Revising our curriculum requires a proper model

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?