Despite the increasing role that computer technologies play in many classrooms, the importance of textbooks endures. In countries with limited resources such as India, textbooks are often the prime curriculum resource in schools (Kumar, 1986). In many Indian science classrooms, National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) science textbooks are the only instructional tools available; therefore the quality of these state prescribed science textbooks should be a major policy concern (Kumar, 1988).

          Student views on science are shaped by (1) textbooks, examination system, syllabi and methods of assessment, (2) what the school and community accept as science, the legitimized voices of experts, authors and teachers, (3) structure and sequence of student experiences with science (see also Corcoran, 1987). In science classrooms, the textbooks function as a source of knowledge whose meaning is mediated by both the developers of instructional materials and teachers for students, who are expected to reconstruct or restate it. The manner in which authors present science influences the way it is received and interpreted; choices on methods and strategies will effect the way textbooks engage their readers.

Textbooks are a part of the large social process (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991) and serve to legitimize a view of science, conveying the approach considered acceptable for understanding and teaching of science by providing tasks, questions, problems and other information (White & Gunstone, 1988). Kuhn (1962) has viewed textbooks as a set of exemplars that play a major role in presenting content material, determining the nature of acceptable scientific explanations and testing the competency of students. Since theory is only an end result of an enquiry, textbooks must be more than a summary of various theories (Schwab, 1978). Schwab suggests that curriculum materials should reflect the tentative, fluid nature of scientific knowledge:

The child should not be told, merely, " That is right. That is wrong. These are animals. Those are plants. Rather, he should be told, "When we try to grow puppies, kittens, grass and flowers, we find that puppies and kittens need to be fed and warmed. Grass and flowers need water and sunlight. Puppies and kittens are very much alike in still other ways. Grass and flowers are alike in many other ways. Therefore . . ". In short, some knowledge would be imparted, not as truths out of the nowhere but as conclusions from evidence, or decisions from thought of alternatives and their consequences (Schwab, 1978, p. 270).

         In our recent analysis of the nature of science and technology in current NCERT science textbooks for grade levels IV through X, the development of conceptions on energy themes (force, work, and energy) was chosen as our focus since energy themes constitute a significant portion of content across the grade levels (see Koul, 1997; Koul & Dana, 1997). Results of this analysis revealed excessive science content with prime emphasis on established concepts, laws, and theories (see also, Ramanathan & Siddiqi, 1994). The treatment of content conformed to a confirmatory methodology, described as the tendency to confirm the prediction being tested and typically, to neglect those tests that can potentially expose a claim to the risk of disconfirmation (see also, Eliot & Nagel, 1987; Stake & Easley, 1978). Significantly, themes on the nature of science and technology advocated in NCERT curriculum framework (NCERT, 1988) were not necessarily found to be reflected in the treatment of subject matter on energy. Other researchers have given parallel critiques of NCERT and other Indian school science textbooks concerning content, format and appropriateness in terms of vocabulary and readability (Agnihotri, 1992; Bagchi, 1985), gender biases (Kalia, 1980) and frequency of scientific literacy or science-technology-society themes (Ramanathan & Siddiqi, 1994).

         Indian national policy on education and NCERT curriculum guidelines focus on the following objectives for school science education: a) to give emphasis to scientific methodology, the processes rather than the content, b) to provide science which is environment based, locally relevant and meaningful, c) and to encourage an interdisciplinary, integrated view of science (NCERT, 1988; NPE, 1986, 1992). Both the National Policy on Education and the National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Education-a Framework state these objectives:

Science education will be strengthened so as to develop in the child well defined abilities and values such as the spirit of inquiry, creativity, objectivity, the courage to question, and aesthetic sensibility. (NPE, 1992, p.40)

. . . the child should be able to discover and understand the scientific facts, concepts, principles and processes underlying various phenomenon . . . he/she should be able to identify the resources in the locality and use them properly (NCERT, 1988, p.26)

The shift in emphasis from product to the process of science and factual information to interesting, relevant and meaningful scientific knowledge should be the main consideration for content identification and rearrangement (NCERT, 1991, p.18)

         Prior to the interviews participants were asked to complete a brief questionnaire about their perceptions of the nature of science. The questionnaire was pretested with a group of teacher educators. The responses of the thirteen DESM staff members who completed the questionnaire are summarized in Table 1. We restricted our analysis of responses to frequency counts and chi-square test.

         Interviews were tape recorded with the permission of each participant, who had the option to stop or erase any recorded information at any time during the interview. The researcher started each interview with broad questions intended to help gain an understanding of the individual's range of perspectives on a given topic and then directed toward more in depth exploration of those statements (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992) (see Appendix). Science in NCERT school textbooks provided the main point of reference for participant's views on science in curriculum as well as science for curriculum. Participants expressed their views on the nature of science for school curriculum; the constraints on development of meaningful science curriculum materials; what methods and strategies they recommend for the treatment of subject matter; and the strengths and limitations of current textbooks. It should be noted that interviews were conducted in both English and Hindi. Data was translated and retranslated to ensure validity. We will quote from these interviews to comment on text development and publishing, authors' views of science, authors' views of science in their textbooks, and discussion of NCERT's portrayal of science.

          In the last curriculum revision, conducted in the 1980s, DESM had hoped to produce a whole curriculum package containing textbook, teacher's guide, laboratory guide and video program. There are, however, no guidebooks for the present generation of instructional materials. One of the curriculum developers discussed the current materials:

Teachers have to follow the textbooks from page one till the end page. There are no separate sets of instruction as to how to modify, how to use different methodologies for dealing with different type of children, for addressing the needs of areas from different socio-economic conditions. As far as NCERT is concerned, it is only textbook nothing but the textbook. (NCERT 1, December 1996)

. . . If you price them, nobody buys them. If they are free, then like any free material, it does not make it to its destination. Since it is free, it is considered of no value. (NCERT 2, December 1996)

*The result is significant at p<.05

Questions related with philosophy of science, the scientists have nothing to do with the teaching of science. You should go to the organization which is working on such issues. If you want to know about the way science is thought about in this country, not the teaching of science in schools and curriculum, then you should go to the National Institute of Development of Science and Technological Studies (NIDST). NIDST has nothing to do with science teaching and is relevant to your questions on investigations of the scientists and with science as a concept, but not with the teaching of science. (NCERT 5, December 1996)

          Our questionnaire offered a definition of science as pure and applied : Pure science addresses laws and concepts of the natural world whereas applied science addresses local phenomena, conditions, and solutions to people's needs. Participants significantly disagreed with the statement that "pure science should be the ideal school science curriculum" (c ² (1, n=13)= 9.308, p=.002). However, they do think that the concepts, laws and theories should play a major role in the learning of science. Out of the thirteen participants who filled out the questionnaires, ten agreed that concepts, laws and theories should always be introduced a priori practical work (c ² (1, n=13)=3.769, p=.052). There was a lack of consensus among the participants whether applied or pure science is the more visible in the present school science curriculum- the responses on the questionnaire were almost evenly divided (c ² (2, n=13)=3.846, p=.146). However, everyone completing the questionnaire agreed that science teaching should be linked with the daily experiences of students and that it should be relevant and meaningful. In the words of one participant, "give less of science and give more of what is relevant" (NCERT 4, December 1996). But, as one senior staff member put it, contextualization of science should not be at the expense of concepts, laws and principles of science:

. . . let us say that we have a pack of tribals who do not use our language . . . then I have to teach science to them. When I say I want to teach them science I mean I want to teach them the concepts of science, the laws of science, I am not talking about the context of science. (NCERT 6, December 1996)

You know I used to say this in America . . . [the reason] why physical sciences should be for everybody? You should have awareness of what science is doing for the society . . . if there is a nuclear reactor in your community, you have a right to know what is happening to you. (NCERT 7, December 1996)

Science is something that can be repeated and tested again and again. Students should test, verify and then believe it. This is basically a scientific attitude . . . science involves elimination one by one and what remains is the truth . . . a child must understand that science is a methodological thing. (NCERT 2, December 1996)

Science is not the way it is depicted as a cut and dry thing. It is a part of human endeavor. In school science curriculum, you will find formulas, statements, definitions without errors, an absolute truth kind of thing . . . this is not science. (NCERT 3, December 1996)

The abstract view of science is in fact a non-environmental view of science. The whole concept of environment is lost. It is theoretical, we look for certain calculations. We do not realize that abstract is abstract only because my perception is not that far. If I had the means it would become part of my own environment. (NCERT 4, December 1996)

R: You said that people perceive what science can do for them. Can you elaborate?

NCERT 8: I take one little example. Previously, cowdugs were used in India. There were so many problems, smoke for eyes and so on. Now liquid petroleum gas has come. In the beginning people did not accept this technology. Now they have started using it. They see its benefit. Gas is such that whenever you want it, you can use it. However, in the case of cow-dung, once it is burnt, it is burnt. Unless and until, you extinguish it [cowdung], it will continue to burn and give smoke, and it is a cumbersome process also. Now they understand what technology can do. Now they understand the importance of sewage system. Take the example of pressure cooker. People thought that aluminum was a carrier of TB and that they will not use it. But now you see everybody is using pressure cooker. Now they understand that this is the outcome of the science and technology. Now they understand the importance of telephone, airplane.

R: Don't you think there is lots of pollution also?

NCERT 8: You see if you go for the first thing, you have to suffer for the second thing and the second thing that has been the outcome for this improvement or technology, you have to find out the solution for the second thing. Then you may lead to another resultant thing. Continuously, we have to work to find the solutions for the things. Pollution, everybody knows there is a pollution, but have you left using your car? The number of airplanes is increasing, numbers of cars are increasing.

R: You think we must find a technological solution?

NCERT 8: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Technological solution does not mean that we can solve all the problems with science and technology. There are societal problems that can not be solved. (December 1996)

. . . what we stated in our policy documents is very different. We state that science education will have to inculcate a spirit of inquiry, creativity, a sense of wondering, problem solving skills, decision-making skills and aesthetic sensibility. This is what the parliament approved policy says science education should achieve in any school program, that science must be related to the every day perspectives of the learners, in terms of relationship with health, agriculture and something like. If this was to be the focus of science education, then personally speaking, as a teacher myself, the subject content does not presume in my mind that importance. It is the methodology of taking an idea and focussing on a skill like problem solving or decision making which did not get reflected in our textbooks. (NCERT 9, December 1996)

The textbook is a reading as well as a guiding material. We have not been able to give a reflection of methodology and incorporate it in our textbooks. That is the limitation of our textbooks, that is our defect. The thing has been slightly half hearted. (NCERT 12, December 1996).

In current instructional materials, it is difficult for the learners to identify themselves, students are not given a chance to think . . . The quality of NCERT textbooks can be improved by reframing a few sentences and activities. (NCERT 4, December 1996);

There is a dearth of activities, quizzes, puzzles and other hands on activities that can be easily performed and are meaningful for the student. . . . Since development of textbooks requires a lot of effort and time, there is a dearth of concretization of instructional materials through analogies, situations, problems and illustrations. (NCERT 11, December 1996)

Present instructional materials do not take into account local materials, resources and environment. . .Except for life science textbooks, there is no romance in the current general science textbooks. (NCERT 3, December 1996)

If students are to be provided with tasks or situations, then these tasks can not be assigned centrally through NCERT textbooks (NCERT 1, December 1996)

