Today's students will enter a workforce that is vastly different from that of their parents. Increasingly, they must be able to work in teams that are cross-functional and often global to solve complex and important problems that critically affect the world while responding creativity to rapidly changing business landscapes using rapidly evolving technologies. Teachers should provide them with good characters to support the development of critical skills students that will meet the complex demands of the 21st century.
Education is part of our life, the
basis of everything, all the knowledge and skills people acquire, since we have
use of reason, which are needed to function and predict consequences in
society. These days, students are taught how to prepare themselves dealing with
the society, enabling them to independently find solutions to various and
complicated social problems. As important as it is considered that many institutions
such as school and university are available, which offer programs to children,
adolescents and adults to build their strong character to deal with the
upcoming problems in social life . Basically, students will learn in these
institutions skill as reading, math, and science. However, character education
is fundamentally crucial for the success of the individual’s life in coping
with the demands of the 21st century, where everything are judge by its value
to the society . In 1996, the UNESCO-sponsored Delors Report (The
Treasure Within) identified four pillars enabling individual development: learning
to do, learning to be, learning to understand, and learning to live together. These four
pillars are essential in order to prepare the students interact with the
community and social life.
This paper will present
arguments in supporting the idea that the implementation of pragmatist
epistemology and education can be a good basis of character education in
Indonesia because of its four reasonable concepts: (1) An active and
exploratory mind (2) Method of Intelligence (3) Situational learning
construction and (4) Curiousity stimulation. Thus, this paper explains how the
implementation of pragmatism in education can be a good basis to build student
characters as their preparatory towards the complicated 21st century demands.
Character
Education
Character education has been
phenomenal in Indonesia these days. This kind of teaching method started to
boom quite a long time ago when people in Indonesia especially teachers and
parents concern not only about student academic achievement, but also the
emotional and religious intelligent. Character is the way how an
individual think and behave which shape his or her trait to cooperate with
other people in family circle, society, and country. An individual is
considered good in character when he or she is able to make decisions and be
responsible for the decisions he or she has made. Character education is one of
the aims of national goal in educational aspect. It is said in Pasal 1 UU Sisdiknas 2003 that the
national education aims at developing student potential to have intelligence,
good character and personalities, and be a real human. As Dr. Martin Luther
King says that intelligence plus character, that is the goal of true education.
In America, this kind of education has been embodied in every subjects taught
at school or university.
Chaedar Alwasilah, a professor in
University of Education, stated in his article that character education in
Indonesia has not been a good news for us. Many cases have risen on TV about
corruptions, misconceptions, criminal, etc. were actually rooted from the
failure of character education. The teacher roles as an educator, instructor,
and best example are built through the character-based education and this
should be embeded in every subject taught at school or university. Furthermore,
it is good to know that character education benefits both the teachers and the
students. For the language teacher, it is a challenge to be a good model or
example for the students and
the they are expected to initially had it before transferring the character
education through language they use in everyday meetings. Seeing the fact that
students are facing a world that is full of complexity, pragmatism is believed
to be a great foundation to help them live in the socity. Character education
is considered helpful in shaping the most important character expected in
student’s life, namely critical thinking. Critical thinking should be embedded
as to stimulate students’ way of thinking to be able to diagnose problem,
analyse it by facts, seek for ideas, make decisions, and later on solve the
problem independently.
The Philosophy of Pragmatism
Pragmatism refers to the
philosophical position that the test of an idea’s
truth is its practical consequences. Pragmatism is a reaction against abstract,
romantic, and idealistic philosophies, countering instead that the truth of an
idea arises from observing its consequences. Pragmatism’s roots are in empiricism and the
scientific method, and the energies and enthusiasm of late nineteenth-century
American life are obvious in pragmatism. John Dewey (1859–1952), chair of
the philosophy department at the University of Chicago at the turn
of the century, is best known for his work on education and social issues.
Dewey’s
guiding philosophy, instrumentalism, is a strand of pragmatism. Dewey
was critical of abstract and theological notions of truth and reality. Dewey’s approach
utilized a praxis formula for inquiry as the method for advancing knowledge. He
believed that through experience the mind acquires knowledge, but over time new
experiences challenge the previously held beliefs. The process of inquiry,
challenging staid ideas and the resulting new synthesis, is the process by
which truth becomes known to the individual.
In philosophical terms, pragmatism is
generally considered to be nominalistic and pluralistic. Ideas are not real as
abstract, formal categories, but change as experiences are apprehended and
given meaning by the mind. The philosopher Ferdinand C. Schiller (1864–1937)
wrote that concepts are tools slowly fashioned by the practical intelligence
for the mastery of experience (Schiller 1907, p. 64). Thus, for Schiller there
is no single truth, although there are truths that are relevant within a given
context. James agreed, citing that truth was not static but ambulatory,
directly related to human experiences. Moreover, old truths may no longer be
relevant to the contemporary setting because they no longer adequately convey
meaning about the world as it is. Thus, they are no longer true.
For pragmatists, ideas are contextual
and their worth derives from the utility of their consequences. Pragmatists
believe there is no first cause, nor is there a single ultimate end. Rather,
the world is pluralistic in that social and empirical phenomena are connected
but it is the individual who gives meaning to experience, and therefore the
value of a concept is in its practical consequences. James wrote that the distinctions between thoughts and
things are the the conceptions of classes with subclasses within them, surely
all these were once definite conquests made at historic dates by our ancestors
in their attempts to get the chaos of their crude individual experiences into a
more shareable and manageable shape. (James, 1909).
