SCHOOL PROFILEThis is a scale up school. The school runs in two shifts. The HM, Ashfaque Shah, who became a part of the school around 8 months back, and has been a Teacher Sahyogi in the past which turned out to be an added advantage for the research report because of his experience in pedagogy. The enrolment of the school is approximately 500. The teacher sahyogi of the

school, Shabnam mam joined the school around the 2nd phase of the LC. Eventually she turned out to be a great support in relation to the project.

CLASS PROFILEClass- 3rd BClass strength- 35Regular Absentees: 5 Irregular Kids: 6Subject: Language (Urdu and English)

Teacher’s Name: Mohsin Sir

Total strengthRegular kidsIrregular kidsDrop outs

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Below C2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

LanguageMaths

Fig: CCE data of the class (October 2013) CCE data of the class (October 2013)

Observations as per the CCE DATA:

As per last year CCE result, one can observe an upward trend in the result of kids, especially in language. The expected pattern of reduction of numbers in the C block to the increase in A and B blocks in evident. However, on observing the class, one cannot track the impact of this progressive trend. The teacher when asked about the CCE result or to identify the C1 and C2 block kids in class seemed clueless about it. Thus he seemed not to be consciously working on remedial kids or the strong kids as per their learning level. For instance, if we see the result here we can see only 2 kids in C block, during observation around 5 kids were facing difficulties in even identifying basic Urdu alphabets and were not participating in the classroom processes as well. Hence, it was difficult for me to rely on this data. I thus tried to track the kids skill wise as it was mentioned in the skill sets.

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Below C2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

LanguageMaths

Summary of Findings

Fig. : Skill Set Guidelines as per theTLMs

Quantitative finding on class observations- Language 1 (Urdu)

Fig 2: Class learning level as per the guidelinesNote: These are levels as per their Urdu fluency that was done during class observations with TS and HM

Quantitative finding on class observations- Language 2 (English)

For English, there were not many varied trends seen. Some kids were able to identify English alphabets in varied degrees. However, the general vocabulary if of the class on the subject was highly limited and so was their understanding of word meaning. And since the sentence formation or understanding of sentences can only happen after the basics are set, I couldn’t do a level mapping for second language, i.e English.

Problem Identification

Fig. : Multi faceted problem structure

1. Vision defect in teacher- Squinting or Crossed eyes, also called strabismus, is a condition in which your eyes do not line up in the same direction. People with this defect cannot look at the same object or place with both eyes at the same time. Strabismus can also be caused by a disorder in the brain which cannot coordinate the eyes correctly.

2. Self confidence issues- Because of the defect the teacher faces self confidence issues which are apparent when an outsider visits his classrooms. This prevents him from interacting effectively with both kids and their parents.

3. Ineffective implementation of pedagogy- It is a scale up school and hence the implementation if MGML is not very effective. The teacher has not undergone training as well. A major issue in this regard is the non implementation of grouping because of the night schools that run in the school. The desk arrangements thus cannot be made as per grouping, which makes the interaction between the kids and the group leader leading them as impossible.

4. Lack of a strong connection between teacher and kids- Mohsin sir seems to be not really connected to his kids which shows in the very little interaction he is doing during and beyond classroom. He is also not very acquainted to kids parents because he is not making any conscious efforts to know about them and work with them for kids progress. Also, he tends to spend a lot of classroom time over phone, which is an issue that was discussed at length with the HM.

5. No use of ABL in classroom- Further the environment of the class is very dull. There is very little use of ABL and different tools of teaching such as TLMs, dialogue, games or art/craft activities. The classroom decoration is also not upto the mark and lacks relevant charts as per subjects on kids drawings.

HypothesisBy working on bridging the gap between the teacher and the kids through the use of activity based learning methods, the teacher’s self confidence can be boosted. This will have a major impact on the learning level of kids, and thus reduce the teaching learning gap as much as possible.

Research Methodology Phases

Phase 1 (Preparation phase)

1. Discussion with team in debrief2. Collecting CCE result for all schools3. Class observations in 3rd and 5th in all schools to understand the need (self/HM)4. Discussions with the respective teachers on class performance, learning levels and

challenges. 5. Simultaneously doing class targeting using toolkit in 4 schools. 6. Discussing CCE data analysis with HM and teacher of shortlisted schools.7. Finalizing a school depending on stakeholders response.

Phase 2 (Planning Phase)

1. Relook the CCE data with HM and TS.2. Root cause analysis with the stakeholders.3. Prioritizing problem areas that will be taken up on immediate level.4. Discussing with class teacher the problem.5. Making an action plan on the prioritized problem area and dividing responsibility

between HM, TS and program monitor towards mentoring the teacher.

Phase 3 (Execution Phase)

1. Allocating days for implementing the action plans.2. Follow ups and observation schedule- HM would take regular rounds if not rounds in the

class. 3. Conducting activities in the class.4. Debrief with the class teacher post the activities. 5. Feedback to HM on my execution and follow up on his and TS responsibilities.6. Attempting to track changes through dialogues with teacher, class rounds and

observations.

IntroductionThe linkage between language learning and teacher-student interaction is the basis for this research report. Numerous theories and studies in the recent past have focused on the same problem. A case in point could be the education system of Finland. Being counted as one of the finest education systems of the world amongst other countries such as Korea and Japan, Finnish schools focus heavily on the holistic development of kids through using alternative methods, tools, technology and collaborative styles of teaching. The teacher selection and training norms are the strictest in the state which ensures that this thought is translated into reality by the teachers in full spirit.

The case of a direct relation between language learning and teacher-student interaction is more compelling in the case of language learning, and even more so in first language learners. Vygotsky (1986) had ideated the socio-cultural theory of learning which is relevant in this context. He had put forward a case in which he saw learning as a social and cultural process in which the interaction between the learner and other parties – parents, peers, teachers – as the core of the learning process. A connecting thought in this regard is put forward in the works of Neil Mercer(1996) who looked at learning processes in both peer interaction and in interactions between teachers and learners. He devised three kinds of exchanges in peer interaction, “disputational talk”, in which students compete with their solutions to a problem, “cumulative talk”, in which students uncritically build upon each other’s proposed solutions, and “exploratory talk” where students respond to each other critically and constructively. Mercer called these exchange types “social modes of thinking”.

The cue that I was able to take from these ideas was the idea of social interaction that is central to my argument. The only access teachers have to students’ learning, knowing, and understanding (as well as their not-knowing and not-understanding) is through what students show them in social interaction. And though the process of learning is seen as one that is cognitive, in case of classroom this depends on the type of interaction which ultimately is a social phenomenon. T is through this interaction kids grasp knowledge, skills, and understanding.

Hence my prime objective was to become a connecting bridge between the kids and the hesitant teacher, in order to facilitate healthy and enriching interactions between them.

BackgroundMohsin Sir at first seems to be a very laidback person. During my first class observation,

I realized that he got scared when I was trying to dialogue with him on kids learning levels, grades and positives and challenges he faces in the classroom. He wasn’t even aware of the last year CCE result. As a teacher he is not experimental and follows the age old blackboard method of teaching in which student teacher interaction on the topics in almost negligible. The kids were not used to doing presentations in the classroom. They seemed very hesitant at first and when I insisted they started reading from the textbooks. The teacher had not taught anything outside the book to the kids, not even a poem. Further he tends to spend a lot of time on the phone during the teaching hours which is also a sign of his lack of interest. The classroom environment also seems very dull and non-engaging. Empty walls, no TLMs or chart papers or presentation of drawings and crafts made by kids.

Through a series of observations and dialogues with teacher and kids, I could identify patterns of the monotony in their daily interactions. No discussions happened, no quizzes; He would just teach from the book and write things on the board. The kids were hesitant towards him and vice versa. I could observe an emotional distance as he tried to interact with the remedial kids who would speak rarely when he posed a question or a thought to them.

This issue was discussed in detail with the HM and a action plan was made which was then shared with the TS, since the TS joined the school in the later phase of the LC.

