The Hoshangabad Vigyan (Science Today 1977) Over the past five years, two voluntary agencies in the Hoshangabad District of Madhya Pradesh, Friends Rural Centre, Rasulia, and Kishore Bharati, Malhanwada (via Bankhedi) have conducted what may be called a pioneering experiment in science education in village schools. The experiment involved the teachers and children of 16 village schools of Hoshangabad district, and the emphasis was on ‘learning by discovery’. But it was soon discovered, the phrase can remain a seminar cliché, unless educational innovations take the socio-economic factors into account. Here is the report on the Hoshangabad Science Education Programme jointly prepared by the Delhi University Science Teaching Group, Friends Rural Centre, Rasulia and Kishore Bharati. It was examination time. Bhaiyalal sat memorising hard. The topic was, ‘Preparation of Oxygen.’ Parrot-like he repeated. ‘One by heating glass. Two by heating potassium permagnate. Three by heating….’ The possibility of glass releasing oxygen was something new for us. The boy insisted, ‘Guruji told us that glass, when heated, well gave off oxygen.’ His class notes daily corrected by the teacher confirmed his statement. We were puzzled. Going through his textbook, the mystery was solved. It said that oxygen can be prepared by heating the oxide of lead (seesa in Hindi). The teacher applied his ingenuity to interpret ‘seesa’ as ‘sheesha’ (meaning glass). From ‘sheesha’ to kanch (glass) was the next step. The ‘oxide’ fell on the wayside. Takhat Singh was a brilliant student. The teacher liked to present him as an example to any visitor. One day we visited Takhat’s school. With his teacher looking proudly on, he rattled off the names of different parts of a flower: calyx, corolla, anthers, stamens, gynaecium, carpels…onwards to nucleus (Hindi equivalent’s of course). However, when a flower was placed before him, he was stumped. Some children sat drawing circles of different diameters with the help of their compasses. The teacher had trained them well. A casual question was posed by one of us, ‘Can you draw a circle of 4-feet diameter?’ The whole class looked dumbfounded. The school had taught them to draw circles using only a compass. A compass had its limits. ‘If you had to dig a well, 4-feet in diameter, how would you begin?’ we prompted. The young faces lit up, ‘That’s easy – using a peg and a string!’ They confidently sat about demonstrating their skill. The incidents described above were some of the first hand observations made by us in some village schools in Madhya Pradesh. This illustrates a serious malady in the teaching of science in rural schools. (Urban schools fare, perhaps, just a bit better!) In our perspective of rural development, a wide-ranging attack on such significant gaps between expectations and reality in education occupies a prominent place. Why does a child have to memorise a whole range of disconnected and irrelevant facts in the name of science? These facts often make little sense to the teachers themselves and are seldom remembered beyond the examination. What use is terminology, which conveys nothing beyond imposing words? What use is education, which builds up barriers between classroom learning and real life experiences? What use is information if it cannot be applied to solving practical problems? We are faced with some stark facts. First, knowledge is growing exponentially. No one is expected to know or retain any significant fraction of it. Secondly, it is generally accepted that 60 to 70 percent of village children do not enter the school system or drop out at an early age. To those who do manage to continue, a mere one-fifth enter high school in rural areas. Our present education is mainly designed for those privileged few. This, to us, was a contradiction. The focus of education, we felt, should be to prepare the vast majority, which drops out midway for facing the tough school of earning a livelihood. Educational objectives, thus, need to be re-defined in this perspective. Science education must aim at developing skills and attitudes, which enable students to learn directly from their environment and experiences. Such ideas were concretised in a proposal we presented to the Director of Public Instruction at Bhopal in February 1972. We were apprehensive. We had no locus standi in the field of school education. The pre-eminence of professional and resourceful organisations like the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), State Institutes of Science Education engaged in the task of improving science teaching was fully recognized by us. There was a plus factor, however. We had sought and received the support of Mr. B.G. Pitre, and Mr. C.K. Dikshit of the All India Science Teacher’s Association (AISTA) Physics Study Group and Prof Yash Pal and Mr. V. G. Kulkarni of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay. They had conducted pioneering trials in introducing