Curriculum
The age appropriate culturally relevant curriculum developed by the author focused on building four key critical thinking skill set
- Analyze- a topic, think deeply/ on a complex matter, identify gaps in reasoning and untenable assumptions
- Evaluate- assess available/ new information in a systematic manner; question and reflect one’s priors
- Infer- reach decisions/ opinions/ judgements based on critical analysis and evaluation of available information on related topics; differentiate weak/ flawed arguments from strong ones
- Create- habits and strategy to navigate exposure to unsound ideas, reject unreliable information, reject manipulation of feelings
The curriculum was designed on the basis of the ‘teach at the right level” approach (TaRL). TaRL prioritizes introducing topics that are at the level of a student’s current ability rather than the expected level of ability for a student’s grade. It has been found to be the most productive approach to teaching at schools (World Development Report 2017, n.d.). Through activities based on stories, situations and events that the students could relate to, they learnt to frame questions, gather data, apply data, draw analogies, consider implications, explore different points of view, and communicate standpoints. These transferable skills (Abrami et al., 2015) were expected to not only strengthen reasoning skills but also improve student curricular achievements. The sessions and their delivery were designed such that poor reading or numeracy skills, or lack of resources at home did not much impede student participation in the class. The continuous assessment of student performance too was mostly independent of student ability to read and write proficiently.
Three parameters guided the TaRL approach to designing this curriculum:
(i) Our baseline assessment showed that a large fraction of the students was not able to read or write well in either English or Tamil. Therefore, except for the reading skills, topic, the activities were designed for student participation irrespective of their reading and writing abilities. Where reading was essential to an activity, it was usually a group activity where students could pool their strengths, or it was designed such that the tutor would lead the reading. (ii) Topics for discussion, stories, examples that, etc., where chosen to be age-appropriate and culturally irrelevant rather than based on the assumption that they would be familiar with their textbook content from the current year or the previous year. (iii) Rubrics for assessment of class activities deliberately did not factor in language errors. Feedback to children, too, was focused on improving their understanding of the concepts and application of what they have learned, but not the sophistication in their expression.