Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Outcomes: Comparing Student Achievement during DPEP and SSA in Kerala Education Times , 1(1)

Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education

Dr. Abdul Gafoor, .K. & Mehbooba

Pag

e2

37

APH

Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Outcomes: Comparing Student Achievement during DPEP and SSA in

Kerala Education Times , 1(1)

Dr. Abdul Gafoor, K. & Mehbooba

12/1/2012

This is draft sent to Education Times, a Peer Reviewed Journal of Education and Humanities by APH publications and hence is protected by copyright laws of the company. This draft is for generating discussion for refining the paper and whoever uses it for reference purpose have to verify the contents with the original publication



Pag

e2

38

Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Outcomes: Comparing Student Achievement during DPEP and SSA

in Kerala

________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

This study in the context of National Curriculum Framework (2005) and constructivist approach to learning and critical pedagogy, gauges the attainment of upper primary students in Malayalam, science, social studies and mathematics in 2011 and compares it with that of their age group during 1999. Overall achievement of students has come down after a decade, especially attainment of higher order competencies. The achievement of especially higher order thinking skills and comprehension has not enhanced, and at times came down. Overall science attainment and attainment in higher order skills in science has become poorer after a decade Even comprehension and deriving conclusions that are especially focused in the present primary curriculum cannot be firmly said to have improved. Only area that could withstand the new pedagogic practice is reading factual and societal issues, as reflected in above or at par performance of present students on passage comprehension, social science achievement and daily arithmetic. Implications and suggestions are made.

Elementary Education in Kerala through Last Two Decades

“Although Kerala has made significant advances in creating educational facilities (and) enrolling and retaining children in primary schools, its record in terms of student performance is not significantly different from other States” (Varghese 1999, p.387). In the early 1990s, the results of an NCERT survey of primary school children, teachers, headmasters and headmistresses in three relatively backward districts, Kasargode, Malappuram and Wayanad served to increase the concern about levels of learning at the primary school level in Kerala. 1994 NIEPA survey (National Institute of Educational Planning Administration) ranked Kerala 18th amongst all states in terms of reading, writing and mathematical capacity of the student. Base-line DPEP surveys conducted in Malappuram district by NIEPA found that about 30% of the children who complete primary school do not reach the necessary achievement level in literacy and numeracy (NCAER, 1999). Other studies by State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) indicated that the majority of children joining schools did not acquire the knowledge or skills required for meaningful social existence (Ganesh, & Ramakrishnan, 2000).

It was in such context that District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) was launched in the three educationally backward districts of Malappuram, Kasaragod and Wayanad in early 1994. In other parts of India, DPEP financed classroom and school construction, but Kerala used resources primarily to finance a curriculum change, with substantive issues of textbook revision, improving instructional methods, teacher training (Chandrasekhar, Ramachandran & Ramakumar, 2001) and pedagogy with one of the set goal as enhancing average learning achievement levels by 25 percent above baseline. The major features of these changes have been “child-centred, activity-oriented teaching, teacher training and empowerment, new evaluation methods [and] revision of curriculum” (DPEP 2000, p. 2).Devolution of school administration to local bodies, and, creating and strengthening parent-teacher associations, were also focused.

In 1993-94, the SCERT begun to revise textbooks as part of the Minimum Level of Learning (MLL) project. Class 1 and 2 pupils in twenty schools in each district used these in 1995-96 (DPEP, 2000). In 1996, in response to certain directions from the NCERT, the Government of Kerala decided to begin a major revision of all school textbooks in the State (KSSP 2000). New textbooks for Classes 3 and 4 were introduced in twenty schools in each district in 1995- 96, and in 100 schools per district in 1996-97 (DPEP, 2000). Although DPEP was originally intended to be implemented in only six districts, the textbooks prepared through DPEP were prescribed for schools in all districts of the State.

