School Science in India:
Curriculum Developers/Textbook Authors' Perspectives
by
Ravinder Koul
Research Associate
Curriculum and Instruction
609B Allen Hall
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26505
Ravi@wvu.edu
http://www.wvu.edu/~ruralnet/about/profess.htm
and
Thomas M. Dana
Assistant Professor
Curriculum and Instruction
164 Chambers
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, Pa 16801
Tmd3@psu.edu
Introduction
Despite the increasing role that computer technologies play in many classrooms, the
importance of textbooks endures. In countries with limited resources such as India, textbooks
are often the prime curriculum resource in schools (Kumar, 1986). In many Indian science
classrooms, National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) science
textbooks are the only instructional tools available; therefore the quality of these state
prescribed science textbooks should be a major policy concern (Kumar, 1988).
Student views on science are shaped by (1) textbooks, examination system, syllabi and
methods of assessment, (2) what the school and community accept as science, the legitimized
voices of experts, authors and teachers, (3) structure and sequence of student experiences with
science (see also Corcoran, 1987). In science classrooms, the textbooks function as a source
of knowledge whose meaning is mediated by both the developers of instructional materials
and teachers for students, who are expected to reconstruct or restate it. The manner in which
authors present science influences the way it is received and interpreted; choices on methods
and strategies will effect the way textbooks engage their readers.
Textbooks are a part of the large social process (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991) and serve to
legitimize a view of science, conveying the approach considered acceptable for understanding
and teaching of science by providing tasks, questions, problems and other information (White
& Gunstone, 1988). Kuhn (1962) has viewed textbooks as a set of exemplars that play a major
role in presenting content material, determining the nature of acceptable scientific
explanations and testing the competency of students. Since theory is only an end result of an
enquiry, textbooks must be more than a summary of various theories (Schwab, 1978). Schwab
suggests that curriculum materials should reflect the tentative, fluid nature of scientific
knowledge:
The child should not be told, merely, " That is right. That is wrong. These are animals. Those
are plants. Rather, he should be told, "When we try to grow puppies, kittens, grass and
flowers, we find that puppies and kittens need to be fed and warmed. Grass and flowers need
water and sunlight. Puppies and kittens are very much alike in still other ways. Grass and
flowers are alike in many other ways. Therefore . . ". In short, some knowledge would be
imparted, not as truths out of the nowhere but as conclusions from evidence, or decisions from
thought of alternatives and their consequences (Schwab, 1978, p. 270).
India's National Council of Educational Research and Training develops the most
widely used instructional materials for Indian children (NCERT, 1991). Since 1961, scientists
working at the Department of Education in Science and Mathematics (DESM), formerly
known as The Department of Science Education (DSE), of the NCERT have played a major
role in school curriculum development, advising and assisting the national Government of
India, state governments, teacher organizations and voluntary agencies in matters related to
science education. NCERT has a network of institutes located at New Delhi, Ajmer, Bhopal,
Bhubaneswar, Mysore and Shillong which specialize in teacher education, media and
computer applications, curricular development and vocational education. The NCERT advises
through SCERTs or SIEs ( State Councils of Educational Research and Training or State
Institute of Education and Training) and through DIETs (District Institutes of Education and
Training). NCERT develops curricular framework for primary and secondary levels,
guidelines, syllabi and curriculum materials for different levels and disciplines.
Background and Design of the Study
In our recent analysis of the nature of science and technology in current NCERT science
textbooks for grade levels IV through X, the development of conceptions on energy themes
(force, work, and energy) was chosen as our focus since energy themes constitute a significant
portion of content across the grade levels (see Koul, 1997; Koul & Dana, 1997). Results of
this analysis revealed excessive science content with prime emphasis on established concepts,
laws, and theories (see also, Ramanathan & Siddiqi, 1994). The treatment of content
conformed to a confirmatory methodology, described as the tendency to confirm the
prediction being tested and typically, to neglect those tests that can potentially expose a claim
to the risk of disconfirmation (see also, Eliot & Nagel, 1987; Stake & Easley, 1978).
Significantly, themes on the nature of science and technology advocated in NCERT
curriculum framework (NCERT, 1988) were not necessarily found to be reflected in the
treatment of subject matter on energy. Other researchers have given parallel critiques of
NCERT and other Indian school science textbooks concerning content, format and
appropriateness in terms of vocabulary and readability (Agnihotri, 1992; Bagchi, 1985),
gender biases (Kalia, 1980) and frequency of scientific literacy or science-technology-society
themes (Ramanathan & Siddiqi, 1994).
