Revising our curriculum requires a proper model<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Curriculum has always been considered as the key
\nissue in raising the quality of education. Every time we feel
\nthat the existing standard of our schools has become
\nunsatisfactory, we start remedying the problem by revising the
\nexisting curriculum. Over time, there is usually a series of
\ncurriculum changes. In our case, there are the national curricula
\nof 1964, 1984, and 1994. Yet, after all these revisions, there is
\nstill a widespread feeling in the education community that our
\npresent curriculum is as unsatisfactory as the previous ones.<\/p>\n
What is at the root of this persistent \"defect\" in our
\ncurriculum? Why is it so hard to make a curriculum revision
\ncomply to our wishes?<\/p>\n
In my opinion, this is a problem of systematics. In our case,
\nprevious curricula have been revised without following a given
\nmodel. All the changes that were made were decided each time on
\nthe basis of arbitrary choices. As far as I know, no changes in
\nour previous curricula were made without using a curriculum model
\nas a theoretical reference. The result is that it cannot be
\ntheoretically assured that each revised curriculum remedies the
\ndefects existing in the earlier version.<\/p>\n
This theoretical model is also very much needed when there is
\na seemingly irreconcilable competition for time allocation
\nbetween two areas of teaching in a curriculum development. At
\npresent, such situation is faced by madrasahs (modern Islamic
\nschools) where a new government regulation stipulates that they
\nshould allocate more hours for teaching science. This regulation
\nhas been established to put madrasahs at the same academic level
\nwith sekolah umum (\"general schools\"). This means that they
\nshould reduce the number of hours allocated for teaching
\nreligion, something which madrasah people fear will alter their
\nbasic identity at institutions for religious (Islamic) education.
\nThis conflict can be solved only if certain subjects can be
\naccepted as valid media for carrying out religious education. Can
\nphysics, for instance, be taught in such a way that certain
\ntopics within religious education will be satisfactorily
\ndiscussed? And what about history, geology, and astronomy?<\/p>\n
Admittedly, this is a difficult and delicate problem which
\nmust be handled with great care. It is quite easy to find
\ncontroversies between science and religion, but I think it is
\nalso possible to find points of agreement between the two. This
\napproach, if it can be accepted, must be executed with great
\nwisdom. On the one hand, it should not lead students to denial of
\nscientific spirit. On the other, it should prevent students from
\nfalling into emotional conflict which, because of their level of
\nintellectual and emotional maturity, they cannot possibly solve
\nthemselves.<\/p>\n
Such a curriculum model should facilitate the exploration of
\ntwo aspects of curriculum, i.e. structure and substance.
\nExploration of structure will show which areas of learning have
\nbeen neglected, have received too little attention, or have been
\ntreated in an inappropriate way. Exploration of substance will
\nshow whether or not an existing curriculum has sufficiently
\nintroduced students to given areas of learning. Such a curriculum
\nmodel thus provides more or less a standard, an \"ideal\" against
\nwhich we could compare an existing curriculum. Results of such
\ncomparison will thus pinpoint the kind of improvements that
\nshould be brought into the curriculum.<\/p>\n
A classic model in this regard is one which was developed by
\nPhilip H. Phenix, then of Columbia University. The central
\nconcept in the Phenix model is \"meaning\", which is acquired only
\nafter one comprehends or understands a phenomenon. \"Meaning\" lies
\nwithin, behind or underneath knowledge. There is knowledge
\nwithout meaning (meaningless knowledge), and there is knowledge
\nimpregnated with meaning (meaningful knowledge). But there is no
\nmeaning without knowledge. Meaningless knowledge is nominal,
\nwhereas meaningful knowledge is functional.<\/p>\n
Meaning has four dimensions: experience, rule (logic or
\nprinciple), selective elaboration and expression. Learning is the
\nprocess of acquiring knowledge which is based on experience, and
\nwhich is systematically ordered on the basis of a set of given
\nrules, elaborated in a selective way, and finally expressed in
\nmeaningful form. In this model, the merit of a curriculum is
\ndetermined by its power to provide learning experiences leading
\ntowards comprehensive systematic and meaningful knowledge.<\/p>\n
In this model, Phenix divides the entire curriculum area into
\nsix realms of meanings: symbolics, empirics, esthetics,
\nsynnoetics, ethics and synoptics.<\/p>\n
Symbolics is the basis of the entire design. Symbolics is a
\nmust in every curriculum. It is the capacity in language(s),
\nmathematics, and other non-discursive symbolic forms which
\ndetermines whether a student will be able to comprehend meanings
\nencountered in the other five realms relatively easily or with
\ngreat difficulty. Synoptics, on the other hand, is an area or
\nrealm which synthesizes meanings acquired from the realms of
\nempirics, esthetics, synnoetics and ethics. Synoptic thinking
\npresupposes familiarity with and is thus dependent upon the
\nmeanings from the above-mentioned realms.<\/p>\n
What is the essence of each realm, and what is its content?<\/p>\n
Within the realm of symbolics, students learn to understand
\nthe meaning of formal convention. Learning language(s) and
\nmathematics is learning to understand the meaning of arbitrarily
\nconstructed symbols of communication. And learning to understand
\n\"non-discursive symbolic forms\" is learning to understand the
\nmeaning of symbols used in figurative expressions. These are
\nsymbols used in all the arts, where meanings are expressed in
\npersonal subjectivity.<\/p>\n
The realms of empirics comprises fields of study about the
\nphysical reality (natural sciences), the social reality (social
\nsciences), the human mind (psychology) and life in general.
\nWithin this realm, students learn first how to describe and
\nexplain factually observed phenomena. Meanings in this realm are
\nexpressed as probable empirical truths, formulated on the basis
\nof rules regarding evidence and verification using various
\nsystems of analytic abstractions.<\/p>\n
Within the esthetic realm, students learn that each meaning is
\nparticular. Meanings within this realm are expressed in \"singular
\nparticular forms\", and they are to be acquired through
\ncontemplative perception of particular things which are
\nconsidered significant. They are, in essence, \"objectification of
\nideated subjectivities\". Esthetic meanings are expressed through
\n\"non-discursive, symbolical and metaphorical language\".<\/p>\n
Synnoetics, or personal knowledge, refers in essence to
\nmeanings in which a person acquires direct insight from their own
\nexperiences and from those of other people. The essence of
\nsynnoetic meaning is \"concrete existential intersubjectivity\". It
\ncan be acquired only through engagement. It cannot be acquired
\nthrough detachment. Synnoetic meanings generate empathy.
\nKnowledge gained through synnoetic meanings is \"tacit knowledge\"
\n-- as opposed to \"explicit knowledge\" -- and can be acquired only
\nthrough the \"grasping of disjointed parts into a comprehensive
\nwhole\".<\/p>\n
Within the realms of ethics, or moral knowledge, the essence
\nof all meanings is \"right deliberate action\". It is important to
\nnote here that genuine moral conduct presupposes freedom. Moral
\naction is not the product of coercion. Deliberately executed
\nmoral conduct is an expression of what one is personally
\ncommitted to. Moral conduct is thus always \"self-determined\",
\nnever determined by \"outside forces\". What is commonly referred
\nto as \"moral competence\" is just this capacity to \"act
\ndeliberately right, to express one's commitment to given values\".<\/p>\n
Finally, within the realm of synoptics, students learn to
\ngrasp and construct integrative meanings, i.e. uniting various
\nmeanings into a \"single vision\", or creating a \"synopsis of
\nmeanings\". Synoptic meanings are introduced through history,
\nreligion and philosophy. In this model, history is treated as an
\ninquiry to attain an understanding of past human events from the
\npoint of view of human experience. History is conceived here as
\nthe study of what human beings have deliberately done in the
\npast, and within this view, events are conceived as \"outcomes of
\npersonal existential decisions at particular times\".<\/p>\n
Education in religion is seen in this model as education
\ntowards understanding \"ultimacy\", towards understanding the
\nmeaning of infinitude, absoluteness, the transcendence, and the
\nlike. Education to pursue religion is education in \"journey to
\nthe limits\", or \"proceeding to the point where the significance
\nof proximate and limited meanings is called into question\".<\/p>\n
With this sample, regarding what is contained in the Phenix
\nmodel, I hope it becomes clear why models like this are necessary
\nin diagnosing the defects of an existing curriculum, and in
\ndetermining where and how improvements are to be found. Using
\nthis model to evaluate our present curriculum, for instance,
\nseveral shortcomings will appear immediately. First, it is very
\nclear that our curriculum has neglected entirely the synnoetic
\nrealm. We have never deliberately taught our children how to
\nestablish interpersonal relationships with other people. We have
\nnever taught our students to understand the significance of
\nempathy in our collective coexistence. The question here is do we
\nreally consider the development of empathy and personal knowledge
\nas an important objective in education? Do we seriously mean it
\nwhen we say that the ultimate goal of our education is \"membentuk
\nmanusia Indonesia seutuhnya\", meaning \"to help children grow to
\nbecome integrated Indonesian human beings\"?<\/p>\n
Second, it is obvious that thus far, we have treated the
\nteaching of history and religion in too superficial a way. Our
\ncurriculum never tells our teachers to touch the essence of
\nhistorical understanding and religious experience. Our curriculum
\nseems to limit the teaching of these two areas to matters at the
\nsurface. History becomes a compilation of \"dead facts\", and
\nreligious education is reduced to instruction in the imperatives
\nand prohibitions of religious lifestyle.<\/p>\n
Third, within the realm of empirics, our students are not
\nsufficiently trained in the rigors of conducting observations
\nfollowed by exercises in description, verification and
\ntheoretical formulation in terms of probable truths. We are
\ntrapped in the habit of training students in memorizing facts,
\nwithout giving them the ability to draw insights and wisdom from
\nthe basis of known facts.<\/p>\n
This analysis can be continued ad infinitum. But my point here
\nis that after identifying such fundamental defects, are we still
\nsurprised that we have not yet found the key that opens the door
\nto quality education?<\/p>\n
The writer is an observer of social affairs based in Jakarta<\/p>\n
Window A: Education to pursue religion is education in \"journey to
\nthe limits\", i.e. \"proceeding to the point where the significance of
\nproximate and limited meanings is called into question\".<\/p>\n
Window B: Do we seriously mean it, when we say that the ultimate goal
\nof our education is to help children grow to become integrated
\nIndonesian human beings?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/revising-our-curriculum-requires-a-proper-model-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}