The probable benefits of the new pedagogy were immediately obvious in many schools, and public debates. The new curriculum was seen as significant shift away from the customary textbook-oriented teaching and learning to a more activity-oriented, intrinsically motivated learning process. The emphasis fell on activity, development of the student's natural inclination to learn, offering greater freedom, making learning more fun than work, creating natural learning experiences, reducing the stress on results; in short, on teaching children to "learn how to learn" in an enjoyable way. The roles of the textbook, the tuition master and the parent were drastically changed. The role of the teacher became more crucial. The burden on the teachers increased manifold and a large majority of schoolteachers in Kerala were reported as unwilling to accept it, though the achievements of their children had "definitely improved" and "there was real attainment of knowledge in the classrooms" (Frontline, July 30, 1999) with



Pag

e2

39

better proficiency in writing and speaking. Qualitative change in children after the introduction of the new pedagogy and the new evaluation methods was generally recognized with “children in Class IV of schools in the DPEP districts perform(ing) remarkably better than those in non-DPEP districts; in some cases they outperform(ing) the much older students of Class IX” (SasiKumar, 2007).

However, before late, serious doubts were expressed about the quality of education in the Kerala schools. Terminal Assessment Surveys (TAS) conducted in 2001-2003 revealed that the average score in language and Mathematics were the lowest of the sample states (Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra). Predictably, a revision of the school curriculum was considered long overdue. Kerala curriculum framework, KCF (SCERT, 2007) envisaged that a student who completes his/her school education is expected to be able to face any real life situation boldly and should be equipped to get employed at the time of completion of his course. This is the purpose of general education and not a mere internalization of academic subjects. KCF envisaged transforming schools to spaces where valuable knowledge is sought after such that experience from schools is helping students from all backgrounds to prove their ability, and find out their place and identity through the educational process; and thus, making drilling, availability of learning-aids, tuition, or guidebooks unimportant in the facilitation of learning. Reading and writing is being utilized from Grade three upwards for development of students’ abilities of communication and critical thinking. KCF theorizes that language of students at primary school need be accepted as such and if classroom context is rich and interesting, by Grade 4 all students will be able to write without error; and the focus is on improving students’ ability to comprehend the language (pp. 39-40). In mathematics, focus again is in enabling students to assimilate and communicate mathematical concepts (p. 79). It also stresses on enquiry-based learning and liberal democratic learner-friendly approach that lead to the overall development of the learner. As a result, the process of construction of knowledge took the centre-stage. Engaging learners in enquiry and discussion and making their own inferences marked a visible change in the classroom process. The wide ranges of issues Kerala society confront were identified and wanted curriculum to address these issues in tune with social constructivism underscored by National Curriculum Framework (NCERT, 2005) in the process of learning.

According to the new curriculum guidelines, the aim is to make the pupil confident of using the language through creative opportunities to listen, speak, read and write, without undue stress on pronunciation, clarity in writing and grammar, which is believed to impede a smooth process of language learning. Children are to be encouraged actively to engage with words and meanings, to play with them. Repetitions, impositions and rote memorisation should no longer be practised. The teacher is now expected to evaluate each child continuously - through written and oral tests, activity tests and observation - to understand whether the child shows the required competence at each stage and is able to utilise in daily life the knowledge acquired.

Public opinion was created in favour of the changes. But, these changes were also without descending notes. There were criticism that "under the beautifully vague expression 'releasing the creative energies of our children', they have discarded the academic framework of primary education in Kerala and introduced a lot of things that should have gone into the pre-primary stage. It can only help decelerate the pace of learning in our children at a stage when their ability to learn is enormous" (Krishnakumar, 1999). Doubts were raised on whether teachers are prevented from inducing children to put time and effort into learning, or are teachers expected to tackle pupil inattention and apathy with herculean efforts to stimulate interest and enthusiasm, and whether deficient outcomes are countered by reducing expectations to the level of whatever the pupil seems willing to do?