Interventions

Fig.: Interventions scale

1. Need analysis and Problem Identification

A class observation was done with HM to make him witness and reflect on the teaching learning gap once I had done the observation and finalized the school. The HM was suggested to look at the class from an outsiders perspective. Post the observation, a detailed discussion took place on the class performance. I the raised the issue of kids being very hesitant and less expressive despite the class CCE result showing a very positive trend. At the end of the discussion we were able to come out with five key problems-

Need analysis and Problem IdentificationProblem prioritization

• Vision defect in teacher• Self confidence issues faced by the teacher• Ineffective implementation of pedagogy• Lack of a strong connection between teacher and kids• No use of ABL in classroom

2. Problem prioritization

Now these problems were prioritized as per the need, feasibility and practicability of the problem in hand. Post the discussion, it was concluded that the issue of vision defect was something than out of our circle of influence so we would try to work on other areas.

Meanwhile through observations we did a level mapping of the kids together to understand their learning levels. This was essential since I don’t know Urdu and I would need someone acquainted with the language to gauge the kids learning levels. An idea of grouping would be made on basis of these for conducting the LC activities.

3. Problem solving through brainstorming with stakeholders

In the next visit, I went with a set of activities to begin with, in order to start the use of ABL in the classroom. These were the activities that I took over a series of visits-

Visioning activity with kids on their dream classroom and making them draw their dream classroom in their groups.

Videos and songs of English and urdu alphabets were shown to them and the teacher made them identify alphabets using flash cards and picture cards.

Word Bank/ Gullak- Kids were divided in groups in which they were supposed to come up with as many new words as they can with a set of alphabets given to the group. The group that comes up with maximum words will win. Each kid gets a chance to pronounce their written word, one by one, in turns.

Sentencathon- Chits are made of the words written by them. Also a number of picture cards available were used for this. The class was divided into two groups and they were supposed to make sentences in Urdu and some basic small sentences in English were also taught to them through this exercise.

I shared these ideas and the response of teacher and kids in these activities. I tried to seek his suggestions on how we can plan to work effectively on this problem. The HM, who has been a Teacher Sahyogi in the past as well gave me a lot of new ideas which were then shared with the TS with the problem statement and a final plan of action was drafted.

4. Drafting an action plan and dividing responsibilities

Through brainstorming with stakeholders, an action plan was formulated and a pool of activities were listed down that would be used to work on the problem of less teacher student interaction in this classroom.

Activities

A list of language based activities to work on basic reading and writing skills of kids. For example, A Word bucket that would be used daily to increase kids vocabulary and understanding.

Presentations by kids in assembly (as per the assembly days allotted to the class) Activities as per the pedagogy material. The lesson plans given by Nandi have atleast

one activity in a lesson which could include the use of picture cards, games, roleplays. If even these are started off regularly by the teacher, something which requires no extra preparation and also helps in covering the syllabus- a large extent of problem would be solved.

Action steps as per Responsibility Divison

Program Monitor- Design easy language activities and document them. Discuss them with the

teacher and see which ones he can start doing on his own so that his ownership towards the idea is increased. Also, keep supporting him in implementing these activities.

Share VLMs, Videos and other materials. Help the teacher in doing level mapping and targeting as per each kid (Especially

remedial) Motivate the teacher to identify his style of teaching and reflect on it; and thus

draft a plan to work on the same. A plan of making buddy pairs between teachers was shared with the HM. Every

teacher has their strengths and weaknesses. After SWOT analysis in a staff meeting, me, HM and TS had to sit together and make buddies: teachers who would support each other towards working on the SLO of their buddy. The pairs

are made in accordance to the needs of the class and strength of teacher. Every 2 months these buddy pairs change for increased staff engagement.

Since recall sheets are not being used, I tried to make the teacher write the progress of this syllabus and activities he would plan to take in a calendar.

Support teacher in the assembly presentations of the class by giving him ideas on what all things kids could present on the forum.

Collaboratively conduct a mini workshop with HM and TS for the staff towards 3 fold objectives- use of TLMs in class, use of ABL and effective implementation of pedagogy in the school.

Headmaster As HM, take a decision on the issue of teachers spending time on the phone. HM

circulated a notice that teachers if seen spending too much time on the phone would get their money cut for a day.

Take regular rounds in the class and do weekly observations- conduct small activities sometimes in order to rolemodel and then hand it over to the teacher.

