nepalese context, we need to empower the teacher to create such an environment which promotes inquiry-based learning. We are just preparing our learners for their board exams. The exciting practices in Nepal are, we provide the full marks (50 for practical) allocated for practical portion without taking any exam. This malpractices prints good grade in the learners’ mark sheet but with no real knowledge and skill which they can apply in their professional life. The main barrier for active learning is our mindset as well. We have developed the mechanism of rote learning. Anyhow our students have to score better marks. It is not the primary question to answer whether the students have understood the concepts or not. If the students can write the answer in the exam by any means, we provide them with so-called “Bright Student” badges. The meaningful learning theory supports the idea of connecting the learned information with other previously known knowledge which aids in further understanding (Shaltami, 2018).
Authentic learning refers to an extensive teaching and learning approach which enables the students to connect the knowledge in the classroom to real-world problems, issues and applications. Authentic learning is real-life learning which advocates students to develop a tangible, useful product as a solution to be returned to their society (Revington, 2018). Authentic learning prepares the students for the real world. Learning-by-doing is a standard commercial slogan in the domain of private schools of Nepal. But it is practised only in the motto, not in application. Authentic learning is a learning approach that allows the students to explore the Internet and other Technology aided practices to experience and solve real-world problems (Lombardi, 2007). It is an approach to connect our learnings to our life. For authentic learning, we need to focus on practical and application-based teaching-learning methods. We need to design a curriculum that tells the purpose of education. We need to focus on the area only while developing the curriculum, but our curriculum looks like a course of study. Based on the curriculum, educators should be allowed to design their course for their students. Students should learn why they are taking this lesson rather than what they are learning. Yet for decades, authentic learning has been challenging to implement. The main barriers to achieving authentic learning in our context are our rigid curriculum and content-oriented approach, which limits us to a narrow boundary from which we educators and learners are unable to come out.
The main aim of inclusive education is to furnish all students with the most application learning environments and opportunities to achieve their best. Inclusive education is a concept of providing equal opportunities and ensures equality and solidarity to all the learners. However, inclusion, as applied to education, connects with various social and political values that have been contested over many decades (Norwich & Koutsouris, 2017). Successful implementation of inclusive practices depends mainly on teachers’ attitudes towards children with special needs and their inclusion, and teachers’ willingness to work with children with special needs in their classrooms (Rakap, Cig, & Parlak-Rakap, 2017). In countries like Nepal, it is complicated to work on equity as we are struggling for basic needs. Supporting these sorts of realities, researchers such as Kauffman, Anastasiou, Badar and Hallenbeck (In press) suggest that attempting to have a fully inclusive education system is unattainable and unrealistic. Many local so-called education activists have raised the use of the Internet in teaching and learning during the lockdown due to COVID-19 in Nepal. They are saying it is against social inclusion. So, in my opinion, respecting inclusive education, we cannot set up all the infrastructure all over Nepal in a day. Rather than stopping the use of Technology, we have to start using it wherever it is possible and should try to narrow down the digital divide. We have to focus on providing the most excellent learning opportunity to all children what we can with the available resources. School education is free in Nepal, at least in policy level, which indicates that we are also embracing inclusive education. Unfortunately, only at the policy level.
Conclusion
In the context of Nepal, we are just importing the practices and values from the other societies. We need to explore our local priorities, problems and future. Based on these, we need to develop a curriculum so that we will be able to create our problem-solvers. The present curriculum of computer science at the school level and our current practices with that curriculum will not help us any more to solve our problems because they were developed in their context. So, we need to revise everything from the policy to the application level. We need to provide flexibility to the educators and learners to enhance their technical knowledge and skills as per their interest and pace.
References:
Ntuli, E., & Nyarambi, A. (2018). Instructional Technology and meaningful learning: A synthesis for teacher educators for the 21st century. In Handbook of research on mobile Technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 44-67). IGI Global.
Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, 1(2007), 1-12.
Baranauskienė, I., & Saveikienė, D. (2018, May). PURSUIT OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: INCLUSION OF TEACHERS IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume II (Vol. 39, p. 53).
Baranauskienė, I., & Saveikienė, D. (2018, May). PURSUIT OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: INCLUSION OF TEACHERS IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Volume II (Vol. 39, p. 53).
Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (Eds.). (2015). Emerging technologies for STEAM education: Full STEAM ahead. Springer.