The current debate surrounding the decision to “drop” social studies and natural science from the primary school curriculum is interesting. Firstly there is the implication of the word “dropping” which is being widely used. At no point has it been suggested that these key areas will be “dropped”.
These subjects will continue to be addressed but in a much
more connected manner by being integrated with other subjects. For this to
happen though, a paradigm shift on the part of teachers and the community will
be required. We are attuned to experiencing schools where each subject is
taught for a specific duration, in total isolation and in some cases by
separate teachers to the one group of students.
Life is not set in timed boxes. In life we learn by making
connections. If we step back several centuries, prior to the advent of schools,
children were “educated” by learning many things at once and in context. For
example, in early farming communities children learned about animals,
reproduction, life cycles, weather patterns, supply and demand, measurement,
classification and developed specific language while being “educated” to assume
the role of a farmer. The introduction of schools brought about the division of
learning into many discrete subjects all taught in isolation with no chance for
students to make natural connections.
This thinking is not
new. In the 1896, renowned educator John Dewey created the Laboratory School
in Chicago .
Here, the classrooms represented small communities and the subjects were
interwoven in the context of real life scenarios with students working in
groups on practical projects that were incorporated into larger lessons. He
believed that students learn and grow best in an “embryonic community life,
active with types of occupations which reflect the life of the larger society,
and permeated throughout the spirit of art, history, and science”.
Current global trends in education continue to argue that
learning contextually with authentic connections between subjects, supports
students to develop a broader understanding. This notion of knowing versus
understanding too requires a paradigm shift. While subjects are taught in
isolation the focus is on knowing — the teacher delivers the facts, which the
students learn and then answer closed questions in a test to show the level to
which they have recalled the content of the subject.
Teaching for understanding though, moves the learning to a
higher level. To understand, students must be provoked to think — yes some
facts are still important to know, but most can be researched. With
understanding, students are required to analyze, synthesize, hypothesize, apply
and reflect upon their learning. Students might explore a broad “bid idea”
through many different subjects at one time by making connections and using
skills that transcend subjects.
This can only happen when discrete subjects are merged. In
our world there is too much information for children to “know” — what they need
are the skills to learn how to learn and how to evaluate and apply what they
learn — to put the knowledge to use in connected settings.
The students in Indonesian primary schools are not going to
be less educated with this change. With good curriculum mapping in schools,
teacher education programs in how to teach for the 21st century and a paradigm
shift on the part of society, students will become thinkers who are able to
truly understand. They will be able to transfer their understanding to
different contexts throughout their lives, rather than simply transfer the
facts learned in class to a test.
