Why Curriculum framework committees and Descision making academicians are not including the Design Thinking concepts in Textbooks in india?

Why Curriculum framework committees and Descision making academicians are not including the design thinking concepts in Textbooks in india?

Author: Ramesh Vanapalli 

 The absence of design concepts integrated with core subjects (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics) is not accidental in India—it is due to systemic, historical, and mindset-related reasons.

Below is a clear, honest, academic-level explanation, especially relevant for curriculum framers, teachers, and policy thinkers.

1. Historical Reason: Education Was Built for the Industrial Age 🏭

Most present curricula were designed to:

Produce clerks, engineers, technicians

Emphasize uniform knowledge

Test memory and procedural accuracy

Design thinking requires:

Open-ended problems

Multiple correct answers

Creativity + reasoning

➡️ Traditional systems are not naturally compatible with design-based learning.

2. Silo-Based Subject Structure 📚

Academicians usually:

Work within one discipline

Write textbooks only for their subject

Avoid interdisciplinary overlaps

Design thinking is:

Cross-disciplinary

Context-based

Application-driven

➡️ No single subject “owns” design, so it gets excluded.

3. Fear of Loss of Academic Rigor ⚖️

Many academicians believe:

Design = art / creativity

Design is “soft” or non-academic

It reduces theoretical depth

Reality:

Design demands deeper conceptual clarity

Weak understanding fails immediately in design tasks

➡️ This misconception blocks inclusion.

4. Assessment & Examination Constraints 📝

Current exams:

Require standardized answers

Prefer numerical or fixed responses

Penalize deviation

Design learning requires:

Rubrics

Process evaluation

Justification-based answers

➡️ Until exams change, textbooks remain theory-heavy.

5. Teacher Readiness Gap 👩‍🏫👨‍🏫

Many teachers:

Were never trained in design thinking

Feel insecure handling open-ended tasks

Prefer predictable teaching paths

Academicians fear:

Teachers may misinterpret or skip design sections

➡️ To “ensure coverage”, design is avoided.

6. Textbook Volume & Time Pressure ⏱️

Curriculum framers face:

Fixed academic hours

Heavy syllabus load

Pressure to “complete portions”

Design activities:

Take time

Need iteration and discussion

➡️ They are seen as extra, not essential.

7. Policy–Practice Disconnect 📜➡️🏫

Ironically:

NEP 2020 strongly recommends:

Design thinking

Experiential learning

Multidisciplinary approach

But:

Textbook writing committees are slow

Old frameworks still dominate

➡️ Policy vision exists, execution lags.

8. Deep Psychological Barrier: Control vs Exploration 🧠

Traditional education values:

Control

Predictability

Authority of the textbook

Design learning encourages:

Questioning

Failure

Student autonomy

➡️ This threatens the comfort zone of rigid systems.

9. Why This Is a Serious Loss 🚨

By excluding design concepts:

Students fail to connect theory with reality

Innovation remains rare

Learning becomes rote-driven

Entrepreneurship & problem-solving suffer

Especially in science:

Without design, science becomes information, not understanding.

10.The Hidden but Powerful Reason:

Entrance-Exam–Driven Coaching Ecosystem (IIT–JEE / NEET) 🎯

This factor silently controls curriculum design, textbook writing, classroom pedagogy, and even teacher behavior.

Coaching Institutes as the De-Facto Curriculum Designers 🏫➡️📘

Although officially:

NCERT

Curriculum frameworks

Education boards

Unofficially, the real benchmark is:

IIT–JEE rank

NEET rank

Cut-off marks

Textbooks are written to ensure:

Alignment with coaching materials

Predictability of questions

Compatibility with test series

➡️ Design thinking does not produce predictable answers, so it is excluded.

11. Design Thinking Is “Dangerous” to Coaching Models ⚠️

Coaching success depends on:

Speed

Pattern recognition

Repeated problem types

Algorithmic solving

Design thinking:

Encourages questioning assumptions

Allows multiple valid solutions

Values reasoning over speed

Rewards originality

➡️ This breaks the coaching business model.

12. Time Compression Logic ⏱️

Coaching institutes:

Compress 2 years of syllabus into 8–10 months

Train students to solve 100+ problems/day

Design learning:

Needs exploration time

Needs failure and iteration

Needs discussion

➡️ From a coaching perspective, design = “waste of time”.

13. Psychological Conditioning of Parents & Students 🧠

Parents ask:

“Will this come in JEE / NEET?”

“How many marks does this carry?”

If design thinking:

Is not directly examinable

Does not guarantee marks

➡️ It is considered non-essential, even if it builds real intelligence.

14. Academicians Under Indirect Pressure 🔒

Even curriculum framers:

Know that students’ futures depend on ranks

Fear backlash if syllabus deviates

Avoid anything that may reduce exam performance

➡️ So textbooks become coaching-compatible documents, not learning guides.

15. Standardization vs Individuality Conflict ⚖️

Entrance exams require:

Uniform evaluation

Millions of candidates

Machine-checkable answers

Design thinking promotes:

Individual solutions

Context-based reasoning

Subjective evaluation

➡️ Large-scale exams suppress design by necessity.

16. Why This Is a Structural Trap 🚧

This creates a self-reinforcing loop:

Exams reward rote + speed

Coaching optimizes for exams

Schools align with coaching

Textbooks align with schools

Design thinking gets eliminated

➡️ Innovation dies before it starts.

17. The Irony You Noticed (Very Important) ⚡

IITs themselves:

Teach design thinking

Encourage innovation

Have design labs, startups, incubation centers

But:

Entry into IITs is anti-design

Selection is problem-solving under pressure, not creative thinking

➡️ We filter out designers to later teach design.

This is a profound contradiction.

18. Why Design Thinking Is Slowly Returning 🌱

Despite coaching dominance:

NEP 2020

ATL labs

Hackathons

Innovation challenges

Startup culture

These are parallel systems, not yet mainstream.

19. A Line Worth Writing in Policy Papers 🖊️

“When entrance examinations dominate education,

learning becomes a strategy, not a journey.”

or even sharper:

“Coaching culture does not just prepare students for exams —

it reshapes what society believes intelligence is.”

A Powerful Line for Curriculum Committees ✨

“If students only learn answers, they will never learn how to ask questions.

Design teaches questioning.”

What Can Be Realistically Done (Not Idealistic) 🔧

🔹 Two-Track Learning Model

Core theory for exams

Design integration at school level (projects, labs, ATL)

🔹 Design-Based Internal Assessment

20–30% weightage

Protected from coaching influence

🔹 Entrance Exams Reform (Long-Term)

Include reasoning, modeling, experimental thinking

Case-based multi-step problems

 What Should Be Done (Practical Path Forward) 🌱

🔹 Embed Design, Not Add It

Example:

Physics → Design a low-cost water level indicator

Chemistry → Design a biodegradable packaging material

Biology → Design a school nutrition model

Mathematics → Design traffic flow optimization

➡️ No extra chapters—design-based questions inside chapters.

🔹 Change Role of Textbooks

Textbooks should include:

“Design Challenge” boxes

“What-if” scenarios

Open-ended problems

Reflection prompts

🔹 Train Academicians & Teachers

Short-term FDPs on design thinking

Co-authoring textbooks with designers

Industry–academia collaboration.