Indian national policy on education and NCERT curriculum guidelines focus on the
following objectives for school science education: a) to give emphasis to scientific
methodology, the processes rather than the content, b) to provide science which is
environment based, locally relevant and meaningful, c) and to encourage an interdisciplinary,
integrated view of science (NCERT, 1988; NPE, 1986, 1992). Both the National Policy on
Education and the National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Education-a
Framework state these objectives:
Science education will be strengthened so as to develop in the child well defined abilities and
values such as the spirit of inquiry, creativity, objectivity, the courage to question, and
aesthetic sensibility. (NPE, 1992, p.40)
and
. . . the child should be able to discover and understand the scientific facts, concepts,
principles and processes underlying various phenomenon . . . he/she should be able to identify
the resources in the locality and use them properly (NCERT, 1988, p.26)
and
The shift in emphasis from product to the process of science and factual information to
interesting, relevant and meaningful scientific knowledge should be the main consideration
for content identification and rearrangement (NCERT, 1991, p.18)
To gain a better understanding of policy objectives in the context of the development of
NCERT school science textbooks, interviews were conducted with curriculum developers
who are also authors of these textbooks at the Department of Education in Science and
Mathematics, NCERT, New Delhi. The DESM has 24 staff members who have
specializations in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and computer education. The
researcher interviewed 14 members with responsibilities for science education which included
all the staff except those with specialization in mathematics only.
Prior to the interviews participants were asked to complete a brief questionnaire about
their perceptions of the nature of science. The questionnaire was pretested with a group of
teacher educators. The responses of the thirteen DESM staff members who completed the
questionnaire are summarized in Table 1. We restricted our analysis of responses to frequency
counts and chi-square test.
Interviews were tape recorded with the permission of each participant, who had the
option to stop or erase any recorded information at any time during the interview. The
researcher started each interview with broad questions intended to help gain an understanding
of the individual's range of perspectives on a given topic and then directed toward more in
depth exploration of those statements (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992) (see Appendix). Science in
NCERT school textbooks provided the main point of reference for participant's views on
science in curriculum as well as science for curriculum. Participants expressed their views on
the nature of science for school curriculum; the constraints on development of meaningful
science curriculum materials; what methods and strategies they recommend for the treatment
of subject matter; and the strengths and limitations of current textbooks. It should be noted
that interviews were conducted in both English and Hindi. Data was translated and
retranslated to ensure validity. We will quote from these interviews to comment on text
development and publishing, authors' views of science, authors' views of science in their
textbooks, and discussion of NCERT's portrayal of science.
Authors and Textbooks
Text Development
Before the involvement of NCERT, school directorates and local boards of education
were responsible for prescribing syllabus and making recommendations for textbooks which
were developed and published under private enterprise. Since its inception in 1961, the
subject specialists at DESM have been responsible for textbook development while receiving
feedback on manuscripts from researchers, teachers and educators from other institutions. The
textbook cycle is supposed to be five years but in practice it normally takes eight to ten years
before textbooks are revised (NCERT 2, December 1996). Depending on demand, reprints are
made once or twice a year. In each reprint, there is some room for minor corrections.
In the last curriculum revision, conducted in the 1980s, DESM had hoped to produce a
whole curriculum package containing textbook, teacher's guide, laboratory guide and video
program. There are, however, no guidebooks for the present generation of instructional
materials. One of the curriculum developers discussed the current materials:
Teachers have to follow the textbooks from page one till the end page. There are no separate
sets of instruction as to how to modify, how to use different methodologies for dealing with
different type of children, for addressing the needs of areas from different socio-economic
conditions. As far as NCERT is concerned, it is only textbook nothing but the textbook.
(NCERT 1, December 1996)
During the interviews the researcher learned three major reasons for the absence of teacher
guidebooks: Firstly, there is hardly any demand for handbooks. Secondly, handbook
distribution has been ineffective. If, as one curriculum developer reported, handbooks are sent
to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan (Central School Council) for distribution to Central Board of
Secondary Education schools, they remain piled up in administrative offices:
. . . If you price them, nobody buys them. If they are free, then like any free material, it does
not make it to its destination. Since it is free, it is considered of no value. (NCERT 2,
December 1996)
Thirdly, preparation of NCERT curriculum materials takes a lot of time. In addition to the
development of curriculum materials, the DESM faculty are involved in other areas of
research and development, training and extension which impact the timeline for revision of
curriculum materials.
Table 1 Questionnaire Responses from Curriculum Developers at NCERT
QUESTION
Yes
No
Neutral
Chisquare
df
Sig.
