Presentation on theme: "What are the foundations of Indonesia’s 2013 National Curriculum? Hywel Coleman University of Leeds, UK"— Presentation transcript:
What are the foundations of Indonesia’s 2013 National Curriculum? Hywel Coleman University of Leeds, UK firstname.lastname@example.org
This talk is not about the new curriculum. It is about the thinking which underlies the new curriculum. Alkaff, A. 2013a. Perlunya kompetensi sikap pada rumusan kurikulum. Makalah tertulis yang disusun untuk Diskusi Pendidikan Kebudayaan dari Zaman Pergerakan hingga Kini, 7 Mei 2013. Jakarta: Serambi Salihara. Alkaff, A. 2013b. Makalah yang dipresentasikan pada Diskusi Pendidikan Kebudayaan dari Zaman Pergerakan hingga Kini, 7 Mei 2013. Jakarta: Serambi Salihara. Available online at www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NyYL_iF9Jc. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NyYL_iF9Jc 53 minutes, 56 slides
Questions for discussion 1)What is the main distinction which Prof Alkaff is making in Extract 1? 2)Do you think that it is possible to measure a child’s ‘intelligence’ and ‘creativity’? 3)Do you think that it is possible to compare levels of intelligence and creativity? For example, can we say that a person has an intelligence level of 60 and a creativity level of 30 (for example)? 4)Do you think that increasing a person’s intelligence level by 50 per cent is a significant or an insignificant achievement? 5)Any other comments about this Extract?
Is it really true that the human brain consists only of two elements (‘unsur’): intelligence and creativity? What about memory? The suggestion that intelligence and creativity can both be measured on comparable scales (or the same scale?) is unproven. Cognitive intelligence is conventionally measured on a scale where the mean is 100. The definition of ‘intelligence’ used here is unclear. There seems to be no awareness of multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983 identifies 8 types of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal and naturalist.)
Creativity in business seems to be more highly regarded than creativity in the arts. The suggestion that, through education, intelligence can be increased by 50 per cent is extraordinary. This is huge, not ‘very little’. Even if creativity can be increased – through education - to a greater extent than intelligence, that does not justify (a) sidelining intellectual development or (b) giving top priority to creative development. Why can’t both ‘intelligence’ and ‘creativity’ both be developed?
If education is so important for creativity, how come Shakespeare (with an incomplete secondary education) was so creative? According to Ferrari, Cachia & Punie (2009), Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States, there are five schools of thought about the relationship between creativity and intelligence: - creativity is one aspect of intelligence - intelligence is one aspect of creativity - creativity and intelligence overlap with each other - creativity and intelligence are the same thing - creativity and intelligence are completely unrelated ‘The main message that can be drawn … is that researchers haven't yet reached a consensus on the relationship between creativity and intelligence. This leaves the issue open.’ (p 11)
Questions for discussion Look at the list of references quoted by Prof Abdullah Alkaff in his presentation about the framework underlying the 2013 Indonesian National Curriculum. 1)Where do most of these references come from? 2)Is there anything noticeable or surprising about these references? 3)Is there anything missing from this list of references?
The background thinking underlying the 2013 Curriculum draws on a wide and interesting range of sources. All these sources (apart from the Law on Education) come from outside Indonesia, especially from USA. The foundation of the curriculum seems to be acontextual (without a context). It is as though Indonesia has no history of education and no philosophers of education. Where are Ki Hadjar Dewantoro, Daoed Joesoef and many others?
Several sources of inspiration come from the world of business. There are no references to Indonesia’s own previous national curricula – so no lessons are learnt from the country’s own experience. There are no references to the literature on educational change and curriculum revision (e.g. Wedell) – so no lessons are learnt from experience elsewhere. The thinking therefore starts from zero and takes place in a cultural and historical vacuum.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H. and Christensen, C.M. 2011. The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press. ‘The power of innovative ideas to revolutionise industries and generate wealth is evident from history: … Starbucks’ beans and atmosphere drown traditional coffee shops, Skype uses a strategy of ‘free’ to beat AT&T and British Telecom, eBay crushes classified ads …’
24 founders of companies interviewed (22 in USA, 1 in Canada, 1 in India): Amazon.com Dell Computer eBay Procter & Gamble Research in Motion (Blackberry) Skype
Kristen Murdock of Cow Pie Clocks and greeting cards: ‘Invented the Cow-Pie Clock, a clock embedded in a glazed cow pie with a funny saying attached (e.g. “Happy birthday, you old poop”).’ -0- Conclusions: ‘Disruptive innovators’ use five skills: 1)Associating 2)Questioning 3)Observing 4)Networking 5)Experimenting
So the characteristic behaviours of the leaders of aggressive Western (especially American) capitalism form the foundation of the Indonesian national curriculum. (Why not look at the skills employed by the founders of Bluebird Group, Kompas, etc?)
Questions for discussion Look at the second extract from Prof Alkaff’s talk. 1)What are the two aspects of child development that are being discussed here? 2)Is there anything new or surprising here?
The twin phenomena of a) children’s being absorbed in looking at and playing with things in the environment and b) asking endless questions have been known for centuries. There is nothing new here. But since Piaget and Vygotsky we also know much more about the stages through which children develop and the ways in which children’s development can be assisted (scaffolded). However, this understanding is not reflected in the background thinking for the 2013 Curriculum.
‘Guru berdiri di belakang, dia akan mendorong siswa untuk mencari ini, cari ini, cari mana, cari mana, begitu’ (Teachers stand in the background, they will push/encourage pupils to look for this, look for that, search here, search there, like that), 0.54.30 ‘Kebebasan guru akan dibatasi’ (Teachers’ freedom is to be restricted), 1.14.00 ‘Perbedaan antar guru dapat di atasi’ (Differences between teachers can be overcome), 1.16.00
Summary Some interesting ideas (e.g. strong encouragement for children’s independent learning by discovery) A heavy emphasis on creativity, to the neglect of other aspects of education An apparent lack of awareness of many issues, e.g. - child development/learning - impossibility of imposing uniformity on the teaching-learning process - dangers of failing to recognise the importance of teachers Total neglect of the Indonesian context of education