Technology-integrated Pedagogy,Learning Outcomes and Retention: Can Public–Private Partnerships Play a Role in Primary Education in India?

Abstract

We undertake a case study on the SHIKSHA initiative in Uttar Pradesh in Northern India to understand how impactful the technology-integrated pedagogy through public–private partnerships (PPP) in education has been on the learning outcomes of students. A content analysis to understand the processes adopted by the SHIKSHA initiative is attempted. The digitized curriculum developed is found to be contextualized in accordance with the background of students, which can be aligned with constructivist learning theory. We also attempt a quantitative analysis to estimate the impact of these pedagogical practices on learning outcomes. The analysis finds that the average scores of schools with SHIKSHA interventions are higher by 58 percentage points. Also, under SHIKSHA, a 15-day period was given to the students for revision of the courses with the active participation of the teachers. The average scores after these revisions record an improvement as compared to the average scores before revisions. The paper suggests that the digitization of content by the government or through PPPs can help boost effective learning.

JEL Classifications: C120, H520, I200, I210, I220, I280

Keywords

Primary school education public–private partnership technology-integrated pedagogy learning outcomes constructivism

1. Introduction

The learning outcomes of school education in India have been abysmally poor, particularly in the rural areas. For example, only 27% students in grade III can read grade II text, and only 23% students in grade V can perform division (for the year 2018–2019) (ASER, 2019). In particular, the public-funded schools in most parts of the country have not been performing well with respect to delivery of education, teacher engagement and availability of up-to-date infrastructure.

In the wake of this, since the early 2000s, the public–private partnerships (PPPs) are considered an alternative model for providing quality education. In India, the corporate-led PPP took a strong hold, particularly in the 2000s with the institution of corporate social responsibility under the Companies Act 2013. As a result, the private foundation-led philanthropy has gained prominence in the school education of the country. We have some corporate-led PPP programmes in India, such as Bharti Foundation, Tech Mahindra Foundation, Cognizant Foundation and Infosys Foundation in public-funded schools. The governments partner with the private sector to innovate in pedagogical practices and management efficiencies, to help public-funded schools overcome their shortcomings (Patrinos et al., 2009). Mostly these kinds of initiatives fund infrastructure in the schools, such as bags, books, uniforms, visual aids, and invest in teacher training. However, literature is scant about the processes of classroom delivery, which forms the core of improving learning outcomes.

The most crucial factor in ensuring an improvement in the learning outcomes and retention of content by the students is the pedagogy or method of teaching in the classroom. The PPP initiatives in public-funded schools in India cater to the students from socio-economically deprived sections of society. It is vital that such schools follow pedagogical practices, which makes the learning environment interesting and, thereby, improve retention and learning outcomes for these students.

In recent times, we see a lot of emphasis being placed on using technology to make classroom delivery effective by digitizing the curriculum. SHIKSHA provides one good example. It is a PPP programme introduced in 2012 by the Shiv Nadar Foundation to eradicate illiteracy from the country by creating models which are replicable and scalable. Their pedagogy involves delivering classroom lectures using digital content, which is transmitted in an audiovisual format. There are also intermittent question-and-answer sessions conducted by the teacher as well as exercises in the video, where the teacher encourages the students to participate. The lessons are delivered in the format of stories, which are based on a rural background. The language used is Hindi, which is the home language of these students.

We do an elaborate analysis taking the case study of SHIKSHA initiative, which integrates technology into classroom delivery and undertakes other pedagogical practices to make the classroom an interesting space for children. This paper aims to address the following overarching question: Can PPP through innovative pedagogy in primary education help the nation improve learning goals in schools? To address this, we delve a little deeper and deal with the following subset of questions: (i) What are the processes involved in innovative pedagogy? (ii) What is the role of technology in teaching pedagogy? (iii) How motivation of teachers can impact the success of a PPP programme? (iv) What are the potential challenges faced in public-funded schools in India? (v) What is the impact of innovative pedagogy under a PPP programme on immediate learning outcomes and the retention of the content in PPP-run schools?

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature. Section 3 explains the SHIKSHA initiative and their activities in brief. Section 4 gives the method of data collection and analysis. Section 5 throws light on pedagogical initiatives. The impact of the SHIKSHA initiative on retention of content and learning outcome is analysed in Section 6. Section 7 provides some useful policy recommendations.

2. Literature Review

There exist various modes of PPP in education. The models range from private sector philanthropic initiatives, private management of public schools, government purchase of education services from private schools, voucher programmes, adopt-a-school programme and capacity-building initiatives to school infrastructure partnerships (LaRocque, 2008). In addition to these, we have also education–industry partnerships and multi-stakeholder partnerships (Verger & Moschetti, 2016). We need to note here that the privatization of education does not involve the complete transfer of ownership to the private hands. It happens more at the level of service provision and funding (Verger, 2016).

