Opinion and Editorial – May 12, 2007
Rachel Davies, SydneyIt has been interesting to gauge the response to an article that appeared recently in The Jakarta Post (“Traditional” education not that bad, April 14, 2007). As I suspected it might, that article has been responded to by a number of readers. Some have rejected it outright, whilst others have seen some degree of familiarity with their personal and general experiences of education both in Indonesia and abroad.A key point that was being made in that article was that there are some good things that can be associated with “traditional” education. Of course, it might be considered necessary to define just what is meant by “traditional” education; but evidently from the responses to the original article many and most people associate this term with highly formalized and even rote styles of learning.
It is probably true that very many Indonesian and indeed Asian schools generally, are still stuck in a less than attractive and possibly constructive mode of education that is too deeply rooted in memorization and students being required to sit quietly and “listen to teacher”. However, it is equally true that very many Indonesians and Asians are in fact getting a very beneficial and necessary grounding in the basics.
A central and essential feature for any educational development has to be finding the right balance and mix for the population that the education is being designed/developed for. And this has to be related to the societal and cultural contexts that pertain. It seems something of a cliche or even a stereotype but typically, I think it can be said, Asian cultures and, dare I say it, traditions are more formal and structured and even restrictive than those that exist in Western cultures.
This is without question going to influence and shape the kind of system(s) of education that exist within these countries and there may well be advantages and benefits to be garnered from this. Certainly the more “traditional” modes of education emphasize discipline and respect and this spills over into students’ abilities to apply academic rigor and commitment to their studies.
These kinds of aspects are regrettably often seen to be lacking in students that have experienced a more liberal kind of education. Likewise, good grounding in the basics can go amiss in such education.
Traditional education, though, like anything in life really has its good and bad points. An overpowering application of rote learning can limit abilities to think more broadly. The way in which students are prone to be left passive and reliant on their teachers and/or textbooks is not a positive outcome and should be addressed.
But in addressing such concerns and potential shortcomings of such modes of education, we should not, as they say, “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. The development of education in Indonesia, as with any nation, requires care and consideration for what should be done and indeed what can realistically be done. So many teachers in Indonesia are so used to a one-way and very dictatorial approach to their teaching and the classroom situation that to hope or expect them to suddenly adopt more interactive methods is nonsensical. They need training and guidance for such a sea-change.
The concepts and slogans that spin around education are many and numerous and potentially confusing and even questionable. From claims of “progressive education” and “student-centered learning” to “process driven non-competitive classrooms of tomorrow”, the jargon that is used to suggest educational development is not always fully realized or convincing.
Much of this is predicated on ideas that education must be changed but change that happens for its own sake is liable to flounder on the rocks of reality. Content is still an essential element of any successful education. Content must accompany the process of education.
The thought that education is about nurturing generic skills is often put forward by advocates for change but it should be considered that for students to become numerate and literate there is essential knowledge and understanding that they need to learn. There are basics that need to be put before students in a clear, systematic and structured way.
Exponents of change would hardly be supportive of learning by rote and committing things to memory but there is research that suggests that, particularly when young, children benefit from memorizing certain facts and skills (ways of solving problems) which they can recall easily and their minds are then free to tackle higher-order thinking, knowledge and skills.
So in truth, what may be negatively described as “traditional” education can be seen to have certain good and beneficial traits and these ought not to be summarily set to one side, or carte-blanche dismissed without sufficient prior consideration.
Students who have received a solid grounding in the basics and have been introduced to learning in well established (traditional) subjects have the foundations on which later learning and even diligence may be placed. There is also an either innate or overt recognition with such education that learning that instills discipline and appreciation for and ability to handle hard work may prove more beneficial in the long term.
In short, therefore, I do not think that it is unreasonable to suppose that there are good things that can emerge from a more traditional kind of education. To some extent it is true that Indonesian students that do travel overseas for some of their education are somewhat exceptional but many of them have in fact been through “traditional” education and could actually be considered a product of it.
Though some people may be reluctant to admit it, there are students that experience that more traditional kind of education and achieve successes subsequently. The cynic might say that they have succeeded despite it but it may be more truthful to state that their success is at least partly because of it.
Some people demand change and practically scream out for revolution in education but this may not be the answer, nor prove a real solution to educational problems. It may be that revolution ends up as a “love of ruin” — an anagram of the word “revolution”.
The writer is an international education consultant based in Sydney, Australia.
source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20070512.F03
