Tampilkan postingan dengan label Pembelajaran. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Pembelajaran. Tampilkan semua postingan
1 September 2014
WHAT IS AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT?
Assessment is authentic when we directly examine student performance on worthy intellectual tasks. Traditional assessment, by contract, relies on indirect or proxy 'items'--efficient, simplistic substitutes from which we think valid inferences can be made about the student's performance at those valued challenges.
Do we want to evaluate student problem-posing and problem-solving in mathematics? experimental research in science? speaking, listening, and facilitating a discussion? doing document-based historical inquiry? thoroughly revising a piece of imaginative writing until it "works" for the reader? Then let our assessment be built out of such exemplary intellectual challenges.
Further comparisons with traditional standardized tests will help to clarify what "authenticity" means when considering assessment design and use:
Beyond these technical considerations the move to reform assessment is based upon the premise that assessment should primarily support the needs of learners. Thus, secretive tests composed of proxy items and scores that have no obvious meaning or usefulness undermine teachers' ability to improve instruction and students' ability to improve their performance. We rehearse for and teach to authentic tests--think of music and military training--without compromising validity.
The best tests always teach students and teachers alike the kind of work that most matters; they are enabling and forward-looking, not just reflective of prior teaching. In many colleges and all professional settings the essential challenges are known in advance--the upcoming report, recital, Board presentation, legal case, book to write, etc. Traditional tests, by requiring complete secrecy for their validity, make it difficult for teachers and students to rehearse and gain the confidence that comes from knowing their performance obligations. (A known challenge also makes it possible to hold all students to higher standards).
WHY DO WE NEED TO INVEST IN THESE LABOR-INTENSIVE FORMS OF ASSESSMENT?
While multiple-choice tests can be valid indicators or predictors of academic performance, too often our tests mislead students and teachers about the kinds of work that should be mastered. Norms are not standards; items are not real problems; right answers are not rationales.
What most defenders of traditional tests fail to see is that it is the form, not the content of the test that is harmful to learning; demonstrations of the technical validity of standardized tests should not be the issue in the assessment reform debate. Students come to believe that learning is cramming; teachers come to believe that tests are after-the-fact, imposed nuisances composed of contrived questions--irrelevant to their intent and success. Both parties are led to believe that right answers matter more than habits of mind and the justification of one's approach and results.
A move toward more authentic tasks and outcomes thus improves teaching and learning: students have greater clarity about their obligations (and are asked to master more engaging tasks), and teachers can come to believe that assessment results are both meaningful and useful for improving instruction.
If our aim is merely to monitor performance then conventional testing is probably adequate. If our aim is to improve performance across the board then the tests must be composed of exemplary tasks, criteria and standards.
WON'T AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT BE TOO EXPENSIVE AND TIME-CONSUMING?
The costs are deceptive: while the scoring of judgment-based tasks seems expensive when compared to multiple-choice tests (about $2 per student vs. 1 cent) the gains to teacher professional development, local assessing, and student learning are many. As states like California and New York have found (with their writing and hands-on science tests) significant improvements occur locally in the teaching and assessing of writing and science when teachers become involved and invested in the scoring process.
If costs prove prohibitive, sampling may well be the appropriate response--the strategy employed in California, Vermont and Connecticut in their new performance and portfolio assessment projects. Whether through a sampling of many writing genres, where each student gets one prompt only; or through sampling a small number of all student papers and school-wide portfolios; or through assessing only a small sample of students, valuable information is gained at a minimum cost.
And what have we gained by failing to adequately assess all the capacities and outcomes we profess to value simply because it is time-consuming, expensive, or labor-intensive? Most other countries routinely ask students to respond orally and in writing on their major tests--the same countries that outperform us on international comparisons. Money, time and training are routinely set aside to insure that assessment is of high quality. They also correctly assume that high standards depend on the quality of day-to-day local assessment--further offsetting the apparent high cost of training teachers to score student work in regional or national assessments.
WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY FAITH IN THE OBJECTIVITY AND RELIABILITY OF JUDGMENT-BASED SCORES?
We forget that numerous state and national testing programs with a high degree of credibility and integrity have for many years operated using human judges:
Though the scoring of standardized tests is not subject to significant error, the procedure by which items are chosen, and the manner in which norms or cut-scores are established is often quite subjective--and typically immune from public scrutiny and oversight.
Genuine accountability does not avoid human judgment. We monitor and improve judgment through training sessions, model performances used as exemplars, audit and oversight policies as well as through such basic procedures as having disinterested judges review student work "blind" to the name or experience of the student--as occurs routinely throughout the professional, athletic and artistic worlds in the judging of performance.
Authentic assessment also has the advantage of providing parents and community members with directly observable products and understandable evidence concerning their students' performance; the quality of student work is more discernible to laypersons than when we must rely on translations of talk about stanines and renorming.
Ultimately, as the researcher Lauren Resnick has put it, What you assess is what you get; if you don't test it you won't get it. To improve student performance we must recognize that essential intellectual abilities are falling through the cracks of conventional testing.
ADDITIONAL READING
Archbald, D. & Newmann, F. (1989) "The Functions of Assessment and the Nature of Authentic Academic Achievement," in Berlak (ed.) Assessing Achievement: Toward the development of a New Science of Educational Testing. Buffalo, NY: SUNY Press.
Frederiksen, J. & Collins, A. (1989) "A Systems Approach to Educational Testing," Educational Researcher, 18, 9 (December).
National Commission on Testing and Public Policy (1990) From Gatekeeper to Gateway: Transforming Testing in America. Chestnut Hill, MA: NCTPP, Boston College.
Wiggins, G. (1989) "A True Test: Toward More Authentic and Equitable Assessment," Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 9 (May).
Wolf, D. (1989) "Portfolio Assessment: Sampling Student Work," Educational Leadership 46, 7, pp. 35-39 (April).
-----
|
| Descriptors: Comparative Testing; Cost Effectiveness; *Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education; Nontraditional Education; Public Opinion; Standardized Tests; *Test Use; Test Validity
Grant Wiggins
CLASS
cited from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=2&n=2
|
Definitions
A form of assessment in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills -- Jon Mueller"...Engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance, in which students must use knowledge to fashion performances effectively and creatively. The tasks are either replicas of or analogous to the kinds of problems faced by adult citizens and consumers or professionals in the field." -- Grant Wiggins -- (Wiggins, 1993, p. 229)."Performance assessments call upon the examinee to demonstrate specific skills and competencies, that is, to apply the skills and knowledge they have mastered." -- Richard J. Stiggins -- (Stiggins, 1987, p. 34).
What does Authentic Assessment look like?
An authentic assessment usually includes a task for students to perform and a rubric by which their performance on the task will be evaluated. Click the following links to see many examples of authentic tasks and rubrics.
- Examples from teachers in my Authentic Assessment course
How is Authentic Assessment similar to/different from Traditional Assessment?
The following comparison is somewhat simplistic, but I hope it illuminates the different assumptions of the two approaches to assessment.
By "traditional assessment" (TA) I am referring to the forced-choice measures of multiple-choice tests, fill-in-the-blanks, true-false, matching and the like that have been and remain so common in education. Students typically select an answer or recall information to complete the assessment. These tests may be standardized or teacher-created. They may be administered locally or statewide, or internationally.
Behind traditional and authentic assessments is a belief that the primary mission of schools is to help develop productive citizens. That is the essence of most mission statements I have read. From this common beginning, the two perspectives on assessment diverge. Essentially, TA is grounded in educational philosophy that adopts the following reasoning and practice:
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen an individual must possess a certain body of knowledge and skills.
3. Therefore, schools must teach this body of knowledge and skills.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then test students to see if they acquired the knowledge and skills.
In the TA model, the curriculum drives assessment. "The" body of knowledge is determined first. That knowledge becomes the curriculum that is delivered. Subsequently, the assessments are developed and administered to determine if acquisition of the curriculum occurred.
In contrast, authentic assessment (AA) springs from the following reasoning and practice:
1. A school's mission is to develop productive citizens.
2. To be a productive citizen, an individual must be capable of performing meaningful tasks in the real world.
3. Therefore, schools must help students become proficient at performing the tasks they will encounter when they graduate.