Robertson and Verger (2012) argue that the initiation of PPPs is caused by the initiatives of multilateral organizations, such as World Bank, the United Nations and IMF (which support the construction of markets in higher education with the help of the private sector). There are also global corporates entering into education sector under the PPP model (Robertson and Verger, 2012).

There are studies which attempt critical assessments of PPP programmes in education. PPP programmes bring in flexibility, create competition in the education market and thus improve the quality of education, and it can increase efficiency in service delivery (Patrinos et al., 2009). PPPs can supplement the public-funded schools’ limited capacity, can allow the public sector to take advantage of the skills and knowledge and innovation of the private sector, increases flexibility, make costs more transparent, due to which governments are adopting this model for service delivery (PPP knowledge lab; Verger & Moschetti, 2016).¹ PPP can enable the government to make use of the skill of the private sector to develop innovative programmes and overcome problems related to inflexible work rules or management practices that prevail in the public sector (Barrera-Osorio et al., 2012).

Some studies, which are conducted worldwide, have assessed the impact of PPPs in school education on the learning of students. Bettinger (1999) and Bifulco and Ladd (2006) do not find any impact of PPP initiative on the students learning in the PPP-run schools in Michigan and North Carolina respectively, because either these schools attract students who have lower test scores while entering the schools (Bettinger, 1999) or there is a student turnover (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006). Betts and Tang (2011), however, present a mixed result of their meta-analysis of the literature, where charter schools were successful in some areas and not successful in other areas. Along similar lines, Hanushek et al. (2005) find that parents were more sensitive to the quality in charter schools than public schools. Also, the parents from low-income families are not as responsive to quality in schools as compared to parents in high-income brackets. Therefore, as compared to a publicly funded school, charter schools are found to be more vulnerable to exit by the students if the quality is not good enough. Barrera-Osorio et al. (2012) conducted a review of nine studies of the voucher system in several countries, three studies of subsidies (one in South America and two in South Asia), four studies of private management contracts (two in the US and two in South America) and one study of private finance initiatives in the UK. It concludes that private sector participation in school education has helped to improve quality and access. On the other hand, Fabre and Straub (2019) found that PPPs are associated with enhancing school segregation. Verger et al. (2016) reviewed studies on PPP and found that the overall effect of PPP comes out to be more negative than positive; it increases school segregation, exclusion and educational inequalities. Most of the studies on PPP in schools in developing countries, such as Nepal, Uganda, Pakistan and India, look at the impact of changed governance structure or management on improvement in learning (Afridi, 2018; Barrera-Osorio et al., 2016; Crawfurd, 2017; Rajabhandari, 2011; Subramanian, 2019). In addition, Lim et al. (2007), Chattopadhay and Nogueira (2014) and Sarvi et al. (2015) mention a few PPP initiatives in Asian countries and the developing world, but these studies do not conduct a systematic analysis of the impact of PPP initiatives on learning outcomes of students. We find Chattopadhay and Nogueira (2014) focus on PPP initiative for skill-based courses at the secondary level of schooling in Brazil but do not deal with the foundational courses at the primary level of education.

The literature is scant on corporate-led PPP programmes. Srivastava (2010) argues that the funding of private foundation philanthropy does not reach the poorest. van Fleet (2012) posits that education should be provided by the government and not private philanthropy because philanthropy cannot address the needs of society at large (p. 170). Bhanji (2012), in their case study on Microsoft Corporation, concludes that Microsoft invested hugely in teacher training in government schools and Information and Communications Technology (ICT) curriculum in schools to advance their software in schools.

One of the crucial factors that determines the learning outcomes of the students studying in a PPP-run school is the mode of education delivery and pedagogical practices. With respect to pedagogy, more recently the use of ICT is encouraged in schools. We have a few studies on the use of ICT in classrooms. Kurtulus and Ersoy (2011) find that using hypermedia in e-books makes the content clearer for students to understand, specially where they face difficulty in constructing three-dimensional geometric objects. Hismanoglu (2011) finds in their study of five schools in North Cyprus that the integration of audio and CD-ROM could help generate the interests of students in the class. However, it was found to be limited by a lack of teacher training in using ICT. According to Banitt et al. (2013), integrating technology with lessons improves student enthusiasm in the classroom. In a similar study, conducted by Tosco (2015) in a Montessori upper elementary classroom in North Carolina, it is found that technology-integrated lessons increase student engagement and retention of information. Yuelin et al. (2021) find that teachers as well as parents have a significant role in improving the learning outcomes of students in online teaching.

In more recent times, we see the growing significance of using technology for classroom delivery. To understand the implications of technology-integrated curriculum, we need to delve a little deeper and understand as to how learning occurs in such a pedagogy. There are different theories of classroom learning. The standard way of teaching in the classroom follows behaviourist approach of learning, where the brain of children responds to certain stimuli of rewards or/and punishments. Reinforcement of learning, therefore, happens by rewarding good performance or punishing unacceptable performance (Skinner, 1963). This school of thought assumes the children to be rather passive learners.

We have a few theories which can help us understand how children learn. First is the theory of cognitivism (Bruner, 1966). The theory of cognitivism gives importance to the mind of the child and their metacognitive behaviours. It argues that the mind of the child takes the information from the environment processes it and uses it to produce learning outcomes. While this theory does not negate the role of the environment, it renders prime importance to the mind of a child. The theory of constructivism also postulates active learning, but it differs slightly from the theory of cognitivism by placing a greater emphasis on the social interaction of the child (with family, with teachers, with peers and all the elements of the environment) (Vygotsky, 1978). Constructivists argue that a child interacts with the environment and then constructs knowledge. Therefore, the learning is a collaborative effort, and the teacher acts a crucial facilitator in the classroom. This is, particularly, true for more complex tasks which children cannot do independently. A crucial feature of the environment or the context on which the children construct knowledge refers to their socio-economic background.

The PPP intervention that we are dealing with, the SHIKSHA initiative, not only integrates technology with the classroom delivery but also contextualizes curriculum in accordance with the socio-economic backgrounds of the students. Contextualizing curriculum within the culture, the home language of students, their communities improves the learning of students (Berns & Erickson, 2001; Ewing et al., 2010). We can argue that the pedagogy adopted by the SHIKSHA initiative can be analysed as an application of the theory of constructivism.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no such study in the literature which does a systematic and in-depth analysis of pedagogical practices of these PPP programmes in the primary education sector of India. Also, there have been no studies, which have highlighted the role of technology in classroom delivery under a PPP programme and have assessed its impact on learning outcomes as well as retention of the content. With limited data availability on SHIKSHA initiative intervention, the paper aims to fill up these gaps and derives certain useful implications on the basis of the performance of an important PPP initiative.

3. The SHIKSHA Initiative

The SHIKSHA initiative began in 2012 by the Shiv Nadar Foundation with the aim to eradicate illiteracy. The programme targets students in grade 1 and grade 2 of over 250 public-funded schools² and low fee private schools in three districts in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in India—Bulandshahar, Gautam Buddha Nagar and Sitapur. The objective of the programme is to ensure that 90% of the students get at least 90% of the score in an academic year. SHIKSHA initiative undertakes the following activities to ensure better learning outcomes in schools:

SHIKSHA initiative digitizes the course curriculum prescribed by the UP state board and runs it in the classrooms in audiovisual format.

It performs activities to improve the retention of content by the students. For a period of 15 days after the examinations conducted by the school, the SHIKSHA initiative helps the students revise and retain the course content they had studied for the examinations. After 15 days of this exercise, another examination is conducted by the SHIKSHA initiative, which is called Post Augmentation Test (PAT). The scores of the regular examinations conducted by the schools are called post-test scores. The scores of post test and PATs are periodically compared to test the retention of content.

In the month of April, the attendance is lowest because most children help their parents in the harvesting of crops. To best utilize this time, they hold a workshop called UMANG, to help students revise the curriculum of their previous class.

The teachers are periodically trained.

A field supervisor visits the schools every week to ensure lessons are delivered as planned. The field supervisor also takes weekly attendance of the students.

One of the highlights of the programme is integrating technology in teaching–learning processes. To ensure the delivery of classroom lessons in an innovative way, they provide technological equipment, such as projectors and digital content to the schools. Since most of these government schools are located in villages with poor electricity supply, the SHIKSHA initiative also provides electric generators in the classrooms meant for grade 1 and grade 2 students.³

There are three broad models which exist:

Model A: SHIKSHA initiative deploys their own teachers and technical equipment in government schools (these are 25 in number) and low fee private schools (these are eight in number only).⁴

Model B: SHIKSHA initiative provides technical equipment and digital content to the public-funded schools and periodically trains the public-funded school teachers teaching grade 1 and grade 2.

Model C: SHIKSHA initiative provides only technical equipment and digital content in public-funded schools.⁵

4. Data and Methods of Analysis

We collect different sets of data for our study. We also adopt different methods of analysing each kind of data. The method and the rationale for each are given below:

4.1. Data

The paper aims to analyse the classroom delivery mechanisms undertaken by SHIKSHA initiative and their impact on retention and learning. To understand the process of classroom delivery better we collected the data at various steps. First, to have an in-depth and unbiased understanding of the processes adopted by SHIKSHA initiative we conducted open-ended interviews of 21 teachers deployed by SHIKSHA initiative in public-funded schools. We also conducted focus group discussion of the teachers deployed by the SHIKSHA initiative to corroborate their narrative with that in the open-ended interviews. Second, to understand the functioning of the classrooms we conducted a non-participant observation survey of three schools under the SHIKSHA initiative. One of the key contributions of SHIKSHA initiative is to digitize the textbook content and presents it in audio–visual form. Third, we analyse their digital content and substantiate this by also analysing with the lesson plan and teaching plan developed by the SHIKSHA initiative.

In order to understand the impact on learning outcomes, we have taken the assessment data of 1,738 students in 214 schools located in UP for the year 2018–2019. The assessment data for each stage mentioned earlier—post-test and PAT—are collected for different kinds of models. The following table elucidates the sample (Table 1).

On the basis of the different types of schools identified, we have categorised and named the schools. The complete intervention schools are those schools where the SHIKSHA initiative deploys their own teachers and their technical equipment and digital content. Partial intervention schools are those schools where the SHIKSHA initiative trains the public-funded school teachers and provides their technical equipment and digital content. We also take public-funded schools with no SHIKSHA initiative intervention, called as non-intervention schools, as our control group.

Table 1.

Number of Schools in Three Districts of Uttar Pradesh According to Categories (2018–2019).

District/Block/SchoolModels	Bulandshahar		Gautam Buddha Nagar		Sitapur
	Block – Sikandarabad		Block - Dadri		Block - Kasmanda
	Public-funded	Private	Public-funded	Private	Public-funded	Private
Complete intervention	13	5	12	3		–
Partial intervention	8	–	2	–	155	–
Non-intervention schools	3	–	6	–	7	–
Total	24	5	20	3	162	–

Source: SHIKSHA initiative and Shiv Nadar Foundation.

4.2. Methods for Analysis

We adopt a mixed-method approach—qualitative and quantitative—in order to analyse our data sets. We follow a sequential mixed-method approach. We first analyse the processes adopted by the SHIKSHA initiative, which helps improve the learning outcome. The second step is to understand the implications of these processes on retention and learning outcome, for which we adopt quantitative methods.

In order to analyse the data gathered from interviews, focus group discussion and digital content we use the tool of content analysis. Content analysis helps summarize big data into themes, which makes the data clear and comprehensible. To control for the researcher bias we use a combination of directed and summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). In a directed content analysis where we develop the codes, categories and themes on the basis of our research questions or existing research gaps in the literature. This would help set a context for analysing the classroom delivery. Summative content analysis involves an additional step of latent content analysis. Latent content analysis refers to the process of interpretation of the content (Holsti, 1969) for which we make use of the contexts we developed for the directed content analysis.

For the quantitative method, we compare the assessment data across different models and across different test stages to estimate the impact on learning and retention. We adopt the method of difference of means test to compare the average scores across different groups. Capturing data from different sources and analysis at various steps would help us to enhance the reliability of our analysis.

5. The Pedagogical Interventions by SHIKSHA Initiative: A Qualitative Analysis

On the basis of existing research gaps and the research questions we have identified the three broad themes for our analysis: (i) Pedagogical contribution of the SHIKSHA initiative, (ii) Motivation of teachers and sustainability of the programme and (iii) Challenges faced by teachers in the Indian education system.

Our primary objective is to highlight the pedagogical innovation done by the SHIKSHA initiative in schools situated in rural India. We also highlight the potential issues related to sustainability and the challenges faced by such an initiative in a country like India.

5.1. Innovative Pedagogy

A major contribution of the SHIKSHA initiative is bringing about innovations in pedagogical practices. We first analyse the insights gained from SHIKSHA initiative teachers. The teachers made their class interactive through activities, such as role-play, drawing, storytelling and games. Two teachers said that they tried to make the class interactive by discussing in their mother tongue with them. The teachers made the classroom interactive with the help of audio–visual display.

We, then, do content analysis of the audio–visual lessons developed by SHIKSHA initiative. Under directed content analysis we develop theme on the basis of existing theories. We develop two themes: (i) Role of ICT and (ii) Contextualized curriculum. The findings are as follows:

The role of ICT: The textbook content is transformed and displayed as audio–visual content. The audio–visual content features English, Hindi and Mathematics learning through storytelling, which makes it interesting for the students. Many concepts are repeated in the video. There are small follow-up exercises for the revision of the content. This may help in the retention of the content.

Contextualized curriculum: The curriculum is more effectively learnt when it is situated in the context of the students spanning their space and language. The curriculum caters to the students from economically deprived sections of society, who speak primarily Hindi language. The videos are played in Hindi; even the English lessons are taught in Hindi language. The videos explain concepts pertaining to sentence construction, vocabulary or counting using the stories which these children can relate to. The artefacts and the space displaying the videos are the ones which the students observe in their everyday life. This makes absorption of content effective.

