BACKGROUND
Student-centred active learning has student responsibility and active learning at its heart. This is in contrast to an emphasis on teacher-control and on coverage of curriculum content found in much conventional classroom teaching.
In Indonesian basic education, PAKEM is the term usually applied to active learning in elementary schools. In junior secondary schools, the term CTL (Contextual Teaching and Learning) is commonly applied.
PAKEM is the acronym for Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan – learning that is Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful.
This document has been prepared as a guide for consultants and facilitators whose background is in management or community development, rather than teaching. It draws extensively on the experience of the USAID Managing Basic Education project (MBE) that operated in East and Central Java from 2003 – 2007).
Figure 1: Some distinctions between student-centred learning and conventional teaching
Student-centred, active learning (e.g., PAKEM / CTL)
Conventional didactic or teacher-centred teaching
Students have responsible role for interacting with teachers and other students, for finding information, for assessing their own work and for participating in planning their learning
Students are usually passive - they have very limited role in planning learning or working with other students. They usually sit in classes, ‘pay attention’ and respond to teacher direction
Emphasis on activity (problem solving, discussion, enquiry-type activities) and on higher-order thinking such as analysis, evaluation, application)
Emphasis on recording or copying information and on lower-order intellectual activities such as recall
Intrinsic motivation to learn (from the learning activities) through interest, curiosity, and responsibility
Extrinsic motivation to learn (from grades, teacher praise and threats or punishment)
Recognises the importance of emotion in learning (the affective domain) – therefore teachers actively promote joy and pleasure in learning
Generally ignores the positive impact of the affective domain and can rely on threats and fear to motivate learning
Focus on learning cooperatively with other students
Individual learning and competition between students
Attitude that learning can occur anywhere is encouraged; learning inside and outside school is stressed
Attitude that learning only occurs in school is developed; textbook learning is stressed
Greater flexibility in arranging learning and teaching facilities (rooms, desks, locations)
Relatively inflexible arrangements (fixed and formal seating in rows in classrooms)
Greater emphasis on a long-term perspective: emphasis on lifelong learning and learning how to learn to face future challenges and changes
Short-term perspective: emphasis on completing set work and passing tests
Assessment of learning (tests and examinations) used to provide students with feedback to help them learn
Little use of the results of the assessment of learning (tests and examinations) is made to support learning
DOES PAKEM & CTL WORK – WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
PAKEM appears to be a superior approach to school learning and teaching in Indonesia than traditional forms of teacher-centred, didactic classroom teaching. This conclusion supporting PAKEM is based on the following factors.
Test Scores
Baseline data on test performance in primary schools has been gathered for MBE and follow-up data has been collected in May 2005 to enable comparisons to be made.
The average scores of the students in the tests for 2004 and 2005 show that: average scores rose in each of the tests except the grade 4 writing test. There were substantial increases in the scores in the grade 4 Bahasa Indonesia reading comprehension test (18.3% increase), grade 5 science test (13.7%) and grade 4 mathematics test (7.3%). The scores in the grade 1 reading test 1 rose slightly (test 1: 4.6%, test 2: 1.6%). The average score in the grade 4 Bahasa Indonesia writing test fell 6.2%. Since children writing in their own words is one of the focuses of the MBE program, this fall is surprising. Investigation indicates that inconsistent marking of the test caused this fall.
In the mathematics test there were significant increases in children’s ability to answer questions which demanded creativity.
We also have access to data from the UNICEF/UNESCO Creating Learning Communities for Children Project (CLCC) which has a similar approach to implementing PAKEM. The following are key findings from CLCC data collected in 2003 and 2004 from the three CLCC schools where PAKEM is being implemented and one non-CLCC school in each of the 15 participating Kabupaten in Central and East Java and Nusa Tenggara. Tests were administered as follows:
Class 1 Reading and writing
Class 4 Bahasa Indonesia
Class 5 Science
Class 4 Mathematics
- Average scores for students in CLCC schools was higher in all classes/subjects than in non CLCC schools
- Average scores for students in CLCC schools improved in all classes/subjects from 2003 to 2004
Further testing data presented by MBE in 2006 demonstrates that there is firm evidence of improvements in student performance in specified classes and in the core subject areas as intended in the stated indicators and targets. Two other points need to be made about the available data.
The first point is that there is no clear evidence that the implementation of PAKEM or CTL is having a negative impact on children's learning achievements, a point made but unsubstantiated by some critics of the approach. In fact, the evidence points in the other, positive direction.
The second point is that the data does not prove causation. This means that it is wrong to say that because of PAKEM or CTL being introduced into schools, academic achievement has improved. The underlying reasons for improvement may be as diverse as increased student effort, parental support, better health and abilities of each successive student cohort or more effective and efficient educational administration in schools as an outcome of the implementation of school-based management.
It must be stressed that test scores are only one indicator and not always the best indicator of the processes and outcomes of school learning. Other indicators are discussed below.
School and Classroom Environment
Both observation of MBE schools and the Annual Progress Monitoring for MBE Phase 1 and 2 Districts in 2004 and 2005 makes it possible to state the following conclusions about project outcomes so far:
- There are great changes in classroom behaviours over the MBE baseline surveys: teachers are providing creative situations that allow students to express themselves, to work in groups and to think of answers rather than repeating memorized information.
- Children are more enthusiastic and relaxed with teachers and visitors.
- Schools and classrooms are showing great improvements: they are generally neat, safe and clean places for children and more attractive due to displays of children’s work.
- Parents and members of the local community are now being invited into classrooms to act as resource persons for active learning.
Student and Teacher Satisfaction with PAKEM/CTL
There is no systematic data for this criterion yet, however, classroom questioning of both teachers and students in MBE schools about their preference for PAKEM or traditional teaching reveals a strong preference for PAKEM. Reasons given include improved learning (teachers), a preference for learning with friends (students), and a more enjoyable environment (both teachers and students). From another project implementing PAKEM in Flores, there was evidence that the introduction of PAKEM decreased drop out rates and increased return-to-school rates because students found the new environment less threatening.
Conclusions on the Effectiveness of PAKEM/CTL
There is not yet sufficient data available to prove conclusively the superiority of PAKEM/CTL over traditional forms of teaching and learning. Equally, there is no data that proves the inferiority of PAKEM/CTL. The safest conclusion that can be made at this time is that elementary schools implementing PAKEM are showing strong signs of improved academic performance at the grade levels tested. There are strong indications of improved school and classroom learning environments. There are higher levels of both teacher and student enthusiasm and satisfaction with being in PAKEM schools. These findings can lead us to conclude that there are clear signs of an improvement in the quality of the approaches used to learning and teaching – away from surface learning and towards deeper levels of understanding, towards improved academic outcomes, and towards a more enjoyable learning environment for both students and teachers.
WHAT IS DEEP AND SURFACE LEARNING - HOW DO STUDENTS LEARN?
Why is learning theory and research necessary in practical project work?
An understanding of the theory and research supporting PAKEM and CTL is essential. It is essential for three reasons. First, teachers must understand the foundations of what they are doing and why they are doing it, otherwise their professional work can be ‘directionless’. Second, it is essential so that problems encountered in the implementation of PAKEM/CTL can be solved independently and in a logical way by reference to this theory and research. Thirdly, all consultants and teachers must be able to explain to other stakeholders what they are doing and why. They can best do this if they have a good theoretical understanding.
The Theory and Research on Student Learning
Research is showing that students have distinctive approaches to learning. We know these approaches are influenced by factors which we can influence through the implementation of PAKEM. These factors include the school and its values, the characteristics of the curriculum, the assessment procedures, and the teacher’s approach to teaching (a characteristic discussed below). The total effect of these factors is to influence students’ awareness of their context and the learning approach that is expected of them. Students can be observed to use one of two main approaches to learning, called a surface approach or a deep approach.
Students adopting a surface approach are often anxious about what they have to learn and are often motivated by a fear of tests and of failure. Anxiety, fear of failure and low self-esteem are associated with surface approaches. Surface approach students focus on memorisation without understanding and on reproducing material on demand in the classroom or in a test. The learning outcome is short-term memorisation of information, rapid forgetting and a superficial level of understanding.
Students adopting a deep approach are motivated by an interest in the subject matter and a need to understand it. In PAKEM and CTL, students are encouraged to develop higher-level thinking skills such as analysis and application. They undertake active construction of learning through relevant practical activities, by using books and other materials, by actively questioning ‘the facts’, by expressing themselves in their own words and by learning in small groups.
There is a relationship between a teacher’s approach to teaching and the quality of student learning outcomes. There are teachers who believe their work is to cover the subject systematically by transmitting content to students. Failure to learn the subject is seen to be the fault of the student. Teachers who have this approach to their teaching are likely to encourage surface learning approaches among their students.
Then there are teachers who believe that what is most important is assisting student understanding. They focus on what the students do and what learning outcomes result from student activity. These teachers give helpful feedback on learning[i]. They encourage questioning and analysis. Student failure to learn is considered a possible result of a failure in the education system, maybe in the way in which the curriculum or assessment was implemented, not as a result some kind of problem or ‘deficit’ in students. Teachers who describe their teaching as a student-focused approach are less likely to encourage surface learning approaches among students. Finally, very recent research is showing that these teachers are also more likely to change and develop their own professional understanding of the subjects they teach.