4. To determine if it is successful, the school must then ask students to perform meaningful tasks that replicate real world challenges to see if students are capable of doing so.
Thus, in AA, assessment drives the curriculum. That is, teachers first determine the tasks that students will perform to demonstrate their mastery, and then a curriculum is developed that will enable students to perform those tasks well, which would include the acquisition of essential knowledge and skills. This has been referred to as planning backwards (e.g., McDonald, 1992).
If I were a golf instructor and I taught the skills required to perform well, I would not assess my students' performance by giving them a multiple choice test. I would put them out on the golf course and ask them to perform. Although this is obvious with athletic skills, it is also true for academic subjects. We can teach students how to do math, do history and do science, not just know them. Then, to assess what our students had learned, we can ask students to perform tasks that "replicate the challenges" faced by those using mathematics, doing history or conducting scientific investigation.
But a teacher does not have to choose between AA and TA. It is likely that some mix of the two will best meet your needs. To use a silly example, if I had to choose a chauffeur from between someone who passed the driving portion of the driver's license test but failed the written portion or someone who failed the driving portion and passed the written portion, I would choose the driver who most directly demonstrated the ability to drive, that is, the one who passed the driving portion of the test. However, I would prefer a driver who passed both portions. I would feel more comfortable knowing that my chauffeur had a good knowledge base about driving (which might best be assessed in a traditional manner) and was able to apply that knowledge in a real context (which could be demonstrated through an authentic assessment).
Defining Attributes of Traditional and Authentic Assessment
Another way that AA is commonly distinguished from TA is in terms of its defining attributes. Of course, TA's as well as AA's vary considerably in the forms they take. But, typically, along the continuums of attributes listed below, TA's fall more towards the left end of each continuum and AA's fall more towards the right end.
Traditional --------------------------------------------- Authentic
Selecting a Response ------------------------------------ Performing a Task
Contrived --------------------------------------------------------------- Real-life
Recall/Recognition ------------------------------- Construction/Application
Teacher-structured ------------------------------------- Student-structured
Indirect Evidence -------------------------------------------- Direct Evidence
Let me clarify the attributes by elaborating on each in the context of traditional and authentic assessments:
Selecting a Response to Performing a Task: On traditional assessments, students are typically given several choices (e.g., a,b,c or d; true or false; which of these match with those) and asked to select the right answer. In contrast, authentic assessments ask students to demonstrate understanding by performing a more complex task usually representative of more meaningful application.
Contrived to Real-life: It is not very often in life outside of school that we are asked to select from four alternatives to indicate our proficiency at something. Tests offer these contrived means of assessment to increase the number of times you can be asked to demonstrate proficiency in a short period of time. More commonly in life, as in authentic assessments, we are asked to demonstrate proficiency by doing something.
Recall/Recognition of Knowledge to Construction/Application of Knowledge:Well-designed traditional assessments (i.e., tests and quizzes) can effectively determine whether or not students have acquired a body of knowledge. Thus, as mentioned above, tests can serve as a nice complement to authentic assessments in a teacher's assessment portfolio. Furthermore, we are often asked to recall or recognize facts and ideas and propositions in life, so tests are somewhat authentic in that sense. However, the demonstration of recall and recognition on tests is typically much less revealing about what we really know and can do than when we are asked to construct a product or performance out of facts, ideas and propositions. Authentic assessments often ask students to analyze, synthesize and apply what they have learned in a substantial manner, and students create new meaning in the process as well.
Teacher-structured to Student-structured: When completing a traditional assessment, what a student can and will demonstrate has been carefully structured by the person(s) who developed the test. A student's attention will understandably be focused on and limited to what is on the test. In contrast, authentic assessments allow more student choice and construction in determining what is presented as evidence of proficiency. Even when students cannot choose their own topics or formats, there are usually multiple acceptable routes towards constructing a product or performance. Obviously, assessments more carefully controlled by the teachers offer advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, more student-structured tasks have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when choosing and designing an assessment.
