Designing education for modernity

 In his provoking book The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East (2008), Kishore Mahbubani believes that billions of Asians are now marching to modernity. In the 21st century, Asia will be modernized.

 It is a just a matter of time.  As an optimistic idealist, however, Mahbubani reminds us of the seven pillars of Western modernity that we should emulate, namely the free market economy, science and technology, meritocracy, pragmatism, peace culture, law enforcement and education.

 Among the seven variables, it is education that plays the most vital role. Human capital theory stresses the importance of investment in the improvement of the workforce through training in particular and formal education in general. In other words, education is the most essential part of development en route to modernity.

 The essence of a free market economy is competition and entrepreneurship. Actually, competition is also central to the success of the politician, the professional and the intellectual. A competitive society encourages people to explore and develop their potential for individual as well as collective progress.

 A meritocracy is central to the advancement of creativity and progress in society. Connection and family-based promotion, especially in public services, is antithetical to progress. Being pragmatic simply means that no particular method is claimed to be superior over the others. In brief, it means making a series of informed decisions to be practical yet beneficial.

 Peace culture is a prerequisite for continuous development. In developing countries, progress is often disrupted by recurring conflict.

 This kind of scenario is now rare in Europe, but is still rampant in developing countries. Such conflict often causes long-lasting psychological barricades that are difficult to remove.

 The rule of law guides how people should operate in a society. Law enforcement is essential for maintaining progress. In a country where laws are not fully enforced, the fruits of development are in the hands of a small fraction of society. As a result, there is no collective ownership of development.

 Mindful of Mahbubani’s thesis of Asia’s imminent modernity, educators and teachers need to ask whether the existing curriculum is effective enough to implement the seven pillars of modernity in this country. How can those pillars be incorporated into the curriculum and implemented in daily life?

 Education teaches students science and technology, but that is not enough to develop modernity. Developing these pillars implies imparting those values to be applied in daily life. Universities are often criticized for over teaching content to students, ignoring the fact that such content shortly becomes obsolete or irrelevant.

 The corollary is that the skills to be taught to students should be transferable to ever-changing situations. Teachers and professors would have failed if they used learning processes that did not impact on life-long learning.

 Teaching for the 21st century is about providing students basic skills and values for living in a knowledge-based society.

 The four principles of a knowledge-based society are as follows. First, life-long learning. Muslims would readily agree with this principle, because it is in line with the Prophet Muhammad’s saying that man should learn from the cradle to the grave. Educators should impress upon students a genuine curiosity for learning new things throughout life.

 Second, independent learning. Students should be taught to assume greater personal responsibility for their own learning. Crucial for independent learning is critical and creative thinking skills. Critical people have tendencies to anticipate new problems and know how to cope with them.

 Third is problem-based learning. Our life is flooded with new problems. Traditional education programs are preoccupied with content, while in reality, life outside schools offers us problems rather than content. The curriculum should be redesigned to provide students with reasoning skills and problem-solving skills.

 A problem-based approach to the curriculum is also experience-based.  Learning is coach-mediated rather than teacher-directed. Students are problem solvers rather than knowledge recipients.

 Clearly, the role of teachers is not about knowledge delivery, but about collaborating with students in creating knowledge. In other words, students are treated as novice knowledge constructors.

 Fourth, learning from multiple sources and resources. Traditionally, teachers used to be a major and authoritative source of knowledge. They should realize that nowadays students learn things faster from multiple sources. These sources are infinite and beyond comparison. The main job of today’s teacher is not to provide knowledge, but to help students filter the knowledge they are exposed to.

 Educational institutions are challenged to shift the paradigm from an “application of theory model” to a problem-based model.

 The current practice is to provide prospective teachers with theory and ways of teaching through PPL or program pengalaman lapangan. Trainee teachers in most cases feel underprepared for life in the classroom.

 Normally in Indonesia, students do PPL in the eighth semester for three to four months, which is far from sufficient for fully understanding day-to-day problems in school.

 By way of comparison, in England and Japan prospective teachers undergo PPL earlier, namely in the first or second semester. As a result, they experience school culture longer and therefore know how to come to terms with school problems.

 Education is the most effective way of modernizing the nation. We need teachers who have mastered not only the subject matter (pedagogy), but also have the competence to inculcate students with the values and character to survive an ever-changing society. For that reason, teacher education programs should be critically reviewed for continuous improvement

A Chaedar Alwasilah ; 

A Professor at the Indonesian Education University (UPI), Bandung and The Author of Pokoknya Rekayasa Literasi (2012)

JAKARTA POST, 02 Maret 2013

Selengkapnya.. »»  

RSBI and the politics of pedagogical choice

 The fierce debates over the international pilot project schools (RSBI) that once raged between education activists and the government have come to a halt with the Constitutional Court ruling that the establishment of the often-dubbed “elite” schools is not in line with the Constitution.

 In its verdict, the Constitutional Court said that the RSBIs had created dualism and discrimination in the national education system.

 Also, with their exclusive use of English as the medium of classroom instruction, the schools have been lambasted for eroding national identity.

 Yet, one day after the ruling the Education and Culture Ministry seemed adamant that it would not immediately dismiss RSBI.

 The government’s efforts to improve the system of national education and to pursue quality education ought to be commended.

 This is especially true given that most Indonesians have been casting doubts over local education and opting instead for overseas education.

 While we have to extend our full support to the government for its seriousness in boosting the country’s education, we need to call into question the blind adoption of the label “international standard” in the RSBIs, which is associated mainly with the mandatory use of English (as an international language), imported curriculum and assessment instruments and the idea of English native speaking.

 Perhaps this label is attributed among teachers, students and educational technocrats to pedagogical jargon like international standard competence, which has become the guiding principle in the curriculum design.

 Needless to say, the idea behind the establishment of the RSBIs is more political than pedagogical if contextualized in the global spread of the hegemonic forces of Western education.

 Thus, the often-voiced claim that the national education system needs to adjust itself to the rapid changes of the globalized world (through the establishment of RSBIs), so that local schools are poised to compete with schools overseas is certainly a political statement — a statement that cannot be perceived as neutral and innocent.

 Complicating this statement, we can raise critical question: From which perspective is the banal notion of globalization viewed?

 Clearly, in common knowledge the phrase “international Standard” is construed as designating globalization from the outside world, or what is often referred to as the Center World (the colonizing countries) as opposed to the Periphery World (the colonized countries).

 It is this understanding that the opponents of the RSBIs object to and harshly denounce.

 It is also because of this perception that they have accused the RSBIs of perpetuating liberalism and capitalism in education and also language imperialism.

 Describing the fetish of the dissemination of English through education, as has been the case in the RSBIs, linguist JE Joseph (2004) said: “When members of the ‘peripheral’ population are themselves the ones opting for education in the ‘center’ language or promoting it for their countrymen, this merely means they have been co-opted into linguicism; they are internal colonialists.”

 Interestingly, most education observers through their published writings in the media have unwittingly helped promote pedagogical imperialism by extolling the superiority of education of the center.

 They uncritically believe in the reports released by international associations such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading Literacy Studies (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — reports that provide a statistical comparison of the quality of academic performance across different countries.

 Inferences on quality education are made based on these reports. Thus, if the reports show that other countries better Indonesia in terms of academic performance, the conclusion is often hastily drawn that the latter performs worse than its counterparts and is eventually condemned for not having competitive values.

 If these reports are used as a sole reference for improving the country’s education system through, say, the creation of the RSBIs, then we become engrossed in a pedagogical determinism without taking into consideration the fact that the geopolitics of every country differs considerably.

 After all, just as resorting to the RSBIs as the ostensible panacea of the country’s educational snag is a political choice, so too is the attempt to revive national-based education as a reaction against it.

 The reconsideration of the relevance of national identity, culture and ideology amid the suppression of Western hegemonic pedagogy also has a political overtone.

 To counter the spread of international schools in Indonesia, A. Chaedar Alwasilah, a professor in education, has recently proposed what he calls “ethnopedagogy” — a local genius-based pedagogy that tries to reinvigorate local languages, cultures and ideologies.

 This proposal certainly has a political nuance, suggesting therefore that all pedagogical choices are value-laden and political.

 In the face of globalization, educational policies certainly need to be altered in line with the needs and demands of the modern world.

 Yet, this shouldn’t always be done by upgrading the status of local schools with an “international” label.

 Instead, the revitalization of local wisdom in education can strengthen the foundation of national education and serve as a counter-politics to pedagogical determinism.

 It can also give teachers the confidence to face the unexpected challenges of the globalized world. Quality education should begin from such an effort.

Setiono Sugiharto ;

An Associate Professor at Atma Jaya Catholic University,

He is also chief editor of the Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching

JAKARTA POST, 12 Januari 2013

Selengkapnya.. »»  

Teacher, Not Curriculum, Matters

  The imminent introduction of a new curriculum in 2013 will not provide any guarantees for resolving the current problems in education in the nation. A new curriculum is always a good notion. However, drawbacks invariably stem from implementation. Thus, what is urgent is not to change the curriculum, but to implement it.

 Curriculum implementation means simply putting into effect the curriculum as intended, including a system to appraise its effectiveness. An appraisal process provides feedback for the development process, where the data is utilized for curriculum improvement. The educational curriculum needs continuous improvement, not continuous change.

 Curriculum improvement is not necessarily sequential; oftentimes it occurs in parallel as well as in tandem. It is usually begun in a certain area of the curriculum on a trial-and-error basis as an alternative to present practices. Evaluative data is useful for seeing the curriculum in action and is valuable for improving it.

 The 2013 curriculum, as Education and Culture Minister Mohammad Nuh has said, is an improvement over the 2004 and 2006 curriculums, which have been said to be competence-based and school-based respectively. Meanwhile, teachers are still learning how to put into action the 2006 curriculum.

 Regrettably, most teachers and the public in general are not informed about what essentially went wrong with the 2006 curriculum. The government should have publicized the evaluative data to identify which aspects of the curriculum were problematic. Such data would have made the curriculum change more sensible.

 Organizations such as teacher professional development networks (MGMP) should produce best practices that enrich not only the immediate community, but the profession as a whole. MGMP-based programs seem to be more context-specific, teacher-generated, and immediate-needs-driven.

 It is a disservice to the MGMP community when we fail to probe the effectiveness of MGMP-established programs and overlook their results. Such a mechanism utilizes the continuous professional development (CPD) of teachers.

 Curriculum improvement, rather than curriculum change, is focused on certain problematic aspects. Thus, curriculum improvement is more economic and problem-based. To repeat, what is essential for teachers is CPD, namely a career-long process in which teachers fine-tune their teaching to meet student needs. The major benefactor of CPD is the student. CPD directly tackles teachers’ teaching styles — the patterns of decisions to optimize student learning.

 Considering the huge number of teachers, the obstacle of CPD is the inaccessibility of professional development opportunities. Professional development opportunities seldom reach teachers in need. Only around 1 million out of 2.9 million teachers have currently been certified.

 However, a recent study by the World Bank on the impact of teacher certifications revealed that certification has improved teacher living standards but failed to upgrade teaching performance. They have failed to motivate students to learn. Obviously it is the teacher that matters most, not the curriculum.

 Any of the following could explain why the current government-initiated PLPGs (mandatory teacher professional development programs) have failed to upgrade teacher professionalism.

 First, not all teachers are talented and devoted individuals who have a commitment to teaching. The recruitment undertaken by teacher training institutions fails to differentiate teaching-talented prospective teachers from non-talented ones.

 Second, teachers differ from one another in terms of their theoretical and professional knowledge and the stages they are at in their careers. At present there are 10 state teacher training universities and dozens of public and private FKIPs (teacher training colleges). All these teacher training institutions vary in terms of resources, and this could explain the disparity in quality of their graduates.

 Third, the professional program is not necessarily tailored to teacher needs and motivations, so they do not develop ownership of it. Some teachers do not have good mastery of content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge or contextual knowledge. Thus the content should be tailored accordingly.

 Fourth, some teachers regard professional development simply as an administrative duty, rather than as a career-long endeavor. Once the program is completed, teachers go back to their old way of teaching. True CPD is aimed at determining the factors that contribute to the success of all students and teachers.

 Fifth, the professional development program is detached from the entire school culture and climate. The CPD program will have an effect on student learning if it involves knowledge about teaching and learning in the school involved. The success of a CPD program is not measured by the completion of individual factors in the programs.

 The effect of CPD program is pervasive through an examination of how factors and stakeholders interact with one another. Professional development should be embedded in their daily schedule. In short, CPD should be schools-based.

 To be effective, the professional development should be developed by fulfilling the criteria suggested by Díaz-Maggioli in his book Teacher-centered Professional Development (2004) as follows: (1)collaborative decision-making, (2) a growth-driven approach, (3) collective construction of programs, (4) inquiry-based ideas, (5) tailor-made techniques, (6) varied and timely delivery methods, (7) adequate support systems, (8) context-specific programs, (9) proactive assessment, and (10) adult-centered instruction.

 The enactment of a new curriculum has always been greeted with doubt and cynicism. It is the teachers who will be held liable when it fails to function as expected. It is time to change the paradigm from government-initiated and top-down curriculum change to the teacher-centered and school-based continuous professional development as a part of curriculum improvement, rather than curriculum change.

A Chaedar Alwasilah ; 

A Professor

at the Indonesian Educational University (UPI) in Bandung

JAKARTA POST,  05 Januari 2013

Selengkapnya.. »»  

Let’s get serious about nationwide teacher evaluations

While the nationwide teacher competence test has been poorly administered, removing the test and trusting teachers, as suggested by Setiono Sugiharto (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 4, 2012) may mean overestimating our teachers’ capability to take command of their teaching quality and enhance their professional development.

 It is true that some teachers are highly committed and dedicated to their profession. Such teachers are intrinsically driven to be engaged in the continuous improvement of their teaching practices and student learning. Those teachers would be misrepresented in an inappropriately designed and poorly administered competence test. A multiple-choice format competence test would not be adequate to assess and reveal the merits of those teachers.

 Without any proper teacher-evaluation system however, performance assessment and professional learning will be neglected. Good teachers will likely improve their skills, but mediocre and poor teachers will continue their bad habits and will do no good for our students. An effective teacher evaluation system should have a clearly-defined purpose, set appropriate priorities and be wedded to a comprehensive approach.

 The competence test was launched and was said to map the quality of teachers nationwide, review the quality of all certified teachers and justify extra pay on a quarterly basis. All these objectives have marred and confused the purpose of teacher assessment.

 To map the quality of teachers should not require that all teachers be tested. An appropriate sampling should be adequate and more than efficient.

 Justifying additional pay for teachers may be part of the political process between the Education and Culture Ministry and the House of Representatives. Thus, it should not be resolved by administering such a large-scale test. Should the competence test really aim to review the quality of certified teachers, further questions will arise.

 To what end does the competence test lead teachers? Is the goal to promote student learning or merely to review teachers’ quality? What aspects of high-quality teaching does it assess?

 Any program or activity in the education system should eventually aim at promoting student learning. Scoring high on the multiple choice test does not directly translate into improved teacher practices and student learning. When the education system clearly and consistently pursues assessment and growth for every teacher, teachers will stay focused on their own growth as well as that of their students.

 An effective teacher-performance-assessment system includes continuous professional development, peer coaching, principal involvement and leadership at the school level.

 At the end of the day, a serious teacher evaluation system requires the authority to take tough decisions in relation to rewarding the good teachers, improving the not-so-good teachers or dismissing the bad ones. This system is founded on the assumption that “all teachers can and want to learn” until on a case-by-case basis, some teachers prove unwilling or unable to do so.

 Should the teacher assessment really aim at promoting student learning, it requires a comprehensive approach. Improving teachers’ qualities, which then leads to student learning, goes beyond the results of multiple-choice competence tests.

 The growth of teachers needs to be assessed on a day-to-day basis. This means principals have to systematically conduct their supervision responsibility. While the official supervisors at the district education level rarely perform their duties properly, few principals carry out the classroom observation tasks or design a system of mentoring, peer-observation and supervision in their schools. Consequently, few school leaders have developed adequate supervision skills and thus teachers are left to sink or swim throughout their teaching careers.

 A nation that is serious about improving the learning of its children should start by appointing education executives who are consistent enough to make teacher’s growth one of the highest priorities of education development.

 The recent teachers’ competence test may be positively regarded as a good start in enhancing teachers’ growth, but unfortunately the test remains far from an appropriately designed model of teacher evaluation. To enhance student learning, more thought and effort should be integrated into an effective teacher performance assessment system.

Anita Lie

A Professor at Widya Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya

JAKARTA POST, 11 Agustus 2012

Selengkapnya.. »»