Take the role of a mentor for the teacher and help him work on his confidence issues by supporting him in classroom challenges. Eg. Designing and executing ABL.

Spearhead and work on the idea of buddy pairs. Collaborate with TS to make sure the teacher gets support for pedagogy

implementation since he is untrained. Try to introduce temporary grouping atleast during group exercises and

activities. Monitoring class progress in the monthly calendar made by the teacher. Take follow up on assembly participation of kids an teacher on their allotted day.

Teacher Sahyogi Conduct demo lessons every month. Train the teacher for effective pedagogy implementation. Support the HM in solving the grouping issue. Since I was well versed in Urdu, the TS helped me identifying few activities as per

the curriculum that could be taken up in the class. And also those that are already there in the syllabus.

Helping the teacher in planning the monthly calendar. Facilitate bi- monthly content meeting between morning and afternoon 3rd

teachers to come up with innovative methods of teaching the portions

CHALLENGES Allocating a school for this research took me more than 15 days because I initially

started with Golibar Marathi. Initially Ashfaque Sir was not able to supporting me in this LC because of his personal struggles (He lost someone in his family). While I was trying to do the LC in Golibar Marathi, I tried to engage the BO in the process which I realized later got against me. The BO dealt with the matter through authority in my absence which had an effect on the rapport I had established with the teacher. I lost a lot of time because of this.

Exams were approaching soon which meant very less time to give to co curricular planning.

HM went on long leave in between for his personal issue which had made the progress slow paced.

There was no TS in the school in the beginning phase of LC. Once she joined she took time to adjust. Otherwise I could have involved her much earlier in the process.

The school is new for all of us- HM, TS and me. Hence the teachers sometimes tend to take our feedback in a negative manner which hampers the process.

Scale up school in which the basic pedagogy implementation was even further delayed due to late joining of TS.

RESULTThe plan is still in progress. There were a lot of constraints that came in the

implementation phase and slowed down the progress. I conducted 6 class observations in total over the period of the LC in which I facilitated and executed three activities and tried to involve the teacher in the process. The rest of them went on solo and joint observations and follow ups for the plan. As per the extent of execution, the detailed plan of activities, buddy pair orientation, temporary grouping plan, mini workshop etc. , i.e a lot of these plans have not reached the implementation phase because of the constraints I faced. However, the HM is responding very positively to this initiative and is proactively seeking to work on this problem. The HM is very much interested in following it up post vacations and also apply this idea into other classroom.

Because the issue was sensitive, I have not lead to any tangible changes in the teacher’s behavior but he has begun to respond to our concerns and is now not avoiding the process. He has started to see the value in the process because during the activities the kids were responding to him and seemed very engaged in the class. I am able to see some more indirect positive trends during this process. Kids retention of new words and alphabets was higher due to the ABL methods. They started taking more interest in the class and asking the teacher to take more games. The discipline was improved to certain extent. Also, two of the irregular kids started coming to school more frequently. The kids presentations in the assembly has been initiated.

I can say that 40% of the LC could be conducted effectively and the rest would be followed up post vacations.

LEARNINGSThe HM has become very negative in the recent 2 months because he lost someone close to his family. This was affecting the other work in the school. Since HMs strength is classroom intervention, I was able to revive his focus to the school and his purpose through this LC. I was able to spend a lot of time on finding innovative ways to work on SLO and utilize his strength as a source of motivation for himself only.

Through my first failure of engaging with the BO, I realized that my timing of the strategy got wrong and ultimately backfired me. I was also able to gauge the clear impact of dealing with authority and with an alternative way the same problem.

As per the structure of the LC itself, for me personally, this was a very challenging area. I don’t have a blockage in working directly in the classroom, however, I would always limit myself to conducting activities or games assuming instructional is an area I don’t have a grip on. I feel now that although I am still working on ABL, this time, it was more data based, focused and catered to individual need of the kid. This was a new learning for me.

Conclusively I can say that I see immense value in this exercise and would try to complete the action plan in this school post vacations. Also, I would try to undertake similar interventions in all my other schools where there is such a need based on this experience.