The Implementation of Pragmatist Epistemology and Education As A Good Basis of Character Education
Having provided with the reality and
the development of education, pragmatism can be considered as one of the most
suitable philosophy of educations nowadays. Teachers are expected to teach and
help the students to learn how to solve problems by providing character
education. It is in here were education pay an important role in the school. In
his most famous writing about education, The
School and the Society, Dewey presents some principals in educating
students. It is included, that the role of the teacher is mainly as supervisor
or advisor and devil’s advocate. The education process should begin with, and
built on, the student interests (Magee, 2001). The There are four arguments
which evidentally supports the implementation of pragmatism: (1) An active and
exploratory mind (2) Method of Intelligence (3) Situational learning
construction and (4) Curiousity stimulation. The explanations are as follow:
An
Active and Exploratory Mind. Pragmatists believe the mind to be active and
exploratory rather than passive and receptive. Knowledge is produced by a
“transaction” between man and his environment, and truth is a property of knowledge.
As a pragmatist, Dewey sees that knowing is very human (Magee, 2001). If
teachers put this argument, they will not limit their students into some
restictions. They will treat those explanatory-mind-creatures as something that
is open to any possibilities, new creative ideas, new perceptions,
breakthroughs, and unlimited learning process.
Method of Intelligence. Pragmatists also maintain that the “method
of intelligence” is the ideal way to acquire knowledge. Students grasp things
best, by locating and solving problems. (Kneller, 1971). Dewey supports the
idea of problem solving should be the basis of children education, which he
claims as learning by doing. This method encourage students to be imaginative,
and the most important, train them in accomplishing competence in every aspect
of life (Magee, 2001).
Situational Learning Construction. According to the pragmatists,
the teacher should construct learning situations around particular problems
whose solution will lead his or her students to a better understanding of their
social and physical environment. The same procedure should be followed in
learning the skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. All subjects become
more meaningful to the student and so more easily mastered when the student can
use them as means for satisfying needs and interests of his own. By creating
situational learning construction, students will be engaged in learning since
the subject taught based on their interests. This will nourish their ability to
be critical, tolerant towards social environment, and respective to other
people’s point of views.
Curiousity
Stimulation. A young person is a natural learner because he is naturally
curious. He will learn most from whatever he feels stimulated to explore and
think about. The teacher should foster this spirit of inquiry. Instead of
instructing the student in subject matter prescribed for him by others, the
teacher should encourage the student about to learn what he feels curious about
and to feel a curiousity about the subject that matter such as science,
literature, and history. Stimulus novelty, however, is not a sufficient factor for evoking
exploratory behaviour: in order to elicit exploration, a stimulus, apart from
being novel, must also be interesting and attractive (Henderson & Moore,
1980). The point for the pragmatist is that the child should learn from
curiousity, while the teacher should stimulate curiousity about subjects that
will fully reward it.
Pragmatist Values
and Education
Values abound everywhere in
education. They are involved in every aspect of school practice. They are basic
to all matters of choice and decision-making. Using values, teachers evaluate
students and students evaluate teachers. Society evaluates course of study,
school program, and teaching competence, and society itself is evaluated by
educators. For the pragmatist, values are relative. Ethical and moral canons
are not permanent but must alter as cultures and societies change. The child
should learn how to make difficult moral decisions not by recourse to rigidly
prescribed principles but by deciding which course of action is likely to
produce the best result for human beings. Teachers should assist them in making
the best solution by providing them with character education.
As Thomas Kuhn argues about the structure of scientific
revolutions in 1970,
to understand scientific
thought we must understand scientific communities; scientific knowledge
changes, not as our understanding of the world changes, but as scientists
organize and reorganize relations among themselves (Couvalis, 1997). Thus,
taking into consideration all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that
education, being a very complicated phenomenon, has to progress and adapt to
the current conditions. Education should be democratic, humanistic, and more
importantly, provide students with character education, practical knowledge and
skills and abilities to realize them in practical life. But firstly the
purposes of education have to be defined and only after that it is possible to
speak about methods that can be applied, classroom activities and classroom
management, curriculum at large and finally, this process has to be based on an
individual approach to each student. Naturally in such a situation a teacher
should correspond to such demands and progress along with his/her students.
Bibliography
Alwasilah, C. 2011. Bahasa dan Karakter Bangsa.
Bandung: Pikiran Rakyat.
Couvalis, G. 1997. The Philosophy of Science. London: Sage Publications.
Dewey, John. 1903. Studies in Logical Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago
Press.
Henderson,
B., & Moore, S. G. (1980). Children’s responses to objects differing in
novelty in
relation to level of curiosity and adult behaviour. Child
Development, 51(2), 457–465.
James, William. 1909. The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to
“Pragmatism.” New York and
London: Longmans, Green.
Kneller, G. 1971. Introduction to the Philosophy of
Education. Canada: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Magee, B. 2001. The Story of Philosphy. London: Dordling
Kindersey Limited.
Schiller, Ferdinand C. 1907. Studies in Humanism. New
York: Ayer.
SRI International. 2009. Center
for Technology in Learning: The Power of Project
Learning with ThinkQuest. California:
Oracle Education Foundation.
Subbotsky,
E. 2010. Curiosity and exploratory
behaviour towards possible and impossible
events
in children and adults. British Journal of
Psychology, 101, 481–501
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar