Oleh: Said Hamid Hasan
INTRODUCTION
There are three terms which are necessary to define because they might be understood differently by different scholars. While it is very common that technical terms are constructed differently to serve the most satisfying meaning, it is therefore a necessity to delineate the meaning of the terms. The three terms are pedagogy, curriculum, and ethnicity. However, it is not the intention of the present paper to analyze, argue, and define the meaning of those terms profoundly. The space available for the present paper does not allow the presenter to elaborate the meaning in a rigorous way such as done normally in an article, a thesis, or a book.
Pedagogy is defined by Conner (2005:1) as “the art and science of educating children and often is used as a synonym for teaching”. Lougran (2006:2) defines pedagogy as “about the relationship between teaching and learning and how together they lead to growth in knowledge and understanding through meaningful practice”, thus it is not a synonym for teaching. In this sense, the meaning of pedagogy is related to the interest of students from primary to higher school. From this point of view the literature of education uses the term pedagogical content as the content the students should learn (Shulman, 2004:203). The interest of the students, including the capacity to think and understand abstract concepts, is the primary concern of pedagogy. Pedagogy develops scientific content further so that it can be learned meaningfully by students. Normally, it is the responsibility of teachers to develop the pedagogical content for their students but the recent development shows that text book writers take over the responsibility voluntarily. Therefore, it is unsurprisingly that at present practice, teachers use the text books not as learning resources but as a ready-made pedagogical content. Teachers transfer the content from the textbook as such to students. Teachers do not make any pedagogical judgment to develop content for a particular group of students under their guidance
Pedagogy is also conceived as the strategy used by teachers to develop the potentials of the students. The potentials constitute the personality of a student and therefore pedagogy also concerns with the capacity and ability of students. Pedagogy uses the potential as factors affected the level of difficulty of pedagogical content and consider appropriate pedagogical content to develop the potential to be abilities. Educated persons are those whose potentials should have been developed at the optimum level. Philosophically, the quality of education is indicated by the level of the development of those potentials in students. So, when the potentials of students are not fully developed, the abilities of students are not maximized then the quality of education is under a big question.
In this respect, pedagogy can also be viewed as the way teachers perceive and realize a curriculum into classroom learning process. When the pedagogical belief of teachers is not in line, more over when it is contradicted with the view of curriculum then, teachers will organize learning activities as what they believe. This is the case where the idea of the curriculum is not implemented by teachers and what happens in the classroom is teacher’s curriculum not the one developed by curriculum developers or government agency. Curriculum is left just as a written plan and it is kept nicely in teachers’ rooms. In this presentation, the meaning of pedagogy is what teacher values education and curriculum, and how those values are realized into classroom interaction.
Conceptually, curriculum is viewed as a construct, a verbalization of an extremely complex idea or a set of ideas (Oliva, 1997:12). It is a hypothetical answer to what the young generation should have for their future lives. Operationally, curriculum has been defined by many scholars differently depending on what they see that idea or set of ideas is developed. MacDonald (1971), Popham and Baker (1970) see curriculum as the quality the students should have and formulated as the aims or goals of the education. It is very important to know where the students should go so curriculum is the statement of the destiny. Unfortunately, the aims or goals are not enough to represent the concept of curriculum. By just having goals, learning process will have a big problem while it is also noted that the process in which the students experience is similarly important as the aims or goals. In fact, by having the same goal, students can undergo different process and in turn the different process will have a different impact on the quality the students have. Students who are drilled all the time to achieve the goals will have different qualities compared to students who achieve the goal through democratic teaching.
Other scholars see curriculum as a written plan about what the students should have, content they should learn, ways to learn the content (Tanner and Tanner, 1980). Tyler (1949) can be considered as the scholar who argues that curriculum should be written and consisting of four components, namely, purpose, experiences (content and process), organization of these experiences, and evaluation of learning outcomes. Taba (1962) and Beauchamp (1975) are also amongst those scholars who see curriculum as a written document. By the written document, the school can convey to society about what to be expected from students and parents know from the very beginning what their children will have, for how long, and what to do. Unfortunately, many cases show that what planned in the written document is not the same or similar with what happened in the classroom.
Some scholars consider process is more important than what is planned in the written document. Stenhouse (1975) is one of the British scholars who places process as the most important aspect of education while Saylor, Alexander and Lewis (1981) put emphasis on what the students empirically experience in school. What happen in classroom is the actual curriculum and it is what the students experience during their schooling periods. It is the experiences that have direct impact on students’ learning outcomes, not the written document. To solve the problem between written and actual curriculum Cohen and Harrison (1982:4) define curriculum as intention and as reality. As intention it is written in a curriculum document while as intention is what actually happens to the students when the plan is implemented.
These scholars emphasize the meaning of one aspect of curriculum and not the whole concept of curriculum. Curriculum consists of educational ideas, a written plan where the ideas are documented, the experience the students have as teachers realize the document into reality, and the product or outcomes the students have as the direct result from the experience ( Hasan, 1999; Hasan, 2000; Hasan, 2006; Kelly, 2004) Thus, curriculum of multicultural education consists of curriculum as an idea, the written plan or curriculum document(s), learning experience the students have as the real curriculum, and the quality the students have as the learning outcomes. Therefore, when someone talks about multicultural curriculum then it covers all of those aspects of a curriculum.
Ethnicity is a term related to either physical identity and cultural identity. Physically, ethnic is “sub-category of race” (Wijeyesinghe, Griffin, Love, 1997:82). This meaning gives a flexible and interchangeable use between ethnic and race. Malay, Javanese, Sundanene, Madurese, Acheese, Bataks, Balinese are examples of ethnic groups in Indonesia which belongs to the race of Mongoloid. As a cultural identity, every ethnic has its own values, ways of thinking, ways of behaving. In many cases, the difference of ethnics in cultural matters is more notable than the difference in physical appearance. Physically, people of Malay might have a very slightly difference from Javanese but they show some basic differences in culture. Ethnic Sundanese is slightly difference in physical appearance with ethnic Bugese but they have some fundamental differences in values, ways of behaving and thinking.
In the present presentation, ethnicity is confined to cultural differences. As Indonesia consists of so many ethnics and every ethnic with its own cultural identity. It is then, the discussion of multi ethnics is also a discussion of multicultural matters. In this respect , the word of ethnicity in the topic is in the sense of multicultural.
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM
At present it is honestly true to say that there is no nation which consists of people with the same and homogeneous culture (NIER, 1999). Indonesia is one of them. It is very obvious that Indonesia is a multicultural nation. Indonesian consists of 200 cultural groups and predominantly people of a province identified by their ethnic or cultural backgrounds such as Achehese in NAD, Minang in Sumatra Barat, Sundanese in Jawa Barat, Ambonese in Maluku, Banjar in Kalimantan Selatan, Officially, the variety of the culture is recognized by national symbol Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity). Therefore, Wolpert (1984:5) explicitly stated that Indonesia has the most complexity culture in the world and only India supersedes the complexity. Nowadays, mobility happens everywhere for one reason or another, and people with different cultural background do live in the same unit of locality or public administration such as a province/state, regencies, and particularly in big cities.
Until recently, the presence of students with a variety of cultural background did not interest education nor learning theory. Education has been very much entrenched by the charm of psychology in developing the stages of the development of students cognitively, emotionally, and physically. Learning theory concerns about the psychology and no cultural background is taken into account. Students learn in a value free situation and teaching methodology only have the interest on psychological aspects of students. Motivation theory is psychological theory and no knowledge of students’ cultural background is used by teachers to motivate students to learn. Interest is always defined in psychological ways of thinking, and student as an individual entity is viewed apart from her/his cultural context. It can be said as the area of psychological dominant in education world.
The contribution of psychology on education is important and meaningful. However, education is not only about a student as an individual but also as a member of society living, affecting and affected by their cultural characteristics. Although it has been long time it is recognized that education should be based upon culture (Dewantara, 1946; Dewey, 1916) but only recently education put more interest in considering cultural background of students as an important aspect in learning. The capacity of students in learning is undoubtedly affected by their psychological development which are also bound by their cognitive and physical maturity. The maturity develops their capacities to learn abstract concepts, think hypothetically but it is the culture that determines how students give meaning of those abstract concepts. The study of Maehr (1974) and Webb (1990) identified the relationship amongst culture and language, culture and perception, culture and cognition, culture and motivation. Oliver dan Howley (1992) confidently state that culture “governs how people share information and knowledge, as well as how they construct meaning”. Delpit (Darling-Hammond, 1996:12) wrote “we all interpret behaviors, information, and situation through our own cultural lenses; these lenses operate involuntarily, below the level of conscious awareness, making it seems that our own view is simply the way it is,”. Wloodkowski dan Ginsberg (1995) also mention that culture is basic to “intrinsic motivation”.
