Teacher Burnout and School Workload: Why System Learnography Offers New Knowledge-Transfer Model

Teacher burnout is often discussed as an individual problem. Teachers are tired, stressed, overworked or unable to manage the demands of the profession. But there is another way to examine the problem. What if excessive teacher workload is partly a consequence of the way the school system or education system itself is designed?

Education System Reform: From Teacher Burnout to System Learnography

A school can demand enormous effort from the teachers without necessarily creating an equally effective mechanism for knowledge transfer.

Teachers may spend hours preparing lessons, explaining concepts, managing behavior, checking notebooks, assessing learners, completing records, attending meetings, communicating with families, preparing examinations, and correcting homework.

⚠️ Much of this work can continue after the school day has ended.

This creates a fundamental contradiction — the teacher's workload can continuously increase while the actual process of knowledge construction remains dependent on the learner's brain.

System learnography approaches this problem from a different direction. Instead of treating the teacher as the primary engine of learning, it designs the school as a knowledge-transfer system in which the learner actively constructs knowledge through sourcepage, brainpage, and zeidpage processes.

The objective is not to criticize teachers. It is to redesign the classroom operating mechanism so that teachers do not have to carry the entire knowledge-transfer process on their shoulders.

Education System Development or Teacher Workload Expansion?

The development of a school system should ultimately be measured by how effectively it enables knowledge transfer, how meaningfully learners construct knowledge, and how sustainably the school ecosystem operates. Yet a fundamental question remains — Has the development of education system actually reduced the workload of teachers or has it progressively added more work to their heads and hands?

From early morning preparation to classroom instruction, behavior management, assessment, documentation, meetings, correction, reporting, lesson planning, digital platforms, communication with parents, and homework-related responsibilities, teachers can find themselves carrying school work from school to home and from morning to night. When workload becomes structurally excessive, frustration and exhaustion can follow. Some teachers may leave the profession, while others may remain but experience diminished time, energy, and professional satisfaction.

The important question, therefore, is not simply whether teachers are working hard. The deeper question is — Why does the classroom operating system require so much human effort to produce knowledge that learners are supposed to construct in their own brains?

1. Development of Education Has Added Layers of Work

Conventional school development has frequently involved adding new layers to the existing system. New curricula are introduced, followed by new assessments. New technologies are introduced, followed by new digital documentation. New activities, projects, reports, interventions, meetings, monitoring systems, and performance requirements are added.

But adding another layer does not necessarily create a better knowledge-transfer system.

If the fundamental classroom mechanism remains:

Teacher → instruction → learner → homework → correction → examination

Then increasing the number of activities can increase the amount of work without necessarily redesigning the mechanism through which knowledge becomes part of the learner's brain.

This creates a critical distinction between system expansion and system development.

• System expansion adds more processes.
• System development improves the fundamental process.

2. Teachers Should Not Be Blamed for Systemic Problem

When teachers become exhausted, the immediate tendency may be to ask teachers to become more efficient, more motivated, more resilient or better organized. But this approach can overlook the architecture of school system itself.

A hardworking teacher can perform hundreds of tasks and still face the fundamental limitation that the teacher cannot directly construct knowledge inside another person's brain.

• The teacher can explain.
• The teacher can demonstrate.
• The teacher can motivate.
• The teacher can organize.
• The teacher can assess.

But the learner's brain must ultimately perform the knowledge-transfer work.

This is why teacher burnout should not automatically be interpreted as a failure of teachers. It can also be examined as a system-design problem.

If the operating mechanism continuously depends on teachers doing more and more work to compensate for weaknesses in the learning process, increasing teacher effort may simply reproduce the same structural problem.

3. From Teacher Performance to Knowledge Transfer

The central question of a school should therefore change.

Instead of asking:

❓ How much teaching has the teacher completed?

The system should ask:

⁉️ How much knowledge has the learner successfully constructed, retained, recalled, and applied?

This represents a shift from teacher performance to knowledge-transfer performance.

In the conventional model, the visible activity of the teacher can become the dominant indicator of classroom productivity. In a learnography-based system, the important evidence is the learner's developing brainpage. This is the structured knowledge constructed through reading, mapping, working, recalling, writing, and application.

The classroom consequently becomes a knowledge-transfer environment rather than a performance stage for teaching.