Significance of the Study

As discussed in the previous section, in Kerala schools, shift from activity centeredness in DPEP in 1990s to social constructivism under SSA in the first decades of 2000s is well evidenced. In spite of progress in school access, more effective planning and policy mechanisms, and implementing massive training programs for teachers, dissatisfaction persists with education systems as it fails to meet social aspirations. Most of the evaluation about present classroom practice is nearer to what teachers describe as the quality of the behaviorist teaching learning process – shallow, not too sweet, neither clear nor haze, inefficient, rigid, nearing artificiality, indefinite (Gafoor & Akhilesh, 2010), though majority of teachers and parents prefer present curricular practices (Gafoor & Farooque, 2011). Major difficulties reported by teachers are overcrowded classrooms, decreasing facility in three Rs, disorganized learning and inadequate infrastructure. Student-teachers too reported lack of basic knowledge among students, lack of time and being not able to involve all students. Students and parents report indiscipline, inadequacy of time, learning becoming silly and partiality among teachers. Parents see more responsibilities to them, decreasing reading habit, and spelling errors.

Research studies conducted both at national and state levels point out low level of learning in schools. Children who get poor instruction at the primary level are more seriously harmed by the early learning



Pag

e2

40

experiences and tend to do poorly in schooling across the years. Internationally, the most common meaning of education quality is level of student achievement on selected portions of the curriculum. Since grades have been introduced in all classes, it is not easy to compare the performance before and after the introduction of the new pedagogy. This study is an attempt to gauge the in Malayalam, science, social studies and mathematics among students who are studying in Grade 7 in 2011 (Post-SSA group) and to compare that with a comparable sample of students who have completed standard 6 during 1998-1999 (post-DPEP group) using identical tests of achievement. Like any other study on quality of education, this paper also acknowledges that full agreement is unlikely among parents, teachers, administrators, and students about the nature, measure and steps to initiate and sustain improvement in quality.

Research Questions

Does achievement differ significantly in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math) between 1999 batch (having followed activity-centered curriculum of DPEP period) and 2011 batch (having followed social constructivist curriculum of SSA period) students in Kerala? In addition, does achievement differ significantly in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math) between 1999 and 2011 batch students in categories of a) Low achievers? b) Average achievers? and c) High achievers? Measures

A test battery with 64 multiple-choice items, comprising 16 items each in the four upper primary subjects (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math), was administered in 1999. The items in the original battery were on contents in post-1994 revised textbooks in grades 4-6. Items were finalized based on their ability to discriminate between high-low achievers. In 2011, the subject teachers selected 10 items each (from 16 items) from each of the four subtests of the original test battery, as included in curriculum in grades 4-6 in 2011 as well. These items were again tested for their ability to discriminate between the high-low achievers. Of the ten items in each subtest, six items were on factual knowledge and four items were on understanding and application level objectives. For the analysis in the present study, 1999 responses were rescored on the 10 items chosen as common for 1999 and 2011 curricula. Thus, for both 1999 and 2011 batches, 15 scores were obtained; i.e., a factual knowledge score, a higher order ability score, and a total score in each of the four subjects, plus, a factual knowledge score (sum), higher order ability score (sum), and Academic Achievement score (grand sum).

Sample

In 1999 and 2011, sample was selected from 10 randomly chosen upper primary schools of Malappuram district. Type of management and locality of the school were represented equally both time. Each time, 370 students were sampled with equal number of boys and girls. In 1999, the test was administered during December –January to grade 6 students. In 2011, test was administered to grade 7 students during July- August. In each batch (i.e., 1999 and 2009), 100 students with highest and lowest scores on academic achievement were identified as high achievers and low achievers, and the rest as average achievers.

Results

1999 batch and 2011 batch students were compared on Total achievement and achievement of factual and higher order objectives in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math) and total achievement (sum of all subjects). Results are in table 1.

Results are in table 1.

Table 1

Comparison of achievement of upper primary students during 1999 and 2011

Area of Achievement 1999 2011 t

Effect Size M SD M SD

Malayalam Word And Sentence Level 3.58 1.38 3.44 1.13 1.51 0.10

Passage Comprehension 2.11 1.21 1.97 1.20 1.59 0.12



Pag

e2

41

Malayalam Achievement 5.69 2.26 5.41 1.86 1.85 0.12

Factual Science 2.90 1.24 2.82 1.22 0.84 0.06

Science Higher Order 2.40 1.15 1.84 1.15 6.59 0.48

Achievement In Science 5.30 1.84 4.66 1.90 4.62 0.34

Social Science Facts 2.45 1.28 3.07 1.11 -7.07 -0.49

Social Science Higher Order 2.00 1.12 1.76 0.91 3.13 0.21

Social Science Achievement 4.45 1.92 4.84 1.61 -2.99 -0.20

Geometry 3.45 1.34 2.93 1.33 5.28 0.39

Daily Arithmetic 1.61 1.13 1.59 0.99 0.24 0.02

Achievement In Maths 5.05 2.01 4.52 1.91 3.73 0.27 Achievement In Factual Content 12.37 3.29 12.26 3.12 0.47 0.03