Indirect Evidence to Direct Evidence: Even if a multiple-choice question asks a student to analyze or apply facts to a new situation rather than just recall the facts, and the student selects the correct answer, what do you now know about that student? Did that student get lucky and pick the right answer? What thinking led the student to pick that answer? We really do not know. At best, we can make some inferences about what that student might know and might be able to do with that knowledge. The evidence is very indirect, particularly for claims of meaningful application in complex, real-world situations. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, offer more direct evidence of application and construction of knowledge. As in the golf example above, putting a golf student on the golf course to play provides much more direct evidence of proficiency than giving the student a written test. Can a student effectively critique the arguments someone else has presented (an important skill often required in the real world)? Asking a student to write a critique should provide more direct evidence of that skill than asking the student a series of multiple-choice, analytical questions about a passage, although both assessments may be useful.
These two different approaches to assessment also offer different advice about teaching to the test. Under the TA model, teachers have been discouraged from teaching to the test. That is because a test usually assesses a sample of students' knowledge and understanding and assumes that students' performance on the sample is representative of their knowledge of all the relevant material. If teachers focus primarily on the sample to be tested during instruction, then good performance on that sample does not necessarily reflect knowledge of all the material. So, teachers hide the test so that the sample is not known beforehand, and teachers are admonished not to teach to the test.
With AA, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Students need to learn how to perform well on meaningful tasks. To aid students in that process, it is helpful to show them models of good (and not so good) performance. Furthermore, the student benefits from seeing the task rubric ahead of time as well. Is this "cheating"? Will students then just be able to mimic the work of others without truly understanding what they are doing? Authentic assessments typically do not lend themselves to mimicry. There is not one correct answer to copy. So, by knowing what good performance looks like, and by knowing what specific characteristics make up good performance, students can better develop the skills and understanding necessary to perform well on these tasks. (For further discussion of teaching to the test, see Bushweller.)
Alternative Names for Authentic Assessment
You can also learn something about what AA is by looking at the other common names for this form of assessment. For example, AA is sometimes referred to as
- Performance Assessment (or Performance-based) -- so-called because students are asked to perform meaningful tasks. This is the other most common term for this type of assessment. Some educators distinguish performance assessment from AA by defining performance assessment as performance-based as Stiggins has above but with no reference to the authentic nature of the task (e.g., Meyer, 1992). For these educators, authentic assessments are performance assessments using real-world or authentic tasks or contexts. Since we should not typically ask students to perform work that is not authentic in nature, I choose to treat these two terms synonymously.
- Alternative Assessment -- so-called because AA is an alternative to traditional assessments.
- Direct Assessment -- so-called because AA provides more direct evidence of meaningful application of knowledge and skills. If a student does well on a multiple-choice test we might infer indirectly that the student could apply that knowledge in real-world contexts, but we would be more comfortable making that inference from a direct demonstration of that application such as in the golfing example above.
2 November 2012
KOMPAS, SABTU, 15 SEPTEMBER 2012 | 02:32 WIB
Yogyakarta, Kompas -
Demikian muncul pada diskusi pendidikan ”Perubahan Kurikulum: Urgen dan Perlukah Saat Ini?” di Kantor Kompas Perwakilan Yogyakarta, Jumat (14/9). Diskusi ini hasil kerja sama Kompas dengan Dinamika Edukasi Dasar (DED).
Hadir berbicara pengamat pendidikan Paul Suparno dan Ki Supriyoko; Ferry T Indratno (Direktur DED); pengajar Universitas Sanata Dharma, Haryatmoko; pengajar UGM, Agus Suwignyo; Ag Prih Adiartanto (SMA Kolese De Britto), dan Sri Prihartini Yulia (Pengawas Dinas Pendidikan, Pemuda, dan Olahraga Sleman); dipandu pemerhati pendidikan St Kartono. Semua pembicara setuju ada perubahan kurikulum saat ini.
”Perubahan harus menempatkan bahwa sekolah itu transmisi pengetahuan dan keterampilan. Sekolah juga wahana sosialisasi nilai-nilai dan sikap dalam masyarakat serta integrasi sosial,” kata Haryatmoko.
Terkait itu, kurikulum harus membawa sekolah merespons krisis hubungan sosial, kemiskinan, kekerasan atas nama agama, dan kesenjangan sosial. Harapannya, sekolah juga bisa menyampaikan nilai bersama berdasarkan akal sehat dan membuka kesempatan setara sehingga
Kurikulum sekarang, menurut Paul Suparno, justru membebani anak. Dengan 14-16 mata pelajaran, ditambah keterbatasan waktu, siswa tak mampu belajar kritis atau mengambil keputusan.
Pembaruan kurikulum, lanjut Haryatmoko, juga bergantung pada guru. Untuk itu, guru harus bisa mengatasi ketinggalan kompetensi disiplin ilmu.
Hal sama diungkapkan Paul. Penyiapan guru sebagai pelaku kurikulum amat penting, khususnya menyongsong wacana memberi kebebasan institusi membuat kurikulum sendiri.
Kurikulum yang katanya kontekstual kenyataannya tidak, bahkan cenderung seragam.
Menurut Ki Supriyoko, delapan kali perubahan kurikulum (1950-2007) tak didasarkan pada perkembangan iptek dan budaya lokal. Namun, disebabkan faktor politis, seperti penggantian kurikulum tahun 1964 sebagai produk Orde Lama menjadi kurikulum 1968 produk Orde Baru.
”Kalau mau jujur, meskipun 67 tahun merdeka, masalah pendidikan dan tenaga kependidikan belum pernah dapat solusi memadai,” katanya.
Dapatkan artikel ini di URL:
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2012/09/15/02325662/Kurikulum.Diharapkan.Merespons.Krisis.Sosial
http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2012/09/15/02325662/Kurikulum.Diharapkan.Merespons.Krisis.Sosial
11 September 2011
Menurut Costa (1985) dalam proses pembelajaran ada tiga pengajaran berpikir, yakni teaching of thinking, teaching for thinking, dan teaching about thinking. Pada kenyataan dalam pelaksanaan pembelajaran tidak mungkin melepaskan ketiga aspek itu, antara teaching of thinking, teaching for thinking, dan teaching about thinking terkait sangat erat, bahkan tak dapat dipisahkan (Sanjaya, 2006:106). Jika ketiga aspek itu dilaksanakan dalam pembelajaran di sekolah, maka dapat memfasilitasi kemampuan berpikir siswa. Kemampuan berpikir yang diperlukan pada era globalisasi adalah terkait kemampuan berpikir tentang proses berpikir yang melibatkan berpikir tingkat tinggi dan dikenal dengan metakognisi (Phillips, Tanpa tahun). Eggen dan Kauchak (1996: 54) menyatakan bahwa berpikir tingkat tinggi termasuk berpikir kreatif dan berpikir kritis, yang mencakup kombinasi antara pemahaman mendalam terhadap topik-topik khusus, kecakapan menggunakan proses kognitif dasar secara efektif, pemahaman dan kontrol terhadap proses kognitif dasar (metakognisi), maupun sikap dan pembawaan.
Kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi dapat diberdayakan dengan memberdayakan keterampilan metakognitif. Keterampilan metakognitif terkait strategi maupun pelatihan metakognitif dan dapat dikembangkan melalui pembelajaran kooperatif (Green, Mc Donald, O’Donnell, dan Dansereau, 1992). Pada pembelajaran kooperatif dapat dikembangkan keterampilan metakognitif karena pada pembelajaran kooperatif terjadi komunikasi, di antara anggota kelompok (Abdur-rahman, 1999:178). Komunikasi di antara anggota kelompok kooperatif terjadi dengan baik karena adanya keterampilan mental, adanya aturan kelompok, adanya upaya belajar setiap anggota kelompok, dan adanya tujuan yang harus dicapai.
Ini adalah salah satu makalah yang disajikan dalam Seminar Nasional Pendidikan tentang Pendidikan Nasional Tahun 2009 yang diselenggarakan oleh oleh Ikatan Sarjana Pendidikan Indonesia (ISPI) pada tanggal 23 – 25 Oktober 2009 di Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung. Pembelajaran Metakognitif dalam Strategi Kooperatif Think-Pair-Share dan Think-Pair-Share + Metakognitif terhadap kemampuan siswa pada mata pelajaran Biologi karya Yulia Miranda dari FKIP Universitas Palangkaraya, JPMIPA. Prodi Biologi.
