District Institutes of Education and Training - Teacher Education

District Institutes of Education and Training: A Comparative Study in Three Indian States
teaching-learning materials reflected the problems encountered also by DPEP,
where in keeping with the content-dominant model of teaching, teaching-learning
materials have themselves become content - an end in themselves, rather than a
means to support learning. DIET staff themselves needed support in relating
teaching-learning materials to their pedagogical uses.
In-service programmes, field interaction and innovation co-ordination
(IFIC)
The IFIC branch conducts in-service training programmes that are not directly
related to a particular branch, such as the national programme of Special
Orientation for Primary Teachers, Action Research workshop for teachers,
orientation programmes or resource persons of in-service programmes, etc. This
branch was active in all DIETs and is discussed in detail in chapter 5.
Work experience department (WE)
In all the DIETs in our sample, the WE branch had a very low profile. In Udaipur
DIET, it was acknowledged that teachers attend programmes for the sake of it, and
application in the field is negligible. This notion of work experience can be traced
back to Mahatma Gandhi’s idea of Basic Education which intended to dignify
manual labour and give it a place in the formal school curriculum; it has been carried
forward through Socially Useful and Productive Work in pre-service training (the
activity of which, in keeping with the Gandhian tradition, has often been spinning).
There is a need to reconceptualise work experience within the contemporary context.
3.5.2 Understandings of the functions of the branches, and of the DIET
In Madhya Pradesh, there were nominally 11 branches. The research team found
however that, in common with Udaipur DIET in Rajasthan, this had little
meaning for DIET staff as there were gaps in staff ’s understandings about the
functions of the branches, as well as the intention of the DIET as an institute.
Some staff lacked familiarity with the aims and intentions of the branch in which
they worked, or their roles within it. The further away the branch from ‘traditional’
training pre-occupations, the less faculty members seemed to comprehend it.
Everyone in the DIET was fully aware of the functions of the pre-service branch;
but the roles and functions of, for example, Planning & Management and of the
Curriculum and Materials Development branches were poorly understood, both
by its own members and by other faculty as well. The training role of the DIET
was familiar but other aspects, such as proactive outreach into the District,
programme evaluation, and action research, were not readily cited.
Where there were limited understandings of roles, staff members were unable to
be proactive in developing the profile of their branch. This left them
DFID 63