7
5
1
4.308
2
.116
1. WHEN STUDENTS DO PRACTICAL
WORK:
a) they should always follow a prescribed
procedure
b) they should always understand the concept,
law or principle before proceeding in practical
work.
10
3
0
3.769
1
.052
c) they should learn that scientific investigations
are always free of biases or prejudices
10
1
2
11.231*
2
.004
d) deriving a correct scientific explanation of the 4
phenomenon is a more important goal than
enjoying an investigation
8
1
5.692
2
.058
e) the activities should always aim at
confirmation of a concept, law or principle
presented
2
9
2
7.582*
2
.023
f) most of the time, a group investigation is a
better choice than an individual investigation
4
6
3
1.077
2
.584
g) local community resources and participation
should be involved
11
2
0
6.231*
1
.013
a) applied science is more visible in present
school science curriculum
6
6
1
3.846
2
.146
b) Pure science should be the ideal school
science curriculum
0
12
1
9.308*
1
.002
a) science is a social activity
11
1
1
15.385*
2
.000
b) with faith in science and technology,
solutions to all problems can be found
6
4
3
1.077
2
.584
c) scientific and technological solutions should
not be influenced by context
7
3
3
2.462
2
.292
d) the usefulness of technological solutions is
constrained by local needs
11
2
1
6.231*
1
.013
e) the decisions of experts and scientists need
never be questioned
1
11
1
15.385*
2
.000
f) science and technology always bring a change
for the better
3
6
4
1.077
2
.584
2. Let's assume that science activities can be
classified as pure and applied. Pure science
addresses laws and concepts of the natural
world whereas applied science addresses local
phenomena, conditions, and solutions to
people's needs
3. SCHOOL CURRICULUM MUST HELP
STUDENTS LEARN THAT:
4. WHEN SCIENTISTS PURSUE AN
INVESTIGATION:
a) the same scientific method is always pursued
3
8
2
4.769
2
.092
b) the scientific method is influenced by the
community of scientists
4
5
4
.154
2
.926
c) the ideological stance of scientists can
influence their practices
10
2
1
11.231*
2
.004
d) observations are constrained by the
theoretical viewpoints of the scientific
community
5
6
2
2.000
2
.368
e) they discover reality
9
3
1
8.000*
2
.000
*The result is significant at p<.05
Participants' Views of Science
Responses to our questionnaires indicate a statistically significant consensus that
"scientists discover reality"( 2 (2, n=13)=8.000, p=.000) and "scientific practices are shaped
by the ideological stance of scientists"( 2 (2, n=13)=11.231, p=.004) although a significant
number of participants ( 2 (2, n=13)=11.231, p=.004 ) advocate students should learn that
"scientific investigations are always free of biases or prejudices"! Even though the NCERT
textbooks prescribe a linear method of science (Koul and Dana, 1997), there was no
significant consensus on whether "students should always follow a prescribed scientific
procedure in their practical work"(  2(2, n=13)=4.308, p=.116). Participants also lacked
significant consensus on whether "scientists always follow the same scientific method" ( 2 (2,
n=13)=4.769, p=.092) or "scientific method is influenced by the community of scientists" ( 2
(2, n=13)=.154, p=.926), or "observations are constrained by the theoretical viewpoints of the
scientists" ( 2 (2, n=13)= 2.000, p= .368) (Table 1). Notably in the light of a high consensus
among historians and philosophers of science that methodological commitments are specific
to members of a particular scientific community (e.g., Kuhn, 1962), responses reflect
significantly different ideas on the nature of scientific methodology. It is also interesting that
some of the participants see no need to draw a connection between insights from the history
and philosophy of science to their own ideas about classroom practices. One of the
participants expressed this well:
Questions related with philosophy of science, the scientists have nothing to do with the
teaching of science. You should go to the organization which is working on such issues. If
you want to know about the way science is thought about in this country, not the teaching of
science in schools and curriculum, then you should go to the National Institute of
Development of Science and Technological Studies (NIDST). NIDST has nothing to do with
science teaching and is relevant to your questions on investigations of the scientists and with
science as a concept, but not with the teaching of science. (NCERT 5, December 1996)
It is hard to know whether this opinion is formed in view of the limitations which schools face
to greater or lesser degrees in the implementation of curriculum or whether it is a belief that
the pedagogy of science need not reflect ideas about the nature of science.
Our questionnaire offered a definition of science as pure and applied : Pure science
addresses laws and concepts of the natural world whereas applied science addresses local
phenomena, conditions, and solutions to people's needs. Participants significantly disagreed
with the statement that "pure science should be the ideal school science curriculum" ( 2 (1,
n=13)= 9.308, p=.002). However, they do think that the concepts, laws and theories should
play a major role in the learning of science. Out of the thirteen participants who filled out the
questionnaires, ten agreed that concepts, laws and theories should always be introduced a
priori practical work ( 2 (1, n=13)=3.769, p=.052). There was a lack of consensus among the
participants whether applied or pure science is the more visible in the present school science
curriculum- the responses on the questionnaire were almost evenly divided ( 2 (2,
n=13)=3.846, p=.146). However, everyone completing the questionnaire agreed that science
teaching should be linked with the daily experiences of students and that it should be relevant
and meaningful. In the words of one participant, "give less of science and give more of what
is relevant" (NCERT 4, December 1996). But, as one senior staff member put it,
contextualization of science should not be at the expense of concepts, laws and principles of
science:
. . . let us say that we have a pack of tribals who do not use our language . . . then I have to
teach science to them. When I say I want to teach them science I mean I want to teach them
the concepts of science, the laws of science, I am not talking about the context of science.
(NCERT 6, December 1996)
There was no significant consensus whether "scientific and technological solutions
should not be influenced by context" ( 2 (2, n=13)=2.462, p=.292), even though 7 out of 13
believed that these solutions should not be influenced by context. And yet, respondents agreed
that student "practical work should involve local community resources and participation" ( 2
(2, n=13)=6.231, p=.031), "science is a social activity" ( 2 (2, n=13)=15.385, p= .000) and
"scientific and technological solutions are constrained by local needs" ( 2 (1, n=13)=6.231,
p=.013):
You know I used to say this in America . . . [the reason] why physical sciences should be for
everybody? You should have awareness of what science is doing for the society . . . if there is
a nuclear reactor in your community, you have a right to know what is happening to you.
(NCERT 7, December 1996)
In our conversations, participants expressed the belief that science is the skill to carry
out disciplined analysis of a situation or problem through observation and testing:
Science is something that can be repeated and tested again and again. Students should test,
verify and then believe it. This is basically a scientific attitude . . . science involves
elimination one by one and what remains is the truth . . . a child must understand that science
is a methodological thing. (NCERT 2, December 1996)
Viewing science as "habits of mind", two of the participants emphasized that science is a way
to gather information and a way of thinking. Science is neither a fixed body of knowledge,
nor a product:
Science is not the way it is depicted as a cut and dry thing. It is a part of human endeavor. In
school science curriculum, you will find formulas, statements, definitions without errors, an
absolute truth kind of thing . . . this is not science. (NCERT 3, December 1996)
and
The abstract view of science is in fact a non-environmental view of science. The whole
concept of environment is lost. It is theoretical, we look for certain calculations. We do not
realize that abstract is abstract only because my perception is not that far. If I had the means it
would become part of my own environment. (NCERT 4, December 1996)
Both of these statements recognize science as firmly located in the world around us and
express an urge to move behind and beyond the formal codification and abstractions that often
constitute the image of science. Consistent with these views, participants expressed a desire to
increase science, technology and society issues in school science curriculum, yet perhaps a
bias toward a "technological fix" approach can be detected in the following exchange:
R: You said that people perceive what science can do for them. Can you elaborate?
NCERT 8: I take one little example. Previously, cowdugs were used in India. There were so
many problems, smoke for eyes and so on. Now liquid petroleum gas has come. In the
beginning people did not accept this technology. Now they have started using it. They see its
benefit. Gas is such that whenever you want it, you can use it. However, in the case of cowdung, once it is burnt, it is burnt. Unless and until, you extinguish it [cowdung], it will
continue to burn and give smoke, and it is a cumbersome process also. Now they understand
what technology can do. Now they understand the importance of sewage system. Take the
example of pressure cooker. People thought that aluminum was a carrier of TB and that they
will not use it. But now you see everybody is using pressure cooker. Now they understand
that this is the outcome of the science and technology. Now they understand the importance of
telephone, airplane.
R: Don't you think there is lots of pollution also?
NCERT 8: You see if you go for the first thing, you have to suffer for the second thing and
the second thing that has been the outcome for this improvement or technology, you have to
find out the solution for the second thing. Then you may lead to another resultant thing.
Continuously, we have to work to find the solutions for the things. Pollution, everybody
knows there is a pollution, but have you left using your car? The number of airplanes is
increasing, numbers of cars are increasing.
R: You think we must find a technological solution?
NCERT 8: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Technological solution does not mean that we can solve all the
problems with science and technology. There are societal problems that can not be solved.
(December 1996)
A "technological fix" is based on the idea that technological innovations will solve our
social problems(Tatum, 1995). In his book Energy Possibilities, Jesse Tatum views the
"technological fix" to energy problems as a combination of two traditional approaches: 1. The
engineering response, which seeks new innovations such as the development of fusion energy
systems, safe and environmentally benign breeder reactors, and so forth. 2. The economic
response, which relies on objective market behavior to indicate the most cost effective
solutions. Both of these approaches undermine the role of public participation in the making
of energy choices and exclude the values, goals, and objectives of the individual and the
society (Tatum, 1995). The technological fix also implies that the solutions to problems are
found only by professional scientists and experts, leaving little incentive for a lay person ( the
student in this case) to define, plan, and solve problems. Unless students are encouraged to
develop their capacities for decision making the goals of scientific literacy and public
involvement in science issues will remain elusive. Just as the advocacy for a prescribed
scientific method may create misconceptions on how knowledge is created and how decisions
are made (e.g., Feyerabend, 1993; Nye, 1993), a "technological fix" may foster ideas that
limit who should make decisions.
Authors Views of the Science in the Textbooks
A few of the participants acknowledged that methodology of science is not reflected in
current NCERT textbooks:
. . . what we stated in our policy documents is very different. We state that science education
will have to inculcate a spirit of inquiry, creativity, a sense of wondering, problem solving
skills, decision-making skills and aesthetic sensibility. This is what the parliament approved
policy says science education should achieve in any school program, that science must be
related to the every day perspectives of the learners, in terms of relationship with health,
agriculture and something like. If this was to be the focus of science education, then
personally speaking, as a teacher myself, the subject content does not presume in my mind
that importance. It is the methodology of taking an idea and focussing on a skill like problem
solving or decision making which did not get reflected in our textbooks. (NCERT 9,
December 1996)
and
The textbook is a reading as well as a guiding material. We have not been able to give a
reflection of methodology and incorporate it in our textbooks. That is the limitation of our
textbooks, that is our defect. The thing has been slightly half hearted. (NCERT 12, December
1996).
They also acknowledged that there is an excess of content in the current NCERT science
textbooks and that the development of content has not gone beyond "ensuring lots of facts and
instilling bits of information" (NCERT 9, December 1996). The following comments are
typical of participants' views on NCERT textbooks:
In current instructional materials, it is difficult for the learners to identify themselves, students
are not given a chance to think . . . The quality of NCERT textbooks can be improved by
reframing a few sentences and activities. (NCERT 4, December 1996);
There is a dearth of activities, quizzes, puzzles and other hands on activities that can be easily
performed and are meaningful for the student. . . . Since development of textbooks requires a
lot of effort and time, there is a dearth of concretization of instructional materials through
analogies, situations, problems and illustrations. (NCERT 11, December 1996)
Present instructional materials do not take into account local materials, resources and
environment. . .Except for life science textbooks, there is no romance in the current general
science textbooks. (NCERT 3, December 1996)
If students are to be provided with tasks or situations, then these tasks can not be assigned
centrally through NCERT textbooks (NCERT 1, December 1996)
In short, instructional materials are not meaningful and there is a learning barrier . . . I found
that when we are trying to give a child concepts of science, we always forget for what are we
giving this, what is its use? If you go through the secondary science textbooks (IX, X), you
find there is no need for the common man to know atomic structure, how the atom is build up,
what it is doing. Rather if he knows how electrons flow, what is electricity, how I can use the
electricity, what are its hazards, would be more interesting. The basic flaw, why there are
dropouts, why students are not interested, is because they do not see any utility of it. Given a
chance, I would like a study of what a grown up person in India who is 20-21 years old needs
to know to lead a meaningful life. Then let me go back and decide what type of knowledge
should I put in the curriculum materials. This is what I feel. (NCERT 4, December 1996)
It seems that some of the curriculum developers see the present instructional materials as
disengaging for the learner. One senior curriculum developer also remarked that the class XI
textbook is highly conceptualized and its content does not logically follow from the textbook
for class X. (NCERT 7, December 1996)
To promote an integrated, comprehensive view of science, DESM has advocated
interdisciplinary curriculum materials for grades VI to X. Their basic premise is that if science
is compartmentalized into a variety of disciplines then animal husbandry, agriculture,
nutrition etc. become separate subjects. As one senior staff member stated "Principles of
science in nature are interdisciplinary and integrated, they do not operate as physics,
chemistry and biology" (NCERT 3, December 1996). Therefore, DESM staff have argued that
instructional materials should not be subject bound. Accordingly they have aimed at the
integration of various fields (biology, physics, chemistry etc.) in the development of
instructional materials through grade X.
