How scientists, undergraduates can best benefit from government's 12-hour contact programme

So the Government of India, in its eternal wisdom, has come up with the brilliant idea of sending scientists to schools and colleges at the undergraduate level for 12 contact hours a year. With equal emphasis it has declared that no extra remuneration would be paid for this activity, as if that would have played a crucial role in the scientists' decision; if it was money they were after, they would have taken up other professions.

For several reasons this is a silly and very poorly thought out idea, which is why it is surprising that many newspapers have lauded it. Here are some of the problems:

* Scientists are not monoliths, but many are not great at communicating with non-specialists, especially school and college students
* Twelve contact hours a year is such little time that even the most committed teachers will not be able to do justice to a subject, even if they choose the same students and same class for the entire duration of the contact and do it over a short period of time
* If they go to different institutions, they can do little more than talk about their work
* In the present education system gone mad with limited focus on formal education and a rush for admissions to a limited number of opportunities, most schools are not going to bother about educating children on non-syllabus topics, and even if they do, the parents won't permit it
* If a group of scientists agrees to take a course on a specific subject, the teachers are not going to accept these 'fair weather teachers' coming and taking up their activity under government compulsion. Also, unless they are held accountable, the teaching will be uneven. In any case, teaching by several teachers is a disaster
* Scientists themselves will find it an irritating distraction, especially if they are forced to do so
* The idea of sending the scientists to village schools will be even trickier as few scientists can explain their work in a language other than English
* Vernacular science writing is a highly specialised skill

Scientific research and teaching, especially undergraduate teaching, are both highly demanding professions that cannot be done by part timers. Both require focus, concentration and, in case of teaching, sensitivity to students and their perspective. Undergraduate teaching in particular is very different from postgraduate teaching. That is why an MSc or a PhD in a subject is not considered enough for teaching and a BEd or MEd is needed to orient potential undergraduate teachers. All universities that are involved in research are involved in postgraduate teaching, where you do not need to be trained in teaching methodology. To assume that PhDs will be able to succeed without this formal teaching at the undergraduate level is silly.

Does that mean the Indian education system should derive no benefit from the scientific knowledge generated in India? Certainly not. 

Most institutions have MSc and PhD programmes, and many provide special incentives for teaching by researchers and research by teachers. Most senior, qualified teachers have PhD students. The problem is that undergraduate teaching is a highly specialised skill that requires not only a BEd or MEd, but also needs continuing education that is done by academic staff colleges and NGOs. Teaching therefore is as highly specialised as research, and part-time teachers and part-time researchers are both bad ideas.

Some newspapers have highlighted outreach programmes of the NASA and other organisations. They forget that all such programmes have a fulltime dedicated staff whose job is first to understand the student community and its needs, and then see which of its scientists can provide them with the material that can be packaged for their use. Again, it is a high budget, highly specialised activity, and a carefully planned programme as a part of their public accountability.

So how do you help undergraduates and schoolchildren benefit from scientific institutions? Here are some suggestions:

* Strengthen teacher training programmes where scientists can talk at a higher level
* Ask individual institutions to set up public outreach bodies with decent funding that can specialise in community interaction. Hold these bodies accountable on behalf of scientists from research institutions. Ask institutions to design and manage these outreach activities, where selected and willing researchers with necessary commitment will engage the students
* Encourage scientists to give popular lectures
* Encourage interested scientists to take up part-time teaching with a level of commitment that a teaching institution will find acceptable
* Encourage scientists to write popular science articles and books, if necessary in collaboration with teachers and journalists
* Encourage science journalism, preferably with specialised magazines that are widely circulated
* Encourage translation of good science writing from India and the world over with good financial assistance and good supervision
* Encourage existing specialised institutions that can study and suggest solutions to the problems of science education and create new regional ones if necessary
* Encourage programmes such as Olympiads, Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana and DST's Inspire programme to encourage young students
* Get students into Science Centres and planetaria.

In many ways Prasar Bharati, National Council for Educational Training and Research (NCERT), as well as the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education etc. are working on these with a reasonable success. What they need is wider public awareness about their activities and better budget for publicity and material distribution, along with larger staff and regional branches where vernacular language writing can be supported.

Am I writing this to shirk my own responsibility? Certainly not. I meet the government demand several times a year and, at times, exceed the recommended 12 hours of interaction in a fortnight. But I do know how difficult it is and how it distracts from work. I do it because I love it and I think I have the necessary skills - developed after years of hard work. I know many of my colleagues will not have the patience and hence will not be very good speakers for undergraduate students. They are highly specialised experts in their field, and their work will compare favourably against the best research anywhere in the world, but they are too specialised. Do we really want to unleash hundreds of them on unsuspecting school and college students? 

If the government really wants to really improve education, take it out of political control and patronage. But that is another long story.

Dr Mayank Vahia is a scientist working at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research since 1979. His main fields of interest are high-energy astrophysics, mainly Cosmic Rays, X-rays and Gamma Rays. He is currently looking at the area of archeo-astronomy and learning about the way our ancestors saw the stars, and thereby developed intellectually. He has, in particular, been working on the Indus Valley Civilisation and taking a deeper look at their script.