Achievement In Higher Order Competencies 8.11 2.85 7.16 2.60 4.74 0.33

Academic Achievement 20.49 5.48 19.42 5.02 2.75 0.19

Table 1 shows that 1999 batch students have significantly (p<.01) higher academic achievement. This advantage of 1999 batch students over 2011 batch is from the former being significantly higher (p<.01) on achievement in science higher order objectives, total achievement in science, social science higher order objectives, geometry, total achievement in maths, and achievement in higher order competencies in general. 2011 batch students are significantly higher, than 1999 batch students, on Social Science Facts and Social Science Achievement. The two batches does not differ significantly on Malayalam Word And Sentence Level, Passage Comprehension, Malayalam Achievement and Factual Science, (p>.05).

Low achievers of 1999 batch and 2011 batch students were compared on Total achievement and achievement of factual and higher order objectives in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math) and total achievement (sum of all subjects). Results are in table 2.

Table 2

Comparison of achievement of low achieving upper primary students during 1999 and 2011

Area of Achievement 1999 2011

t Effect Size M SD M SD

Malayalam Word And Sentence Level 2.51 1.15 2.74 1.28 -1.33 -0.20


Malayalam Achievement 3.72 1.64 3.81 1.74 -0.38 -0.05

Factual Science 2.29 1.07 1.87 1.13 2.70 0.39



SS Facts 1.55 1.13 2.48 1.17 -5.72 -0.82

SS Higher Order 1.37 1.01 1.36 0.90 0.07 0.01

SS Achievement 2.92 1.55 3.84 1.64 -4.07 -0.59

Geometry 2.41 1.19 1.81 1.02 3.83 0.50

Daily Arithmetic 0.82 0.90 1.03 0.85 -1.70 -0.23

Achievement In Maths 3.23 1.43 2.84 1.50 1.88 0.27

Achievement In Factual Content 8.76 1.96 8.90 2.91 -0.40 -0.07




Pag

e2

42


Table 2 shows that low achievers among 1999 batch students does not differ significantly from their counterparts in 2011 batch students (p>.05) on academic achievement. But 1999 batch low achievers are significantly higher (p<.01) on achievement in factual science, science higher order objectives, total achievement in science, geometry, and achievement in higher order competencies in general, than 2011 batch low achievers. 2011 batch low achievers are significantly higher, than 1999 batch low achievers, on Social Science Facts and Social Science Achievement. Low achievers in the two batches does not differ significantly on Malayalam word and sentence level, passage comprehension, social science higher order objectives, daily arithmetic, achievement in maths, and achievement in factual content, (p>.05). The difference between the low achievers in the two groups is substantial in science higher order objectives, Achievement In Science, geometry, Social science factual achievement, and social science overall achievement as the effect sizes are above 0.5.

Average achievers of 1999 batch and 2011 batch students were compared on Total achievement and achievement of factual and higher order objectives in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math) and total achievement (sum of all subjects) in Table 3.

Table 3

Comparison of achievement of average achieving upper primary students during 1999 and 2011






Factual Science 2.80 1.09 2.96 1.01 -1.39 -0.15



SS Facts 2.56 1.04 3.07 0.96 -4.66 -0.49

SS Higher Order 2.01 1.03 1.74 0.86 2.63 0.26

SS Achievement 4.58 1.47 4.81 1.34 -1.54 -0.16

Geometry 3.42 1.12 3.06 1.12 2.91 0.32

Daily Arithmetic 1.55 0.98 1.64 0.95 -0.79 -0.08


Achievement In Factual Content 12.29 1.82 12.54 1.61 -1.32 -0.14



Table 3 shows that 1999 batch average achievers have significantly (p<.01) higher academic achievement than average achievers of 2011. This advantage of 1999 batch average achievers over 2011 batch average achievers is from the former being significantly higher (p<.01) on achievement in science higher order objectives, total achievement in science, social science higher order objectives, geometry, total achievement in maths, and achievement in higher order competencies in general. 2011 batch average achievers are significantly higher, than 1999 batch average achievers, on social science facts only. The two batches does not differ significantly on Malayalam word and sentence level, passage comprehension, Malayalam achievement and factual science, ss achievement, daily arithmetic, achievement in maths, and achievement in factual content (p>.05). The difference between the average achievers in the two groups is substantial in science higher order objectives, and achievement in higher order competencies as the effect sizes are above 0.5. High achievers of 1999 batch and 2011 batch students were compared on Total achievement and achievement of factual and higher order objectives in each subject (Malayalam, Science, SS and Math). Results are in table 4.

Table 4

Comparison of achievement of high achieving upper primary students during 1999 and 2011



Pag

e2

43






Factual Science 3.67 1.26 3.54 1.02 0.80 0.10



SS Facts 3.14 1.29 3.66 1.00 -3.19 -0.40

SS Higher Order 2.61 1.02 2.21 0.81 3.07 0.39

SS Achievement 5.75 1.88 5.87 1.35 -0.52 -0.06

Geometry 4.54 0.95 3.82 1.14 4.86 0.76

Daily Arithmetic 2.48 0.94 2.06 0.93 3.18 0.45


Achievement In Factual Content 16.13 1.81 15.16 1.83 3.77 0.54



Table 4 shows that 1999 batch high achievers have significantly (p<.01) higher academic achievement than

high achievers of 2011with an effect size nearing 1. This means that the difference between the high achievers is nearly one standard deviation. This advantage of 1999 batch high achievers over 2011 batch high achievers is from the former being significantly higher (p<.01) on achievement Malayalam word and sentence level, Malayalam achievement, achievement in science higher order objectives, total achievement in science, social science higher order objectives, geometry, daily arithmetic , total achievement in maths, achievement in factual content in general and achievement in higher order competencies in general. 2011 batch high achievers are significantly higher, than 1999 batch high achievers, on social science facts only. The two batches does not differ significantly on passage comprehension, and social science achievement (p>.05). The difference between the high achievers in the two groups is substantial in Malayalam word and sentence level, science higher order objectives, geometry, achievement in maths, achievement in factual content and achievement in higher order competencies as the effect sizes are above 0.5. The differences between the 1999 and 2011 batch by students’ achievement level is depicted in figure1.



Pag

e2

44

Figure 1: Gap between achievement of 1999 (denoted by circle) and 2011 (denoted by arrow head) samples of low-, average-, and high- achieving students after successful completion of Grade 6 in factual and higher order abilities in Malayalam (a & b), Science (c&d), Social science ( e&f) and Mathematics ( g & h).

Conclusion

A summary of how did 2011 sample perform in comparison to 1999 sample on various learning objectives is attempted in figure 2.



Pag

e2

45

Figure 2: Summary of how did 2011 sample perform in comparison to 1999 sample on various learning objectives (SS=Social Science) Generally, achievement has become poorer in 2011, especially in higher order objectives and among average and high achieving category students in special. The study found that in Malayalam achievement, especially passage comprehension the1999 and 2011 batches are at par. the 2011 high achievers are comparatively lower in achievement in Malayalam words and sentences. 2011 batch students are poorer in science achievement especially in achievement of higher order objectives in science irrespective of their achievement level, though on factual content of science low achievers of the two periods are equal. In social science factual achievement, 2011 batch students outperform 1999 batchers irrespective of their achievement level. In social science total achievement also, low achievers of 2011 batch outperform 1999 batchers. However, Social science higher order achievement is poorer in 2011, especially among average and high achievers. Geometry achievement and achievement in higher order objectives in general is poorer in 2011 irrespective of achievement strata.

A study (see Gafoor, 2011) on younger students in grades 3 and 4 in Kerala has also drawn similar results. While the achievement of students at all levels of achievement spectrum has come down Writing is the least attained competency; students perform poorly on story development, dictation and even copying a sentence. Students score only poorly on vocabulary (of Grade 3 level) and on knowledge of alphabet (expected at Grade 2). In mathematics, the score was only slightly higher than the best score reported earlier which was judged inadequate. Even comprehension and deriving conclusions that are especially focused in the present primary curriculum cannot be firmly said to have improved from 1999 to 2011; the decrease is very serious among high achievement groups. Problem of insufficiency in attaining basic literacy skills such as morphological awareness and spelling by elementary students (Gafoor & Remia, 2011) has also been identified. The findings clearly indicate that the lofty ideals envisaged by post SSA revision of curriculum have not been materialized in classrooms. The achievement of especially higher order thinking skills and comprehension has not enhanced, and at times came down. Reasons have to be found out and concerted action taken. Implications

One particular finding of the study is that the subject specificity in the difference between students’ achievement post-DPEP and post-SSA. Science and geometry learning has become poorer post-SSA for all categories. Higher order objectives were especially suffered, that too among relatively better learners. However, the students low on academic spectrum has not been especially catered to, as they too have not improved except in social science facts. Only area that could withstand the new pedagogic practice is reading factual and societal issues, as reflected in above or at par performance of present students on passage comprehension, social science achievement and daily arithmetic.

School education authorities should not lose sight of the objective of providing rigorous school education of the highest standards of quality to all children in the State. Reform should not compromise on content in the interests



Pag

e2

46

of easy communicability. Primary schools and policy had to concentrate on the reform of school administration, textbooks and pedagogy. It had to help improve school infrastructure and help achieve greater participation by local communities, particularly parents, in school education. Educational administration also needs to be more conscious of actual learning outcomes at different levels, which will determine both policy and functioning. National Knowledge Commission (NKC, 2007) proposed a national evaluation body to monitor the quality of schools, using a results based monitoring framework on a short list of monitorable criteria that include both process and outcome indicators be expedited at the earliest. As recommended by NKC ensure meaningful monitoring, including provision of greater facilities to school inspectors, a separation of inspection of qualitative and administrative aspects, transparency in the criteria of inspection, and greater involvement of local stakeholders. A results-based monitoring framework with due process indicators and outcome indicators should include outcome indicators such as learning levels achieved in certain basic areas such as language skills and numeracy, role of this testing body will simply be to provide information on the results of its assessments, with the state governments free to act upon this information. The results of such regular tests must be made publicly available in a format accessible to all. (National Knowledge Commission, 2007).

Improving existing classroom procedure and giving proper instructions in early stages of schooling will help. Placing the emphasis of primary education on the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic is to be regained. Textbook adoption committees need to be mindful of the importance of including effective instructional practices when making textbook decision, than dealing with higher theoretical issues of education. Instruction must be thorough, followed by regular assignment. Pupils need to receive the required practice before they move on to higher tasks. Writing out a word or variants of a word can help children decide correct spelling patterns. Emphasis in mathematics instruction should be on answering question and not on doing something. Accuracy in performance need not be completely neglected even at Grades 3 or 4.

Couple the student attitude toward learning as enjoyment with purposefulness. Teacher should adopt simple and dynamic teaching methods, appropriate teaching aids and real life situations. Opportunities to experience contexts that promote enthusiasm and success in learning and to create and maintain motivation and interest in learning need special attention. Here, peer interaction, co-operative learning, discussion etc. are helpful, but they cannot substitute for care of a teacher. Strengthen current practices through purposeful implementation of present practices to boost student performance. Enhance focus on intra-school management practices. Socio-economic status is an important factor in school attainment, whose effect can be indirectly manipulated in educational practice. Providing compensatory education like remedial teaching, monitoring instructions, and use of appropriate technology will help enhance groups that need special care too.

References

Chandrasekhar, C. P., Ramachandran, V. K. & Ramakumar, R. (2001). Issues In School Education In Contemporary Kerala A paper prepared for UNICEF, New Delhi.

