Interchange

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 219–235 | Cite as

A Report on the Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program in India

  • Ravinder Koul
Article

Abstract

The Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program has been a grassroots curriculum reform effort to contextualize science instruction in the locality of the Hoshingabad district, Madhya Pradesh, India. This report examines the discrepancies between multiple curriculum representations within the context of this science curriculum innovation. The paper concludes that local interpretations of the nature of science have in fact been an impediment to what seemed to be a valid, locally relevant science instruction.

Science education educational change cultural factors India Curriculum textbooks evaluation report teacher education HSTP NCERT 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson, C.W., Holland, J.D., & Palinesar, A.S. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 359–83Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D.L. & Cohen, D. (1996). Reform by the book: What is — or might be — the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, R. & Milburn, G. (1990). A critical dictionary of educational concepts (2nd ed.). Toronto: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, D.K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–17.Google Scholar
  5. DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dumont, L. (1980). Homo hierarchicus — The caste system and its implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eklavya (1995). Eklavya — An introduction. Bhopal: Eklavya.Google Scholar
  8. Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). Toronto: OSIE Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fuller, C.J. (1996). (Ed.). Caste today, Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hepburn, G. & Gaskell, P.J. (1998). Teaching a new science and technology course: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 777–789.Google Scholar
  11. Hollingsworth, S. & Sockett, H.T. (1994). Positioning teacher research in educational reform: An introduction. In S. Hollingsworth & H.T. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1–21). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program (HSTP). (1996a). Hoshingabad Vigyan Shikshan Kariyakaram — Ek Dastavej. Bhopal: Eklavya.Google Scholar
  13. Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program (HSTP). (1996b). Hoshingabad Vigyan Shikshan Kariyakaram — Prashan Bank. Bhopal: Eklavya.Google Scholar
  14. Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program (HSTP). (1994). Bal Vigyanik Kaksha Chah. Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh Padhyapustak Nigam.Google Scholar
  15. Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program (HSTP). (1984, July). The lessons of change. India Today, 120–122.Google Scholar
  16. Hoshingabad Science Teaching Program (HSTP). (1977, December). The Hoshingabad Vigyan — A unique adventure in rural science teaching. Science Today, 13–23.Google Scholar
  17. Koul, R. (1997a). Contextualized science? An Indian experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College.Google Scholar
  18. Koul, R. (1997b). School science in India: Curriculum developers/textbook authors' perspectives. Electronic Journal of Science Education, Retrieved November 5, 2001, from http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejsev2n2.html.Google Scholar
  19. Kumar, K. (1987). Curriculum, psychology and society. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(12), 507–512.Google Scholar
  20. Kumar, K. (1986). Textbooks and educational culture. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(3), 1309–1311.Google Scholar
  21. Kopf, D. (1969). British orientalism and the Bengal renaissance: The dynamics of Indian modernization 1773–1835. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Metz, M.H. (1988). Some missing elements in the educational reform movement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(4), 446–460.Google Scholar
  24. Miles, M.B., & Hubberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (1991). Science and mathematics education for the future. New Delhi: NCERT.Google Scholar
  26. National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (1988). National curriculum for elementary and secondary education — A framework. New Delhi: NCERT.Google Scholar
  27. National Policy of Education (NPE). (1986, rev.1992). National Policy of Education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  28. Ogawa, M. (1998). A cultural history of science education in Japan: An epic description. In W.W. Cobern (Ed.), Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: An international dialogue (pp. 139–161). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Prakash, G. (1999). Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Raina, V. (1997). The ‘seekhna-Sikhana’ approach in Madhya Pradesh. Retrieved November 5, 2001, from http://www.ashanet.org/library/articles/seekhna_seekhana.1997html.Google Scholar
  31. Ramanathan, S. & Siddiqi, N. (1994). Representation of science in upper primary science textbooks: An assessment. Indian Educational Review, 29(1–2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  32. Sadgopal, A. (1996). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  33. Sadgopal, A. (1991). A note submitted to the HSTP evaluation committee. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India.Google Scholar
  34. Ulichny, P. & Schoener, W. (1996). Teacher-researcher collaboration from two perspectives. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 496–521.Google Scholar
  35. Zachariah, M. & Sooryamoorthy, R. (1994). Science in participatory development. London: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ravinder Koul
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationPennsylvania State University — Great ValleyMalvernU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations