Education is a normative pursuit. Its understanding needs serious philosophical examination and discourse. Aims of education; meaning and concept of education; being educated; educating; relationship between teacher and pupil; teaching-learning relationship; attributes of teacher etc., all need clear philosophical analyses. Thinkers like RS Peters define education as the achievement of something worthwhile and desirable (valuable). Various documents like the National Curriculum Framework, 2005 state that education should aim to bring about commitment to democracy and its values of equality, justice, freedom, concern for others’ well-being, secularism, respect for human dignity and rights. It is said that education should aim to build a commitment to these values, which are based on reason and understanding. However, the notorious regime of the Nazis shook humanity when their education, in the words of Wiesel, ‘…emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience’. The above two views indicate the possibilities of education becoming a means to either virtuous or vicious ends, despite the claim that education is a normative pursuit. Determining factors in stopping education used as instrument for creating a chauvinist and undemocratic society is to promote all qualities antagonistic to irrationalism, bigotry, injustice, ignorance and atrocities. How is this possible? The deciding factors of this possibilities heavily shoulder on many attributes of teacher in general and in particular the attribute of being a critical individual. However this attribute does not thrive in isolation but depend on many other factors. How is it possible to realize aims of education without these attributes imbedded in teacher and then cultivated by student? How is it possible to bring about critical and autonomous individuals through education when the teacher is himself not a critical individual? Can we teach or train someone to be critical?
A visionary document like the National Curriculum Framework for Teachers Education (NCFTE), 2010 regards teachers as individuals who critically examine curriculum and textbooks, do not treat knowledge as a ‘given’, are embedded in the curriculum and accept it without questioning, a reflective practitioner who questions one’s own practice and thoughts, who view learning as a search for meaning out of personal experiences and knowledge generation as a continuously evolving process of reflective learning. According to this document, all these attributes can be realized if both students and teachers get the opportunity to inculcate understanding the self and others, one’s beliefs, assumptions, emotions and aspirations. Develop habits and the capacity for self-directed learning, have time to think, reflect, assimilate and articulate new ideas. But, this vision is far from being realized. The realities in the school are steeply different from the vision. It is a matter of grave concern. Various researches and publications regarding the learning level of students and the quality of B.Ed. institutes confirms these concerns.
The characteristics that aggravate these concerns are played out in rhetoric manner as well as in subtle ways. Both rhetoric and subtle spectacle are shared and understand as a majority views in teacher’s community. Many of the teachers’ views about students, education, learning, and teachers are very much
the same. The similarity is not just limited to conceptual understanding but the exactness of language used by the teacher community as well. For example –
Regarding students – Bacche teen prakar ke hote hain – hoshiyar , saamanya aur bhondu; Sab bacche alag-alag hote hain/paachon ungliyan barabar nahin hoti hain; Humare paas jo bacche aate hain, unka base kharab hai…
Regarding education – Pehle toh sab kuch bahut accha tha/hum toh aise hi padhe hain; Acchi shiksha ka matlab hai – pratiyogi-pariksha pass karna aur naukri lagna; Sarkari school mein wo bacche aate hain jinme shiksha ki bhuk nahin hoti/MDM ke liye aate hain…
Regarding learning – Bacche tabhi seekhenge jab hum unhe sikhaenge; Jab tak maa-baap padhe-likhe nahin hote, bacche nahin seekh sakte; Jab tak bacchon par pareeksha/fail/dandit hone ka darr nahin hoga, tab tak wo nahin seekhenge; Seekhna hamesha anushaasan ke maahaul mein hota hai; Baar-baar dohraane se aatmsaad ho jaata hai…
Regarding teacher – Humko toh madari/bawarchi bana diya hai, Shikshak ke haath bandhe hue hote hain, Non-academic work hata dijiye toh gunvatta apne aap aa jayegi, Bacche tabhi seekhenge jab hum unhe sikhaenge.
The claim that most of the teachers share the same view might be an exaggeration but, the weightage lays in the fact that these are the views shared clearly and loudly in any teachers’ platform, be it teachers training, voluntary forums or one-to-one interaction. Counter-views hardly find space for deliberation. The manner in which the above views are shared is also quite inert. Teachers with years of experience and even newly appointed share the same views and same language.