The recognition of the power of culture in education shapes one point of view in seeing multicultural education. Cultural background of students should serve as the departure point for planning for how students learn. Burnett (1994) calls this point of view as “student-oriented program” , and he wrote “student-oriented programs are intended to increase the academic achievement of these groups, even when they do not involve extensive change in the content of the curriculum” (Burnett, 1994:2). Gay (2000 : 29) is one of the scholars who defines multicultural education as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles, of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them”. This point of view about cultural background of students is also put forward by Delpit (Darling-Hammond, 1996:12; Mendelsohn and Baker, 2002).
Other points of view of multicultural education are “content-oriented program” and “socially-oriented program” (Burnett, 1994). He describes “content-oriented program” as curriculum content which concerns with the knowledge of culture of those students. In this meaning cultural education is a teaching of a variety of culture so that every student can understand the culture of other students. Mutual understanding and tolerance are the aims of this model of multicultural education. This is not an easy task, however, the teaching of a variety of culture is simpler than the “student-oriented program”. Curriculum wise, the “content-oriented program” should be taken into a very serious consideration because it does relate with a basic principle of education ,namely, to prepare students for their lives in the community or society where they belong. Curriculum has been neglected this principle for long time and now it is time to implement the principle honestly and consistently.
Socially-oriented program covers the two kinds of multicultural education. Burnett (1994:3) writes “these programs seek to reform both schooling and the cultural and political contexts of schooling, aiming neither simply to enhance academic achievement nor to increase the body of multicultural knowledge, but to have the much broader impact of increasing cultural and racial tolerance and reducing bias”. This socially-oriented program is very comprehensive in a sense that it covers many principles of education such as that education should deal with the cultural roots of students, enrich student experience with the reality of living which is multicultural in nature so they can live in harmony, understand each other (Deering et al., 1999; Banks, 2001; Wiriaatmadja, 2002; Gorski, 2008) through the understanding of different trait or might be a unique aspect of other cultures, and also energize a school as a centre for cultural development. Banks (2003) the most prominent advocate of multicultural education also emphasizes that the program of multicultural education is to prepare the students with “knowledge, attitudes, and skills required to function in their cultural communities and beyond their cultural background”.
Many curriculum experts believe that curriculum development should be based on the culture of students the curriculum serves. Dewantara (1930)[2], one of the prominent educationalist in Indonesia, wrote that “education should be based upon the characteristics of national culture and aims for a better life of the people and the nation so that the people can work and live together with people of other nations for the benefit of human kind”. Unfortunately, this principle lost in time and no curriculum developer in Indonesia ever used this principle in developing the curriculum. The dominance of perennialism and essentialism philosophies have disregard the principle even the national aims of Indonesian education. Fortunately, the recent development indicates that the need to place culture as the foundation of curriculum development is officially recognized.
Benjamin (1939) also talked about the relationship between curriculum and culture of the society the curriculum serves. Smith, Stanley, and Shores (1950) published their book on curriculum by the title “Fundamentals of curriculum development” show the important of culture as the basis of curriculum by using the term “curriculum of common education – the universal elements of the culture” and “the curriculum of special education – the requirements of special groups within society”. Kelly (2004:48-52) also recognizes the place of culture in curriculum development although he also poses problems related with it. As he states (Kelly, 2004:50) “in a class-ridden society which is also multi-ethnic, it is not possible to break the cycle of poverty, unemployment, disaffection, alienation and social disorder by offering a middle-class, white, Anglo-Saxon curriculum to all pupils”. Longstreet and Shane (1993:87) also recognize the importance of culture by following statement:
The environment of the curriculum is external insofar as the social order in general establishes the milieu within which the schools operate; it is internal insofar as each of us carries around in our mind’s eye models of how the schools should function and what the curriculum should be. The external environment is full of disparate but overt conceptions about what the schools should be doing. The internal environment is a multiplicity of largely unconscious and often distorted views of our educational realities for, as individuals, we caught by our own cultural mindsets about what should be, rather than by a recognition of our swiftly changing, current realities.