In short, instructional materials are not meaningful and there is a learning barrier . . . I found that when we are trying to give a child concepts of science, we always forget for what are we giving this, what is its use? If you go through the secondary science textbooks (IX, X), you find there is no need for the common man to know atomic structure, how the atom is build up, what it is doing. Rather if he knows how electrons flow, what is electricity, how I can use the electricity, what are its hazards, would be more interesting. The basic flaw, why there are dropouts, why students are not interested, is because they do not see any utility of it. Given a chance, I would like a study of what a grown up person in India who is 20-21 years old needs to know to lead a meaningful life. Then let me go back and decide what type of knowledge should I put in the curriculum materials. This is what I feel. (NCERT 4, December 1996)

          To promote an integrated, comprehensive view of science, DESM has advocated interdisciplinary curriculum materials for grades VI to X. Their basic premise is that if science is compartmentalized into a variety of disciplines then animal husbandry, agriculture, nutrition etc. become separate subjects. As one senior staff member stated "Principles of science in nature are interdisciplinary and integrated, they do not operate as physics, chemistry and biology" (NCERT 3, December 1996). Therefore, DESM staff have argued that instructional materials should not be subject bound. Accordingly they have aimed at the integration of various fields (biology, physics, chemistry etc.) in the development of instructional materials through grade X.

          During our interviews, staff members expressed some of their difficulties with developing integrated materials. They said that the need to extend themselves beyond their own specialties is very demanding. They recognized also that as subject specialists they have a tendency to emphasize without explanation the need for a particular subject content as part of an interdisciplinary theme. Specialist subject concerns are so strong that they end up negotiating the requirements of their respective disciplines within the curriculum. As one member of faculty put it "what we end up doing is that you have 30% and I will also have 30%, that kind of thing . . ." (NCERT 10, December 1996). This suggests why science in the current textbooks is merely an assembly of concepts taken from physics, chemistry and biology. There was unanimous consensus amongst curriculum developers that the current textbooks still present science in parts.

          Participants also cited a problem at the classroom level. They said that Indian teachers tend to interpret science according to their own area of specialization and do not to view science holistically. Teachers have graduated from colleges with degrees in either physics, chemistry and mathematics, or physics, chemistry and biology, but they are not trained to teach science in an integrated, holistic manner. The present teacher training component of the curriculum is not geared to address this deficiency. Furthermore, many private schools in India still use three teachers to teach biology, physics and chemistry whereas the government schools rely upon two teachers to teach all the science subjects. Many teachers fear that integrated curriculum causes a surplus of teachers in schools and so they resist using integrated instructional materials. Significantly, there are a few of the faculty at DESM who question the purpose of integrating science in current instructional materials:

Frankly, I am still not happy with the present class IX, X textual materials. I still feel that we have made a khitchdi [mess] of physics, chemistry and life science etc. The way this curriculum is transacted in schools, the way it is taught to the children, I still feel we should again bifurcate science to physics, chemistry and life sciences. (NCERT 1, December 1996)

          Some of the factors which may contribute to this gap have been identified through the interviews with curriculum developers and textbook authors. Development of quality curriculum materials requires a lot of time and effort and textbook development is only one of the many responsibilities given to faculty members at DESM. The quality of instructional materials suffers due to other faculty commitments. Additionally, members of a team responsible for writing a textbook section may not agree on the choice of methods/strategies in the treatment of the subject matter. Lack of consensus can even extend to people outside the department who provide feedback on manuscripts.

          Based on past analysis of NCERT textbooks and interviews with authors/curriculum developers, we would conclude that in spite of the conceptual shift from a product to a process approach in their last curriculum revision, the efficacy of the second approach is missing in present instructional materials. Most importantly, the product form of science in current curriculum materials is based on an assumption that science stays the same while local conditions may change. One participant explained the issue of contextuality as significant only for primary grades:

. . . when you move upwards from upper primary to secondary classes, contextuality is not important since in upper classes the structure of the discipline itself becomes more important, and the structure of the discipline is universal in character . . . If I have to teach the periodic table to somebody there is no local contextuality. You teach the concepts as they are developed in periodicity and explain the periodic table. Because it is used internationally, the periodic table is not something specific to a district . . . I think local contextuality is concerned with different levels of training of teachers. You may have the textbook as a reference but if you find that this textbook contains methods which this child does not appreciate because these things do not exist in his environment, the teacher should have that training to design a strategy for the local situation. But the basic concepts remain the same. ( NCERT 9, December 1996).

