Understanding the Distinction in English Language Teaching

The question asks to identify the specific commission or agency in India that differentiated between teaching English primarily as a skill (like speaking, reading, writing, listening) and teaching English literature (focusing on literary works, history, and criticism).

Over the years, various commissions have reviewed India's education system, including the role and teaching of English. Let's examine the options:

• The University Education Commission, 1948-49 (Radhakrishnan Commission): This commission dealt primarily with university education and recommended English continue as a medium of instruction but emphasized Indian languages. While it discussed English, its focus was more on its role as a link language and medium rather than a specific distinction between skill-based and literature-based teaching approaches at a fundamental level across all stages.
• The Secondary Education Commission, 1952-53 (Mudaliar Commission): This commission focused on secondary education. It recommended English as a compulsory subject but did not delve deeply into the methodological distinction between skill and literature teaching approaches in the manner the question implies.
• Indian Universities Commission, 1902: This was a pre-independence commission primarily concerned with reforming university administration and affiliation. Its recommendations were not focused on pedagogical distinctions in subject teaching methodologies like the one mentioned for English.
• The Education Commission, 1964-66 (Kothari Commission): This was a comprehensive commission that reviewed the entire education system from primary to university level. The Kothari Commission made significant recommendations regarding the teaching of English. It recognized the need to teach English for communication and as a 'library language' (for accessing knowledge). It suggested different approaches for teaching English, implicitly acknowledging the difference between acquiring functional proficiency (skill) and studying literature. While the term "skill vs. literature" distinction might not be the *exact* phrasing used, the commission's recommendations laid the groundwork for pedagogical approaches that catered to both functional English and the study of its literature, recognizing them as distinct aspects of English language education.

Based on the comprehensive nature of the recommendations made by The Education Commission, 1964-66 concerning the methods and purposes of teaching English across different levels, it is the commission most likely to have made or implied such a distinction in its pedagogical framework.

Analysis of Options

Therefore, The Education Commission, 1964-66, is the agency among the given options that addressed the teaching of English with a perspective that differentiated between acquiring language proficiency as a skill and studying its literature.

Revision Table: Key Education Commissions and English Teaching

Additional Information on Kothari Commission and English

The Kothari Commission (1964-66) played a crucial role in shaping India's education policy. Regarding English, it recommended strengthening the teaching of English as a "library language" to provide access to knowledge, particularly in higher education and science & technology. This implied teaching English for reading comprehension and information access (a skill). It also acknowledged the place of English literature but suggested different pedagogical approaches depending on the objective – functional proficiency or literary appreciation. This dual focus inherently created a distinction between teaching English for practical skills and teaching it as a subject of literary study.

The commission's report provided a detailed analysis of the curriculum and teaching methods for various subjects, including English, across different stages of education. This comprehensive review led to a more nuanced understanding of how English should be taught, recognizing the varied needs and goals of learners.