During our interviews, staff members expressed some of their difficulties with
developing integrated materials. They said that the need to extend themselves beyond their
own specialties is very demanding. They recognized also that as subject specialists they have
a tendency to emphasize without explanation the need for a particular subject content as part
of an interdisciplinary theme. Specialist subject concerns are so strong that they end up
negotiating the requirements of their respective disciplines within the curriculum. As one
member of faculty put it "what we end up doing is that you have 30% and I will also have
30%, that kind of thing . . ." (NCERT 10, December 1996). This suggests why science in the
current textbooks is merely an assembly of concepts taken from physics, chemistry and
biology. There was unanimous consensus amongst curriculum developers that the current
textbooks still present science in parts.
Participants also cited a problem at the classroom level. They said that Indian teachers
tend to interpret science according to their own area of specialization and do not to view
science holistically. Teachers have graduated from colleges with degrees in either physics,
chemistry and mathematics, or physics, chemistry and biology, but they are not trained to
teach science in an integrated, holistic manner. The present teacher training component of the
curriculum is not geared to address this deficiency. Furthermore, many private schools in
India still use three teachers to teach biology, physics and chemistry whereas the government
schools rely upon two teachers to teach all the science subjects. Many teachers fear that
integrated curriculum causes a surplus of teachers in schools and so they resist using
integrated instructional materials. Significantly, there are a few of the faculty at DESM who
question the purpose of integrating science in current instructional materials:
Frankly, I am still not happy with the present class IX, X textual materials. I still feel that we
have made a khitchdi [mess] of physics, chemistry and life science etc. The way this
curriculum is transacted in schools, the way it is taught to the children, I still feel we should
again bifurcate science to physics, chemistry and life sciences. (NCERT 1, December 1996)
Documents stating Indian policy on science education emphasize a spirit of inquiry,
sense of wonder, decision-making and problem solving skills. They speak of an
interdisciplinary science related to the everyday needs of a learner with thematic relationships
constructed through nutrition, health and agriculture and so forth (NPE, 1992). However,
curriculum developers are in agreement that the present instructional materials fail to reflect
the objectives of Indian Policy on Education (NPE, 1986, 1992) and the NCERT Curriculum
Framework for Primary and Secondary Schools (1988).
Some of the factors which may contribute to this gap have been identified through the
interviews with curriculum developers and textbook authors. Development of quality
curriculum materials requires a lot of time and effort and textbook development is only one of
the many responsibilities given to faculty members at DESM. The quality of instructional
materials suffers due to other faculty commitments. Additionally, members of a team
responsible for writing a textbook section may not agree on the choice of methods/strategies
in the treatment of the subject matter. Lack of consensus can even extend to people outside
the department who provide feedback on manuscripts.
Based on past analysis of NCERT textbooks and interviews with authors/curriculum
developers, we would conclude that in spite of the conceptual shift from a product to a
process approach in their last curriculum revision, the efficacy of the second approach is
missing in present instructional materials. Most importantly, the product form of science in
current curriculum materials is based on an assumption that science stays the same while local
conditions may change. One participant explained the issue of contextuality as significant
only for primary grades:
. . . when you move upwards from upper primary to secondary classes, contextuality is not
important since in upper classes the structure of the discipline itself becomes more important,
and the structure of the discipline is universal in character . . . If I have to teach the periodic
table to somebody there is no local contextuality. You teach the concepts as they are
developed in periodicity and explain the periodic table. Because it is used internationally, the
periodic table is not something specific to a district . . . I think local contextuality is concerned
with different levels of training of teachers. You may have the textbook as a reference but if
you find that this textbook contains methods which this child does not appreciate because
these things do not exist in his environment, the teacher should have that training to design a
strategy for the local situation. But the basic concepts remain the same. ( NCERT 9,
December 1996).
Each of the interviewees stated that the curriculum developers' job is to develop a basic,
standard textbook which should then be adapted and modified by each state to address local
needs and conditions. One senior curriculum developer captured a feeling among some of the
participants that there is a need for compatibility and updating of standards across the state
regions, asserting that India "needs a yardstick against the contextual variety of instructional
materials" and that parents also advocate this kind of standardization of materials for their
children (NCERT 9, December 1996). This person also expressed a fear that "in the call of
local contextuality certain things can go wrong" and made references to recent court cases on
history and social studies textbooks (NCERT 9, December 1996).
