Revising our curriculum requires a proper model

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Curriculum has always been considered as the key issue in raising the quality of education. Every time we feel that the existing standard of our schools has become unsatisfactory, we start remedying the problem by revising the existing curriculum. Over time, there is usually a series of curriculum changes. In our case, there are the national curricula of 1964, 1984, and 1994. Yet, after all these revisions, there is still a widespread feeling in the education community that our present curriculum is as unsatisfactory as the previous ones.

What is at the root of this persistent "defect" in our curriculum? Why is it so hard to make a curriculum revision comply to our wishes?

In my opinion, this is a problem of systematics. In our case, previous curricula have been revised without following a given model. All the changes that were made were decided each time on the basis of arbitrary choices. As far as I know, no changes in our previous curricula were made without using a curriculum model as a theoretical reference. The result is that it cannot be theoretically assured that each revised curriculum remedies the defects existing in the earlier version.

This theoretical model is also very much needed when there is a seemingly irreconcilable competition for time allocation between two areas of teaching in a curriculum development. At present, such situation is faced by madrasahs (modern Islamic schools) where a new government regulation stipulates that they should allocate more hours for teaching science. This regulation has been established to put madrasahs at the same academic level with sekolah umum ("general schools"). This means that they should reduce the number of hours allocated for teaching religion, something which madrasah people fear will alter their basic identity at institutions for religious (Islamic) education. This conflict can be solved only if certain subjects can be accepted as valid media for carrying out religious education. Can physics, for instance, be taught in such a way that certain topics within religious education will be satisfactorily discussed? And what about history, geology, and astronomy?

Admittedly, this is a difficult and delicate problem which must be handled with great care. It is quite easy to find controversies between science and religion, but I think it is also possible to find points of agreement between the two. This approach, if it can be accepted, must be executed with great wisdom. On the one hand, it should not lead students to denial of scientific spirit. On the other, it should prevent students from falling into emotional conflict which, because of their level of intellectual and emotional maturity, they cannot possibly solve themselves.

Such a curriculum model should facilitate the exploration of two aspects of curriculum, i.e. structure and substance. Exploration of structure will show which areas of learning have been neglected, have received too little attention, or have been treated in an inappropriate way. Exploration of substance will show whether or not an existing curriculum has sufficiently introduced students to given areas of learning. Such a curriculum model thus provides more or less a standard, an "ideal" against which we could compare an existing curriculum. Results of such comparison will thus pinpoint the kind of improvements that should be brought into the curriculum.

A classic model in this regard is one which was developed by Philip H. Phenix, then of Columbia University. The central concept in the Phenix model is "meaning", which is acquired only after one comprehends or understands a phenomenon. "Meaning" lies within, behind or underneath knowledge. There is knowledge without meaning (meaningless knowledge), and there is knowledge impregnated with meaning (meaningful knowledge). But there is no meaning without knowledge. Meaningless knowledge is nominal, whereas meaningful knowledge is functional.

Meaning has four dimensions: experience, rule (logic or principle), selective elaboration and expression. Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge which is based on experience, and which is systematically ordered on the basis of a set of given rules, elaborated in a selective way, and finally expressed in meaningful form. In this model, the merit of a curriculum is determined by its power to provide learning experiences leading towards comprehensive systematic and meaningful knowledge.

In this model, Phenix divides the entire curriculum area into six realms of meanings: symbolics, empirics, esthetics, synnoetics, ethics and synoptics.

Symbolics is the basis of the entire design. Symbolics is a must in every curriculum. It is the capacity in language(s), mathematics, and other non-discursive symbolic forms which determines whether a student will be able to comprehend meanings encountered in the other five realms relatively easily or with great difficulty. Synoptics, on the other hand, is an area or realm which synthesizes meanings acquired from the realms of empirics, esthetics, synnoetics and ethics. Synoptic thinking presupposes familiarity with and is thus dependent upon the meanings from the above-mentioned realms.

What is the essence of each realm, and what is its content?

Within the realm of symbolics, students learn to understand the meaning of formal convention. Learning language(s) and mathematics is learning to understand the meaning of arbitrarily constructed symbols of communication. And learning to understand "non-discursive symbolic forms" is learning to understand the meaning of symbols used in figurative expressions. These are symbols used in all the arts, where meanings are expressed in personal subjectivity.