District Primary Education Programme (DPEP). (2000). Pedagogic Vision, Handbook, DPEP, Department of Education, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

Gafoor, K. A. & Akhilesh, P.T. (2010), Teacher beliefs about present-day classroom practices in schools, GCTE Journal of Research and Extension in Education, 5(2), 23-26.

Gafoor, K. A. (2011). Elementary competencies in 3R’s among upper primary pupils of Kerala: A secondary analysis. Innovations and Researches in Education 1(1), 51-68.

Gafoor, K. A. & Remia, K. R. (2011). Literacy- The first step to Academic Inclusion, UGC sponsored National Seminar on Educating Teacher Educators for Diversity on 15-16 September 2011 at GCTE, Kozhikode.

Gafoor, K. A. & Umer Farooque, T.K. (2011). Student Teachers’ Perspective of the Difficulties in Lesson Planning and Their Suggestions for Remediation. Journal of Studies in Teacher Education, 4(1), 19-28.

Ganesh, K. N & Ramakrishnan C. (2000). Education and People’s Planning Campaign: The Kerala Experience, paper presented at the International Conference on Democratic Decentralization, State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram, May 23-27.

Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP). (2000). Puthiya Pathya Paddhathi: Vimarsanangalum Vasthuthakalum, KSSP, Pathanamthitta.

Krishnakumar, R (1999). An Educative Experiment In Kerala Frontline Volume 16 (1), July 17 - 30, 1999. National Knowledge Commission (2007). National Knowledge Commission-Recommendations On School Education.

Government of India:, New Delhi-21 NCAER. (1999). India Human Development Report, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.



Pag

e2

47

NCERT (1994). Baseline assessment study on different states from 1994 onwards. As in : Yadav, M.S. et al. learning conditions and learner achievement in primary schools. In: Govinda, R. (2002) India education report: A profile of basic education. New Delhi: NIEPA

NCERT (1997). Baseline assessment study on different states from 1994 onwards. As in : Yadav, M.S. et al. learning conditions and learner achievement in primary schools. In:Govinda, R. (2002) India education report: A profile of basic education . New Delhi: NIEPA

NCERT (2006).Learning Achievement of Class III Students- A Baseline Study Under Department Of Educational Measurement And Evaluation, National Council Of Educational Research And Training, New Delhi. http://164.100.51.121/page_portletlinks?foldername=quality-of-education (for quality ssa)

NCERT (2006).Learning Achievement of Class III Students- A Baseline Study Under Department Of Educational Measurement And Evaluation, National Council Of Educational Research And Training, New Delhi. http://164.100.51.121/page_portletlinks?foldername=quality-of-education (for quality ssa)

NCERT (2007). Executive summary learning achievement of students at the end of class v. Department of Educational Measurement and Evaluation ,National Council of Educational Research and Training ,Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. http://164.100.51.121/quality-of-education/learning-achievement-of-students-at-the-end-of-class-v.

NCERT. (2005). National curriculum framework. New Delhi: NCERT NCERT. (2005). National curriculum framework. New Delhi: NCERT SasiKumar, V. (2007). Making Education Less Tedious and More Effective: the Kerala experience Education scenario in Kerala.

http://keralachinthakal.blogspot.com/2007/06/education-scenario-in-kerala.html (Thursday, June 7, 2007). SCERT. (2007). Kerala Curriculum Framework. Thiruvananthapuram: SCERT, Kerala. Varghese, N.V. (1999), “Access Versus Achievement: A Study of Primary Education in Kerala”, in M. A. Oommen

(ed.), Kerala’s Development Experience, Volume II, Institute of Social Sciences and Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 370-89.

http://164.100.51.121/quality-of-education/learning-achievement-of-students-at-the-end-of-class-v

http://164.100.51.121/quality-of-education/learning-achievement-of-students-at-the-end-of-class-v

http://keralachinthakal.blogspot.com/2007/06/education-scenario-in-kerala.html

Documents

Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Impact of Reforms on Elementary Education Outcomes: Comparing Student Achievement during DPEP and SSA in Kerala Education Times , 1(1)