Language and Language Teaching, Issue 2 - Azim Premji Foundation

even academic authorities lack an understandingof CCE. In these circumstances, the work of ateacher is limited to that of mechanicallymaintaining different kinds of records andregisters, instead of thinking about teachinglearningand assessment in a comprehensivefashion. Further, the limited infrastructure, thehigh pupil teacher ratios in many schools andthe burden of covering the syllabus and compilingthese registers, constrain them from reflectingon CCE and realizing their pedagogicimaginations. As a result, there is a huge gapbetween how CCE (or for that matter anychange) has been conceptualised and how it isbeing implemented.These discussions were taken forward in thesecond session by identifying some of the broadconcerns CCE seeks to address – thepsychological burden, the increasing competitiveand commercialised ethos in education, the lackof freedom and equity, and the contradictionsof ‘objective’ assessments. The assessmentsystems followed at the University levels and inother countries were also discussed, particularlyto highlight the overall educational experienceof a learner and its emotional and intellectualimpression on her personality. From the firstday’s sessions it emerged that although teachersappreciate the vision of CCE, the conditions inwhich they work do not allow them to be ableto ‘implement’ or practice it properly.The second day’s session began with a reflectionon some real life assessment situations to gaugehow they matched the concept of CCE. It wasstressed that the manner in which CCE is beingimplemented in schools at present, compromisesthe whole CCE approach. The changes thatCCE envisions were discussed through thespecific instance of the switch from report cardsto children’s cumulative records/portfolios.The following session pursued the idea of ‘shift’in some more detail. The participants reflectedon the ‘shifts’ they have experienced inteaching-learning at school over the past decadeor so. These discussions brought-out that inessence CCE is not a ‘new’ way of assessment– many teachers have been practicingassessment in the way CCE expects them to.However, the difference is that the teachers cannow formally use such assessment.Further in the session, through the sharing ofteachers’ everyday experiences, the groupengaged in debates which are central to the ethosof assessment practices, or rather the wholepedagogic environment in schools, but are oftenconsidered to be peripheral in discussions onCCE. These related to democracy, equity andagency of a child. As a particular instance, theparticipants deliberated extensively, on thepractice of corporal-punishment in schools. Thisdiscussion brought out the complicated relationalethos in schools, and how it is difficult to discussand situate CCE ignoring this ethos. It was alsofelt that without understanding child as a partnerin learning and creating democratic teachinglearningspaces, the vision that a humaneassessment approach entails could not berealised.The session following these discussions,focussed on the various ways of understandinga child’s learning and some possible tools thatcould facilitate these processes. These toolsincluded observations and teacher-madeschedules for observation, dialoguing with andlistening to children, anecdotal records, peerappraisal, the teacher’s diary, writtenassessment and the child’s portfolio. Theparticular feature of these tools was that thesewere developed by researchers and teachers inactual classroom situations. The focus was notto present ‘model’ tools for replication, but toshare some real-life exemplars used forunderstanding and supporting learning. Thecontextual design, purpose and nature of thesetools were specific reference points in thesepresentations.Language and Language Teaching Volume 1 Number 2 July 2012 62