Credit & Semester : Politics of Choice

Credit & Semester : Politics of Choice

The implementation of the Choice Based Credit and Semester System (CBCSS)  in the state has been the subject of analysis in a number of forums.  A lot of ink and hours were spent on speculating the need or otherwise of the system, especially when the wheel of governance changed hands in the state. Finally a Higher Education Council initiated enquiry by a committee headed by Prof: Hridayakumari and now the analyses of the Hridayakumari Committee Report is on. Though the public and often politics induced scrutiny of the major decisions and recommendation are to be welcomed democratically, the intent of the same in the final analysis have to be weeding out of the incompetent parts, correcting the anomalies and adding relevances. The political and media exercises often viz-a-viz the Hrdayakumari Committee Report makes one speculate as to the gains made so far. 

Switch of administration bred by change of governments and the follow up rethink in most matters related to the former dispensation is a common enough experience in our country. Occasionally it helps to straighten a politically motivated scheme put in place by the previous regime. But not always. Though the bringing of the CCSS to the public discussion table was necessary for many reasons, what has transpired since then doesn’t augur well for the higher education scenario in the state. 

It can’t escape the peering eyes of any academician that CCSS has a number of glaring lacunae. Like any other system there has to continuous evaluation of the system and periodic changes input. Rather than that, the immediate concern seems to be in addressing those rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

CBCSS Post- Hridayakumari committee 

The Hridayakumari committee was instituted by the Kerala State Higher Education Council (KSHE) to study the issues concerning the working of the CBCSS system in the colleges affiliated to universities in Kerala and to recommend improvements. This happened immediately after the assumption of power by the newly elected UDF government and the erection of a nominated syndicate in the University of Calicut.

The report has different sections, including the core which is a problem and solution section. The media has recently gone to town with the news that the government has accepted the Hrdayakumari committee report and the 11 point recommendations of the committee. It is painful to note that none of the agencies have taken genuine effort to run a value-check of the recommendations. The report has 11 points, but the question is whether there are 11 actionable recommendations. This is an attempt to scan the Hrdayakumari Committee Report (HCR) and weigh the recommendations and see how far the effort of the committee has helped improve the CBCSS as it exists now:

Problem 1: Numbers:

The report rightly underscores the unmanageable number of students per batch in college sections. As the numbers vary from 45 to 120 (especially when we consider the number of students In combined classes for English and Additional Languages like Malayalam , Arabic and Hindi), it is a violation of the norms recommended by the UGC which is 30. The report states that this ‘large numbers affect the semester system in many ways’.

The skewed proportion forces the teachers to stick to lecture mode avoiding interactive modes, disables the running of tutorial sessions to supplement classroom learning, blunts the efficacy of grading the assignments, resulting in grade inflations ultimately, the committee finds.

Solution: 

To solve this the Hrdayakumari committee recommends that the colleges adhere to the UGC recommended 1: 30 teacher student ratio. It further states that the CBCSS mode should be implemented in select Centres of Excellence and the year mode be enforced in the rest of the institutions with ‘wider choice of subjects… approximating CBCSS’.

Probing the solution:

The solution that the UGC recommended teacher - student ratio be religiously stuck to is quite significant. But then, how does one comprehend the recommendation of the syndicate of the Calicut University for marginal increase in the UG seats! Especially when the member of the syndicate happens to be a member of the Hrdayakumari committee too!! 

The student strength of the language classes is indeed funny. When it is felt that there has to be restriction of some kind in the core classes, the feeling that language classes can carry a payload of 120 students and still expect the teacher to deliver results is incomprehensible. When student engagement through interaction and participation are the mantra of the current day teaching scenario, large classes are a prescription for failure. 

The ‘Centres of Excellence’ argument fail to impress on a couple of grounds. Firstly, though UGC has championed the promotion of Centres of Excellence in a different context, it also recommends CBCSS in all colleges. Secondly, the promotion of certain elite centres, with ideal student- teacher proportion and upgraded syllabi, caters to the exclusionist agenda and denies more than it provides. The kind of double curricula which breed two kinds of  citizens is hardly the result which the previous dispensation was looking for when they spent a couple of years to effect  a massive overhauling of the Under graduate curriculum. Again, how far does an year-wise format ‘approximate’ the semester wise mode, when the two systems are quite wide apart in terms of what it offers to the learner and the teacher? For sure, ‘approximation’ is a relative term!

Problem 2 :  Time

The actual shortage of working days available in a semester, compared to the ideal length of 90 working days, is a major deterrent in the implementation of CBCSS. The number of working days a lucky college will have in a semester will be 45-55 at the maximum. The Committee feels that the examination-induced hurry of the teacher to meet the portion-wise deadline results in quality dilution. Since the reference and self study habits are rare among our learners, the impact of loss of time is serious.

Solution:

The committee argues that no solution is possible in the ‘present social and political environment’. The changes suggested later in the report in the course and examination pattern are recommended can help address this issue, it states. 

Probing the solution:

Once again the concern is very genuine as Kerala ranks high in terms of holidays enjoyed for a suite of causes which range from downright laughable to relevantly political. But was the situation different when we got a whole year? Were not some teachers running through their work and rushing their lessons in the year mode too? Aren’t there lots of teachers who even today finish their work, run model examination and ready their students for the semester end examinations? Do we have to follow the wrong models and run down a system in terms of the teething troubles which are natural in the early years, especially when those were the evils which plagued the year wise system even after decades? 

Time is a genuine issue but the solution has to be in finding time, rationalizing the content prescribed and in promoting other avenues of content transaction. For instance, the report makes an oblique reference to the poor skills of self reference. Can’t the colleges / Higher Education Council (KSHEC) make an effort to improve on that? One of the skills globally recommended is the capacity of the learner to learn. Learning to learn has to be promoted and the KSHEC can take the lead in it. If the students could be educated to play a proactive role in ensuring quality learning, the student community will see to it that the lessons are taught, taught well and taught on time. Is it not one of the prime responsibilities of the higher education bodies to correct the ‘college culture’, viz-a-viz this holiday surplus?

Problem 3: Language

Because of the global connectivity the language promises, English ‘rightly’ remains the language of higher education after six decades of independence, reports the Committee. Post +2, most of our students are poor in English, except the ‘CBSE stream students’. Little change, if any, happens when they move to colleges. Consequently, the ‘endless assignments and test papers’ promote the use of bad English. Since evaluation and correction are ‘not’ possible, ‘bad language becomes accepted’. As reference books and text books are beyond the reach of the students, the students may depend on ‘low quality market notes’.

Solution: 

The solution, Hridaya Kumari Committee contents, ‘lies at the school level’.

Probing the solution:

Though the drooping curve of the entry level English of higher undergraduate students is a big concern, it would be quite immature to conclude that poor quality English is made poorer by the ‘endless tests and assignments’! We have always had, so far, in our colleges, large English classes. Grading is difficult, but not impossible. Checking their assignments is possible, correction too is possible. There are teachers who do it well too. What needs to be thought about are the nature of the assignments to be given, the modes of evaluation. A student who undergoes a UG programme can make incremental progress and achieve tangible success with effective teacher intervention. The prime void when the CBCSS was implemented was that it was really long on planning, but short on teacher empowerment in terms of evaluation and classroom transaction. It is very difficult to accept the argument that poor student using poor English for assignments and test will be poorer in English, end of the day!

If the text books and reference works are beyond the reach of the students, is it not the responsibility of the bodies concerned to take measures to bring it closer? With the resources and power at the disposal, is it hard for the KSHEC to make it happen? KSHEC must take the call on the matter. The effort being undertaken by IT mission in schools is an eye opener and the KSHEC should follow the lead.