Figure 2: Deep and Surface Learning Approaches: A Summary
Surface learning approaches are encouraged by:
Deep learning approaches are encouraged by:
Teaching and assessment methods that stress and reward recall.
Teaching and assessment methods that require active involvement in realistic learning tasks.
Assessment methods that create anxiety. Reliance on badly constructed multiple choice and true-false testing.
Emphasis on formative assessment; threat eliminated or reduced Wider range of valid testing methods used.
An excessive amount of material in the curriculum; a focus on “coverage of content” (but often with limited regard for understanding or application).
Teaching that demonstrates teachers’ commitment to good levels of student understanding and application of a reasonable amount of material.
Little or no feedback on progress.
Frequent, helpful and useable feedback.*
Extrinsic motivation – threats, examinations, and competition between students.
Intrinsic motivation based on curiosity, challenge, cooperative learning, recognition and low threat
Little opportunity to learn with others.
Opportunities to learn with other students and with resource persons (including parents) from the community.
Emphasis on repetition and recall.
Emphasis on thinking and problem-solving.
Teachers who believe their subject is straightforward.
Teachers who believe their subject is ‘problematic’ (not straightforward or can be challenged and questioned).
[i] In a report that draws on over 500,000 studies of the influences on student achievement, feedback stands out as the single most powerful influence. See: John Hattie, Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? Melbourne, Australian Council of Educational Research, October, 2003. Available: www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf
Student-centred, active learning (e.g., PAKEM / CTL)
Conventional didactic or teacher-centred teaching
Students have responsible role for interacting with teachers and other students, for finding information, for assessing their own work and for participating in planning their learning
Students are usually passive - they have very limited role in planning learning or working with other students. They usually sit in classes, ‘pay attention’ and respond to teacher direction
Emphasis on activity (problem solving, discussion, enquiry-type activities) and on higher-order thinking such as analysis, evaluation, application)
Emphasis on recording or copying information and on lower-order intellectual activities such as recall
Intrinsic motivation to learn (from the learning activities) through interest, curiosity, and responsibility
Extrinsic motivation to learn (from grades, teacher praise and threats or punishment)
Recognises the importance of emotion in learning (the affective domain) – therefore teachers actively promote joy and pleasure in learning
Generally ignores the positive impact of the affective domain and can rely on threats and fear to motivate learning
Focus on learning cooperatively with other students
Individual learning and competition between students
Attitude that learning can occur anywhere is encouraged; learning inside and outside school is stressed
Attitude that learning only occurs in school is developed; textbook learning is stressed
Greater flexibility in arranging learning and teaching facilities (rooms, desks, locations)
Relatively inflexible arrangements (fixed and formal seating in rows in classrooms)
Greater emphasis on a long-term perspective: emphasis on lifelong learning and learning how to learn to face future challenges and changes
Short-term perspective: emphasis on completing set work and passing tests
Assessment of learning (tests and examinations) used to provide students with feedback to help them learn
Little use of the results of the assessment of learning (tests and examinations) is made to support learning
Class 1 Reading and writing
Class 4 Bahasa Indonesia
Class 5 Science
Class 4 Mathematics
Surface learning approaches are encouraged by:
Deep learning approaches are encouraged by:
Teaching and assessment methods that stress and reward recall.
Teaching and assessment methods that require active involvement in realistic learning tasks.
Assessment methods that create anxiety. Reliance on badly constructed multiple choice and true-false testing.
Emphasis on formative assessment; threat eliminated or reduced Wider range of valid testing methods used.
An excessive amount of material in the curriculum; a focus on “coverage of content” (but often with limited regard for understanding or application).
Teaching that demonstrates teachers’ commitment to good levels of student understanding and application of a reasonable amount of material.
Little or no feedback on progress.
Frequent, helpful and useable feedback.*
Extrinsic motivation – threats, examinations, and competition between students.
Intrinsic motivation based on curiosity, challenge, cooperative learning, recognition and low threat
Little opportunity to learn with others.
Opportunities to learn with other students and with resource persons (including parents) from the community.
Emphasis on repetition and recall.
Emphasis on thinking and problem-solving.
Teachers who believe their subject is straightforward.
Teachers who believe their subject is ‘problematic’ (not straightforward or can be challenged and questioned).
[i] In a report that draws on over 500,000 studies of the influences on student achievement, feedback stands out as the single most powerful influence. See: John Hattie, Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? Melbourne, Australian Council of Educational Research, October, 2003. Available: www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf
