Research Task Force meets for deliberating on areas,
methodologies of research and ways of disseminating findings to larger
groups
|
|
Convocation of members of the proposed Research Task Force was held on 26th
August 2005, at United Services Institution, New Delhi. It was attended by an
erudite team represented by Prof. TKS Lakshmi, Prof. R. Ghanta, Prof. L Vernal,
Prof. V Sudhakar, Prof. D. R. Goel, Dr. K. Rama and Dr. Veera Gupta .The
representatives from Intel were Mr.Ashutosh Chadha, Education Program Manager,
Intel Innovation in Education, Intel India and Mr. Anshul Sonak, K-12 Education
programs Manager, Intel, India. The Regional Training Agency was represented by
Dr. Anjlee Prakash, Director, Learning Links Foundation, Ms.Nuriya Ansari,
Ms.Nisha Dua, Ms.Aruna Sachdeva and Mr.Vinay Mehra. |
Objective
- To share data on the research conducted and research planned in ICTE by the universities associated with the program.
- To brainstorm on various topics of research on ICTE.
- To discuss objectives and activities of Research Task Force –the RTF.
- To demarcate roles, responsibilities, timelines and activities of the RTF members.
- To disseminate the findings of the RTF to the academic community by creating an action plan for the proposed interactive workshop.
- To transfer the ownership of the research initiative to the academic community
The meeting commenced with a welcome address by Mr. Anshul Sonak, the K-12 Education programs Manager, Intel, India. He discussed the pre-service program goals and the policy impact road map. He shared information about the evaluative study of Intel® Teach to the Future Pre-Service Programs across Asia being conducted by the Deakin University, Australia. He talked about the recommendations by EDC for the in-service Program.
He mentioned about the alumni associations keeping track of the students’
careers .Suggestions came forward from Prof. Sudhakar, seconded by Dr. Vernal
regarding the formation of Alumni Association, already in process, in Osmania,
Pune, Jamia and other universities. The information about an association of
teacher educators, also already in process in Pune University through E-Forum,
was brought forward.
Mr. Anshul Sonak initiated a discussion on clearly defined objectives, scope and
tasks of the RTF. Some objectives were finalised during the meeting while others
would be decided by second week of September. The ones discussed were to-
generate data for research focusing on knowledge generation; promote areas of
research in ICTE; disseminate research findings on ICTE; validate and analyze
the findings of research done and provide support for research on methodologies.
| Mr. Ashutosh Chadha, Education Program Manager, Intel Innovation in Education
stated the importance of the fact that research should not remain in isolation
and it should suggest strategies and solutions in a manner that can be easily
comprehended by practitioners. He visualised the role of the RTF as an agency
that could suggest areas of research to be carried out in ICTE at the three
levels- conceptual, strategic and tactical. He added to the list of RTF’s role-
suggesting new and innovative methodologies. He hoped it would help
practitioners solve the problems and provide new ideas on classroom processes
using ICT, or new pedagogic inputs on ICTE. Mr. Ashutosh pointed out that
Intel’s role is of a catalyst in ICT integration in education. He solicited the
support of the universities and apex bodies – NCTE and NAAC - in the endeavor to
transform the education system of the country. |
 |
Dr Anjlee Prakash, Director Learning Links Foundation, presented the analysis of the Annual Feedback collected from five hundred and fifty pre-service colleges. The feedback analysis done by Dr. Ranganaiki Srinivas revealed that:
| Colleges that have taken Intel Curriculum as a part of Compulsory Paper. | 88% |
| Colleges that have taken Intel Curriculum as a part of Optional Paper | 12% |
| Use of technology in teaching by Teacher Educators. | 80% |
| Use of technology for simulated lessons in their classrooms, by student Teachers. | 32% |
| Use of technology for Practice Teaching and simulated lessons in the classrooms by student Teachers. | 25% |
| Alumni (of 55% institutes which responded) employed as teachers using technology in their class teaching. | 72.7% |
| Use of technology for Practice Teaching by student Teachers. |
64% |
Other points of discussion were the challenges faced by colleges .The points
mentioned were infrastructure, time management, language diversity, computer
knowledge and attitude of the faculty. Dr. Vernal and Dr. Ghanta added to the
list by mentioning the challenge of use of lab facilities by student teachers
during practice teaching and resistance by schools towards practice teaching
itself. Prof Vernal suggested compiling and sharing of a handbook inclusive of
all best practices followed by the colleges.