For the third step, we conducted non-participatory observation method in three schools—two public-funded schools and one low fee private school. In the private school, the SHIKSHA initiative provided content for grade 1 and grade 2, technical equipment and trained one of their teachers. There were 47 students enrolled in grade 1 and 40 in grade 2. Upon observing the classrooms, it was found that the classroom where SHIKSHA initiative equipment was installed had activity chart papers stuck on the walls, whereas walls of other classrooms were empty.

We also visited two public-funded schools under complete intervention models. In the first school that was visited, 34 students were present in the class. The teacher was teaching them different festivals celebrated in India through the means of audio–visual content prepared by the SHIKSHA initiative. The classroom was very interactive, where students were taking keen interest in the session. As far as the rest of the school was concerned, no classes were being held; the students were seen to be roaming about the school premises. The other classrooms were empty and had no electricity supply. In the second school, the grade 2 classroom was observed. There were 10 students present in the class. The teacher was teaching mathematics using a story of candles. The classroom was found to be interactive with students taking interest. Just like the previous school, it was found here that apart from the SHIKSHA initiative classroom, all remaining classrooms were without any teacher.

It was observed that the content which was shown to the students through audio–visual clips made the classroom interactive. We could not comment on the nature of non-SHIKSHA initiative classes in these schools as the students were not present in the classroom.

There are other activities conducted by SHIKSHA initiative which help in making pedagogical processes more effective. These are discussed below:

5.1.2. Lesson and Teaching Plans: Accountability Mechanisms

In order to ensure that timely and quality teaching in the classroom the SHIKSHA initiative has developed a teaching plan and a lesson plan for each grade. The teaching plan assigns number of days of teaching of a lesson, objective of teaching and a date by which each chapter should be finished. The lesson plan allots time duration to different activities in a 40 minute-session, such as discussion, concept of the lesson, activity, practice exercise, repetition (if required) and summary of the lesson. This acts like a self-regulating mechanism through which teachers are able to track their progress and finish their curriculum in time.

Apart from the teaching and lesson plans, the SHIKSHA initiative has devised another way to ensure accountability of the teachers, apart from the self-regulating mechanism of following day wise teaching and lesson plans. Every week a field supervisor, who is also an employee of the SHIKSHA initiative, visits the school and prepares an assessment report. The report records the running content, the teaching plan status, the headcount of students, the status of hardware, teacher–student interaction, continuing button usage, usage of activities in audio–visual platform, the status of reading practice, the status of writing practice and adherence to lesson plan.

5.1.3. Retention of Content

In addition to the aforementioned activities, the SHIKSHA initiative undertakes an activity-based learning in the month of April every year, which is called ‘UMANG’. It has been found that attendance is generally low during April/May, and they, therefore, devise this activity for grade 1 and grade 2 children. UMANG spans over 25 days and discusses about the behavioural aspects of students along with subject knowledge on English, Hindi and Mathematics. One of the objectives behind this activity is to create an opportunity for teachers to understand their students better and for students to get acquainted to the system. For grade 1, the objective is to make them ready for the school level learning. They are introduced to the teachers and the basic manners, such as greeting each other and ways to maintain cleanliness. For grade 2 the objective of UMANG is to revisit all the concepts done in grade 1.

5.2. Sustainability of the Programme

The success of the programme relies upon the crucial role that the teachers employed by the SHIKSHA initiative play. We are interested in learning the motivation of teachers which also determines the sustainability of the programme.

We wanted to understand their commitment to the programme. Almost 62% of the teachers said that they would like to work in a non-teaching organization like an NGO. Of the remaining 38% who did not want to work in a non-teaching organization only one teacher did not give any reason. Others found it risky or unfit to work in a non-teaching organization. We also asked them about their previous experience. We found that those who were willing to work in a non-teaching organization already had some work experience which made them more confident about finding another kind of job. The ones who did not want to work in another non-teaching organization were the ones who had no experience prior to joining the SHIKSHA initiative.

When asked if they would like to work with in a government job, all said yes expect one teacher because government job offered them better security. One teacher who said ‘no’ stated that they would not be able to work as much in a government job.

We asked them about the role of SHIKSHA initiative in motivating them. All of them found the training activities performed by SHIKSHA initiative were motivating and a good learning experience.

We find that a major proportion of teachers were willing to switch to the government sector for better job security and to a non-teaching organization or an NGO, despite finding it motivating to work as a teacher with the SHIKSHA initiative. This can make any PPP programme a little unstable.

