Indonesian Language No Longer a Language of Thought in Schools

The simple request, “Try to explain your reasoning,” often silences a classroom. This is not because students lack knowledge, but because they struggle to assemble their thoughts into an explanation. Ironically, this occurs within an education system that has long taught Indonesian as a mandatory subject. Students learn text structures, figures of speech, and spelling rules, yet many remain hesitant to express opinions, find it difficult to build arguments, or become confused when asked to interpret problems requiring reasoning.

This phenomenon suggests that Indonesian is often positioned merely as material to be studied, rather than a tool for thinking. Whenever a student tries to explain an idea, construct an argument, or question an opinion, they are using language to reason. Language is not just a means of communication; it is the space where thoughts are formed. The low level of critical thinking among students, therefore, may not stem from a lack of subject knowledge but from underdeveloped language skills.

In daily school life, a student might correctly solve a mathematical formula but misinterpret the word problem. Another might memorise scientific concepts but fail to explain a natural phenomenon in their own words. Even in class discussions, many students remain silent not because they lack opinions, but because they lack the confidence to articulate them. This shows that Indonesian language education needs to shift from merely teaching correct sentence structure to becoming a training ground for connecting facts, constructing arguments, and accepting differing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, classroom practice is often trapped in an orientation towards syllabus completion. Teachers are pressured to meet curriculum targets, leaving increasingly narrow space for discussion, argumentation, or the development of ideas. Consequently, students become accustomed to receiving answers rather than building them. Critical thinking does not emerge instantly; it grows from the habit of dialogue, questioning, retelling, and even the courage to admit a lack of understanding.

Another irony is that low literacy is often narrowly understood as a lack of interest in reading. Literacy is far broader, encompassing the ability to understand, interpret, process, and convey information completely. All these abilities rest on language. Indonesian, therefore, is the foundation of all subjects. A student cannot understand a mathematics problem without comprehending the language it is written in, nor can science education succeed if students fail to grasp the meaning of the teacher’s explanation.

This means the responsibility for language does not rest solely with Indonesian language teachers. Every teacher is, in essence, a language teacher. When a history teacher asks students to explain the cause of an event, or a science teacher invites them to present observational findings, reasoning skills are being built through language. Indonesian language learning must also move closer to real life. Students should not only identify parts of a text but also critique information circulating on social media, voice opinions on environmental issues, or write about problems they face daily. Thus, language is no longer studied as theory but used as a tool to understand life.

Ultimately, improving the quality of education does not always require curriculum changes. Sometimes, the biggest transformation begins with changing how we view something long considered ordinary. It is time for Indonesian to stop being treated merely as a subject measured by report card figures. It must return to being a language that helps students think, question, understand, and find meaning. Schools are not just tasked with producing students who are clever at answering questions; they are responsible for shaping individuals capable of explaining the reasoning behind every answer they choose.