Curriculum developers state that there is a demand for the product form of science and
any deviation brings major criticisms:
But most of the average schools will stick with the "only information" type books. And it is
very difficult to gather courage because there will be one thousand letters to my director and
director will say bhai criticism a raha hai badal karo (there is criticism, change the books).
After all we are not missionaries, the government employee is not a missionary, he will try to
strike a balance. And, in fact, I am not sure that this is the better method than this, because the
product I have not seen. (NCERT 12, December 1996)
By the same token, another textbook author explained why activities have been made
supplementary to the texts:
NCERT 6: Because if you look at the chapter on waves [in a NCERT textbook] right now,
activities are being done and then some conclusions are being drawn. Now what happens is
that if the teacher is not able to do the activities on a particular day, they may not be able to
draw conclusions. They have to follow every word, every context which is coming there.
What I am doing is: forget about activities and deliver the lesson. I will develop the material
where the activities are some kind of supplementary. If they (activities) are done, well and
good, but the process of teaching should not suffer.
R: I am a bit confused here. We normally say that curriculum should be activity based.
NCERT 6: I can not say that I can not follow this approach (of having activities). However
there are constraints in the schools that I am conscious of . So there is a compromise between
the two. I can not say that it should not be activity based . . . I profess that it should be activity
based, but at the same time I am also concerned with the practices being followed in the
schools. So I am trying to make a compromise. I am not saying that the activities should be
skipped . . . they should be done. I am giving more than one exercise. (December 1996)
The predicament described in this exchange characterizes much of the feeling the researcher
found at the DESM. Rather than operating freely to find ways to personalize the context of
interpretation for their student readers and more effectively articulate the nature of science,
the curriculum developers and authors feel constrained to respond to various other demands.
The economic viability of producing locally specific curriculum materials was raised as
another issue for concern.
Discussion
Edward Jenkins once said that . . . "while scientific ideas may transcend the culture(s)
in which they were first developed and accepted, the relocation of these ideas within the
cultural context within which they come to be taught, learned and used has important
educational implications . . . " (Jenkins, 1994, p.604). Indian policy documents advocate that
"science education programs will be designed to enable the learner to acquire problem solving
and decision making skills and to discover the relationship of science with health, agriculture,
industry and other aspects of daily life" (NPE, 1992; p.40). Interviews confirm there is a lack
of curricular emphasis on contemporary knowledge of the nature of science (e.g., Kuhn, 1962;
Shapin and Schaffer, 1985; Shapere, 1988) and the significance of the context in learning
(e.g., Lave, 1993; Rogoff, 1984). The vested interests of subject specialists and the
implementation of their science curriculum as " a standard text" also contribute to the gap
existing between policy and practice.
The commentaries from curriculum developers are shadowed with concerns persistent in
post-independence India regarding a nationally standard science curriculum versus a locally
relevant, contextualized science instruction. Since its inception, the role projected for the
National Council of Educational Research and Training has been to provide coherency and
direction for school curricula within India's diverse settings. Science education must be
tailored to the specific scientific and technological needs of diverse populations, hence, the
Indian states are expected to develop locally relevant science curriculum/resource materials.
In practice, however, NCERT science textbooks function as agents of a standardized science
since the state education authorities package and dispense them as the only curriculum
resource in the classrooms. This practice relegates students with a "fixed" content, thus
limiting opportunity to make use of science as a way to investigate their immediate world and
improve their environment. Yet currently, the sensitive issue of development of locally
relevant resource materials has been compounded by the attempts of some fundamentalists to
replace algebra and calculus textbooks with what they call "native science", namely, Sanskrit
verses alleged to be of Vedic origin. Our interviews with curriculum developers also suggest
that context specific treatment of science (the nature of science and its methodology) can be
undermined by the interests of subject specialists. Specialist interests tend to circumscribe the
boundaries of a dialogue, thus elevating the status of an abstract discourse. As curriculum
developers and textbook authors at NCERT note, unless policy makers at every level address
these issues, Indian school children may be deprived of a science curriculum that provides
them with meaningful instructional materials and crucial conceptual tools for solving real-life
problems.
Endnote
*Researcher is grateful to the Director and staff at the Department of Education in Science
and Mathematics, National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi for
their support for this study.
REFERENCES
Agnihotri, R. K. (1992). Evaluating the readability of school textbooks: An Indian
study. Journal of Reading. 35, (4), 282-88.
Apple, M., & Christian-Smith, L. (1991). The politics of the textbook. New York:
Routledge.