          Curriculum developers state that there is a demand for the product form of science and any deviation brings major criticisms:

But most of the average schools will stick with the "only information" type books. And it is very difficult to gather courage because there will be one thousand letters to my director and director will say bhai criticism a raha hai badal karo (there is criticism, change the books). After all we are not missionaries, the government employee is not a missionary, he will try to strike a balance. And, in fact, I am not sure that this is the better method than this, because the product I have not seen. (NCERT 12, December 1996)

NCERT 6: Because if you look at the chapter on waves [in a NCERT textbook] right now, activities are being done and then some conclusions are being drawn. Now what happens is that if the teacher is not able to do the activities on a particular day, they may not be able to draw conclusions. They have to follow every word, every context which is coming there. What I am doing is: forget about activities and deliver the lesson. I will develop the material where the activities are some kind of supplementary. If they (activities) are done, well and good, but the process of teaching should not suffer.

R: I am a bit confused here. We normally say that curriculum should be activity based.

NCERT 6: I can not say that I can not follow this approach (of having activities). However there are constraints in the schools that I am conscious of . So there is a compromise between the two. I can not say that it should not be activity based . . . I profess that it should be activity based, but at the same time I am also concerned with the practices being followed in the schools. So I am trying to make a compromise. I am not saying that the activities should be skipped . . . they should be done. I am giving more than one exercise. (December 1996)

         The commentaries from curriculum developers are shadowed with concerns persistent in post-independence India regarding a nationally standard science curriculum versus a locally relevant, contextualized science instruction. Since its inception, the role projected for the National Council of Educational Research and Training has been to provide coherency and direction for school curricula within India's diverse settings. Science education must be tailored to the specific scientific and technological needs of diverse populations, hence, the Indian states are expected to develop locally relevant science curriculum/resource materials. In practice, however, NCERT science textbooks function as agents of a standardized science since the state education authorities package and dispense them as the only curriculum resource in the classrooms. This practice relegates students with a "fixed" content, thus limiting opportunity to make use of science as a way to investigate their immediate world and improve their environment. Yet currently, the sensitive issue of development of locally relevant resource materials has been compounded by the attempts of some fundamentalists to replace algebra and calculus textbooks with what they call "native science", namely, Sanskrit verses alleged to be of Vedic origin. Our interviews with curriculum developers also suggest that context specific treatment of science (the nature of science and its methodology) can be undermined by the interests of subject specialists. Specialist interests tend to circumscribe the boundaries of a dialogue, thus elevating the status of an abstract discourse. As curriculum developers and textbook authors at NCERT note, unless policy makers at every level address these issues, Indian school children may be deprived of a science curriculum that provides them with meaningful instructional materials and crucial conceptual tools for solving real-life problems.

*Researcher is grateful to the Director and staff at the Department of Education in Science and Mathematics, National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi for their support for this study.

          Apple, M., & Christian-Smith, L. (1991). The politics of the textbook. New York: Routledge.

          Bagchi, J. P.(1985). Indian Biology textbooks in sex Education, a comparative study. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 8(2), 18-23.

          Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education, an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

          Corcoran, B. (1987). Teachers creating readers. In B. Corcoran & E. Evans (Eds.) (1987). Readers, texts, teachers. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boyton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

          Elliott, D. L., & Nagel, K. C. (1987). School science and the pursuit of knowledge-deadends and all. Science and Children, 24 (8), 9-12.

          Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. NY: Verso.

          Jenkins, E.W. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611.

          Kalia, N. N. (1980). Images of men and women in Indian textbooks. Comparative Education Review, 24(2), 209-223.