Tertarik untuk membaca secara lengkap makalah ini dan unduh makalahnya? silakan KLIK di sini
11 September 2010
UNESCO memperkenalkan empat pilar belajar, yaitu : Learning to know, Learning to do, Learning to live together, dan Learning to be.
Learning to Know
Philip Phenix menyatakan bahwa proses pembelajaran yang mengutamakan penguasaan ways of knowing atau mode of inquiry telah memungkinkan peserta didik (siswa) terus belajar dan mampu memperoleh pengetahuan baru dan tidak hanya memperoleh pengetahuan hasil penelitian orang lain. Karena itu, hakikat Learning to Know adalah proses pembelajaran yang memungkinkan pelajar/mahasiswa menguasai teknik memperoleh pengetahuan dan bukan semata-mata memperoleh pengetahuan.
Menurut Scheffler, pilar ini pada hakikatnya terkait dengan relevansi epistemologi, yang mengutamakan proses pembelajaran yang memungkinkan peserta didik (pelajar/mahasiswa) terlibat dalam proses meneliti dan mengkaji. Dalam kalimat lengkapnya tertulis sebagai berikut
“Epistemological relevance in short requires us to reject both myth and mystic union. It requires not contact but criticism, not immersion in the phenomenal and conceptual given, but the flexibility of mind capable of transcending, reordering, and expanding the given. ‘An education that fosters criticism and conceptual flexibility transcends its environment and by erecting a mythical substitue for this world but rather striving for a systematic and penetrating comprehension of it.”
Lebih lanjut dipaparkan
“Theoretical inquiry, independently pursued has the most powerful potential for the analysis and transformation of practice. The bearing of inquiry upon practice is moreover of the greatest educational interest. Such interest is not, contrary to recent emphases, exhausted in a concern for inquiry within the structure of several disciplines. Students should be encouraged to employ the information and technique of disciplines in analysis, criticism, and alteration of their practical outlook. Habits of practical diagnosis, critique and execution upon responsible inquiry need the supplement theoretical attitude and disciplinary proficiencies in the traing of the young.”
Pandangan Scheffler tentang relevansi pendidikan sangat terkait dengan “learning to know” pada tingkat pendidikan tinggi. Seperti halnya Phenix, Scheffler memandang pentingnya pilar “learning to know” untuk berangkat dari disiplin ilmu pengetahuan karena bagi mereka “mode of inquiry” dari disiplin ilmu adalah bentuk yang paling tertinggi dari berpikir. Dalam kaitan ini dia menyatakan: “In the revolutionary perspective, thought is an adaptive instrument for overcoming enviromental difficulties. Scientific inquiry, the most highly form of thought is the most explicity problem directed.”
Selanjutnya dia menyatakan
“Interpreting science as the most refined and effective development to such adaptive thinking, is urges the outensible problem-solving pattern of scientific research as the chief paradigm of intellectual activity, to be favored in all phases of education and culture.”
Dari uraian dan kutipan di atas dapat ditarik pemahaman bahwa penerapan pilar “learning to know” pada tingkat pendidikan tinggi adalah penerapan paradigma penelitian ilmiah dalam pelaksanaan perkuliahan. Dengan model pendekatan ini dapatlah dihasilkan lulusan yang memiliki kemampuan intelektual dan akademik yang tinggi dan dengan sendirinya akan mampu mengembangkan ilmu pengetahuan.
Learnig to do
Jika pilar pertama, ”learning to know”, sasarannya adalah pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi sehingga tercapai keseimbangan dalama penguasaan IPTEk antara negara di dunia dan tidak lagi dibagi antara negara uatara-selatan, pilar kedua, “learning to do” sasarannya adalah kemampuan kerja generasi muda untuk mendukung dan memasuki ekonomi industri.