4. Gyanpeeth Learnography: A Different Operating Mechanism

The gyanpeeth learnography of knowledge transfer proposes a different architecture.

Its fundamental pathway can be represented as:

Sourcepage → Brainpage → Zeidpage

1. The sourcepage contains the knowledge source.
2. The brainpage represents the learner's constructed knowledge structure.
3. The zeidpage represents knowledge expressed through writing, action, application, creation or problem solving.

The teacher is no longer expected to be the permanent intermediary through whom every piece of knowledge must pass.

Instead, the school creates a structured environment in which learners work directly with knowledge sources and construct their own brainpage maps, circuitry and modules.

This is a fundamental change in the operating mechanism.

5. 📚 From Homework to Complete Knowledge Transfer at School

Homework is often used to extend the learning process beyond the school day. But if substantial knowledge-transfer work remains unfinished when learners leave school, additional work is pushed into the home environment.

This can affect both learners and families — and it can also create additional correction and monitoring work for the teachers.

Gyanpeeth learnography proposes a different principle:

🌐 Complete the knowledge-transfer process within the school system.

The learner reads the sourcepage, constructs the brainpage, performs the required tasks, develops the zeidpage, receives necessary feedback, and completes the knowledge-transfer cycle within the school hours and gyanpeeth environment.

The objective is not simply to eliminate a particular assignment called homework. The deeper objective is to redesign the workflow of knowledge transfer that makes homework necessary.

6. One Day, One Book, One Knowledge-Transfer Cycle

The Taxshila Model can organize the school day around a complete knowledge-transfer cycle rather than a succession of fragmented periods.

A possible learnographic sequence is:

Read → Map → Work → Recall → Write → Apply

1. Reading provides contact with the sourcepage.
2. Mapping organizes knowledge into a brainpage.
3. Working converts information into operational knowledge.
4. Recall strengthens brainpage circuitry access to the constructed knowledge.
5. Writing creates the zeidpage from the brainpage maps and modules.
6. Application demonstrates whether the learner can use the knowledge transfer.

The teacher's workload can consequently move away from continuous broadcasting and repetitive correction toward task moderation, system operation, observation, brainpage testing and guidance.

7. The Teacher Becomes Task Moderator

This does not mean that teachers become unnecessary.

Quite the opposite.

The teacher's professional role can become more focused.

Instead of spending large amounts of time repeatedly broadcasting topics and lessons, the task moderator organizes knowledge-transfer tasks, monitors learner progress, identifies obstacles, and helps learners move through the knowledge-transfer pathway. The most important is to direct the smooth running of miniature schools in the happiness classroom.

The distinction is important:

Teacher-centered system:

Teacher explains → learner listens → teacher assigns → learner completes → teacher corrects

Learnography-centered system:

Sourcepage → learner constructs brainpage → learner performs task → learner creates zeidpage → task moderator monitors the transfer

The second model attempts to place the actual knowledge-construction process where it belongs — inside the learner's working system.

8. Happiness Classroom Requires Sustainable System

A happy classroom cannot be created simply by telling exhausted teachers to be positive.

Nor can learner happiness be created by adding entertainment to an overloaded curriculum.

Happiness requires an operating environment in which the amount of work, the available time, the knowledge-transfer process, and the responsibilities of teachers and learners are structurally coherent.

A Gyanpeeth Knowledge Studio can therefore be designed as a working environment rather than merely a listening environment.

• Learners work.
• Learners construct.
• Learners discuss.
• Learners write.
• Learners solve.
• Learners apply.
• The task moderator supports the system.

This changes the classroom from a place where one person performs knowledge in front of many people into a place where many learners actively construct knowledge maps, pathways and modules.

9. Real Meaning of School System Development

The next stage of school development should not simply be:

More technology + more assessment + more documentation + more teacher workload

A deeper development would be:

Better knowledge architecture + better transfer mechanism + better learner working system + sustainable teacher workload

This is where the gyanpeeth architecture becomes significant within the user's proposed framework of system learnography.

The objective is not to make teachers work harder.

✔️ It is to design a system in which knowledge transfer requires less unnecessary human repetition and more organized learner action.

The development of the school system should therefore be visible in the reduction of unnecessary workload — not merely in the addition of new responsibilities.

10. From Burnout System to Knowledge-Transfer System

Teacher burnout raises a fundamental architectural question:

If the school requires teachers to work from morning to night simply to keep the learning process moving, is the problem really the teacher — or the operating mechanism?

The answer should be investigated at the system level.

Teachers deserve sustainable professional lives. Learners deserve meaningful knowledge construction. Families deserve a school system that does not continuously transfer unfinished schoolwork into the home. And schools need an operating mechanism that connects resources, time, tasks, brainpage construction, and knowledge outcomes.

Gyanpeeth learnography proposes such a direction:

Less knowledge broadcasting.

➡️ More knowledge construction.

Less repetitive teaching.

➡️ More learner action.

Less homework dependency.

➡️ More complete school-based transfer.

Less teacher overload.

➡️ More systematic task moderation.

Less classroom performance.

➡️ More brainpage development.

The real development of a school system should ultimately be measured by one fundamental question:

❓ Can the system transfer knowledge effectively without continuously increasing the burden on the people operating it?

If the answer is no, adding more workload is not necessarily development.

The next transformation is therefore not to ask teachers to carry more.

🛠️ It is to redesign the system they are being asked to carry.

Teacher Burnout is Also a System-Design Question

Teachers enter classrooms to work with learners, but the contemporary school system often gives them many responsibilities beyond direct classroom interaction.

A teacher may be expected to function simultaneously as:

1. Instructor
2. Lesson planner
3. Behavior manager
4. Assessor
5. Record keeper
6. Homework checker
7. Curriculum implementer
8. Parent communicator
9. Activity coordinator
10. Examination worker
11. Technology user
12. Administrator
13. Emotional supporter

Each responsibility may have a legitimate purpose. The difficulty emerges when these responsibilities accumulate without a corresponding redesign of the school operating system.

The result can be a workload that extends:

School → Classroom → Office → Home → Evening → Next morning

The teacher's working day therefore becomes much larger than the formal school day.

A sustainable school system should ask an important question:

⁉️ Which tasks actually contribute to knowledge transfer, and which tasks exist because the system has been designed inefficiently?

This question moves the discussion away from blaming individual teachers and toward examining the architecture of school dynamics.

Teacher Cannot Construct Learner's Brainpage

One of the central propositions of system learnography is that knowledge cannot simply be deposited from one person's brain into another person's brain.

• A teacher can provide a source.
• A teacher can explain a concept.
• A teacher can demonstrate an operation.
• A teacher can organize a task.

But the learner must perform the internal work of understanding, organizing, remembering, recalling, writing, solving, and applying.

🔥 This distinction is crucial.

In a conventional classroom, the visible activity may be dominated by the teacher:

Teacher explains → Learners listen → Teacher assigns → Learners complete → Teacher corrects

System learnography reverses the emphasis:

Sourcepage → Learner action → Brainpage construction → Zeidpage → Application

The teacher remains important, but the teacher is no longer expected to be the sole operating engine of the classroom.

✔️ The learner becomes the active unit of knowledge transfer.

From Teaching Performance to Knowledge-Transfer Performance

Traditional school systems can easily measure visible teacher activity.

• Was the lesson delivered?
• Was the syllabus completed?
• Were notebooks checked?
• Were tests conducted?
• Were records maintained?

These are important operational indicators, but they do not necessarily demonstrate that knowledge has been successfully constructed in the learner's brain.

System learnography introduces another central question:

⁉️ What knowledge has the learner actually constructed and can the learner recall, represent, write, solve, and apply it?

☑️ This is the movement from teaching performance toward knowledge-transfer performance.

A teacher may spend an hour explaining mathematics. The explanation may be excellent. But the real knowledge-transfer question is whether the learner can subsequently construct the mathematical relationship, solve a new problem, explain the reasoning, and apply it independently.

Therefore, the classroom should not be designed primarily around the amount of teaching delivered.

➡️ The classroom operating system (CROS) should be designed around the quality of knowledge constructed by the learners.

Sourcepage – Brainpage – Zeidpage Pathway

The basic knowledge-transfer architecture of system learnography can be represented as:

Sourcepage → Brainpage → Zeidpage

1. Sourcepage

The sourcepage is the knowledge source. It may be a book, chapter, diagram, mathematical problem, scientific observation, experiment, object, map or other structured knowledge resource.

The learner interacts directly with the source rather than depending entirely on a teacher's verbal reconstruction of it.

