It is said that Abhimanyu, son of the great warrior, Arjun and who in death attained immortality, learnt the art of entering the “chakravyuha” while still in his mother’s womb. It is my personal view that the age of Mahabharat was much more advanced than we are today, that they possessed even fusion weapons and that they had literally reached astronomical heights in exploring the universe. However the intention of this article is not to establish such contentions but to get back to Abhimanyu’s precociousness. That a mother’s womb could very well be the place where a child’s learning can begin is not without scientific support as even many modern researchers have established an element of truth in such a possibility.
Whereas the Indian Government rests the onus of education for 6 upwards squarely on the education sector it is still hesitant about such responsibilities for the 0-6 age group. Neurology has definite scientific evidence as to the critical stages of brain development during the period as is discussed in the NCF focus group paper.
“Constructivist approaches to cognitive development have recently been combined with theories of brain development within the framework of Neuro-constructivism”§.
The more one delves into the working of the human brain the more it becomes mind boggling. There are “critical periods”, “plasticity” and “sensitive periods” and what not that facilitate learning. There are theories and counter theories. But even to a layman it is evident that language acquisition is in early childhood when uninhibited the child learns the contextual usages and applies with ease. As a mathematics teacher for about 35 years I have always insisted that a child learns and retains the knowledge of the subject through the language with which the symbols were associated. To remember context in terms of symbols is restrictive and reduces the ability to apply the rules conveyed by them. It is therefore more prudent to convert into language associations that are closer to the real world for the child in its first level of learning and therefore more meaningful. The rules rise to the occasion of application more spontaneously then.
It is heartening to note that such field experiences are endorsed by research as quoted below:
“In the case of numeracy, at least three systems must be integrated (Carey & Sarnecka, 2006): an attentional system for tracking a small number of objects in parallel, a system for representing analogue magnitudes, and a language-based system for representing number words, sequences, and facts”§.
“In numeracy, children build the number words of their first language into the emerging number system. Once this system is formed, if children learn a subsequent language, the previous language cannot be readily ‘unplugged’ from its role in encoding number facts – adult bilinguals generally find they have to resort to their first acquired language for mental arithmetic”§.
The counter theories always substantiate with exceptions to generalization. However that one should catch them young cannot be ignored since it facilitates much easier learning in the later stages. The resistance is definitely increased beyond normal neuroplasticity periods. Also peer learning is a positive contributor in enhancing learning skills as has been endorsed in the reference article:
“Learning in a social context may be one factor that permits later learning of abilities associated with sensitive periods”§.
This is where the education sector has to step in and take over the responsibility in a big way. Having established that the critical periods start as early as two and a half years of age of the child the system of receiving them by three years of age and inducting them in to social processes of learning is a healthy notion.
But the most important is about what should be taught. The malady in the present scenario is a sector that is wrought by unprofessionalism. Statistics has it that out of 158 million child population below the age of 6 only 19.4 million in the age group of 3-5, is receiving preschool education. Even among them there is a mixed piecemeal approach. Many are mushroom institutions who believe in “teaching as much as possible as early as possible” without scientific foundations. Also parents have to pay a huge fee for an education which is just a beginning of a long journey. The affordability in itself is a deterrent for many.
I recall a paper which I presented in 1994 in a Principals’ conference for KV Principals wherein I had suggested that Kendriya Vidyalayas should take children before the age of 5 and have atleast one year program of school readiness. There have been attempts at running preprimary classes in a few of its schools but no holistic efforts were made to make it systemic. Had it fructified it could have succeeded in bringing more children into the fold.
It is not my intention to sermonize. Neither is it my intention to point out that there have been no concerns nor that no initiatives have been taken. The NCF focus group paper on the subject is indeed a comprehensive document with recommendations across ministries that have far reaching consequences for educating nursing mothers to children below 6.
A lot has therefore to be done. A curriculum has to be evolved by taking a wide cross section of experts on board. There should be neurologists, psychologists, educationists, teachers, parents and of course the policy makers of the Government. Much time has already been lost. We produce either nil or unrealistic educational outcomes for the age group which is a potential wealth of the country. Whatever has to be done should be put on fast track so that the rich human resources the country has, can be nurtured into maximum potentiality.
Commenti