Classrooms Are Changing, But Is the Curriculum Keeping Pace?
I once asked several students during a teaching practice session at a school, “When you are confused about an assignment, where do you usually look for answers?” I had expected them to answer textbooks or ask the teacher. They did not. Some answered YouTube, others mentioned TikTok, and some said they directly asked artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications. Teachers remain a source of guidance, but they are no longer the sole source of knowledge. That simple answer made me think. The way students learn has changed far more quickly than the way schools teach.
This is where I feel the question about the curriculum becomes increasingly important. Is the curriculum used in schools today still sufficiently relevant to students’ lives? Or could it be that changes occurring outside the classroom are moving faster than the changes happening inside it?
In the sociological study of the curriculum, it is never understood merely as a list of subjects. The curriculum is the result of a social process. It is born from an agreement about what knowledge is considered important, what values are to be passed on, and what kind of human being is to be shaped through education. This means the curriculum is essentially a mirror of society. When society changes, the curriculum should change too.
The problem is that social change today is happening very rapidly. Technology evolves almost constantly. Information can be obtained in seconds. Children and teenagers are accustomed to learning through short videos, podcasts, social media, and various digital platforms that offer more engaging ways to learn than textbooks. Ironically, many learning processes in schools still position students as listeners. The teacher explains, the students take notes, then they do the exercises. This pattern is not entirely wrong, but it is starting to feel inadequate when students are living in a very dynamic environment. The challenge for the current generation is no longer a lack of information. On the contrary, they are flooded with information from all directions. What they need is not additional material, but the ability to select correct information, think critically, and understand the context behind every piece of information they receive. This is where the curriculum should play a role.
Teachers often become the busiest party in adjusting. Before they have fully understood one policy, a new one appears. Many teachers end up being busier with administration than with thinking about learning innovation. Yet, teachers are not just curriculum implementers. They are the main actors who translate policy into learning experiences in the classroom.
My experience observing learning in schools also shows something interesting. Students are actually much more enthusiastic when invited to discuss issues close to their lives than when asked to memorise definitions. When discussing social change, for example, they are more active when asked to analyse the influence of social media on daily life than when simply remembering theories from a book. Small things like this show that learning feels more meaningful when the material is genuinely connected to the students’ social reality.
The sociology of the curriculum recognises the concept of the hidden curriculum, namely lessons that are not written in books but are learned by students every day. The way a teacher respects students’ opinions, how the school resolves conflicts, the culture of helping each other, and the habit of open discussion are all parts of education that often leave a deeper impression than the contents of textbooks. Unfortunately, these aspects often do not receive as much attention as exam scores. Schools still too often measure success by numbers. Yet, the world of work and community life requires more than just academic grades. The ability to communicate, collaborate, think critically, and have empathy is increasingly important in a constantly changing society.
Lately, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence has also sparked new debates. Some think AI will make students lazy to think. Others see it as a great opportunity to improve the quality of learning. In my view, the problem does not lie with the technology. If the task given only asks students to find definitions or make summaries, of course AI can complete it in seconds. However, if learning is designed to encourage analysis, discussion, field observation, or reflection on real experiences, technology cannot replace the entire process. In other words, what needs to change is not just the learning tools, but also the way we view the learning process.
Recent data from an APJII survey shows that the use of AI in Indonesia is increasing, although its utilisation for education has declined compared to the previous year. On the other hand, the use of AI for productivity and work has actually increased. This phenomenon shows that society is beginning to see AI as part of daily activities, so schools must also equip students with the ability to use technology critically and responsibly. However, we must not close our eyes to the issue of inequality. Many schools in Indonesia still face limited internet access, computer devices, and teacher training. Several studies show that the gap in access to educational technology between the western and eastern regions of Indonesia remains significant.