2. Brainpage

The brainpage is the learner's internal construction of knowledge transfer.

It includes organized relationships, concepts, pathways, maps, modules, patterns, and understanding developed through active motor knowledge processing.

The brainpage is therefore not merely a page in a notebook. It represents the organized knowledge structure constructed by the learner's brain circuits.

3. Zeidpage

The zeidpage represents externalized knowledge through writing, solving, creating, demonstrating, designing or applying. The learners perform the tasks using brainpage maps and modules.

It provides an opportunity to observe whether the knowledge constructed internally can be expressed through action.

✔️ The complete pathway therefore becomes:

Source → Construction → Expression → Application

This is fundamentally different from a system in which the teacher's explanation is treated as the central event.

Why Homework Can Become an Extension of System Inefficiency

Homework is frequently used to extend learning beyond school hours. But system learnography raises a structural question:

❓ Why should substantial knowledge-transfer work remain unfinished when the school day ends?

If learners must complete important knowledge-construction activities at home, teachers may subsequently have to:

• Collect the work
• Inspect it
• Correct it
• Record performance
• Provide feedback
• Communicate deficiencies
• Redesign future instruction

Thus, homework can create a secondary workload loop:

School instruction → Homework → Home Completion → Teacher correction → Feedback → Additional instruction

System learnography proposes a different principle:

🔥 Complete the major knowledge-transfer cycle within the school environment.

This does not mean that every form of independent activity outside school is inherently undesirable. Rather, the system is designed so that homework is not required to compensate for an incomplete school-based knowledge-transfer mechanism.

One Day One Book Model: A Different School Workflow

A gyanpeeth-oriented school can organize learning around complete knowledge-transfer cycles.

A simplified workflow could be:

Read → Map → Work → Recall → Write → Apply

1. The learner first encounters the knowledge source.
2. The learner then constructs a map or structure.
3. The learner works through tasks and problems.
4. The learner recalls the knowledge without depending continuously on the source.
5. The learner writes or otherwise produces a zeidpage.

🚩 Finally, the learner applies the knowledge to a new situation.

This creates a more coherent unit of work than a fragmented sequence of short periods (45 minutes) in which the teacher repeatedly introduces small portions of subject matter.

One Day One Book Model can therefore be understood as an attempt to create a complete knowledge-transfer cycle within the school day.

From Subject Teacher to Task Moderator

System learnography also proposes a transformation in the role of the teacher.

🧑‍🏫 The teacher does not disappear.

Instead, the professional function can shift toward task moderation and classroom direction. The learners are pre-trained in the seven dimensions of mathematics.

A task moderator or classroom director can:

• Organize knowledge-transfer tasks
• Identify the appropriate sourcepages of knowledge transfer
• Observe learner progress in task performance
• Test brainpage processing success
• Identify knowledge-transfer obstacles
• Conduct and direct the smooth running of miniature schools in brainpage making classroom
• Provide targeted guidance
• Moderate group work in miniature schools
• Examine the quality and efficiency of motorized zeidpages
• Support learners who need additional intervention
• Maintain the operating rhythm of knowledge-transfer system.

This can reduce the need for continuous broadcasting.

The distinction can be expressed simply:

Traditional classroom:

Teacher works → learners receive

System Learnography:

Learners work → task moderator operates the system

This does not automatically guarantee lower workload or better outcomes. Those claims require implementation evidence. But it provides a different system architecture for investigating whether teacher workload can be reduced while increasing active learner participation.

Brainpage Construction as the Core Classroom Activity

If the learner's brain is the ultimate site of knowledge construction, the classroom should give learners sufficient time and structure to construct brainpage maps, pathways, and modules of knowledge transfer.

A brainpage-oriented classroom can emphasize:

1. Source Mapping

Learners organize relationships among source structures and concepts rather than merely copying notes.

2. Pathway Construction

Learners identify sequences, relationships, procedures, and connections.

3. Module Development

Large bodies of knowledge transfer are organized into manageable knowledge modules for solving and performing.

4. Brainpage Recall

Learners retrieve knowledge from brainpage maps and modules rather than depending entirely on repeated exposure.

5. Motor Application

Learners use motor knowledge and brainpage circuitry to solve unfamiliar problems and perform tasks.

6. Zeidpage Creation

Learners express knowledge through writing, calculation, diagrams, models, experiments, projects, and other forms of motor action.