          Koul, R. (1997). Contextualized science? an Indian experience. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

          Koul, R., & Dana, T. (1997). Contextualized science for teaching science and technology. Interchange, 28 (2&3), 121-144.

          Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

          Kumar, K. (1988). Origins of India's "textbook culture". Comparative Education Review, 32 (4), 452-464.

          Kumar, K. (1986). Textbooks and educational culture. Economic and Political Weekly, 21 (3), 1309-1311.

          Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In J. lave & S. Chaiklin (Eds.), Understanding practice, perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

         National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)(1991). Science and mathematics education for the future. New Delhi: NCERT.

         National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)(1988). National curriculum for elementary and secondary education- a framework. New Delhi: NCERT.

         National Policy of Education (NPE)(1986)(Rev.1992). National Policy of Education. Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Department of Education, New Delhi.

          Nye, M. J. (1993). From chemical philosophy to theoretical chemistry. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

         Ramanathan, S., & Siddiqi, N. (1994). Representation of science in upper primary science textbooks: an assessment. Indian Educational Review, 29(1-2), 1-12.

          Rogoff, B. (1984).Introduction: thinking and learning in social context. In B. Rogoff and J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

          Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum and liberal Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

          Shapere, D. (1988). The concept of observation in science and philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 59, 485-525.

          Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

          Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education. Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois

          Tatum, J. S. (1995). Energy possibilities-rethinking alternatives and the choice-making process. NY: State University of New York Press.

          White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1988). Probing understanding. New York: Falmer.

General Questions on textbooks and handbooks

1. What is the textbook edition cycle? Under what conditions would you edit rather than reprint?
2. What changes in the textbooks have taken place over the years?
3. How are the decisions on topic choice, authors and developers made across the different grades? (If relevant, how these decisions were made for topics on energy?)
4. Who are the authors of the textbooks? What do you know about them? What are their backgrounds?
5. Were the handbooks developed concurrent to the textbooks? What was the purpose and thinking behind the handbooks?
6. How do current NCERT curriculum materials differ from when they were produced locally?

1. What are the aims and objectives behind NCERT science curriculum materials?
2. What do you perceive are the strengths and limitations of the current NCERT curriculum materials? In which ways do you think these could be better?

1. Do you think the nature of science is an important issue ? Explain why?
2. How do you describe the way nature of science is portrayed in NCERT science curriculum materials? Is your view of the nature of science any different? What view of the nature of science would you like to be portrayed in these materials? How should we go about doing it? Take an example from your field or area of interest? What should be the best methods and strategies ?
3. In what ways can curriculum materials make a difference in this direction? What are the limitations? What else is important?
4. In your opinion, what are the major objectives for teaching students about the nature of science and technology? What are the major obstacles to achieve these objectives ? What are major characteristics you try to build into science curricula to meet these objectives?
5. This question is about the classroom practices in Indian schools. How can innovation in present school science curriculum shape the teaching practices in Indian schools? What are the situational (institutional or instructional) constraints on these practices? How is NCERT addressing or planning to address these constraints?

Ravinder Koul completed his Ph.D. in Curriculum Instruction ( with specialization in Science Education) from The Pennsylvania State University. He has traveled and worked at both school and university levels in India, Botswana, and West Virginia. Ravinder's research has focused on the significance of beliefs and instructional practices in teacher education, curriculum reforms and curriculum materials, computer-mediated-communication and cross-cultural issues. Ravinder is a member of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching, American Educational Research Association and International Group on History, Philosophy, Sociology of Science and Science Teaching.

Thomas M. Dana is Assistant Professor and Science Education Program Coordinator in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Education Programs, at Penn State University in State College, PA. Dr. Dana's academic background includes a B.S. in Earth Sciences Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, an M.S. in Affective Education/Science Education from the State University of New York at Oswego, and a Ph.D in Science Education from Florida State University.

To get back to the current issue of the EJSE, click here.

To get back to the EJSE's Archive page, click here.