A tale of two mela

The Dhamtari field institute of APF has organized a series of bal-mela in primary schools around Dhamtari district in preparation for the official launching of the district institute wherein a mega-mela was organized.  

One of the major objectives of the melas was to provide children with an environment where they can have fun and learn at the same time.  In the melas, various stalls were organized based on a theme or subject.  We had six stalls, viz. science/math, language/art, mask-making, origami (hat making), clay modelling/pottery and fun corner.  Each stall was coordinated by resource persons from the foundation where they prepared various activities aimed at certain learning benefits for the students.

Between the first and second mela, we have changed our approach towards the organization of the mela, and the differences that changes in approach make to the children, the environment and the learning is, in one word, amazing!

The first mela in Doma was a well-organized, well-coordinated mela where each and every student had the opportunity to participate in each and every activity.  Before the start of the mela, the students were divided into six groups based on six stalls, and the groups were rotated every 45 minutes during which they participated in all the activities planned by that stall and then moved to another stalls. The final outcome is that it was a well-orchestrated mela where each and every student got a chance to participate in every activity and learn what was planned for them to learn.

The second bal-mela in Mandroud was based on our experience in Doma. There were no changes in the stall and activities planned, and the resource persons were the same but our approach was different. Children were no longer divided into groups, and we set them free.  They were free to go wherever they want to go, and do whatever they want to do. The children can drop-in and join in the activities, or leave the activities when they want to. The final outcome was that it was a major success with fun-filled learning and exploring experiences for both the students and the resource persons.

Why I said the mela at Mandroud was a major success compared to the well-coordinated mela in Doma is that children in Mandroud are free and happy, and most importantly they learned what is interesting to them.  Even though the students in doma are happy and learning, they were no free to do what pleases and interest them; they are bound by the group and its schedule.

If we are talking about the accumulated learning, the one in Doma will perhaps be a better mela because each and every student participated in all the activities planned for them, and learn what is planned for them to learn.  But that learning is of the resources person’s and the students never owned the learning outcome and process.

 

But if you look at the meaningful learning that occurred, the learning in Mandroud would be more meaningful and useful for the children because a free and happy learning environment is an ideal and priceless environment!

A Tale of Two Schools

When visiting Limtara and Puri M/S to coordinate the painting/drawing of greeting card for teacher’s day, I cannot help comparing the students and their learning environment of the two schools. One of the schools is a ‘model’ school with all the basic infrastructures including library and computers in place whereas the other school is struggling to meet basic infrastructural requirement.  Besides the infrastructure difference, when it came to drawing/painting, the freedom with which the children expressed their imagination was contrasting between the two schools.  

Which of these two drawings exude more creativity?

In both the schools, before we started, we told the students (class VI to VIII) the purpose of the drawing, and encouraged them to ‘draw/paint/write whatever they want’ telling them that the blank page in the greeting card was for them. 

The first school that was struggling with basic infrastructure and has a ‘lesser reputation’ compared to the other, showed two observable features. Firstly, there was little interference from the teachers, which can be interpreted in different ways, i.e. the teachers didn’t care, or that the teachers trust their students, or that they expected us to interfere on their behalf. Secondly, the drawings of the children came out very vibrant and colourful, and most importantly, very original in such a way that just by looking, we know that the drawing come from their own imagination.

On the other hand, the students of the ‘model’ school saw lots of interference from the teacher, beginning with one of the teacher twisting our words to tell the children that it was a painting competition and the best will get printed in the newspaper. The teachers also played vigilant, checking the drawings from time to time and telling the children ‘what to do and what not to do’.  One of the teachers also apparently advised the students to ‘copy’ picture from their textbook resulting in majority of the drawing being a reproduction of the illustrations from their text-book like the solar system, human digestive system, etc.  

In more simpler words, in the model school, the students were more dependent, in the sense that they were waiting for us to guide them and tell them what to do, and asking us from time to time if what they did was right or wrong; and most importantly, the ‘fear’ of being wrong or being reprimanded was observable which was not there in the other school. 

Incidentally I recognized the Head-teacher of the ‘model’ school as one of the participants in a CCE Review meeting I attended earlier wherein he argued about the need for disciplining students.  And, from my observation of the two schools, it is apparent to me that the kind of environment in the school (i.e. interfering teachers, disciplining) can breed dependency and kill all confidence the children have in their own ability and capacity, and thus kill their curiosity and creativity.