By – Amlan Baisya , Assistant Professor , Department of Literature and Languages,
Easwari School of Liberal Arts, SRM University AP
Classroom Insights
It unfolds in a way that is both familiar and deeply unsettling.
A student, otherwise attentive and academically competent, is asked a simple question in class. She knows the answer—one can see it in the flicker of recognition, in the urgency of her raised hand. But when invited to speak, her response dissolves into hesitation. Words falter. Sentences collapse midway. The idea, once clear in her mind, fails to find articulation.
The teacher moves on. The moment passes.
What remains is not merely a missed answer, but a missed voice.
This is not an isolated incident. It is symptomatic of a far more pervasive, yet insufficiently acknowledged, crisis in Indian education: students who possess knowledge, sometimes even insight, but lack the ability—or the confidence—to express it.
At one level, this appears to be a problem of communication skills. But to reduce it to that would be to underestimate its depth. Expression is not an ornamental add-on to knowledge; it is constitutive of it. John Dewey argued, “We do not learn from experience… we learn from reflecting on experience.” Reflection, crucially, requires articulation. Thought that cannot be expressed remains incomplete.
Yet, across classrooms in India, expression is systematically underdeveloped.
Research on language education reveals a persistent imbalance. While reading and writing are emphasised—often in the form of rote reproduction—listening and speaking skills receive comparatively little attention. A recent study (by Manipur University) on communicative
English in Indian universities notes that graduates frequently lack the ability to “use
[language] spontaneously and flexibly for the expression of [their] intended message.”
The consequences are visible. Students may perform adequately in written examinations, yet struggle to participate in discussions, articulate arguments, or engage in critical dialogue.
This is not merely a linguistic issue. It is a pedagogic one.
The roots of this crisis lie in the epistemic architecture of Indian education itself. For decades, the system has been oriented towards the transmission and reproduction of knowledge rather than its articulation and interrogation. Students are trained to know, but not necessarily to say; to recall, but not to respond.
This orientation is reinforced by assessment practices. High-stakes examinations reward correctness, not clarity; accuracy, not articulation. The ability to reproduce content under time constraints becomes the primary indicator of academic success. In such a system, expressive competence is not simply neglected—it is rendered irrelevant.
The effects extend beyond the classroom. Reports (by Ecole Global International Girls’ School) on student development in India indicate that many learners struggle with basic communication, collaboration, and perspective-taking skills. They often find it difficult to “express themselves clearly” or engage in meaningful dialogue with peers and teachers. This has profound implications for employability, civic participation, and intellectual life. In a world increasingly defined by communication—whether in professional, digital, or social contexts—the inability to articulate ideas becomes a significant disadvantage.
The National Education Policy 2020 recognises this challenge, at least in principle. It emphasises the development of “communication skills” as essential for the global workforce and advocates a shift towards more holistic, skill-based education. The policy also foregrounds multilingualism, encouraging students to learn and express themselves in their mother tongue, particularly in the early years. This is not merely a cultural gesture; it is a cognitive strategy. Studies suggest that allowing students to think and express in familiar linguistic frameworks enhances comprehension, confidence, and conceptual clarity.
However, as with many educational reforms, the gap between policy and practice remains significant. While communicative competence is acknowledged as important, its implementation is uneven. Large class sizes, limited instructional time, and insufficient teacher training continue to constrain the development of speaking and listening skills.
Classroom interaction remains largely teacher-centric, with students occupying a predominantly receptive role. In effect, the system continues to privilege what might be called silent knowledge—knowledge that can be written down, graded, and quantified, but not necessarily spoken, debated, or defended.
This silence is not merely institutional; it is also psychological. Students often internalise a fear of expression—a fear of being incorrect, of being judged, of not conforming to linguistic norms. This is particularly pronounced in contexts where English functions as a marker of social and academic legitimacy. The pressure to “speak correctly” can inhibit the willingness to speak at all. Here, the language question becomes central. In a multilingual society like India, the dominance of English as the medium of higher education creates an additional barrier. Students who are otherwise intellectually capable may find themselves constrained by linguistic insecurity. As several educational research indicates, enabling expression in the mother tongue can significantly enhance participation and engagement.
Yet, institutional practices often privilege English to the extent that other forms of expression are marginalised. The crisis, therefore, is not simply that students cannot express. It is that the system does not sufficiently value expression. This becomes particularly evident when we consider global ranking metrics. Universities are increasingly evaluated on research output, citations, and measurable academic performance. While these indicators are not without merit, they often overshadow the less quantifiable, yet equally vital, dimensions of education—critical thinking, communication, and intellectual engagement. In such a framework, teaching students to articulate ideas—to speak, to argue, to question—appears secondary. The emphasis shifts towards producing graduates who can perform within established parameters, rather than individuals who can think and communicate beyond them.
If this silent crisis is to be addressed, a fundamental reorientation is required. First, expression must be repositioned as central to learning, not peripheral to it. Classrooms must become spaces of dialogue rather than monologue. This requires deliberate pedagogic design—incorporating discussions, debates, presentations, and collaborative tasks as integral components of the curriculum. Second, assessment practices must evolve. As long as academic success is measured primarily through written examinations, students will continue to prioritise memorisation over articulation. Alternative modes of evaluation—oral assessments, reflective writing, interactive projects—can create space for expressive competence to develop. Third, language must be approached not as a barrier, but as a resource. Encouraging multilingual expression, particularly in the early stages of learning, can help bridge the gap between thought and articulation. The emphasis should not be on linguistic perfection, but on communicative clarity. Finally, there must be a cultural shift within classrooms. Students must feel permitted—indeed, encouraged—to speak imperfectly, to experiment with ideas, to risk being wrong. As Socrates is often paraphrased, education is not the filling of a vessel, but the kindling of a flame. That flame cannot burn in silence.
The classroom moment with which we began is not insignificant. It is emblematic of a larger failure—a system that produces knowledge without voice, competence without confidence. India does not lack intelligent students. It lacks conditions that allow their intelligence to be heard.
The crisis is silent. But its consequences are not.
If education is to fulfil its promise—not merely of employment, but of empowerment—it must ensure that students do not just know, but can also say what they know.