5.3 Family Background of the Students: A Challenge

The next objective looks at the impact of family conditions on the learning outcomes of the students and how it could act as an impediment to the work of teachers employed by SHIKSHA initiative. It was found that family conditions are a major cause for dropout or low attendance, which disrupts the learning of children. The major challenges which teachers faced, as cited by 86% of them, were low attendance of students and lack of awareness amongst parents. At least 4% of the teachers cited students not having pencil and notebook as an impediment, and the remaining 10% said that the presence of under-aged students in the classroom made it difficult for them to teach.

The teachers were then asked about the response of the parents in the Parents Teaching Meeting (PTM). Only 24% of the teachers said that the PTMs were successful. The remaining said that either parents did not turn up or there was no implementation of what was discussed in the PTM. Five teachers did not find any application of the PTM as parents were illiterate or lacked awareness. The remaining said it was either not conducted, parents did not come, or parents did not have time.

When they were asked of family issues affect dropouts, 43% teachers attributed dropout to the livelihood issues, 10% to illiteracy of parents and 14% to disintegration of family. The remaining responded in affirmative that family issues affect dropouts without giving any specific reason.

Therefore, we can say even if the SHIKSHA initiative teachers were willing to teach in the classroom, their efforts were thwarted by low attendance, high dropouts and poor participation by the parents. The major explanation behind was the poor economic background of the parents, which pushed them to focus more on their livelihood issues, often forcing the children to accompany them to work.

6. Impact on Learning Outcomes and Retention: A Quantitative Analysis

We assess the impact of SHIKSHA initiative on learning outcomes of the students. A major contribution of SHIKSHA initiative to introduce ICT-based innovative pedagogy in the classroom. We measure the impact of innovate pedagogy and various other activities, such as UMANG and PAT on the retention of content.

We have categorized our sample of 214 schools according to the nature of SHIKSHA intervention as follows:

Intervention Schools: These schools include two groups. One group is the complete intervention group and another is the group of partial intervention school (please see data and analysis section). Together these have been termed as ‘Intervention Schools’. The total number of such schools is 165.

Complete Intervention Schools: These are the schools SHIKSHA initiative provides technical equipment, content and deploys their own teachers. The total number of schools is 33.

Non-intervention Schools: SHIKSHA initiative does not have any presence in these schools. With the due permission of the authorities, the SHIKSHA initiative conducts its own examinations. This group acts as a control group for comparison. The total number of these schools is 16.

There are three examinations conducted every year for grade 1 and 2 students: First term examination, half-yearly examination and final examination for English, Hindi and mathematics each. The scores of these examinations are called post-test marks. After 15 days of the main examination, the SHIKSHA initiative conducts its own examination. The score of these examinations is called PAT scores. We conduct our analysis by comparing the scores of the students in each examination (out of maximum 100 marks) for the year 2018–2019.

In order to assess the impact of the SHIKSHA initiative on learning outcomes, we compare the mean scores of each examination (both post-test and PAT marks) in complete intervention and intervention schools with the scores in each examination in non-intervention schools. When we statistically test the difference between the means of examination scores we find that the difference is statistically significant between complete intervention and non-intervention schools (Table 2). The complete intervention schools register an average score of 80, which is much higher than the average score of approximately 23 of non-intervention schools.

Table 2.

Comparison of Mean Marks in Complete Intervention and Non-intervention Schools.

Two-sample t test with unequal variance
Group	Observations	Mean	Standard Error	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
Complete intervention schools	6,395	80.4	0.24	18.8	79.9	80.9
Non-intervention schools	2,332	22.8	0.33	15.8	22.2	23.5
Ho: diff = 0					t = 142.4147

Source: Authors’ computation.

When we compare intervention schools and non-intervention schools, we find that the average score in intervention schools is 72, whereas it is approximately 23 in non-intervention schools. The difference is found to be statistically significant (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparison of Mean Marks in Intervention and Non-intervention Schools.

Two-sample t test with unequal variance
Group	Observations	Mean	Standard Error	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
Intervention schools	30,310	72.4	0.12	20.5	72.1	72.6
Non-intervention schools	2,332	22.8	0.33	15.8	22.2	23.5
Ho: diff = 0					t = 141.8619

Source: Authors’ computation.

Therefore, we can conclude that the SHIKSHA initiative has an impact on the learning outcomes of the students.

We would like to estimate the impact of the SHIKSHA initiative on the retention of content. Since the retention-related intervention is performed by the SHIKSHA initiative in complete intervention schools, we test the difference between the mean scores of post-test stage of examination and mean scores of the PAT state of examination. The average PAT score is found to be 80, which is higher than the average post-test score of 72. The difference between the two is found to be statistically significant (see Table 4). We can say that within complete intervention schools, the practice of devoting a 15-day period to help students revise and retain their content is effective.

Table 4.

Comparison of Mean Scores for Post Test and Mean Scores for PAT in Complete Intervention Schools.