Intrinsically, the vision and philosophy used by any curriculum developer or curriculum decision maker are very much determined by her/his educational background and the way education is perceived, and by her/his cultural and societal background. In dealing with culture, curriculum development uses culture as the source for curriculum content and as a strategy for learning process. Thus, culture is an important basis for curriculum as a written document and as a process. It seems that is the reason why Print (1993:14) states that curriculum is “a cultural construct”. Furthermore, he writes “when these people construct their curriculum document they take into account the society in which we live, the nature of schools, the nature of learners and the resources available” (Print, 1993:15). In other words, when curriculum development should deal with a variety of cultural background of the society the curriculum serves then it is a must that curriculum should be a multicultural-based curriculum Cultural basis of the curriculum is the source for curriculum content and explicitly written in the curriculum document, and is the basis for learning strategy when teachers implement the curriculum.
In short, there are two reasons that one cannot avoid but implement multi-cultural education in the development of curriculum. The first one, curriculum as an instrument of education should deal with students with diverse cultural background so that the curriculum should be isomorphic with the reality of the life of society. In other words, curriculum should develop content which enable students develop understanding of the culture of their classroom mates, their peers, other members of society, other culture different from their own, and develop the way to live in harmony with all the differences. Secondly, curriculum should make use the fact that students learn something from their cultural lenses and develop meaning related with their culture. It is, therefore curriculum should not confine itself to learning theory developed from psychological point of view but also from cultural point of view. Kelly (2004:51) put this position nicely when he writes “in this sense, culture is viewed as supporting cognitive growth by providing ‘cultural amplifiers’”.
Now the question is what curriculum should have to be called a multicultural curriculum? When the curriculum developers select multi-cultural curriculum content then which content from what culture should be included? It is already complicated when a school should select the curriculum content which is multicultural. The problem is more complicated when it is concern with multicultural content for national curriculum because the number of culture should be selected is numerous and it is hard to defend why this particular culture is excluded while other included. However, the decision should be made and the policy should determine which culture should be learned by the students. From the national point of view, it is more practical when the selection is done by the school. Thus, at the national level it should formulate only the policy for the multicultural curriculum content while the real development of the content is the responsibility of each individual school. This is simply because multicultural curriculum content can only be identified effectively at the school level curriculum.
This approach is more practical because the number of culture of students at one school is more limited. The selection of culture for the curriculum content is comparatively easier than if the selection which should be done at the national level. Moreover, at the school level the knowledge and understanding of culture of other students can be implemented and demonstrated in daily classroom activities. Further, cultural lenses of the student in knowing and understanding the content can be directly implemented by the students as their learning strategies. For teachers it is manageable to identify the cultural background of the students and use the cultural lenses of the student when those teachers develop their teaching strategy. Therefore, for Indonesia this school-based approach for developing multicultural curriculum is more reasonable, practical, and meaningful.
NEW POLICY OF EDUCATION
In 2003, the Government of Indonesia passed a new education law replacing the 1988 Law on National Education System. The new education law known as Law for National Education System of 2003. The new law was developed because the society faced a new development after 1998 reformation, the shift of government system from centralized to decentralized, and the existence of new and more relevant ideas in education for the new Indonesian society. New ideas of education which considered appropriate for the government system were formalized in the new law, and amongst those new ideas are concerned with the policy of curriculum and of national standards. In line with the national policy of decentralization, the new education law stipulates that school curriculum is no longer the sole responsible of the central government. It is now the share responsibility between the central and the local governments. The central government is responsible for developing national standards which will be the minimum standard for education all over the country. In case of curriculum, the central government develops content standards and learning outcomes standards. but curriculum for each school should be developed by the school. Local government is responsible for coordinating, supervising and providing necessary assistance for the school. Local government consists of provincial government, regency, and municipality. Regency and municipality have equal administrative responsibility for education in its respective areas while the provincial government is responsible for establishing coordination amongst regencies and municipalities within the province.
The new education law states that the central government should develop national standards of education. This is a new trend in Indonesia education and by the existing of national standards, national content, and the right of the individual school to develop its curriculum Indonesian education enters a new era. Before the law enacted, the school was only responsible for implementing national curriculum developed by the central government. However, it is also a big leap which put the schools in a very shaky position because they do not have any experience and skill for developing the school curriculum. Neither any of local government has such experiences and no manpower for assisting the school. However, this new policy opens a big opportunity to implement multicultural curriculum ideas.