Bagchi, J. P.(1985). Indian Biology textbooks in sex Education, a comparative study.
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 8(2), 18-23.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education, an introduction
to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Corcoran, B. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In B. Corcoran & E. Evans (Eds.)
(1987). Readers, texts, teachers. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boyton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Elliott, D. L., & Nagel, K. C. (1987). School science and the pursuit of knowledgedeadends and all. Science and Children, 24 (8), 9-12.
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. NY: Verso.
Jenkins, E.W. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611.
Kalia, N. N. (1980). Images of men and women in Indian textbooks. Comparative
Education Review, 24(2), 209-223.
Koul, R. (1997). Contextualized science? an Indian experience. Unpublished
dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Koul, R., & Dana, T. (1997). Contextualized science for teaching science and
technology. Interchange, 28 (2&3), 121-144.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kumar, K. (1988). Origins of India's "textbook culture". Comparative Education
Review, 32 (4), 452-464.
Kumar, K. (1986). Textbooks and educational culture. Economic and Political Weekly,
21 (3), 1309-1311.
Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In J. lave & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding
practice, perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge
University Press.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)(1991). Science and
mathematics education for the future. New Delhi: NCERT.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)(1988). National
curriculum for elementary and secondary education- a framework. New Delhi: NCERT.
National Policy of Education (NPE)(1986)(Rev.1992). National Policy of Education.
Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Education, New Delhi.
Nye, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press.
Ramanathan, S., & Siddiqi, N. (1994). Representation of science in upper primary
science textbooks: an assessment. Indian Educational Review, 29(1-2), 1-12.
Rogoff, B. (1984).Introduction: thinking and learning in social context. In B. Rogoff
and J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum and liberal Education. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Shapere, D. (1988). The concept of observation in science and philosophy. Philosophy
of Science, 59, 485-525.
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL:
Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois
Tatum, J. S. (1995). Energy possibilities-rethinking alternatives and the choice-making
process. NY: State University of New York Press.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1988). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer.
APPENDIX (OPEN ENDED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS)
General Questions on textbooks and handbooks
1. What is the textbook edition cycle? Under what conditions would you edit rather than
reprint?
2. What changes in the textbooks have taken place over the years?
3. How are the decisions on topic choice, authors and developers made across the
different grades? (If relevant, how these decisions were made for topics on energy?)
4. Who are the authors of the textbooks? What do you know about them? What are their
backgrounds?
5. Were the handbooks developed concurrent to the textbooks? What was the purpose
and thinking behind the handbooks?
6. How do current NCERT curriculum materials differ from when they were produced
locally?
Strengths and limitations of science curriculum materials
1. What are the aims and objectives behind NCERT science curriculum materials?
2. What do you perceive are the strengths and limitations of the current NCERT
curriculum materials? In which ways do you think these could be better?
The way nature of science is portrayed, and the vision of how it might be different
1. Do you think the nature of science is an important issue ? Explain why?
2. How do you describe the way nature of science is portrayed in NCERT science
curriculum materials? Is your view of the nature of science any different? What view
of the nature of science would you like to be portrayed in these materials? How should
we go about doing it? Take an example from your field or area of interest? What
should be the best methods and strategies ?
3. In what ways can curriculum materials make a difference in this direction? What are
the limitations? What else is important?
4. In your opinion, what are the major objectives for teaching students about the nature
of science and technology? What are the major obstacles to achieve these objectives ?
What are major characteristics you try to build into science curricula to meet these
objectives?
5. This question is about the classroom practices in Indian schools. How can innovation
in present school science curriculum shape the teaching practices in Indian schools?
What are the situational (institutional or instructional) constraints on these practices?
How is NCERT addressing or planning to address these constraints?
About the authors...
Ravinder Koul completed his Ph.D. in Curriculum Instruction ( with specialization in
Science Education) from The Pennsylvania State University. He has traveled and worked at
both school and university levels in India, Botswana, and West Virginia. Ravinder's research
has focused on the significance of beliefs and instructional practices in teacher education,
curriculum reforms and curriculum materials, computer-mediated-communication and crosscultural issues. Ravinder is a member of The National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, American Educational Research Association and International Group on History,
Philosophy, Sociology of Science and Science Teaching.
Thomas M. Dana is Assistant Professor and Science Education Program Coordinator in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Education Programs, at Penn State
University in State College, PA. Dr. Dana's academic background includes a B.S. in Earth
Sciences Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, an M.S. in Affective
Education/Science Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, and a Ph.D
in Science Education from Florida State University.
To get to the top of this page, click here.
To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.
To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.