A 1997 study of data from the University of Delaware found that across a wide range of universities in the US “education programs were funded below the institutional average for all disciplines” and at the more prestigious research universities “education programs were less well-funded than other professional programs, with the exception of social work and accounting”. The idea that quality teachers cannot be prepared “on the cheap” is getting a renewed look and gaining significant traction in the US and there might be important lessons for Pakistan to learn from this discussion. In a recent NY Times Op-ed titled “Teach Your Teachers Well”, Susan Engel, senior lecturer at Williams College, laments the lack of attention given to education programs:
“Our best universities have, paradoxically, typically looked down their noses at education, as if it were intellectually inferior. The result is that the strongest students are often in colleges that have no interest in education, while the most inspiring professors aren’t working with students who want to teach. This means that comparatively weaker students in less intellectually rigorous programs are the ones preparing to become teachers.
So the first step is to get the best colleges to throw themselves into the fray. If education was a good enough topic for Plato, John Dewey and William James, it should be good enough for 21st-century college professors.”
The case in Pakistan is similar. Major public universities like Punjab University and Karachi University do not offer doctoral programs in education, while research universities like LUMS and Quaid-i-Azam University don’t even have programs in education. As a result, there is very little, if any, research on the challenges posed by poverty, malnutrition, parental illiteracy, different regional languages and customs, and, now, war and internal displacement on children’s educational needs and possible remedies.
However, to assume that this is simply a matter of tweaking curriculum of our B. Ed and M. Ed programs (which HEC has done in 2006) or initiating research on education is to miss the underlying problem. The underlying problem – perhaps one of the few commonalties between the education system in the US and Pakistan – is that of the basic paradigm; a paradigm that treats education as just another subject in humanities or social sciences which can be taught in a classroom setting through lectures on child development, pedagogy, and classroom assessment, etc.
Engel makes a compelling case for a fundamental change in how education programs are conceived. First, she argues that “future teachers should continue studying the subject they hope to teach, with outstanding professors. It makes no sense at all to stop studying the thing you want to teach at the very moment you begin to learn how.” In the context of Pakistan, this would require our elite universities to improve upon HEC’s recommended curriculum in education since it leaves little room for courses to enhance subject-expertise. In other words, it is simply not enough to teach a prospective Physics teacher a course in “Teaching Physics”; she should continue to learn physics and be inspired by it.
Next, Engel makes a particularly inspired recommendation: she argues that students in education programs “should learn their craft the way surgeon learns to operate: by intense supervision in real setting with expert mentors”. “Young teachers”, she continues, “like young doctors, should work side by side with skilled mentors, getting plenty of feedback, having plenty of opportunities to observe and taking on greater and greater responsibility as they improve”.
The key insight behind this proposal that we find inspiring is that it neither takes “good teaching” as a science that can be taught in a classroom environment, nor as an innate ability. It accepts the notion that teaching is a craft and that this craft, like surgery, can best be perfected through keen observation, hands-on practice and ‘close-loop’ mentoring. We believe that this is the true spirit that, unfortunately, is not recognized and repeated enough in discussions about teacher training programs.
Engel goes on to make other key suggestions. She argues that the benefits of this shift in paradigm can only be realized if universities make their respective education programs more selective and free of charge. This appears to be a prescription that is almost custom-made for Pakistan which is experiencing a private schooling boom of its own. If a university, through a selective and well-marketed education program, produces high quality graduates, schools (especially, private ones) will be pressured by parents to hire teachers from such programs. This will result in gainful employment of well-trained teachers and improved education for the students – a win-win situation.
Surely, implementing these ideas and bringing other innovative approaches to our education programs will require more resources. But, all of these are investments in human capital; investments that can have deep and far-reaching effects on our education system. The question, then, is: does our society value quality education enough to make these investments? Surely, this is not an argument for greater ‘quantity’ of education, which is a serious problem it is very own right – at 61% literacy, how could it not be? This is an argument for quality. And, more than that, it is an argument for taking a new look at the very profession of teaching – its possibilities and its responsibilities. Can we afford not to invest in our teachers?
I don’t think that doctoral programs in education have provided any great benefit to American education and are often not of a level for which a PhD should be rewarded. The graduates of such programs have produced teaching methods that have certainly not increased children’s facility with mathematics or language.
Courses that cover the cognitive abilities of young children often present the disproved theories of Piaget. And the New Math was not enough of a disaster, now the New New Math is being promoted to make sure that the next generation will not be able to add or subtract.
Even if there is truth to what you’re saying, what’s the alternative? The objective of education programs is to get smart people to think about ways of improving education. That’s the only way to solve problems. If we don’t invest in education programs, what’s the alternative? Have bureaucrats, politicians, and their staffers create programs of their own whimsy without knowledge of the history or the spectrum of scholarship in the area? Let progams simply fester the way they are?
I think the challenges in educating Pakistani children are different from those faced by their western compatriots. I think research on issues like,
* How to attract children from poor households to attend school,
* How to help children of illiterate parents in schooling,
* How to overcome cultural prejudices against female education,
* How to incorporate local languages in curriculum to fast track learning,
can go a long way in improving the state of education in Pakistan. I think starting research oriented education programs would be a positive step towards analyzing and solving these issues.
