Parrots in the classroom

This article was published in the Jakarta Post, Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

Markus Budiraharjo, Yogyakarta

Rachel Davies, in her article 'Traditional' education not that bad (The Jakarta Post, April 14, 2007), argues that traditional education in Indonesia is not "that bad". In her observation, Asian students, including those from Indonesia, perform very well in Australia. They can compete well in the Australian education system, and even outperform their Australian counterparts.

Rachel's conclusion about the success stories of Indonesian students in their overseas education reminds me of my similar experience when I attended a U.S. university. However, Rachel's conclusion that Indonesian students' success in their education is determined by the "traditional" education they received in Indonesia is difficult to agree with.

Rachel's conclusion oversimplifies the complex nature of education. The students attending overseas colleges and/or universities are only from two categories, i.e. upper-class families and/or scholarship recipients. And they are only a tiny part of the total number of Indonesian students.

Thus, seeing them as representatives of the quality of the Indonesian education system is clearly misleading. They are an exception, not the norm. The wealthy families certainly send their children to attend favorite schools, equip their children with facilities, and very often invite private teachers to tutor them at home. Meanwhile, scholarship recipients are mostly the best graduates who happen to have a greater motivation to learn and better learning skills.

Claiming that their success in their overseas education is determined solely by the existing "traditional" education that they have received is thus hardly acceptable. Such a claim is only based on a series of snapshots taken randomly, and without further reflection on what the multiple realities of education in Indonesia look like.

Adequately comprehending the complex nature of education is essential, since it determines how we see the world of education itself, whether innovations are to be taken, and into what extent the change should take place. It is hard to deny as well that problems in education are very complex.

Like in many Asian countries, rote memorization is a common practice done by teachers. In such a teacher-centered class, students are merely considered a blank piece of paper ready for the teacher to write on. It is hardly deniable that they are taught discipline and a solid knowledge of the basics.

However, at the same time, they are not encouraged to explore their environment, observe the things around them and make connections. What they need to do is learn by heart the prescribed knowledge as described in poorly designed textbooks, with the expectation that this is enough to anticipate the messy world.

Is this "traditional" class really better than those liberal arts classes that allow students to explore and autonomously search for information to satisfy their inherent thirst for knowledge? Is merely parroting necessarily enough to prepare them for this fast growing world? Is teaching creatively, with the purpose of cultivating critical and inquisitive mind, less appropriate in this challenging world?

Based on his vast experiences and knowledge dealing with various people all over the world, Kishore Mahbubani questioned the existing tradition in Asia, especially with regard to the "success" of Asian people in this global world.

In his book Can Asians Think?, Mahbubani claims that Asians cannot think. In his view, the problem does not lie in intellectual capacity, since many Asian students, as shown in various studies, outperform in the hard sciences many students coming from different continents.

It is the culture and tradition that lead to two major implications, namely the role relationship between parents and their children and the high expectation of formal schooling.

In the first place, role relationship between parents and their children strongly influences the role relationship between teachers and their students. This feudalistic role relationship clearly makes the senior figures (i.e. teachers) hold an unquestionable authority over their students. Students are not provided with room to express their voices.

The fact that students come to class with preconceptions about the world is thus denied. Creativity and inquisitiveness are not encouraged. Being creative means questioning who has the power in the class. Being inquisitive is hurtful, since teachers might lose face should the students turn to be much brighter than their teachers.

With this role relationship, it is hard to expect that students are then engaged in various activities that require them to exercise higher-order thinking skills, such as analyzing and synthesizing what they know and the facts and knowledge that they just obtained. They are unlikely to investigate the interdependence of the various phenomena that they encounter in their lives.

Parents also expect too much from schooling and consequently they require too much from their children. It often happens that children are not allowed to enjoy their youth by playing and exploring their environment. Sending young children and exposing them to tough academic requirements can be counterproductive in the long run.

Many college graduates do not find learning exciting. Once they are done with their studies, they are eager to "stop" thinking and find the joy and freedom they have missed in their childhood.

This is clearly shown by the fact that most Nobel Prize winners are not from Asian countries. Why? Asian people cannot think! In the eyes of Mahbubani, even Japan and South Korea, the two Asian countries that are comparable to the U.S. and European countries in terms of technology development and economic progress, also suffer from the similar phenomenon. Despite their success in technology development, both Japan and South Korea fail to nurture basic and groundbreaking research.

If that is the case, how good is "traditional" education in Indonesia?

Markus Budiraharjo is teacher of the English Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta. He earned his masters degree from the School of Education at Boston University, Massachusetts, in 2003. He can be reached at markbudi@staff.usd.ac.id.