The realms of empirics comprises fields of study about the physical reality (natural sciences), the social reality (social sciences), the human mind (psychology) and life in general. Within this realm, students learn first how to describe and explain factually observed phenomena. Meanings in this realm are expressed as probable empirical truths, formulated on the basis of rules regarding evidence and verification using various systems of analytic abstractions.

Within the esthetic realm, students learn that each meaning is particular. Meanings within this realm are expressed in "singular particular forms", and they are to be acquired through contemplative perception of particular things which are considered significant. They are, in essence, "objectification of ideated subjectivities". Esthetic meanings are expressed through "non-discursive, symbolical and metaphorical language".

Synnoetics, or personal knowledge, refers in essence to meanings in which a person acquires direct insight from their own experiences and from those of other people. The essence of synnoetic meaning is "concrete existential intersubjectivity". It can be acquired only through engagement. It cannot be acquired through detachment. Synnoetic meanings generate empathy. Knowledge gained through synnoetic meanings is "tacit knowledge" -- as opposed to "explicit knowledge" -- and can be acquired only through the "grasping of disjointed parts into a comprehensive whole".

Within the realms of ethics, or moral knowledge, the essence of all meanings is "right deliberate action". It is important to note here that genuine moral conduct presupposes freedom. Moral action is not the product of coercion. Deliberately executed moral conduct is an expression of what one is personally committed to. Moral conduct is thus always "self-determined", never determined by "outside forces". What is commonly referred to as "moral competence" is just this capacity to "act deliberately right, to express one's commitment to given values".

Finally, within the realm of synoptics, students learn to grasp and construct integrative meanings, i.e. uniting various meanings into a "single vision", or creating a "synopsis of meanings". Synoptic meanings are introduced through history, religion and philosophy. In this model, history is treated as an inquiry to attain an understanding of past human events from the point of view of human experience. History is conceived here as the study of what human beings have deliberately done in the past, and within this view, events are conceived as "outcomes of personal existential decisions at particular times".

Education in religion is seen in this model as education towards understanding "ultimacy", towards understanding the meaning of infinitude, absoluteness, the transcendence, and the like. Education to pursue religion is education in "journey to the limits", or "proceeding to the point where the significance of proximate and limited meanings is called into question".

With this sample, regarding what is contained in the Phenix model, I hope it becomes clear why models like this are necessary in diagnosing the defects of an existing curriculum, and in determining where and how improvements are to be found. Using this model to evaluate our present curriculum, for instance, several shortcomings will appear immediately. First, it is very clear that our curriculum has neglected entirely the synnoetic realm. We have never deliberately taught our children how to establish interpersonal relationships with other people. We have never taught our students to understand the significance of empathy in our collective coexistence. The question here is do we really consider the development of empathy and personal knowledge as an important objective in education? Do we seriously mean it when we say that the ultimate goal of our education is "membentuk manusia Indonesia seutuhnya", meaning "to help children grow to become integrated Indonesian human beings"?

Second, it is obvious that thus far, we have treated the teaching of history and religion in too superficial a way. Our curriculum never tells our teachers to touch the essence of historical understanding and religious experience. Our curriculum seems to limit the teaching of these two areas to matters at the surface. History becomes a compilation of "dead facts", and religious education is reduced to instruction in the imperatives and prohibitions of religious lifestyle.

Third, within the realm of empirics, our students are not sufficiently trained in the rigors of conducting observations followed by exercises in description, verification and theoretical formulation in terms of probable truths. We are trapped in the habit of training students in memorizing facts, without giving them the ability to draw insights and wisdom from the basis of known facts.

This analysis can be continued ad infinitum. But my point here is that after identifying such fundamental defects, are we still surprised that we have not yet found the key that opens the door to quality education?

The writer is an observer of social affairs based in Jakarta

Window A: Education to pursue religion is education in "journey to the limits", i.e. "proceeding to the point where the significance of proximate and limited meanings is called into question".

Window B: Do we seriously mean it, when we say that the ultimate goal of our education is to help children grow to become integrated Indonesian human beings?