17 Dec 

Recently, the Global New Light of Myanmar carried a news item to the effect that the Ministry of Education in Nay Pyi Taw held a coordination meeting via videoconferencing on the draft of the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) (2021-2030). This comes as no surprise because the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) (2016-2021) is in its last stage. Due to the incidence of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last stage has probably been transposed to the (2021-2030) Plan. Perhaps the public could be informed in due course about the achievements of the (2016-2021) Plan. However, it is presumed that the drawing up of the (2021-2030) NESP will build upon what has been achieved in the previous plan and what is targeted for the (2021-2030) NESP.

“Mother Law”

The NESP (2021-2030) will presumably abide by the National Education Law of 2014, and it’s the amendment of 2015. The National Education Law is the “Mother Law” of all other Education Laws, subsequently to be enacted. It also takes into account quality assurance of education. Following up on the National Education Law the Basic Education Law was enacted in 2019. Perhaps new laws on TVET and Private Education are in the pipeline.

All “Education Strategies” based on whatever law, have one aspect in common, which is the “Training of Teachers/Instructors”. The National Education Law has a chapter devoted to this aspect of education/ training. Teachers have the important duty of not only helping to transfer the “learning” content but also to inculcate civic sense and self-study capability for lifelong learning of their students/trainees. As I have been an “Instructor Trainer” for many years I would like to make some suggestions about Teacher/Instructor training based on my experience.

The Basic Education Law enacted in 2019, in its aims and objectives, states that “the educational environment should be of international standard and use modern teaching-learning technology to ensure high-quality learning”. At the same time, in the basic principles part, it is stated “that the use of modern technology should include the “student-centred approach” to teaching and learning. Such an approach is conducive to “active learning”.

Using modern technology

It is true that training the teachers on using modern technology and new methods of teaching would address the issue of the current deficiencies in the Teaching-Learning process. However, it requires the support of all stakeholders, including the teachers, the students and parents to work together for the Education Reform to meet with success.

The “Teaching-Learning” process needs to be steered away from the current” one way talking by the teacher and rote memorizing of learning content by the student” to a more “student-centred approach” as is stated in the Basic Education Law. Of course, “Rote Learning” is the means of learning vocabulary, mathematical tables, poetry recitation etc., particularly in the pre-primary and primary classes. It has its place in what is often known as “foundational learning”. However it’s not conducive to the understanding of complex ideas, problem-solving and creative thinking as in “active learning”. The aim of teaching is to create a “learning environment” which will engage the students more in the learning process and thus enhance their assimilation of the learning content.

However, most teachers at every level are used to the “Chalk and Talk” mode of teaching and note giving. It may also involve the teacher drawing diagrams and charts on the black/whiteboard thus reducing the time of “facing the class” while teaching. This in effect negates “eye contact with the students” as well as proper body language like gesturing or pointing out to any trainee in asking questions to get their feedback and so on. The “Chalk and Talk” method is also prone to leaving “visualization” of abstract ideas to the individual student’s imagination, among other drawbacks.

A two-way modality

With the advances in technology, “teaching” has progressed, depending upon the stage of development, to the point where the teacher, using modern technology, “manages” the transfer of knowledge, skills and attitude/ behaviour to the students. At the same time, it involves using a two-way modality in which there is the interaction between the teacher and the students. Teacher training has to take this into account and teach the teachers how to teach using modern education technology and a more interactive approach which is conducive to “active learning” on the part of the student.

Therefore in the future, as is the intent of the Education Law, hopefully in the teaching-learning process, all teachers will be able to use modern Education Technology. It will help students to “understand” better what is being taught. It will at the same time reduce the time taken by the teacher in drawing diagrams or writing detail notes on the blackboard/ whiteboard and hence increase the “productivity” of the teacher in that he/she will have more time to complete the learning content of the curricula. Systematic Teacher Training to teach using modern technology will have to be undertaken step by step because of the various constraints including the budgetary constraints in so doing.

“Competency” in the new method

Then again what has to be taken into account is that “training and retraining” of teachers in the new methods will take time to produce results. The teachers, even if they have been very successful at teaching the old way, just cannot “unlearn” the age-old method and acquire “competency” in the new method, especially in the use of modern technology, immediately after they have been through the teacher training/retraining course. To acquire teaching “competency” in the new method will need time for “practice teaching” as all teacher trainers are aware of. The training of teachers may also need a period of “mentoring” by single or group mentors during the “practice teaching sessions” to enable the trainees to sooner acquire the “competencies” in applying the new methods effectively.

As such, the suggestion from the point of view of the “stakeholder”, in implementing the new methods of teaching is that emphasis be given to the systematic training of teachers, possibly in the preparation phase, prior to introducing the “new” curricula widely into the basic education school and TVET system. The amended National Education Law allows existing schools to make the transition to the new system within a prescribed period of time following the coming in to force of the Law. The gradual transition will better ensure success in the application of the new methods of the teaching-learning process and hence will gain acceptance and support of stakeholders including teachers, students and parents alike.

Here I would like to add something more about the training of Teachers/ Instructors of Technical and Vocational Education and Training. As the TVET sector needs to be expanded appreciably to meet the needs of the economy for skilled workers, the need for new TVET Instructors will arise. It is of utmost importance that Vocational Instructors who impart practical skills to the trainees, are themselves able to demonstrate the skills. It is my experience that the Teacher/Trainers who are hired for imparting the practical skills based on their academic qualification alone are often not very competent in actually demonstrating how to perform the jobs/tasks to their trainees. 

Hiring “Trainers” who have been practising the occupational skills to earn their living for some years and have the ability to actually show their trainees how to perform the job/task to the required standards of performance, is a prime necessity.

Here we come up against a constraint in that many are not so keen to work as instructors on the salary generally offered to “practical training instructors”. Hence to really get practical instructors who are skilled, there may need to be relaxations made regarding their academic qualification as well offering them incentives to the extent possible. Not getting the right practical instructor has been the obstacle in assuring quality training in the TVET sector. This is an issue we have to resolve for the success of our TVET sector. Perhaps practical instructors from among those who have the required years of experience of the occupation in Industry or in self-employment and possess at least a Level 3 competency certificate in the occupation concerned from the National Skills Standards Authority could be considered for hiring as a practical instructor. Such instructors could be trained in Teaching Methods through an Instructor Training Course.

In fact, on my part, I feel the need for establishing TVET Instructor Training Centres. In my recollection once there was an “Instructor Training Facility” in the Insein Government Technical Institute in Yangon. Now however that is “water under the bridge”. Hence my suggestion is to re-establish such facilities in the GTI s in Yangon, Mandalay and some of the other Regions.
With charity to all and malice to none.

By Lokethar