A while ago, I came across the idea of the learning contract — an agreement between the teacher and student detailing the learning outcomes and assessment methods and tasks for a particular course. It is a negotiated document that specifies, and assigns the responsibility of both parties from the beginning of the course to the end. I have seen it being applied at the school level, where parents also become party to the contract, agreeing to supervise or support the student in specific ways. The teacher or the school draws up the document, and the parents and children have an opportunity to respond and put forth their ideas before it is finalised. Of course, all this happens within the overall goals of the programme.
This might seem like an overly structured way to take or teach a course, possibly making it too rigid , and taking away the opportunity for incidental learning. But, by the same token, it could open up ways of engaging with courses that take into account different learning styles and varying levels of interest in the subject concerned. An important part of the contract is that it also takes into account what the student wants from a course.
But, given the nature of most higher education programmes in India, it is unlikely that we could implement learning contracts in a formal sense — the culture of our college classrooms wouldn’t allow it. Or so we think.
Active participation
What if, as teachers and students, we approach our classes in the manner of a contract, where we spell out what we expect from the other, and negotiate those expectations in a mutually agreeable way? What if students could tell teachers what kind of approach might work for them, and teachers, in turn, state what kind of student engagement they think would make the course effective? What if classes actually turned into conversations instead of chores, where one party feels the burden of knowledge transfer and the other feels the weight of receiving that burden?
Any contract requires the participation of (at least) two parties. Something is given, and something is taken, and the terms of give and take are specified. The key idea here is equal participation in the deal. Too often, students sit through classes in a state of resentment or boredom, expecting the teacher to do the work of sparking their interest and eliciting response. While it may primarily be the teacher’s responsibility to stimulate and engage, this cannot happen unless students are willing participants.
One might say that the classroom is already a transactional space — the teacher gives content, and the student performs in tests and exams and receives marks. But does this really lead to learning? Such a transaction has nothing to do with learning itself and everything to do with its trappings — marks, grades, certificates. A real contract, one that is respected by both teachers and students, would make bigger demands of both parties — sincerity, participation, and active listening and questioning. Such a contract may not need to be written out or signed on, but it does need to be articulated clearly. Teachers need to go beyond a straightforward syllabus and readings list to talking about what they will bring to the class as individuals and what they would like the students to contribute. And the students, for their part, should formulate — and commit to — their side of the bargain.
The author teaches at the University of Hyderabad and edits Teacher Plus. usha.bpgll@gmail.com
