ANPAk..r..

Traditional or alternative methods for students? JP/7/SUNITA

Traditional or alternative methods for students?

Sunitha Girish Bekasi

What kind of education system should we adopt? Should we choose traditional methods or the alternatives? Does it even make a difference?

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Indonesia's greatest challenges -- achieving high economic growth, equitable income distribution, conserving its natural wealth and maintaining social harmony -- can all be met if there is an effective education system instituted throughout the archipelago. Overhauling the education system, any man on the street will tell you, is one of the most pressing needs of the moment.

With National Plus Schools leading the way, it seems things will be pretty rosy in another few years time. Or will they? Is it so easy to iron out all the existing problems? Is there a problem to start with? Newspapers frequently bring us stories of Indonesian children faring very well in international competitions in subjects traditionally deemed difficult here.

Do these successes portray a successful education system or are these winners high achievers to start with who were coached well for these competitions? Can we breathe a sigh of relief and be confident that the wheels of change are not only turning but also bringing us to our desired destination?

The right kind of education is always a hot topic of debate and discussion. Having myself been involved in many such debates, I know how opinions, values, ideas, experiences and even visions can differ significantly from person to person. Schools have the unenviable job of trying to satisfy everybody.

Basically, systems are classified as traditional or alternative. While a majority of countries still use the former, nations like the U.S, Britain and Australia have by and large adopted alternative methods. They believe that alternative methods accommodate every kind of student.

So, is it safe to say that all schools in Indonesia should also shift to alternative methods? If we're to adopt the U.S. attitude of "no child left behind", then the answer must be yes. If we think that a certain section should be achievers and that their success and wealth will trickle down, then the answer is no.

Traditional methods require children to memorize facts, sit for frequent tests and exams, and focus on subjects like math and science as being crucial to success. The student is seen, more or less, as a container that has to be filled. A student may be found memorizing statements like this, "The blinking vertical line on the monitor is a cursor." Meanwhile, alternative methods inspire students to question in the hope that the questions will lead to ideas. Subjects are balanced to provide holistic education. Traditional methods envisage students seriously considering the academic side of things, while the latter hopes that curiosity and confidence will inspire a lifelong love for learning. On the downside, one is accused of "drilling" and the other of "dumbing down" the student.

The ongoing argument can be ended in one way, i.e., by looking at the pivotal role of change all around us. The fact that nothing is constant can best be explored in the schools. Flexible curricula leave room for this. Traditional methods don't. Reflection, a core concept in alternative schools, requires students to analyze human feelings in relation to all the happenings around them, of which they may or may not be a part. After years of doing this in the company of educators, it becomes easier for a person to adapt to the changes he encounters as an adult. The person becomes capable of displaying more tolerance and has greater reasoning abilities.

Another observation is that traditional methods of teaching face more problems regarding student progress. With the syllabus considered to be supreme and grades the ultimate criteria, the onus is on the student's, or even his guardian's, "effort", thus leading to immense pressure. Flexible programs face fewer difficulties. Being student-centered, they reduce the pressure on the learner and alternatively place it on the curriculum, a flexible tool in such schools. A student progresses with much less heartache and anguish.

So, what's holding back Indonesia in educating every single citizen? Quite a few obstacles exist, ranging from funding to attitudes. Funding -- something of which the government is in short supply -- can alleviate the hardware problems quite easily and to a certain extent the software problems too. Foreign consultants can be brought in and training imparted.

Money can be earned, money can be lent and money can be borrowed, but attitudes are not so easy to fix. Teachers educated in traditional methods often struggle with the flexible concept. Teachers brought up in alternative schools take to teaching in these schools like fish to water, probably the main reason why parents here eagerly seek native speaker teachers from America and Australia. The mindset is often the most difficult aspect to deal with. Sometimes teachers may be required to change their attitudes completely in order to see a student progress.

Not everybody relishes the idea of learning something new to such a drastic extent; most want to put into practice what they've learnt. Teachers can be trained continuously to adapt to change but the challenge is recruiting teachers who are capable of change. With human feelings a major force in the relationship between student and teacher, and teacher and parent, the dynamics often cause frustration and recrimination.

Some schools find they must win over parents. Most parents have been schooled using traditional methods and find the lack of pressure unacceptable.

Obviously, the aim of providing quality education to each and every child in Indonesia will take time to realize. Change takes time and is often painful. The hope is that traditional schools will slowly be phased out and replaced by alternative schools. These should then become the norm rather than the exception.

The writer can be reached at girish@cbn.net.id.