The new education law also stipulates that the national standards should deal with content, process, quality of graduates, learning equipment and resources, management, and cost. These standards will very much be helpful for the school to develop its curriculum. It is very unfortunate that at the present the central government has only successful developed standards for content (Permen 22, 2006) and learning outcomes (Permen 23, 2006). Technically the national standards is the responsible of BSNP to develop. BSNP is an Institute for National Education Standard (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan = BSNP). Officially it should be legally put into action by the decision of Minister of National Education which is called Permen.
The needs of the society are translated into National Learning Outcomes Competencies (NLOC = SKL) which reflect what the students at a particular level of education and school should have. This means that NLOC is the minimum standards of quality every student should have and, therefore, each school can and is eligible to have qualities of learning outcomes for its students of that particular school. The national NLOC is developed into content-standards which is also developed and legalized by the central government.
The national standards of the content can be viewed as national curriculum. The content- standards consist of what is called Standards of Competencies (SC), Basic Competencies (BC), curriculum structure, school calendar, groups of courses, objectives of the group of courses, objectives of individual courses. In the curriculum structure it is decided the distribution of SC and BC for each semester. Every academic year consists two semesters and a semester is 17 to 18 weeks where every classroom meeting it is determined that 35 minutes for primary school, 40 minutes for junior secondary school and 45 minutes for senior secondary school.
These standards should be socialized for the school to understand. The socialization is the most difficult process in any curriculum development. The failure of curriculum implementation in the past is due to improper socialization. Teachers did not understand the idea of the new curriculum simply because the socialization was done in a very short time, not enough to develop adequate knowledge of the new curriculum, positive attitude towards the ideas of the new curriculum, and adequate skills to implement the new curriculum. In addition, in most cases the socialization was conducted by officials who did not know the new curriculum but they were obliged to run the socialization. Frequently, the socialization was conducted just to perform the formal and administrative duties. Partial observation on socialization of the standards shows that the practice of the socialization has been the same as the past. No serious efforts to conduct the socialization. School principals, teachers, inspectors are knowing very little about the nature of LOC, SC, BC, and other components of the policy.
Needless to say that the existing of poor socialization as now experienced by implementers will cost to the national education. When this happens then the school curriculum will be a curriculum other than the one expected by decision makers. A plan from Curriculum Centre to monitor and evaluation the development of school curriculum this year is a good start. Hopefully the outcomes of the monitor and evaluation will be used to improve the present practice of the socialization.
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION FOR SCHOOL CURRICULUM
By the new policy, every school should develop its curriculum. In Indonesian language the curriculum is called Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) or school-based curriculum, and the term KTSP is to be used for convenience. As it is mentioned previously the school is actually not in position to develop the whole aspects of the curriculum. Some components are already decided by central government. The school should develop content-standar to be the KTSP. This means that for every KTSP the school should only copy the objective of the curriculum and each courses, SC and BC, the time and duration for each course. However, the school should develop further the content for SC and BC, processes for learning, assessment for learning outcomes, and learning resources for the students. Furthermore, the school should develop a new course called personality development and local content. Then, the school curriculum should be finalized by organizing all those curriculum component. Additionally, school should develop syllabus for each course.
Ministry of Education Decision (Permen) number 22, 2006 explicitly states seven principles for developing KTSP. The principles are:
- Based upon the potentials, development, the need of students and environment.
- Diversity and Unity
- Responsive to the development of science, knowledge and technology
- Relevant to the real life
- Comprehensive and continuous
- Long-life education
- Balance between national and local interests
Of those seven principles, there is no principle which explicitly uses the word multicultural education. However, the characteristics of multicultural curriculum are embedded in at least four principles, namely, based upon the potentials, development, the need of students and environment, diversity and unity, relevant to real life, balance between national and local interests. Based upon the potentials, development, the characteristics of students and environment principle is elaborated as that curriculum is developed by placing the students in a central position for developing their potentials, and their position in the environment. In other words, curriculum cannot separate the students from their social and cultural environment. Looking this position from national point of view there would be different curriculum in every locality and community. Thus, nationally the school curriculum serves many cultural background of the nation. Consequently, curriculum of the schools at big cities will serve multicultural nature of the societies of those big cities.
Diversity and Unity principle is elaborated as that curriculum is developed without discriminating the students because of their religion, ethnic, culture, customs, economic status, and gender. Curriculum integrates the local content and self development program as an integral part of the existing curriculum content or as a single and independent course of the school curriculum. The local content is developed by identifying the physical aspects, the majority of economy of the society, the culture of the majority of students, and the customs of the majority of students. Including in this local content is the vernacular used by the majority of students. In case of the language, the majority of the vernacular of the students is determined by the office of the education at regency or municipality level. Thus, Sundanese will be the vernacular for schools in West Java Province as Javanese for schools in Central Java.
Relevant to real life principle is defined as that the curriculum content should be relevant with the need of the society, the economy and the world of labor force. It is then, the school curriculum should develop skills for personal, social, academic, and vocational skills. The personal skills are the skills required for the individual student to live in her/his community in harmony, to communicate, to cooperate, to work, and to care. This means that within the personal skills the student should understand the peer and members of community with different culture, values, and even belief. Curriculum developer should consider those skills of personal skills.
Balance between national and local interests principle is described as the that the need of the local should not politically, socially, and culturally jeopardize or threat the national interest. Here, national interest is the need for unity as one big nation and one big country. The diversity of the social, culture, and political ideology should enrich and strengthen the national unity. This principle is obviously a very good basis for multicultural curriculum because the unity as a nation and a country can only be enhanced by understanding other members of the nation.
In brief, it is obvious that the multicultural curriculum is in fact the curriculum those schools should develop. The idea of multicultural curriculum should explicitly describe in curriculum document, the objectives of the curriculum should also explicitly state the quality the student should have by learning culture of other students in the classroom. The absence of those components in the document of school curriculum (KTSP) will have a consequence that teachers will forget as they are occupied with the regular works and the common way of doing thing.
In Indonesia case, the need for the KTSP to have those objectives and content of multicultural education is unavoidable especially for nine-year basic education. The basic education is minimum education for all population age 7 – 15. The nine-year basic education develops minimum quality for every Indonesian people. This means that the quality of the nine-year basic education is considered adequate for Indonesian to live as an individual, a society, and a nation. The national learning outcome competencies (NLOC) of the basic nine-year education should mention clearly that understand and appreciate culture of other member of citizen is the foundation for developing the sense of national unity. The competencies for living together with people of different cultural background, to appreciate culture other than one owns, and be able to communicate effectively and productively should be the concern of the nine-year basic education curriculum.
The official statement about multicultural education for the nine-year basic education in the national learning outcomes standards (NLOC) will help curriculum developers at school level. As the model on page 11 shows that all qualities specified in the national learning outcomes standards should be the qualities school curriculum should be responsible for the students to have. In fact, the competencies of the multicultural education should be basic competencies and should be developed by every course in the curriculum.
Unfortunately, there is no such statement in the NLOC. The qualities within NLOC are those develop to master the content of subject matter of academic and traditional disciplines. They are competencies developed from mathematic, natural science, social sciences, languages, sociology, anthropology, history, economics, geography, and so on. This situation is naturally will pose a big problem for the development of multicultural curriculum in Indonesia. School must struggle to formulate the idea of multicultural education in their curriculum ideas based upon what they understand about multicultural education. The principles for curriculum development as discussed earlier will no doubt be the basis for such an effort but the absence of the multi-cultural education qualities in NLOC will obviously inhibit a fully implementation of the idea.
MULTUCULTURAL TEACHING
The use of multicultural education in teaching-learning process can be done as the implementation of curriculum but also can be done regardless the curriculum. Ideally, the idea of multi-cultural education is applied in the curriculum as a document and curriculum as a process. However, when the idea of multi-cultural education cannot be found in curriculum as a document, the strategy of teaching can always use the multi-cultural strategy.
In general, learning process consists of four clusters of activities. The four clusters are related to each other and those four compose a complete cycle of learning. The four clusters are shown in the following diagram:
The first cluster is information seeking. In what ever situation the learning starts with seeking information. To seek information the students can do many things depending on teacher’s plan. The students can seek the information by listening and writing, reading a textbook, observing fossil, artifact or activities. The students can also seek information by interviewing resource persons. Many ways can be explored to make students active in seeking the necessary information but there is no further activity in learning without having the necessary information.
