Pseudo Transformation: On Transformative Education in Indonesia
The term transformation has long been advocated, but in the context of education, particularly in Indonesia, educational transformation has only begun to emerge in the last two decades. Even recently, terms within the new educational paradigm still seem foreign to some educators, such as student-centred learning, deep learning, and the digitalisation of education. All of these are often used as indicators of an advanced education system.
In Indonesia, policies that demand learning autonomy at the smallest levels have become a breath of fresh air in implementing transformative education. A flexible curriculum allows teachers to better adapt to the highly diverse needs of students, from economic, social backgrounds, or even ethnic groups.
However, behind this fresh breeze, is the educational transformation proclaimed today truly touching critical consciousness, or is it merely revolving in the administrative realm?
From the above question, let us look back at how ideal transformation should be. In Paulo Freire’s perspective, for instance, education is considered a process that liberates a person to develop and cultivate their critical awareness as a social critique of their surroundings.
Similar to him, Mezirow takes a sharper view, considering that transformation in education should enable a person to make changes to their frame of reference through critical thinking about situations that have long been considered correct.
In other words, this educational transformation is far more than just changes in teaching methods, media, or teaching tools from traditional to digital; this transformation must reach changes in the epistemological realm and awareness of the existence of that change itself.
Nevertheless, it is interesting for us to discuss together the reality today, both on the national and global stage: is the transformative education we proclaim truly correct and complete? Certainly, many have heard of 21st-century skills, a system of education that uses a participatory approach. However, practices that are still commonly found today show that the assessment system using quantitative numbers and standardised systems is still very difficult to abandon. Other assessment criteria are considered difficult to describe.
In addition, an example of transformation considered normal today is the shift from direct face-to-face to online learning through technological devices alone. In fact, such modern education often becomes a paradox: it appears technological and sophisticated on the outside but remains conservative in content.
For example, everyone today routinely uploads screenshots of meetings on platforms that are boasted about, but in reality, behind the scenes, many are actually sleeping or not following the meetings attentively.
What about classrooms in Indonesia? Today, the Indonesian government shows strong commitment to realising one of the indicators of digital-based learning, starting from Nadiem Makarim with various cases befalling him, which is none other than to realise the digitalisation of education. Once again, educational digitalisation that (perhaps) is not yet accompanied by noble values within it, thus forcing it to appear in a cage. Today, the learning approach proclaimed by Abdul Mu’ti is also inseparable from that.
Classrooms adorned with large screens are beginning to be distributed. Narratives of coding and imitative thinking do not escape the lips of Vice President Gibran Rakabuming in every meeting. However, one important question remains: what about the critical reflection process of students, which should be the core of educational transformation today? To this day, learning evaluations that are still numerically based become a spectacle of how unsynchronised the existing system is. Not to mention if we talk about the classic problem of educational equity in this vast Indonesia.
If referring to the explanation above, it is not wrong if many people say that education in Indonesia is epistemologically critical. The education system today should prioritise how to manage existing knowledge, not transfer existing knowledge to students.
Because if that happens, our education system is still in a positivistic paradigm that emphasises objectivity, standard measurements as standards and indicators of success. There will be no room for discussion and debate within it. On the contrary, transformative education should be more dynamic and reciprocal, where dialogue and experience become the main capital of learning.
Do not let classrooms be adorned with technological devices, but only used to convey information alone. This counters the situation, creating ambivalent conditions that hinder educational transformation.
Such a condition is what is called pseudo-transformation, which appears only on the cover adorned with technology, but when entering inside, it is poor in discussion and reflection. Like a book, the cover is tempting and designed sophisticatedly, but inside it is only one-way writing taught by the teacher by asking students to rewrite it.
After that, assessment is done based on who writes the most completely and then labelled as an outstanding student. In other words, this pseudo-transformation is always characterised by innovations that are not innovative. Visually appealing but far from vital substance.
In the end, we must agree that transformed education is not just about technical matters, but more than that, it is a philosophical issue that requires reflective dialogue so that critical awareness arises from a student through classroom spaces. Technological devices are supporting intermediaries that must be used.