A Study on Challenges and Pedagogy of Teaching the Indian Constitution to Engineering Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64882/ijrt.v14.i2.1278Keywords:
constitutional education, engineering students, pedagogy, active learning, civic literacy.Abstract
Engineering students in India are introduced to the Constitution of India through courses such as Professional Ethics, Human Values and Constitutional Literacy. While these courses are designed to build civic awareness and ethical responsibility, student engagement with the subject is often limited. Many students approach constitutional studies with a sense of reluctance, perceiving it as abstract, legally complex and only loosely connected to their core technical training. For learners who are accustomed to problem-solving, calculations and tangible outputs, the interpretive and theory-driven nature of constitutional concepts can feel distant and difficult to relate to.
This gap is not only a reflection of student perception but also of the way the subject is typically taught. In many classrooms, the focus remains on covering content and preparing students for examinations, often through lecture-based teaching and memorization of articles and provisions. As a result, students may perform adequately in assessments but struggle to see the relevance of constitutional principles in real-life or professional contexts.
This paper examines the reasons behind this disconnect and evaluates the limitations of existing teaching approaches. It further explores how more engaging and context-driven pedagogical methods - such as case-based discussions, real-world examples and interdisciplinary learning - can make constitutional studies more meaningful for engineering students. Drawing on both existing literature and classroom experience, the study identifies key challenges and suggests practical curricular changes that can help bridge the gap between civic literacy and technical education.
References
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, National Academies Press.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
Austin, G. (1999). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a nation. Oxford University Press.
Baxi, U. (2002). The future of human rights. Oxford University Press.
Sathe, S. P. (2002). Judicial activism in India: Transgressing borders and enforcing limits. Oxford University Press.
All India Council for Technical Education. (2018). Model curriculum for undergraduate engineering programmes.
Ministry of Education. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Government of India.
University Grants Commission. (2021). Guidelines for introduction of courses on Indian knowledge systems.
Brookfield, S. D. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking: Tools and techniques to help students question their assumptions. Jossey-Bass.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12.
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