Two-sample t test with unequal variance
Group	Observations	Mean	Standard Error	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
PAT scores	6,395	80.4	0.24	18.8	79.9	80.9
Post test scores	9,389	72.3	0.23	21.9	71.9	72.8
Ho: diff = 0					t = 24.59

Source: Authors’ computation.

The retention of content is a major component of the learning outcome of students in school education. We assess the retention in complete intervention schools and non-intervention schools after 15 days of their main examination by comparing the PAT marks in both types of schools. We find that the PAT marks are higher in complete intervention schools, and the difference is found to be statistically significant (Table 5).

Table 5.

Comparison of Means of PAT Marks in Complete Intervention Schools and Non-intervention Schools.

Two-sample t test with unequal variance
Group	Observations	Mean	Standard Error	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
Complete intervention schools	6,395	80.4	0.23	18.8	79.9	80.1
Non-intervention schools	2,332	22.8	0.32	15.8	22.2	23.5
Ho: diff = 0					t = 142.4147

Source: Authors’ computation.

We conduct a similar test to see the difference between the PAT marks in intervention schools and non-intervention schools (Table 6). We find that PAT marks in intervention schools are higher than the PAT marks in non-intervention schools. The difference is found to be statistically significant.

We can say that in the intervention schools, whether with complete intervention or partial, the classroom delivery takes place through digitized content, which might make the classroom environment interesting and improve the retention of the content. This could be a reason for better performance of intervention schools.

Table 6.

Comparison of Means of PAT Marks in Intervention Schools and Non-intervention Schools.

Two-sample t test with unequal variance
Group	Observations	Mean	Standard Error	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
Intervention schools	30,310	72.3	0.18	20.5	72.1	72.6
Non-intervention schools	2,332	22.8	0.33	15.8	22.2	23.5
Ho: diff = 0					t = 141.8619

Source: Authors’ computation.

Therefore, we can conclude that the different innovative pedagogy-related activities performed by the SHIKSHA initiative help not only in improving the learning outcomes but also in improving the retention of the content.⁶

7. Conclusion: Some Policy Recommendations

To improve the learning in schools, we need to focus on the pedagogical practices which take place within the classroom.

A large number of school-going children belong to socio-economically deprived sections of the society in India. The existing home environments of these students are not conducive to their learning. Therefore, the pedagogical practices should be such that these children understand and retain as much as possible in schools. It is imperative that we adopt the best practices, such as technology-integrated pedagogy and activities, designed for improving the retention of content.

We recommend similar best practices to be adopted as role models which would contribute to enhancing the quality of learning. Since such interventions involve gigantic expenditures, the government should focus on such initiatives or collaborate with private philanthropy in such investments. We also recommend the regular training of teachers to make classroom teaching effective. The teachers should be periodically trained in storytelling as pedagogy and integrating it along with digitized content.

We need to ensure certain accountability mechanisms. We can learn about ensuring self-regulatory accountability mechanisms adopted by the SHIKSHA initiative. The teachers should be able to self-monitor their progress through the lesson plans and teaching plans.

Another point of concern is the considerable salary difference between the teachers employed by the private sector and those employed by the government. We must ensure that teachers in these programmes are given adequate financial incentives to slow down the attrition rate.

We must note that the SHIKSHA initiative programme caters to only the students in grades 1 and 2. It is highly possible that as these students move upwards in their schooling a lot of their learning is lost. This again warrants an intervention by the government to ensure that such a process continues even at the upper levels of their schooling. The government can partner with such programmes to ensure that these best practices are adopted in other grades as well.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We thank the entire SHIKSHA initiative team for their help and cooperation in data collection and understanding their processes. We also thank the teachers who took part in the primary survey and focus group discussions we conducted for this study. Our sincere thanks are also due to the anonymous referees and the editors of this journal for their comments and suggestions on the earlier drafts of this paper. However, the usual disclaimer applies.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iD

Aishna Sharma

References

Afridi

(2018). Equity and quality in an education public-private partnership. A study of World Bank supported PPP in Punjab, Pakistan . Oxfam Research Report.

ASER. (2019). The annual status of education report 2018. Pratham Foundation.

Banitt

, Theis

, & Van Leeuwe

(2013). The effects of technology integration on student engagement. Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/7

Barrera-Osorio

, Galbert

, Habyarimana

, & Sabarwal

(2016). Impact of public–private partnership on private school performance: Evidence from randomized controlled trials in Uganda. Policy Research Working Paper 7905, World Bank.

Barrera-Osorio

, Guaqueta

, & Patrinos

H. A.

(2012). The role and impact of public–private partnerships. In

Robertson

Susan L.

, Karen

Mundy

, Antoni

Verger

and Francine

Murphy

(Eds.), Public–private partnership in education. New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world . Edward Elgar.

