District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States
children are to be taught. But the question is of feeling. Teaching should be
done as service, as worship (MP/DHA/T093 9.7.99)
A DIET lecturer in Dhar DIET summed up the key issue that he faced as a trainer;
and his view reflects the view of DIET staff in all the sample DIETs:
Many teachers come here for training but don’t use it in their classrooms. To
improve them we do monitoring and keep on telling them. We don’t have any
administrative power for that, the DIET’s work is only academic. We can only do
it through love and not through power. The reason I feel is this is about education
and I feel it could never be done through force. We can’t force someone that she has
to teach, if she wants to, she will. If a person doesn’t want to teach whatever you
tell him he will go to the class but do other work only. You have to give trainings
and through that you have to create interest and that is the meaning of training. I
understand that it is my biggest aim to create interest (MP/DHA/TT06 10.5.99).
The key to much of the lack of impact of DIET training lies in the second line of
this citation (italics added).
5.6 The model of in-service teacher education
The approach to teacher development described in this chapter falls within the
‘skills- and knowledge-based’ paradigm, which Hargreaves and Fullan (1992: 2)
identify as ‘the overwhelmingly dominant approach to planned teacher
development activity in modern school systems’ (see also NCTE, 1998).
Administrators tend to favour skills and knowledge approaches because they are
‘clearly focused, easily organised and packaged, and relatively self-contained’ (ibid,
p. 3). This approach also fits with a centralised approach to teacher development.
These accounts have shown that the programmes tend to be rather weak on skills
development, and stronger on knowledge development – although knowledge is
restricted to content knowledge.
Critics of programmes within this approach object to the assumption that it is
appropriate to impose them on teachers on a top-down basis by external “experts”.
This approach is liable to fail to involve teachers sufficiently to secure their
commitment, particularly since ‘little value is placed on teachers’ own practical
knowledge in the development of classroom skills’ (ibid, p. 3). McNiff (1991) argues
that this approach treats teachers as nothing more than ‘technicians’, expecting them
to implement the ideas of others rather than develop their ‘craft knowledge’.
Comments from teachers also illustrate that teachers are dissatisfied with training
that does not relate to their needs, experience or take local context into account.
110 DFID