Lack of coherence in the argument of the views is another intriguing character. For example, the same group of teachers which shares the view that ‘Bacche tabhi seekhenge jab hum unhe sikhaaenge’ also share the view that ‘Jab tak maa-baap padhe-likhe nahin hote, bacche nahin seekh sakte’. The former statement is spoken to convey the message that children cannot learn themselves and they would only learn when teachers taught them. There are two more underlying assumptions in this statement – that is child is not a natural learner and the teacher is the giver of knowledge, while the student the receiver. On the other hand, the latter statement stands by the opinion that the efforts by the teacher to make students learn do not matter unless the parents are not educated. Both the statements directly defeat one other. Why are so many teachers asking the wrong questions? Why are they not asking the necessary questions? For example, teachers who say ‘Abhi sab kharaab hai aur pehle toh sab kuch bahut accha tha’ would never care to ask and inquire which time period they mean as ‘the past’ and what is their definition of ‘accha’. If these notions are probed even a little, their vagueness is revealed. The ‘past’ and ‘accha’ traces back to mythology or a time period when education was not available for all it was merely an imperial objective.
However, disquieting the situation reveals that there are teachers who have unique and personalized, well-articulated views about children, education, learning and teachers. The vocabulary used by them reflects their emphatic view about children and a critical view about themselves. Their inquiries have a logical flow and are not arbitrary in nature. A dialectic conversation could be done with
them. The differences between these two groups of teachers can be identified from the way they frame their questions even though they work in the same system and face the same challenges and limitations. To be emphatic, their existential challenges are huge and so possibilities of clouding the concern of what ought to be, a perspective and abstract thought. The former group often ignores the right questions. A second order of questions is never asked. There is no difference seen in doing the right things right and doing the right things wrong. No difference is seen between education and indoctrination, schooling and educating, teaching and learning, instrumental and intrinsic value of education etc. The difficulty with encouraging critical thinking among teachers is succinctly pointed out by John Passmore. First, teachers have many beliefs which he is not prepared to submit to criticism. Second, even if the teacher is herself critical, there may be social pressure upon him not to admit that certain beliefs, practices and authorities can probably be examine in a critical spirit. The third arises from the problem that teacher training is very often not the kind which encourages in him the willingness to participate in critical discussion. But, to think critically is not possible unless we have sufficient knowledge and understanding about the content of the issue. Thus, these add another point to what Passmore has pointed out. The teacher’s lack of criticality could be due to lack of understanding about the aims of education, meaning and concept of education, children, teaching, learning and nature of knowledge.
Cognitivists understand critical thinking as a subset of three types of thinking: reasoning, making judgments and decisions, and problem solving. The faculty of reasoning, making judgments and problem solving are inherent human potentials that most teachers can nourish profoundly. These faculties are at odds with the factors that make it difficult for teachers to think critically (as mentioned above). These conflicts have however shaped some teachers’ perceptions in very precarious ways. Their opinions or arguments are far from being logical and their reasoning often falls prey to fallacies. There are cases where the relationship between premises and conclusions are hard to even draw up. Personal experiences are often generalized and further premises are built on this generalization. For example, teachers who are of the opinion that punishment is necessary say that they were punished in their school days and that is the reason they are where they are today. To this statement I would simple implore what A.S. Neil mentions in his book ‘Summerhill’ to respond to one of his audience – “My father used his slipper on me, and I don’t regret it, sir! I would not have been what I am today if I had not been beaten.” I never have the temerity to ask, “By the way, what exactly are you today.”
To qualify as a teacher is to possess respectable knowledge and understanding about subject content and pedagogy. Does having good understanding in pedagogy and subject content guarantee an individual to be a rational or logical thinker? The design and intervention of teacher education needs a new outlook. Significant understanding about andragogy is another area teacher educators should well-versed with. Logic, research and experience which are often considered as the tools for critical thinking should be an integral part of teacher professional development intervention plan. Also important are develop certain core understandings – Understanding if critical thinking can actually be taught; if critical thinking is a set of skills, imparting of facts, or cultivation of habits; how every domain be it Science, Language, History or Mathematic by nature is strongly imbedded and thrives in the landscape of argument and reason. Teacher educators should also know the importance of critical-thinking in improving the pedagogy of teachers – Understanding the vital role of being critical as a persona of an educated person; how aims of education is not attainable until this faculty is not an intrinsic quality of teacher; student and at large a means of discourse in the society. Need analysis or research to find the reasons why teachers are incapable of critical thinking is the right string to begin with. One has to break-down and understand the meaning of critical thinking because critical is often misrepresented as merely questioning everything.
Pre-service institutes have to take a transitional shift in educating student-teachers. Progress on teacher development in critical-thinking could be built as conscientization among teachers regarding the odds between the obstacle and the importance of critical thinking is done. Creating an environment where one is heard and transition from non-dialectic to dialectic conversation. The stakes are high and the teaching community cannot effort to dwell in this dilemma but have to implement an effective professional development plan for teachers to overcome the sorry state that we see today in our public education.