The information consists of facts, concepts, generalization, skills, values, attitudes, and so on. The seeking information requires some skills such as kinds of sources of information, locating the sources of information, collecting the information from the sources. Needless to say that listening is not a simple job because while listening to the source someone should know the information conveyed. The fact that many classroom activities start with teacher talk and student listens to what the teacher says supersede the need for students to have some strategies for a better listening. It not only the teachers should master the way to lecture but it also in the part of students to develop the skills to listening not to say that different kinds of information do also require different ways to listening. So, when it is concerned with other kinds of resources the need for having necessary skills is very obvious.
The second cluster of learning is understanding the information. This cluster concerns with the process of information gathered in the first cluster. Many strategies can be used to process the information and to understand the meaning. However, in this cluster the cultural background does affect the understanding. Here, the traditional teaching-learning process neglects the contribution of cultural background of students and causes the failure of learning. Learning theory such as “aptitude treatment interaction” (Cronbach, 19xx) should actually be extended to cultural factor. Aptitude is not only a psychological construct but it is also a cultural construct. Cultural background of students is a significant factor forming the aptitude of students.
The third cluster is values/skills attainment. In this cluster of learning students look at the value closely and learn how to appreciate and develop those as their own. This is not a simple process simply when the values they learn is different from what they already have. They will accept the new values when their prior values are not contradictory, can be enriched by the new values, and the new values are needed for their future life. Here, the strategy of teaching teachers employ should carefully consider the cultural background of the students. When the students in the classroom come from different cultural background then the teaching strategy used by teachers should be appropriate with the characteristics of those cultures of the students. Of course, this is more notorious for schools in big cities compared to those schools in rural areas. Nevertheless, this is not saying that teachers in rural areas do not have the problem of the cultural background of their students. When the teachers come from the same cultural background with the students the job is easier as they can project their own cultural point of view to the students, and pay more attention to psychological aspect of the students.
The attainment of skills in this cluster normally is relatively easier especially when the skills are related with cultural matters. Skills for following procedures in science or in technology are normally not related with cultural matters. Skills to operate a product of technology such as computer, laboratory instruments, observation of market activities, to use microscope, and others are not necessarily contradictive with any value within a particular culture.
The last cluster of learning is the application of the values and skills in real life. This cluster will give the students opportunity to use what they have learned in their daily lives in schools, neighborhood, community, or society where they belong or the one that they encounter. The students might deal with individual(s), communities, or societies other than their own. In this occasion, what they have learned about others will b very useful. They apply the way to communicate, to appreciate, or even to behave when they encounter a multicultural context. The more the occasions they have to practice the skills the better the tolerance of other cultures.
In every cluster many teaching techniques can be used by teachers. So is with some models of teaching approach such as cooperative learning, discovery learning, inquiry teaching, and others. The clusters are flexible to accommodate many teaching techniques and teaching models. The clusters are conceptualized about what the teaching should accomplish for multicultural education.
CONCLUSIONS
Multicultural education is fundamentally position education and curriculum to its very basic principle which is students and their cultural lives. Multicultural education indicates that this basic principle should be put as priority especially because students learn how to live in a very complex and multicultural society. Secondly, multicultural education provides students with an opportunity to learn from their own cultural point of view, their own cultural lenses. Thirdly, multicultural education considers the culture of every students is equal and no culture has any better status than others. Thirdly, multicultural education gives the students an ample opportunity to grow within their own culture and appreciate other cultures of other students.
In Indonesian context, multicultural education can foster national and local interests at equally important. From national point of view, the knowledge and appreciation of other culture is important to enhance national unity without neglecting the local aspiration for the development of its culture. From local point of view, the knowledge and understanding of other culture can enrich the local culture and probably to have new fresh look of that culture.
Multicultural learning is essential for the betterment of students’ achievement. By using their own cultural understanding they can improve their understanding and mastering new skills.