Berns

R. G.

, & Erickson

(2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing students for the new economy. Working paper no. 5, National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education, Columbus, OH.

Bettinger

(1999). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. National Centre for the Study of Privatisation in Education.

Betts

J. R.

, & Tang

E. Y.

(2011). The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A meta-analysis of the literature. National Charter School Research Project. Washington.

Bhanji

(2012). Microsoft corporation: A case study of corporate-led PPPs in education. In

Robertson

Susan L.

, Mundy

Karen

, Verger

Antoni

and Murphy

Francine

(Eds.), Public–private partnership in education. New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world . Edward Elgar.

10.

Bifulco

, & Ladd

H. F.

(2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy , 50–90.

11.

Bruner

J. S.

(1966). Toward a theory of instruction (Vol. 59). Harvard University Press.

12.

Chattopadhay

, & Nogueira

(2014). Public–private partnership in education: A promising model from Brazil. Journal of International Development , 26, 875–886.

13.

Crawfurd

(2017). School management and public–private partnerships in Uganda. Journal of African Economies , 26(5), 539–560.

14.

Ewing

B. F.

, Cooper

T. J.

, Baturo

A. R.

, Matthews

, & Sun

H. V.

(2010). Contextualising the teaching and learning of measurement within Torres Strait Islander schools. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , 39, 11–23.

15.

Fabre

, & Straub

(2019). The economic impact of public–private partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure, health and education: A review . Working paper TSE-986. Toulouse School of Economics.

16.

Hanushek

E. A.

, Kain

J. F.

, Rivkin

S. G.

, & Branch

G. F.

(2005). Charter school quality and parental decision-making with school choice. Working paper 11252. National Bureau of Economic Research.

17.

Hismanoglu

(2011). The integration of information and communication technology into current ELT coursebooks: A critical analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science , 15, 37–45.

18.

Holsti

O. R.

(1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley.

19.

Hsieh

, & Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research , 15(9), 1277–1288.

20.

Kurtulus

, & Ersoy

(2011). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers’ opinions about electronic geometry textbook: E-geo and its usage. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences , 15, 33–36.

21.

LaRocque

(2008). Public–private partnership in basic education: An international review. CfBT Education Trust.

22.

Lim

C. P.

, Wong

, & Quah

(2007). Supporting technology use in schools with a public–private partnership: A collective case study of five Asian countries. Educational Media International , 44, 267–285.

23.

Patrinos

H. A.

, Barrera-Osorio

, & Guaqueta

(2009). The role and impact of public–private partnerships in education. The World Bank.

24.

Rajabhandari

M. M. S.

(2011). Strengthening the strength of public–private partnership model in education: A case study of Durbar high school in Nepal. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516967.pdf.

25.

Robertson

S. L.

, & Verger

(2012). Governing education through public–private partnerships. In

Robertson

Susan L.

, Mundy

Karen

, Verger

Antoni

and Murphy

Francine

(Eds.), Public–private partnership in education. New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world . Edward Elgar.

26.

Sarvi

, Balaji

, & Pillay

(2015). Public-private partnerships in information and communication technology for education. ADB Briefs, No. 49.

27.

Skinner

B. F.

(1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist , 18(8), 503–515.

28.

Srivastava

(2010). Public–private partnerships or privatization questioning the state’s role in education in India. Development in Practice , 20(4/5), 540–553.

29.

Subramanian

(2019). Parallel partnerships: Teach for India and new institutional regimes in municipal schools in New Delhi. International Studies in Sociology of Education , 29(10), 1–20.

30.

Tosco

J. E.

(2015). The effects of technology on engagement and retention among upper elementary Montessori students. Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/122

31.

van Fleet

(2012). A disconnection between motivations and education needs: Why American corporate philanthropy will not alone educate the most marginalized? In

Robertson

S. L.

, Mundy

, Verger

, & Murphy

(Eds.), Public–private partnership in education. New actors and modes of governance in a globalizing world . Edward Elgar.

32.

Verger

(2016). The global diffusion of education privatization: Unpacking and theorizing policy adoption. In

Murphy

, Green

, Lingard

, & Verger

(Eds.), The handbook of global education policy , John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

33.

Verger

, Fontdevilla

, Rogan

, & Gurnet

(2016). International organization and the politics of knowledge production: A bibliometric analysis of the education privatization debate. Presentation at the AERA conference 2016, Washington DC.

34.

Verger

, & Moschetti

(2016). Public–private partnership in education: Exploring different models and policy options. Open Society Foundations.

35.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

36.

Yuelin

, Yujie

, & Xiaohui

(2021). Disrupted class, undisrupted learning: A study on the effect of online learning among primary and middle school students. Studies in Microeconomics , 7, 19.