Problem 4: syllabi and text books

As far as content is concerned, except the demand to include more contemporary topics by science teachers, there were no complaints from science and commerce teachers. Regarding social sciences and humanities, complaints vary from syllabus being very heavy to very light. Particular target was English (core) and Malayalam (core) papers. The choice of text books like ‘Oxford Practice Grammar’ (OUP) was criticized as better Indian versions are available, the committee reveals. Other concerns included ‘propagandist’ elements in the text books of certain universities, omission of British History as complementary for English (core), the multiplicity of reference list under various titles like further reading , essential reading, additional reference etc .

Solution:

The Hridayakumari report wants boards of studies to be activated and the interest of the teachers to be seriously input. It suggests that department meetings be held and boards of studies be connected to them. Boards should regularly connect with students, renowned Indian and foreign universities and identify subject experts in all areas.

Probing the solution:

Pre or post Hrdayakumari committee, the Boards of studies should network themselves with the academia. Keeping in line with the nature of responsibility, the boards must be competent not only to reach at right decisions regarding the choice of content, but also in spreading the word about it to the academic community around. When the selection to the boards is political, rather than academic, the disconnect between what is prescribed by the board and what is teachable in the class may be wide apart.

It is a welcome suggestion that students participation be emphasized. But in many colleges already there is a mechanism in which the principal and the Heads connect with the students. Perhaps this could be more structured and systematized. Updation of knowledge bases, awareness of what’s happening around in the academia nationally and internationally is a standard necessity. CBCSS or Year Programme, this is pretty cardinal. Any valid stakeholder in any serious project needs to be informed.

Problem  5 : Courses (papers)

According to the Committee, the variety, which accords CBCSS a unique merit, is its distraction. If science departments are happy with the way things are in CBCSS, the Humanities & Social Sciences are not. It recommends cutting down on number of courses and adding more substance and questions the rationale behind ‘some’ of the complementary programmes and open courses. The committee has realized the scathing criticism of methodology course in semester 1. Infromatics is the need of the hour, but lack of systems, inadequate knowledge of teachers and the theory heavy modules pose pertinent questions.

Solution:

The committee recommendations include reduction in number of papers, establishing parity in terms of core papers cutting across science and Humanities, increasing the choice of complementaries and open courses and considering academic and social realities while courses are designed. It wants informatics depts with sufficient computer back up and teacher strength and making the course compulsory for sciences and elective for others. Moreover the methodology papers should be dropped across subjects at UG level. But the course can happen at PG levels as UG students are not ‘mature or knowledgeable’ to take this in.

Probing the solution:

Even in the year based system, no such a parity of papers / courses exist. For instance, the commerce stream has more number of papers. The same is true in certain science subjects too. When what is to be learnt depends on a host factors related to the subjects concerned, how prudent is it to impose a rigid uniform pattern irrespective of the subjects ?

Parts of the reports seem to be in conflict with each other as the abundance seems to be the problem identified in certain areas, shortage it is in certain other points! A report that blames the CBCSS for its paper-heavy nature is also recommending an increase in papers. And the divorce between academic and social realities are concerned is an old story. Since when have we really started connecting them? Colleges are begun in the month of December often, courses are started in January, examinations are held in March and evaluations done in January next and so on. Good if the governments /  syndicates can make changes happen.

As far as the issue of variety in open courses is concerned, the version of CBCSS in practice is not the ultimate version with no additions and improvements possible. This has to happen periodically for the system to be made meaningful. Moreover, the actual plan was to slowly spread the open courses into all semesters. The system in place already has room for these choices.

Offering informatics to the students without adequate lab back up is certainly pouring water on duck’s back. A theory specialist in an area like Informatics serves no purpose in a subject which is measured in terms of its application. Hence the recommendation is fully appreciable.

But the concern that the learner competence outstrips the teachers is no reason to kick Informatics out. The only way out is to empower the teachers in the area. It would be an interesting fight to see the teachers grappling with a technologically savvy generation. But if this is cited as a reason for turning their backs on technology, the teachers are simply being allowed to be anachronistic. And hence when Informatics is made optional, it would be like making wheels for a car accessory. Can responsible academia permit that?

