Talk:Qualification Framework/tqf discussion summary
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Summary fairly represents all concerns of the WE group members||2||02:34, 22 August 2008|
The summary represents all thoughts and concerns put forward by the members of the group.
--Viv 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that while conducting this activity, we have to bear another factor in mind that this is to be implemented soon. My experience and interaction with education system in India has taught me an important lesson – politics must be handled carefully. Most sincere and well meaning efforts are shot down without a good reason. Many recent cases can be cited to support this. A proposal was made to start Masters in Business Economics in my University. The proposed syllabus was based upon best internationally recognized and one most successful in India. The syllabus was rejected with a comment that the syllabus is directionless! The syllabus approved included economics papers which were comparable to undergraduate levels. Another course, (to be taught as optional additional subject) on soft skills which included skills like assertive behavior, speed reading, cross cultural and gender sensitization etc was rejected with a comment that such a course is not required. A course on entrepreneurship based upon international studies and mapping of entrepreneurial training activities was approved but the practical training sessions were rejected and deleted from syllabus. There are many such cases. The stakeholders – teachers, administrators, teacher associations, publishers, students and so on have their own interests, which will have to be kept in mind while development of curricula and benchmarks. I feel if the transnational curriculum development process involves and manages stakeholders appropriately, only then the desired results can be attained. Otherwise there can be a resistance to change, which may acquire political hue.