Karnataka state is always a pioneer in ushering change in the Education system. The Semester scheme has been introduced in primary and secondary schools from classes V to IX in the state from 2007 – 08.
DSERT initiated a public debate over the issue and invited suggestions and opinions from all concerned.
This was followed by a series of meeting and workshops which culminated is a 4 division level, comprising of parents, teachers, office b of teachers a educationist opined that the system is burden to teachers too many records maintained. Children are to things what ever learnt training for regarding semester was insufficient paucity of teaching periods. Due to other engagements at the school provision of single teacher existence of multi grade and multi level change multi system over from trimester to semester systems.
Views of editorials and comment from quarters and the development a system which would became an alternative to the semester system.
In view of above the govt. has taken a decision to change the trimester system to semester system.
The objective of the semester system is to make learning more meaningful so that learning takes place continuously and through out the academic year. Semester system is also designed to remove the fear psychosis about the existing system of examinations, remove the habit of testing only the memory of the learner and bring the education system closer to the average child.
The child is evaluated only about the lessons he has learnt in that semester so that the child does not carry the burden of memorizing what he/she has learnt through out the year. From 2007 - 08, Text books were brought out on the semester pattern. That is the child carries only two text books every semester – one for languages and one for core subjects.
Instead of the present –system, the academic year is split into two parts from 2007 - 08.
The month of June is utilized for recapitulation of previous concepts, remedial teaching and evaluation. This period is also utilized to take up bridge courses for below average children. There is a pre test which identifies learning gaps and learning distortion leading to remedial teaching and a post test.
In the semester scheme, the syllabus is generally divided as follows:
2008-09 onwards semester wise text books will be supplied to the schools. However heads of institutions and class room teachers have been given the flexibility in adapting this system in their schools. Non availability of teachers, declaration of holidays due to unforeseen circumstances has been factored in this system. There is also provision to carry forward lessons not taught in a particular semester. The class room teachers have the option to divide the period further and set period apart for teaching/learning, evaluation/remedial teaching.
In the semester scheme, in primary schools the lesson plans are to be prepared by the teacher for a unit or a particular competency as per the Chaitanya model. In secondary schools lesson plans are to be prepared for each unit. The Lesson Plan consists of the following items: content analysis of the unit, Expected Learning outcomes, Evaluation method to be adopted for each learning outcome, competency based unit (diagnostic) test.
The end of every semester also has evaluation for 90 minutes which tests the understanding, application and other skills learnt during the semester.
The Evaluation dates every year are also specified as follows:
These are indicative and probable dates. These dates can be adjusted to synchronize with holidays. I Semester evaluation can synchronize with October holidays, the II Semester evaluation can synchronize in 1st week of April. They can be suitably changed to suit a schools’ valid requirements.
The following are the salient points of the semester system -
The following is the suggested grading pattern:
|A + Grade||90% and above||Outstanding|
|A Grade||75% - 89%||Excellent|
|B + Grade||60% - 74%||Good|
|B Grade||50% - 59%||Above average|
|C+ Grade||30% - 49%||Average|
|C Grade||Below 29%||Below Average|
However the progress report is designed to mention only the grades obtained by a student and not compare his performance with that of his peers.
No detention policy is currently followed up to IV standard. For other classes, the declaration of the result of the child should depend on his/her performance through out the year. The average grade obtained by the child in the two semesters is taken for promoting the child to the next class.
a. Annual Result of the students mainly depends upon their achievement. Thus the sum of two semester evaluation and their marks obtained their as will determine their results.
b. In part ‘A’ in every subject at least C+ grade has to be obtained.
c. In part ‘B’ in each subject minimum ‘B’ grade to be obtained.
d. Students attendance should be 75% from the date of admission.
e. If a student remain absent for I semester he has to take Examination in the month of November. If he remains again absent for II semester Examination he has to take the Examination in the month of June, on the basis of grades obtained the result has to be declared.
f. If a student secured passing grade on both semester on the entire test during the year, In case students could not secure in one semester as the current semester test also should be given remedial teaching and examination has to be conducted. Even then if a student could not secure the grade C+, then result should be declared as fail/retained.
In order to understand the perceptions on the strengths and limitations of the system and to enhance its implementation, the Policy Planning Unit (a Joint venture of the Azim Premji Foundation and Government of Karnataka), under took a comprehensive study of the Semester system during the months of January, February and March 2005.
Since the system has been introduced for the first time in the state, its effectiveness as perceived by the stake holders in terms of understanding of the system and the status of implementation was one of the important objectives of the study. The purpose was also to get feedback on the system from all the stakeholders – children, parents, teachers and head teachers working in government, aided and unaided schools. Opinion was also sought from School Development and Monitoring Committee members and also educational administrators in focus group discussions.
The timing of the study also provided scope for various stakeholders to share their views on implementation of the system and contribute for its refinement. At the time of collecting the data for the study, the teachers both in private and government sectors had completed two semesters and were preparing children for the third semester. Their experiences have got value addition along with the perceptions of parents both in urban and rural areas.
The study was undertaken in 16 educational blocks spread across 8 educational districts and 4 revenue divisions of the state. The selected educational blocks were – Bangalore North, Anekal, Chitradurga, Molkalmur, Mangalore, Belthangadi, Gundulpet, Kollegal, Bidar, Basava Kalyan, Raichur, Devadurga, Bijapur, Sindhagi, Sirsi and Haliyal educational Blocks. In each block 3 high schools and 3 higher primary schools were selected randomly.
Out of the selected schools, 51% are government schools and remaining are private (aided and un aided) schools. Similarly in selection of teachers and other stake holders, 50% female representation was maintained.
1. There is an overall positive feedback on the system. Most of the different stakeholders – head teachers, teachers, students and parents are appreciative of the principles of the system including –
2. Nearly 74 percent of the teachers have opined that the system is either excellent or good and about 26 percent of the teachers were of the opinion that the system is satisfactory.
3. Nearly 78 per cent of head teachers opined that the system is either excellent or good and another 22 per cent of them responded saying that the system is operational at satisfactory level.
4. Slightly more than 85 per cent of teachers have reported that they have been teaching life-skills and value-based education. Class room transactions for part-B of curriculum include extending sup port and guidance to children in specified areas during school working hours.
5. When the parents were enquired about their awareness levels on the system, 87.3 percent of them responded that they understood the system. Among them, 53 % of the parents came to know about the system from their children. Another 21 percent from media and the remaining 26 percent have been oriented about the system by school management.
6. Nearly 95 percent of children know about the system and have completed two semesters by the time they have been interviewed. Many children were asking why the system was not extended to X standard.
7. About 95 per cent of the students were given project work and could complete it successfully. Help to accomplish the project work largely came from the teachers (77%) another 23.4 per cent of the students took help from the parents and the remaining children completed the project work either by taking help from peer groups or did it on their own.
8. Children are interested in the system and participated enthusiastically in the process to complete project work. Their interest levels could be understood through their active and lively participation in the system.
9. 78.7 percent knew that the system has scope only to grade child performance.
10. When asked about the usefulness of Sourabha, 85.6 per cent of the teachers replied that the handout Sourabha was useful as reference material. As a result, further 21 per cent of the non-trained teachers used Sourabha to draw insights about the system and implemented it during the academic year 2007-08.
11. Nearly 86 percent of teachers from rural and urban areas have conducted bridge courses in the month of June to provide specific competencies and fill the identified gaps.