Methodology paper’s position in the CBCSS scheme of things could be reviewed. In fact meaningful review is possible regarding any cog in the CBCSS wheel. The recommendation to do away with it altogether, blaming the immaturity and incompetence of students defies understanding. If the system have been feeding the UG learners with light content and thus making them used to predigested food for thought, it is time somebody reversed the trend. It would be insulting the intelligence of the learners to argue that methodology paper is beyond the ken of the UG students. The fact is more reflective of the incompetence of the teachers in delivering it in ways in which the concepts could be taught and equally of the failure to deliver user friendly materials and text books.

Problem 6: Examinations

Moving to examinations, the committee talks of the over-examinations faced by the students. A student is supposed to do 2 assignments, 1 seminar presentation and 2 internal tests as part of Continuous Assessment. This would mean 30 assignments in 90 days. In actual practice, may be in 45-50 days. This leads to over-examination and the follow up stress. Also, malpractice abounds and even the teachers seem to be very liberal. Almost all students easily make the cut since none scores less than 20% in the allotted 25%.

Work pressure makes the teacher lax in discipline, internal evaluation wastes time and effort of the teacher since the students’ group strength is high. Moreover, Multiple choice question promote only memory retention and ‘plagiarism’.

Solution:

Reduction in the number of tests and assignments is suggested by the committee. Also, the internal evaluation be done away with till the ideal teacher – student ratio exists.

Probing the solution:

30 assignments is a mammoth task if every assignment is taken as one of, say 3 page length or something. The figure is not at all a challenging task if one understands that assignments could be of different type and of differing length. Any kind of classroom work can be an assignment. The stress on ‘heaviness’ of the assignment is for sure a reflection of a fallacious understanding of the word.

Is a student over-tested if he / she is tested twice in a 4 month span? Again, the nature of the test be can be contested, length and weightage may vary. There were teachers who conducted 4 or more tests an year in the year format. They occasionally went also for micro, month wise tests. Finally, the number of internal test can be cut down, but the argument that it is a heavy number is hard to stomach.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) pose a problem since the answers could be easily spread in the examination hall, especially when the vigilance of the invigilators is slack. It could be scrapped. But an equally positive stand will be to make sure that the MCQs are quality ones.

One wonders whether the idea of putting the internal testing off till the ideal ratio is brought in is a very creative one.

Problem 7: External Evaluation

The committee realizes that frequency of University Examinations takes away considerable teaching time and contributes to excessive work load for the examination wing, delaying results. The short space of a semester hardly provides a chance for a student to grow into a topic. Splicing of a subject into modules covered in 60 odd  days doesn’t do justice to the topic. In the rush of a semester after another, students forget the previous semester.

Solution:

The Hridayakumari committee felt that a 180 day / combined semester for core and compulsory language papers is recommended. The semester pattern has to be in place for the rest of the papers.

Probing the solution:

The solution sounds pretty odd! The recommendation is for a breed which has the dual features of both the CBCSS and the year system. One can just wonder aloud as to what the progeny of such mixed breed would be! For sure, this recommendation takes the cake!

Problem 8: Grading

In grading bandwidth, the committee suggests changes. Too broad a band- width like 62.5 to 87.5 for grade B, for instance, is not advisable as it violates spirit of fair play. Hence, the system should switch to a 7 point grading ranking system. The fairness of the grading can be further ensured introducing a software.

Probing the solution:

The truth of the CBCSS system, and for that matter for any system, is that it could be reworked, rebadged, realigned. If there are components which cry out for reformation, then the system is always for that. Hence a switch form 5 point to 7 point is always welcome if that could usher in better clarity and fairness.

CBCSS is still in its infancy in the state of Kerala. The ease of the system will increase once the familiarity is established. When a teacher encounters a new mode of marking, for sure the teacher will be resisting the changes, all the more when the changes are thorough. The software suggestion is completely welcome and the complaint that the clerical work load is on the rise can be stalled with that.