REFERENCES
Banks,J.A. (2001). Diversity Within Unity: Essential Principles for Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Society. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org
Banks, J.A. (2003). Educating Global Citizens in a Diverse World. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org
Beauchamp, G.A. (1975). Curriculum Theory. Wilmette, Illinois: Kagg Press
Becker, A. and Collignon,F. (2002). Community-Based Organization-School Relationships in Urban Southeast Asian Communities. Available at http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/sfc/3.2es.html, 2/6/2008
Benjamin, H. (1939). The Saber-tooth Curriculum, in The Curriculum: Context, Design, and Development (ed. Hooper, R.)(1973). Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd in association The Open University Press
Burnett, G. (1994). Varieties of Multicultural Education: An Introduction. Available at http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edudigest/dig98.html. December 1994
Cohen, D. and Harrison, M. (1980). Curriculum Action Project: A Report of Curriculum Decision-Making in Australia Secondary School. Sydney: Macquarie University
Conner, M.L. (2005). Andragogy + Pedagogy. Available at http://agelesslearner.com/ intros/andragogy.html
Deering, P.D. et al. (2006). Collaborating with Multicultural Students and Families, Hawai’i Style. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org
Dewantara, Ki H. (1930) Hal Pendidikan, in Karya Ki Hadjar Dewantara, Bagian Pertama: Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa, 1970
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press
Fogarty,R. (1991). How to integrate the curriculum. Polatine, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Publishing, Inc
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, & Practice. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
Gorski, P.C. (2008). Curriculum Reform: Key Characteristics of a Multicultural Curriculum. Available at http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/curriculum/ characteristics.html
Harley, M.S. (1999). The Scope of Multicultural Education. New Harizons for Learning. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org
Hasan,S.H. (1999). Landasan Filosofi Dan Teori Penyusunan Kurikulum, makalah disajikan dalam Seminar Kinerja PPPG-IPA, Bandung, 28 Juni 1999
Hasan, S.H. (2000) Pendekatan multikultural untuk penyempurnaan kurikulum nasional, makalah disajikan dalam seminar nasional Balitbang Depdiknas, di Cisarua 28 Maret 2000.
Hasan, S.H. (2006). Evaluasi Kurikulum. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia University Press
Kelly, A.V. (2004). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, 5th ed., London: Sage Publications
Longstreet,W.S. dan Shane, H.G. (1993). Curriculum for a New Millenium. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Lougran, J. (2006). Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning About Teaching. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge
MacDonald, J.B. (1971). Curriculum Theory, Journal of Educational Research, 64, 5: 196-200
Mann, D. (Ed.)(1978). Making Change Happen?. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
MacDonald,J.B. (1971). Curriculum Theory, Journal of Educational Research, 64, 5:196-200
Mendelsohn, J. and Baker, F.J. (2002). The Interdisciplinary Project Model: A Workable Response to the Challenges of Multicultural Education: In Our Nation’s Secondary Education. Available at http://www.newhorizons.org
Mueller, J.(2006). Authentic Assessment Toolbox. Tersedia pada http://jonathan.muller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/rubrics.htm, tanggal 16/2/2007
Oliva, P.F. (1997). Developing the Curriculum, 4th ed., New York: Longman
Saylor, J.G., Alexander, W.M. and Lewis, A.J.(1981). Curriculum Planning for Better Teaching and Learning. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Popham,W.J. dan Baker, E.L (1970). Establishing Instructional Goals. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. St Leonard, NSW: Allen and Unwin
Shulman, L.S. (2004). The Wisdom of Practice: Essays on Teaching, Learning, and Learning to Teach (ed. Wilson,S.M). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Smith, B.O., Stanley,W.O., and Shores, J.H. (1950). Cultural Roots of the Curriculum,
The Curriculum: Context, Design, and Development (ed. Hooper, R.)(1973). Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd in association The Open University Press
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Tanner, D. and Tanner, L. (1980). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice. New York: Merril
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles in Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: Chicago University Press
Unruh,G.G. dan A. Unruh (1984), Curriculum development: problems, process, and progress. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Company
Wijeyesinghe, C.L., Griffin, P. and Love, B. (1997). Racism Curriculum Design, in Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook (eds. Adams, M., Bell,L.A., Griffin, P.).New York: Routledge
Wiriaatmadja, R. (2002). Pendidikan Sejarah di Indonesia: Perspektif Lokal, Nasional, dan Global. Bandung: Historia Utama Press
Wolpert , S. (1984). A Short History of India. New York: Oxford University Press
DOCUMENTS:
Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan: Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan, 2006
Peraturan Menteri Diknas nomor 22 tahun 2006
Peraturan Menteri Diknas nomor 23 tahun 2006
Peraturan Menteri Diknas nomor 24 tahun 2006
[1] Professor of Education, Indonesia University of Education (Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia = UPI)
[2] Ki Hadjar Dewantara was the founder of Taman Siswa and th first Minister of Education and Teaching