Can science (IPA) and social
studies (IPS) be merged and embedded into the core curriculum? Subject-oriented
teachers, educators and pundits would insist that such integration is
impossible. Nevertheless, this question has lingered around teaching professionals
in the last three weeks.
It is easy to forget that primary school
teachers are class teachers. By profession, they are generalist educators,
responsible for preparing children to be taught many subjects by secondary
teachers later on in their education. Primary schools do not need subject
specialists, because children’s learning does not fit into subject categories.
As a matter of fact, what does happen in
classrooms is complex. While content and target competencies can be
standardized, it is not sensible to nationalize the styles and processes
necessary to deliver the curriculum. Style is the teacher’s subjectivity
factor, a unique art and is part of their personal competence.
A distinctive characteristic of primary school
education is cross-curricular teaching and learning. Being a generalist teacher
is akin to being a cross-curricular teacher, moving from one topic to the next
smoothly without causing cognitive distress on students.
Considering their ages (6-12), what primary
school students learn is not subjects as known in secondary schools and
colleges, but rather topics or themes. Primary teachers should unlearn the
conventional meaning attached to subjects. Instead, they should apply topics or
themes, which are more friendly and palatable to primary school culture.
The government seems adamant in excluding
science and social studies from the core curriculum (religion, mathematics,
Indonesian language and civics). However, it is grossly wrong to assume that
primary students will be denied curiosity about and awareness of scientific and
social phenomena.
By comparison, in the United Kingdom, the core
curriculum includes English, science and mathematics. After all, it does not
mean that British primary students are not taught to be sensitive of social
phenomena. The truth is that topics of social issues are integrated into the
core curriculum.
There must be ethical reasons for the
Indonesian government to exclude them from its core curriculum. At primary
school level, both science and social studies could be integrated and embedded
to the core curriculum.
What is pressing now is to define what
constitutes the profession of primary teachers.
There seems to be a need for intellectual
conversion among teachers and policymakers regarding the function of primary
education, particularly with regards to the imminent core curriculum.
The current law on education breaks down
teacher competence into four separate, yet interlocking, competencies; namely
pedagogic competence, individual or personal competence, professional
competence and social competence.
By law, professional teachers are those who
have those four competencies, including professional competence. Don’t you find
something bizarre here, that professional teachers should have professional
competence?
The root of the problem goes back to the time
when the bill drafters defined professional competence as parallel with the
other three competencies. In other words, the word “professional” is a
misnomer. It should, instead, be the umbrella competence subsuming all the four
competencies.
Reading world literature on teaching, you
would find that professional competence is the super-ordinate, not a
subordinate of the various competencies elaborated above.
Granted, professional primary teachers are
those who know how to teach all core subjects. Besides, they have
cross-curricular competence to impart on students’ curiosity on various topics
in science, history, geography, health, environment and so forth.
Primary teachers are expected to be passionate
about teaching children, master all the core subjects as well as the cross
curricular topics and themes and in addition be able to communicate socially
and professionally.
Despite the so-called core curriculum, let’s
stay away from content-led curriculum to a more productive curriculum by the
following guiding principles. First, we should replace the thrust of content
and objectives, with a concern for skills and processes. Naturally, primary
students love play-based learning.
Second, teachers should move from subjects and
attainment to cross-curricular topics or themes and the affective domain.
School environments are actually rich with unlimited topics and themes to
explore. Newspapers, for example, report diverse day-to-day topics to deal
with.
Third, teachers should shift the emphasis from
didactic teaching to self-directed learning. Students should be empowered to
explore their curiosity about practically any topic and theme. In other words,
we should think of the four core curriculum as the starting and central theme
to explore other topics and themes.
Fourth, to be good at cross-curriculum
teaching, teachers must have the skills in class management, explaining,
questioning, task setting and differentiation, as well as, increasingly, in
assessment. Assessing a student’s mastery of subject matters is easier than
mastering their understanding of cross-curricular topic.
Let’s take baking as a teaching topic.
Children will learn or develop aspects of speaking and listening (Indonesian),
measurements of ingredients of flour, water and sugar (mathematics), how
material change, say from separate substances into a cooked cake (science).
Simple though baking looks like, professional
teachers will do it with informed plan and with specific attainments in mind,
namely to understand and use Indonesian as a means of communication, to develop
mathematical understanding for real life, to learn scientific and technological
understanding. In the final analysis, all of these are for the sake of human
development, health and well-being.
A
Chaedar Alwasilah ;
A
Professor at the Indonesian Education University Bandung, A Visiting Researcher
at Christ Church University, Canterbury, United Kingdom
JAKARTA
POST, 19 Oktober 2012
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
Beri Komentar demi Refleksi