On Dr. Vernal’s recommendation of asking colleges to share the work proposed or
done on research and publication, it was suggested by Mr. Anshul that Dr.
Ranganaiki be asked to do the analysis on a few aspects in detail .Another
proposal was of RTF publishing annually a document on “Innovative Research
Practices on ICTE”
Discussion on subject areas of research was carried on by Dr. Goel who presented
details on research projects of different universities on ICTE in education. The
findings included - favorable reaction towards CAI; using technology to teach
Sanskrit and other languages effectively and media integrated approach towards
learning. There was a discussion on a study conducted by Ms. Maria Athaide on
Intel training program.
The study featured building of self-confidence, innovation and usefulness of rubric. It also initiated discussion on availability of software to make all modules efficacious. Dr. Veera, Dr. Rama and Mr. Anshul presented their views on evaluation procedures of the educational software available in the country. The role of Edcil and MHRD in this perspective was discussed.
 |
Research Methodology and priority areas were shared by Dr. Vernal in his
presentation. He suggested prioritization of the research areas in ICTE and
entrustment of the research projects to students of M. Ed., M Phil. and Ph. D.
based on the scale and scope of the research. He also suggested limited projects
to be given to experts and only few to be funded by Intel. Some of the research areas suggested by him were:
|
|
|
Intel’s perspective on supporting Research on ICTE was clarified by Mr.
Anshul Sonak .He explained about Intel’s role as a facilitator rather than as a
research funding agency. However Intel could be willing to support Impact Study
(longitudinal) in two colleges and Quality Assurance and Presence/Absence Study.
Suggestions by members of RTF on supporting Research on ICTE were self funding,
role of NCTE and NCERT, Intel to take up studies independently and Intel to
award Research Fellowships. Dr. Vernal commented that majority of research could
be done without Intel’s financial support.
Dr. Vernal took the discussion forward to the need of a compendium on research
done on ICTE. Dr Lakshmi mentioned meta-analysis, Dr Veera Gupta suggested small
scale Action Research and Dr Sudhakar mentioned about the excellent work being
done in some colleges of Osmania University.
The discussion clarified the purpose of Action Research. It should be to
document the effectiveness of collaboration of the university/institution and
Intel towards studying the processes of an institution, building and
transforming the learning culture in the institutions of higher learning,
through integration of ICT.
The next step of fostering and dissemination of Research brought forward the
suggestion by Dr. Rama of a web portal .Prof. Ghanta, Dr.Vernal, Dr.Rama and Dr.
Goel put forward suggestions on its reach, contents with ICT focus and research
activities. Dr. Rama suggested screening of the contents. Mr. Anshul welcomed
the idea and said that Intel would definitely like to explore the options of
NCTE collaboration and an independent Portal.
For the interactive workshop for teacher educators Mr. Anshul suggested a
structured workshop with a planned outcome .He recommended RTF members to design
the agenda of the workshop under heads like scope, audience, focus of the
sessions, logistics and role of RTF. Other suggestions for RTF to undertake were
issues to be addressed at the Workshop, finalize areas and topics of research,
sharing best practices compiled in a booklet, publishing perspective paper on
ICTE, sharing cases studies, review of 2005 and plan of action for 2006.It was
also suggested that the workshop should be organized in collaboration with an
Apex Body. The venue and the month of the next meet was finalized.
| The RTF meet is one of the biggest highlights of the year .It addressed all issues, participants went back with a clear mind and charged with ideas and plans. The RTF members look at Intel as a facilitator. The eminent researchers of the country gathered on a common platform, took the ownership of the research initiative, consented on a plan to filter learnings and endeavored to arrange for subsequent meetings. The meeting achieved not only academic enthusiasm but also endorsed mutual respect and trust amongst all the participants. |
 |