➡️ This changes the classroom from a listening environment into a working environment.

Teacher Workload Should Be Redesigned, Not Merely Reduced

The phrase "reduce teacher workload" can sometimes imply that teachers should simply do fewer things.

System learnography proposes a deeper question:

⁉️ Can the school redesign the distribution of work so that unnecessary teacher work is eliminated and necessary knowledge-transfer work is performed by the appropriate participant?

For example, if learners can independently access a structured sourcepage, there may be less need for the teacher to repeatedly reproduce the same information verbally.

☑️ If knowledge construction occurs through organized classroom tasks, some homework-related correction may become unnecessary.

☑️ If learners produce visible brainpage and zeidpage evidence, assessment can become more closely connected with actual knowledge construction.

The objective is therefore not less work for everyone.

🔥 The objective is better allocation of work within the knowledge-transfer system.

Gyanpeeth Knowledge Studio

The physical and operational design of the school also matters.

A gyanpeeth can be conceived as knowledge studio rather than merely a conventional classroom.

A Knowledge Studio would provide:

1. Knowledge sources
2. Working spaces
3. Brainpage construction activities
4. Task-based learning
5. Writing and application areas
6. Whiteboard and DALBE for each miniature school
7. Collaborative knowledge-transfer environments
8. Teach Me Theory and reciprocal learnography
9. Learner leadership and teamwork
10. Task moderation
11. Opportunities for continuous knowledge construction

In such an environment, learners are not primarily an audience watching teacher performance.

➡️ They are players working with knowledge transfer.

The task moderator functions more like a coach who organizes the playing environment and helps learners perform the required tasks.

This creates a different classroom culture:

• Audience → Players
• Listening → Working
• Instruction → Task solving
• Homework → School-based completion
• Teacher broadcasting → Knowledge-transfer moderation

From Burnout Classroom to Sustainable Classroom

A sustainable classroom must consider both sides of the knowledge-transfer process.

The learner needs:

1. High definition space 
2. Time and temporal school hours
3. Task objects
4. Attention and consistent
5. Appropriate sources
6. Meaningful task solving
7. Practice, thalamic cyclozeid rehearsal TCR
8. Recall from brainpage circuitry
9. Application form motor knowledge
10. Reflection and feedback

The teacher needs:

1. Manageable responsibilities
2. Adequate knowledge transfer time
3. Professional autonomy
4. Functional knowledge transfer systems
5. Appropriate administrative support
6. Protection from unnecessary workload
7. Completion of work within school hours

These needs are connected.

✔️ If the system depends excessively on teacher labor, teacher workload increases.

✔️ If the system creates strong learner independence without adequate structure, knowledge transfer may also suffer.

Therefore, the challenge is to create a balanced operating mechanism in which teachers and learners each perform the work appropriate to their roles.

Real Meaning of Systemic Reform

Systemic reform should not simply mean adding another program to an already overloaded school.

If system learnography is introduced as another layer of:

• Training
• Paperwork
• Reporting
• Assessment
• Meetings
• Documentation

Then the reform itself could increase teacher workload.

🔥 That would contradict its purpose.

A genuine system redesign would require examining the entire workflow:

Curriculum → sourcepages → classroom schedule → learner tasks → brainpage construction → assessment → feedback → teacher workload → home workload

⁉️ The question is whether these components function as one integrated knowledge-transfer system.

This is where Gyanpeeth Architecture becomes relevant to knowledge transfer systems.

The goal is not merely to introduce a new teaching technique but to redesign the school dynamics as an integrated knowledge-transfer environment and brainpage development.

High-Performing Learners Need High-Performing System

Schools often expect high academic performance from learners while simultaneously expecting teachers to carry increasingly complex workloads.

✔️ But high-performing learners require more than high-performing teachers.

They require a high-performing knowledge-transfer system.

Such a system should enable learners to:

• Get pre-training in the seven dimensions of knowledge transfer system
• Access knowledge independently
• Construct organized brainpages
• Perform knowledge-transfer tasks
• Recall brainpage knowledge maps and modules
• Apply knowledge transfer
• Create zeidpages from brainpage circuitry
• Receive targeted reflection and feedback
• Progressively assume greater responsibility for their own knowledge construction

The teacher's role then becomes increasingly strategic rather than continuously repetitive.

