We have always been debating on different methods of pedagogy. Of late child-centered activity based learning methods (by John Dewey) have been priortised for the best learning, in which child is kept at the centre of activity, meaning he is the code and he is learning through his own observations rather than feeding something in his mind through lectures or spoon-feeding.
Nevertheless we are still far from really getting into a child’s shoes due to confines of curriculum and set patterns. As educators we are designing activities in such a way that they adhere to curriculum topics only and there is a definite result of the activity. Mind it we are not letting the child to make discovery through this method. Where are we tickling their minds and giving them scope to make mistakes and repeat their experiments again and again. In sort there is no real research based learning involved.
On the other hand we are still labelling children as hyperactive and slow learners due to a perceived notion that they are deviations from normal. By saying so we are actually shrugging off our duties as educators because they simply dont fit into our system.Time and again there are debates surrounding the very much hyped ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) as a myth. There have been innumerable examples now that these so-called labelled children have excelled far better than others with customised teaching methods, constant support and motivation. These kind of children have actually proven to be out-of-the box thinkers and have been achievers in real life world. How far is it really justified to teach what we want to teach and then on other hand ironically we want our children to be critical-thinkers??