the discovery approach to the learning of physics in a few Public and Municipal schools. Building upon their experience, we intended to test the feasibility of the discovery approach under village conditions. We would also cover all science subjects, utilizing the environment as a source of learning. Children, our proposal stated, should learn science by performing experiments with their own hands, recording their observations, and deriving independent conclusions through discussions with their classmates and teachers. They should be encouraged to ask questions, critically examine evidence and analyse new situations that might arise. Rote learning of facts and definitions should be ruled out. Storage of information must not be the sole criterion of learning. The teacher would cease to be the fountainhead of all knowledge. His role, instead, would be that of a guide and helper. This meant that traditional barriers of syllabus, teaching methods, textbooks, teacher student relationships and school administration would emerge from the day-to-day experiences of the teachers and children, not from the scholarly expectations of city based experts. The demands of the examination system would also have to undergo a radical change in keeping with the new objectives. We sought freedom to do that. The State Government gave us permission to experiment in 16 middle schools, nine around Friends Rural Centre in Hoshangabad Block, and seven around Kishore Bharati in Bankheri Block. The schools and the teachers were selected randomly to ensure representative conditions. The State and the District education authorities assured full co-operation. The continuous backing and unhesitating freedom given by the Government of Madhya Pradesh has not only been the cornerstone of the programme, but at times also its inspiration. This quality and extent of the Government support to a voluntary group for experimenting with school education within its own structure is perhaps without precedence in the country. And, thus, the experiment began. ENCOUNTERS WITH TEACHERS The morning of 25 May 1972 saw an unsure faculty facing an apprehensive group of 34 teachers. The first Orientation Course had begun. There was no inauguration, no fanfare. The District Education Officer (DEO) had warned us that most of the teachers had studied only up to high school and had little or no science background. The older ones joined service after middle school. Only four or five were graduates, one in science. The ice was broken by a question, “What do you find lacking in the present education system?” A lively dialogue was sparked off. It soon petered out into an uneasy silence with the arrival of the DEO. After an awkward pause, a teacher stood up and asked reverently, “If Sa’ab will not be offended, may I make a humble submission?” “Yes, yes”, the DEO encouraged. “Could we not recreate the mood of the assembly, which existed before DEO Sa’ab joined us?” the teacher dared. Despite his appeal and the DEO’s encouragement, the openness of the earlier discussion could not be reestablished. That was our first taste of the hierarchical structure of the Education Department, which stifles communications and feedback from the grassroots to the planners. Only a year later, however, the same teachers took the visit of the State Education Minister in their stride. His arrival caused only a minor flutter. The teachers continued to perform the experiments even when the Minister stopped at their tables to observe them. Today these teachers can participate in uninhibited discussions with senior administrators, educationists, scientists and NCERT representatives. The faculty had created an informal and open atmosphere from the very beginning. Small things like serving food and eating in the same pangat had their own significance. When teachers were reluctant to try out new experiments which appeared too simple, Prof. Yash Pal’s “ Yar, kar ke to dekho” with a friendly pat on the back made all the difference. The faculty even shocked many of the teachers by announcing that they were free to smoke bidis in the hall itself. Throughout the 21- day Course, the teachers had free access to kit materials and books. For the first time in their experience of such courses (some had been through many), they were actually doing experiments. They were perplexed that these experiments could be performed with simple items like thread, balloons, rubber bands, paper clips, buttons and kulhads (Earthen cups). The basic issues of the discovery approach soon began surfacing. For example, discussing plant life in a biology session, a teacher-farmer raised a question, “ How do fertilizers in soil reach the leaves?” At once, an experiment was planned. A twig was cut and placed in red ink solution. Half an hour later, the leaf veins turned red. The conclusion was obvious. But one teacher was sceptical, “How can we be sure? Perhaps the veins turned red because we cut the twig.