Sultan, I’ve also heard similar things from policy-types and teachers in the US, so I am more or less convinced that you’re right on the money.
But, there are notable exceptions too. For example, I know that there’s some great work being done in education for Autistic children, and in general work done on education for special needs children has been helped by excellent education programs. Also, let’s not forget that one of the more refreshing ideas in education of the past decade or so (in the US) is Teach For America, which came straight out of Wendy Kopp’s undergraduate thesis on education.
Also, what’s interesting is that many schools of education in the US have responded to the kinds of concern that you’ve raised. They’ve altered their programs to focus more on education policy or education administration, rather only research on teaching methods.
Finally, I’d say that Omar & Yaser too have very valid points — we may not need research in new teaching methods for, say, elementary maths, but we certainly need a brain-trust to formulate strategies and make policy recommendations that fit out unique challenges. Besides, in this piece, we’re not arguing for granting PhDs in education at every nook and corner, but that at least there be ’some’ places that are engaged in serious work on a consistent basis on this most important topic. In fairness, may be Ali Institute of Education (www.aie.edu.pk) is doing some research but for this piece I wasn’t able to establish the quality and quantity of their research. If you are familiar with their work, or for that matter work done elsewhere, please do comment on that.
A CASE STUDY TO SUPPORT THE THESIS OF ARTICLE: I fully agree with the authors. I thought I knew C\C++ really well until I had the opportunity to work with Dr. Craig Chase as a TA for Introduction to Programming at UT Austin. Being able to solve problems using the language is easy, but teaching it well is really hard. We have made freshmen at UT experts in C\C++ compiler, fundamentals of ADT (C library design), and fundamentals of high performance computing … and they have no clue what we have been doing all along. This is such a far cry from what I experienced at GIKI in Pakistan. I must add that designing a course that achieves such high goals with freshmen who know bare minimum, was a brilliant feat of intelligence. You cannot teach such a course by picking up a run of the mill book off the shelf. The instructor knows the compiler inside out, he knows the libraries inside out (the students ended up implementing printf, string.h, malloc and free, amortized doubling etc., stuff around which the world revolves) and above all he knows his class inside out. This was a great learning experience in pedagogical skills as well as C\C++.
Since it is easy to under-estimate what I said, may I add that Dr. Chase’s freshman class can bring bare-metal to life. And if they get sniff of your code, they can make your program call functions that you actually never called … or even update your code dynamically! (we have warned them of the legal ramifications)
I think the focus should not necessarily be on whether we need a doctorate program on education or not, more so what entails such a program!
If we interpret a PHD program in its conventional means and emphasize purely on research, it may not necessarily add to practically improving practice in the field, atleast not with the pace, breadth or conviction urgently needed.
Research will certainly add value interms of enhancing our understanding and expanding the breadth and depth of knowhow leading to informing policy and better to decision making in the field (among other areas, depending upon the focus on research).
However, it may not by default lift the status of education and practice in Pakistan or any other country for that matter, regardless of what the focus of research may be.
The residency approach (1-2 years as part of the doctorate?), entailing a ’surgeon type’ learning program seems like a good bet, along with elements of research in the overall program. In business schools role playing and reflective exercises are pedagogical tools used to enhance learning outcomes of students, something which could be effectively utilized in improving the standard of education in Pakistan (across the board- from content to pedagogy to policy).
Hence, research + practice together have to be the essence of an effective program.
Ali,
Just to clarify, the residency approach was suggested for teaching degrees, like B.Ed, and not just for a PhD. It is our view that it should part of the basic training for a teacher just as it is for a doctor.
With regards to the PhD-level research, in addition to what I mentioned in my comment above, my personal view is that we need it in education also because we haven’t quite figured out how to create an education system that’s in sync with our values, our history and our desire to progress scientifically, technologically, etc. In this sense, I think we need it MORE than, say, the US needs it at the moment. They had their Scopes Trials almost a century ago; we never did. So, we never truly accepted or rejected the world view that has resulted in the scientific and technological progress of the West. That’s an exercise we need to have, and it’s my view that it can best be guided by experts, especially those in education.
So, it’s not just coming up with “New Math” kind of stuff … it’s something more fundamental.
typing corrections:
1) Research will certainly add value interms of enhancing our understanding and expanding the breadth and depth of knowhow leading to informing policy and better *decision making in the field (among other areas, depending upon the focus *of research).
2) However, it will not by default lift the *standard of education and practice in Pakistan..
i do agree with the author regarding the situation of teacher education in Pakistan whihc is really suffering, subsequently affecting the whole educational system. There are some initiatives comming up as Zafar quotes Eagle for a balance between pedagogical knowledge and subject knowldge, i think B.Ed in Pakistan is now becoming of a four-years honours degree for which students can get admition after their higher secondary school certificate.
secondly, though we do not have many Teacher education institutions doing research, but as the author mentioned about Ali institute Lahore, so are few in Karachi like Notre Dame Institute of Education, Karachi (http://www.ndie.edu.pk) and Aga Khan University-Institute for Educational Development(AKU-IED) are also doing their best in developing research papers in education.
overall i am not very satisfied with the teacher education in Paksitan. Teachers are the back born of the educational system, quality teachers will produce quality students and can teach to bring awareness in society rather than just to follow rules….