Rigid curriculum complicates RI's English teaching

Rigid curriculum complicates RI's English teaching

By Iwan Jazadi

This is the first of two articles identifying key problems of
Indonesia's English teaching system at the classroom-curriculum
level.

ADELAIDE (JP): Every year the number of Indonesian English
Language Teaching (ELT) specialists and professionals increases.
These include those from local Indonesian universities which
mostly provide first degrees, and also graduates of universities
in English-speaking countries such as Australia, the United
States and the United Kingdom. Graduates either hold degrees of a
M.A., M.Ed. and Ph.D. in Teaching English as a Foreign
Language/Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, applied
linguistics, and even pure linguistics.

English is taught at formal education institutions and also at
private English colleges in the community.

However, such seemingly promising indications are no guarantee
for successful quality teaching. There are two levels from which
the failure in Indonesia's English teaching system can be
scrutinized: at the classroom-level and at the macro-ideological
level of education. This first article deals with the former.

Although the 1994 English national curriculum policy designers
explicitly stated that the English teaching program was based on
the "communicative approach", in which the four macro skills
(speaking, listening, reading and writing) are promoted, they
were somewhat inconsistent. This is because at the same time they
stated that the major focus would be on reading skills.

According to articles in The Jakarta Post by Chaedar Alwasilah
(1999) and Sumardi (1993), any English-language curriculum has
always emphasized reading because English is viewed more as a
"foreign" than a "second" language in the context of English as a
Foreign Language (EFL).

However, the above writers fail to explain quite clearly what
they actually mean by dichotomizing English as a "second" and as
a "foreign" language. In fact, all previous English curriculum
documents emphasized reading skills.

Both Alwasilah and Sumardi, and the curriculum designing
committee, too, seem to uphold the perception that as a "foreign"
language setting, Indonesia lacks exposure in which true
communicative tasks can actually be exercised and the approach
loses its "utilitarian" relevance.

Accordingly, having a reading-focused communicative approach
is regarded as a good solution. Perhaps, this is what Huda (the
Post,1997) calls the "Indonesian context communicative approach".

Such a perception is misleading but yet has still been taken
for granted by many, including curriculum designers and EFL
specialists in Indonesia. Alwasilah (1999) even states that
skills-oriented arguments are not necessarily relevant to the
present Indonesian teaching context.

If this argument is to prevail, when can we cater to the
learners' need to master the four language skills? If reading is
always the first priority in the prevailing communicative
teaching policies, just as the previous methodologies -- grammar,
translation and audio-lingual methods -- why have we left these
old traditions that provided a proportional space for such a goal
and instead embraced the "communicative approach" that promotes
true-to-life communication?

Furthermore, the emphasis on reading in the application of
communicative teaching, which is strongly imposed in the 1994
national curriculum document, has placed textbook writers,
whether they are aware of it or not, in a dilemma. That is toward
which side -- reading texts or actual communication -- should
their textbooks focus on while they are expected to balance both.

Whether there is a balance between the two does not constitute
the real issue. The actual case is what kind of curriculum goals
and objectives resulting from these two conflicting sides will be
achievable by the students.

My preliminary investigation of some high school English
course books designed based on the 1994 curriculum document shows
some kind of mismatch between learners' needs and the teaching
materials.

The main problem lies in the themes and topics in the course
books, which are not selected based on real-life communication
needs of the learners as suggested by proponents of the
communicative approach.

Instead, it appears that themes and topics, such as
agriculture, geography, culture/art, etc. are listed, rather than
selected, based on some kind of popular science interest for
stimulating classroom discussion. In other words, the notion of a
communicative approach has been reduced to a stage whereby
learners are expected to engage in reading and understanding of a
generally interesting topic and then discuss it during their task
implementation. Forms, including grammar and vocabulary, are
addressed only if the learners ask about them.

As tasks are developed based on topics of the above type,
communication develops "artificially", if it could develop.
Indeed, the readings are also found in accordance with the level
of the learners' abstract competence.

Additionally, as the learning materials are only theme-based
course books, learners are hardly exposed to a nonclassroom type
of discourse, such as using audiovisual facilities for listening
to native speaker sample talks or conversations, or watching
videos, etc. It is significant input for the learners and can
facilitate and empower teachers whose English proficiency is
still imperfect.

The next fundamental problem is found in the Indonesian
testing system, especially the final exams (EBTANAS). The test is
based on multiple-choice type questions using the reading of
text. With this sort of testing, Setiono (the Post, 1999) states
that "student language performance in the communicative paradigm
has undoubtedly become a matter of complete indifference due to
insufficient knowledge of theoretical testing formulation".

This testing system leads to a negative backwash on teaching
practices. Both teacher and learners do not want to lose momentum
in the EBTANAS in order to achieve the highest possible result.
To achieve this, the teaching and learning activities are
oriented toward test-preparation, assuming that a successful test
parallels achieving the curriculum goals and objectives, which
is, in fact, far from the case.

The other problems are associated with the class size and
outside classroom situation. Both are classic difficulties often
found in an EFL context. One classroom usually consists of 30 to
40 students, and given a quite limited amount of time per week,
learners seem to lack opportunities to practice the target
language.

The situation outside the classroom is also blamed for
contributing to failure as it lacks exposure to English, which is
different from English as a Second Language and First Language
(L1) contexts.

Yet the last two problems can be anticipated. As the global
information era and international policies and contracts on
business and mutual relationships between different countries
continue to grow, there is hardly a single spot in the world
where English is not used.

Moreover, the communicative approach, claimed to be in
practice in Indonesia, contains several controversies. Gower (the
Post, 1999) remarks that the application of this approach is too
abrupt since the teachers who are at the forefront of this
movement are left without sufficient training and preparation to
implement the thinking and objectives of this approach.

While this can be true, it still seems unwise to point to
teachers as the sole problematic stakeholder. Nababan (1993)
states that the 1994 topic-based communicative method is an
absurd imitation of what is going on "out there," which is
swallowed void without filtering.

The writer is an English lecturer in Indonesia, taking a
doctorate degree at the University of South Australia, Adelaide.