Dalam masyarakat industri atau ekonomi industri tuntutan tidak lagi cukup dengan penguasaan ketrampilan motorik yang kaku melainkan diperlukan kemampuan untuk melaksanakan pekerjaan – pekerjaan seperti “controlling, monitoring, maintaning, designing, organizing, yang dengan kemajuan teknologi pekerjaan yang sifatnya fisik telah diganti dengan mesin. Dengan kata lain, menyiapkan anggota masyarakat memasuki dunia kerja yang dalam “technology knowledge based economy”, belajar melakukan sesuatu dalam situasi yang konkrit yang tidak hanya terbatas kepada penguasaan ketrampilan yang mekanistis melainkan meliputi kemampuan berkomunikasi, bekerjasama dengan orang lain, mengelola dan mengatasi konflik, menjadi penting.
Dalam kaitan dengan “learning to do” perlu dikaitkan dengan pandangan Scheffler tentang relevansi psikologis, maupun doktrin Whitehead tentang hakikat pendidikan sebagai upaya penguasaan seni menggunakan pengetahuan. Ini berarti bahwa untuk melahirkan generasi baru yang “intelligent” dalam bekerja, pengembangan kemampuan memecahkan masalah dan berinovasi sangatlah diperlukan. Pandangan Scheffler tentang relevansi psikologis dapat dilihat dalam kalimat berikut:
“Thought according to widely prevalent doctrine is problem oriented. It originates in doubt, conflict, and difficulty. The functions is to overcome obstacles to the smooth flow of human activities. When action is coherent and well adapted to its circumstances, human energy is released into overt channel set by habit and custom. The blocking of conduct either through internal conflict on environment hidrance, turns its energy inward, transforming its into thought.”
Dalam kaitan ini, pada tingkat pendidikan tinggi, mengandung makna atau berimplikasi tentang perlunya pendidikan profesional pada pendidikan tinggi secara konsekuentif, bermuara pada paradigma pemecahan masalah yang memungkinkan seorang mahasiswa berkesempatan mengintegrasikan pemahanan konsep, penguasaan ketrampilan teknis dan intelektual, untuk memecahkan masalah dan dapat berlanjut kepada inovasi dan improvisasi.
Learning to live together
Kemajuan dunia dalam bidang IPTEK dan ekonomi yang mengubah dunia menjadi desa global ternyata tidak menghapus konflik antara manusia yang selalu mewarnai sejarah umat manusia. Yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini bahkan sebaliknya yaitu terjadinya konflik antar manusia yang didasarkan atas prasangka, baik antar ras, antar suku, antar agama dan antar si kaya dan si miskin, dan antar negara. Padahal sejak berakhirnya Perang Dunia ke II berbagai deklarasi untuk menjadi dasar penyelesaian konflik seperti Deklarasi HAM, piagam PBB. Bangsa kita sendiri memiliki landasan pandangan hidup Pancasila yang hakekatnya adalah untuk membangun negara kebangsaan yang demokratis, berkeadilan sosial, ber-Ketuhanan yang Maha Esa, dan menggalang persatuan dan persaudaraan bukan hanya antar warga bangsa melainkan dengan seluruh umat manusia seperti dinyatakan dalam kalimat “ketertiban dunia yang didasarkan kemerdekaan, keadilan sosial dan perdamaian abadi”. Komisi Internasional untuk pendidikan abad ke-21 mengakui sulitnya menciptakan kerukunan, toleransi dan saling pengertian dan bebas dari prasangka. :
“It is difficult task, since people very naturally tend overvalue their own qualities and those of their group and to harbour prejudies against others. Furthermore, the general climate of competition that is at present characteristic of economic activity, within and above all between nations, tends to give priority to the competitive spirit and individual success. Such competition now amounts to ruthless economic warfare and to a tension between rich and poor that is dividing nations and the world, and exacerbating historic rivalries”.
Latar belakang kenyataan dalam masyarakat yang digambarkan oleh komisi di atas menuntut pendidikan tidak hanya membekali generasi muda untuk menguasai IPTEK dan kemampuan bekerja serta memecahkan masalah, melainkan kemampuan untuk hidup bersama dengan orang lain yang berbeda dengan penuh toleransi, pengertian, dan tanpa prasangka. Dalam kaitan ini adalah tugas pendidikan untuk pada saat yang bersamaan setiap peserta didik memperoleh pengetahuan dan memiliki kesadaran bahwa hakekat manusia adalah beragam tetapi dalam keragaman tersebut terdapat persamaan.
Pendidikan untuk mencapai tingkat kesadaran akan persamaan antar sesama manusia dan terdapat saling ketergantungan satu sama lain tidak dapat ditempuh dengan pendidikan dengan pendekatan tradisional melainkan perlu menciptakan situasi kebersamaan dalam waktu yang relatif lama. Dalam hubungan ini, prinsip relevansi sosial dan moral yang disarankan Israel Scheffler sangat memadai. Suatu prinsip yang memerlukan suasana belajar yang secara “inherently” mengandung nilai-nilai toleransi saling ketergantungan, kerjasama, dan tenggang rasa. Ini diperlukan proses pembelajaran yang menuntut kerjasama untuk mencapai tujuan bersama. Kegiatan “camping” yang berlangsung mingguan dengan sasaran bersama yang harus dicapai oleh seluruh peserta merupakan salah satu model yang perlu ditempuh. Model sekolah berasrama dan kampus yang merupakan kawasan tersendiri merupakan pendekatan yang ditempuh Inggris dan Amerika Serikat dalam membangun bangsa yang bersatu. Kiranya bangsa Indonesia perlu belajar dari negara lain.
Learning to be
Tiga pilar pertama ditujukan bagi lahirnya generasi muda yang mampu mencari informasi dan/atau menemukan ilmu pengetahuan, yang mampu melaksanakan tugas dalam memecahkan masalah, dan mampu bekerjasama, bertenggang rasa, dan toleran terhadap perbedaan. Bila ketiganya berhasil dengan memuaskan akan menimbulkan adanya rasa percaya diri pada masing-masing peserta didik. Hasil akhirnya adalah manusia yang mampu mengenal dirinya, dalam bahasa UU No. 2 Th. 1989 adalah manusia yang berkepribadian yang mantap dan mandiri. Manusia yang utuh yang memiliki kemantapan emosional dan intelektual, yang mengenal dirinya, yang dapat mengendalikan dirinya, yang konsisten dan yang memiliki rasa empati (tepo sliro), atau dalam kamus psikologi disebut memiliki “Emotional Intelligance”. Inilah kurang lebih makna “learning to be”, yaitu muara akhir dari tiga pilar belajar. Pendidikan yang berlangsung selama ini pada umumnya tidak mampu membantu peserta didik (pelajar/mahasiswa) mencapai tingkatan kepribadian yang mantap dan mandiri atau manusia yang utuh karena proses pembelajaran pada berbagai pilar tidak pernah sampai kepada tingkatan “joy of discovery” pada pilar “learning to know”, tingkatan joy of being succesful in achieving objective, pada “learning to do”, dan tingkatan joy of getting together to achieve common goal.
Dan adalah keyakinan keilmuan dan professional penulis bahwa hanya dengan penerapan keempat pilar tersebut upaya menghadapi tantangan jaman melalui pengembangan kemampuan dan pembentuk watak akan dapat secara efektif berhasil. Dan ini akan benar-benar terwujud bila ditunjang dengan sistem evaluasi yang relevan, komprehensif, terus menerus dan obyektif dapat dilaksanakan serta didukung dengan dipenuhi standard minimal untuk semua elemen esensial dari pendidikan seperti yang digariskan dalam PP No. 19 Tahun 2005.
Disarikan dari tulisan Prof. Dr. H. Soedijarto, MA (Guru Besar Ilmu Pendidikan UNJ) berjudul “Paradigma Pembelajaran Menjawab Tantangan Jaman (Makalah Seminar yang diselenggarakan oleh Ikatan Pengembang Teknologi Pendidikan Indonesia (IPTPI) Pusat, pada tanggal 18 – 20 November 2009, di Auditorium Depdiknas, Jakarta
Download tulisan ini KLIK di sini
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