This is the foundation of a school in which learner performance becomes the central output of the system.

From Education System to Knowledge-Transfer System

The deepest transformation proposed by system learnography is crucial in learner centered classroom.

The conventional question is:

❓ How should we teach this subject?

The learnographic question is:

⁉️ How should this knowledge be transferred and constructed?

☑️ The first question starts with the teacher.

☑️ The second question starts with the knowledge transfer and the learner's brain.

The first tends to organize the classroom around instruction.

➡️ The second organizes it around knowledge construction.

This difference can be summarized as:

Education model:

Book → Teacher → Learner

System Learnography:

Sourcepage → Brainpage → Zeidpage

The second pathway does not mean that teachers have no role. It means that the teacher is not treated as the unavoidable transmission channel for every unit of knowledge transfer.

Future: Zero Teaching, Not Zero Human Guidance

The principle of Zero Teaching should not be interpreted as zero guidance, zero expertise or zero human interaction.

It means questioning the assumption that continuous teacher broadcasting is the fundamental mechanism of learning.

A school can have:

• Zero unnecessary teaching + high-quality guidance
• Zero unnecessary homework + complete school-based knowledge transfer
• Zero repetitive workload + stronger learner action
• Zero teacher overload + stronger system design

The transformation is therefore not from teachers to technology.

It is from teacher-dependent knowledge broadcasting to learner-centered knowledge construction.

Conclusion: Fix the System, Not the Teacher

Teacher burnout should be taken seriously because teachers are essential participants in the school ecosystem. But asking exhausted teachers to become more resilient does not by itself redesign the system that produces the workload.

🚩 The deeper challenge is architectural.

If teachers must continuously explain, motivate, manage, correct, document, assess, communicate and repeat, the learners remain dependent on this cycle. The school dynamics may be functioning as a teacher-intensive system rather than a knowledge-transfer system.

System learnography proposes another direction.

1. Sourcepage → Brainpage → Zeidpage
2. Learner action → Knowledge construction → Application
3. Teacher → Task moderator
4. Classroom → Knowledge Studio
5. Homework dependency → School-based knowledge transfer

The purpose is not to diminish the teacher.

It is to free the teacher from unnecessary system-generated work so that professional expertise can be used where it matters most.

The fundamental question for the future of the school system is therefore not:

❓ How can teachers work harder?

It is:

⁉️ How can the school system be redesigned so that knowledge transfer works better without continuously increasing the workload carried by teachers?

That is the central problem that system learnography and gyanpeeth architecture seek to address — not fixing exhausted teachers, but fixing the classroom operating mechanism.

⏭️ Future of School Systems: From Teacher-Centered Workload to Learner-Centered Knowledge Transfer

Author: 🖊️ Shiva Narayan

School of Taxshila Teachers

Gyanpeeth Architecture

Learnography

📔 Visit the Taxshila Research Page for More Information on System Learnography — Shiva Narayan

———

📝 The Excerpt

Teacher burnout is not simply an individual problem. It can also reveal weaknesses in the design of the school system. Teacher Burnout and School Workload examines how increasing classroom, administrative, assessment, and homework-related responsibilities can extend teachers’ work from school to home and from morning to night.

The article introduces System Learnography and Gyanpeeth Architecture as knowledge-transfer approach centered on sourcepage, brainpage, and zeidpage construction. Instead of increasing teacher workload, the focus shifts toward learner action, brainpage development, task moderation, and completing knowledge-transfer processes within the school.

🔑 Keywords

Teacher Burnout, Teacher Workload, School Workload, System Learnography, Gyanpeeth Learnography, Knowledge Transfer System, Knowledge Transfer, Brainpage Development, Brainpage Classroom, Sourcepage, Zeidpage, Task Moderator, Learner-Centered Knowledge Construction, Classroom Operating Mechanism, Teacher Workload Reduction, Homework-Free School, Happiness Classroom, Gyanpeeth Knowledge Studio, School System Reform, Knowledge Construction

🌐 Meta Description

Teacher burnout and school workload reveal the need for systemic reform. Explore how System Learnography and Gyanpeeth Architecture redesign knowledge transfer through brainpage construction and learner action.

System learnography redesigns school workload and knowledge transfer through brainpage construction, learner action, and gyanpeeth knowledge studio.