Simon Marcus Gower, Jakarta
Sometimes in schools it is possible to meet talkative and highly inquisitive students, (it is perhaps a sad state of affairs that this can seem to be a quite rare condition in some schools). These students will show their interests in a reasonably well uninhibited way and they show it in a way that is natural and understandable for someone growing up and learning about themselves and their world.
But when meeting these kinds of students it is often interesting to observe the reactions of their peers. Often it seems that their peers would like to inhibit their inquisitiveness and to some extent these students can be ostracized by those immediately surrounding them. It is not that these other students are unintelligent or overly negative towards their more talkative classmates but it can be that they are just not familiar with or ""into"" such interaction.
Why should this be so? It is possible that a significant factor influencing this condition is cultural but ""cultural"" here does not necessarily mean a reflection on the Indonesian culture or context but refers to the culture of schooling that these students are familiar with and so respondent to. It is the culture of the schooling system that may effectively and inherently be causing these students not to be inquisitive.
The very nature of the schooling system that they are attending and participant to can be creating a degree of passivity that is neither beneficial to their social relations nor constructive to their development of intellect and thought.
It is an observable fact that schools can consistently leave students in a condition of being passive observers of what is happening in the classroom. Tucked behind their designated desks they can be confined to such an extent that there is little prospect for them to find classroom life engaging or stimulating.
This can be reflected in the responses that come from students when asked about what they like in schools. Ask any typical student of junior high school age what they enjoy at school and the answer will quite regularly be either their physical education activities or the friends that they have in school. This really shows that two key things are important to them; namely -- one, activities that get them out of their classroom setting and physically involved and two, the opportunity to interact and so engage with their peers.
These two aspects -- activeness and interaction -- should help guide educators towards a setting for learning that is more stimulating and motivating to students. But too often educators lapse into a rather dull and control orientated setting for education. The classroom can be dull and boring to look at and the activities carried out in the classroom can be limited and limiting.
This, though, is a familiar condition and so, in a real sense, it seems even more regrettable that education and schools in the twenty-first century can be seen to be continuing in a dull and uninspiring manner.
For example, as long ago as the fifteenth century educators were coming in for criticism because they were not managing to engage their students in a way that was inspiring. The Greek scholar and educator Theodorus Gaza was criticized for his educational ways that were seen as ""thorny and disagreeable"" and it was claimed that his words when educating were ""empty and fleshless"". Ultimately, it was observed that he gave his students ""nothing to catch hold of, nothing to rouse the spirits"".
Now Theodorus Gaza was at work in the fields of education some five hundred years ago but it is remarkable how easily we might be able to apply the observations made of him to what is often going on today in schools. ""Disagreeable"", ""empty"" experiences that do little or ""nothing to rouse the spirits"" of students may still be seen as the unfortunate nature of much of school life today.
It surely cannot be concluded that educators deliberately set out to make school life miserable and boring, (although some people may claim that they have experienced teachers that do attempt to make life miserable for their students -- in my case a teacher of statistics springs to mind). Rather, it would seem, the nature and culture that is prescribed and sustained in schools does seem to have the propensity to incubate boredom and isolate positive and powerful learning experiences.
Perhaps at the heart of this problem is the guiding principle and motive for education that people have. It can still be the case that people have an unswerving and short-sighted view of what schools, their students and education generally should be and do. For many people schools are still stuck in the realms of places at which students are spoon-fed knowledge. The mere retention or even short-term memorization of facts is seen as a sufficient or acceptable outcome from schooling.
Knowing something by heart or being able to robotically repeat something that has been drilled into you really does not amount to any real knowledge. It has become common and even popular for people to cite schooling as an important way of forming character. It is said that children will have their character ""built"" by attending school but where drilling and memorization are on the agenda we are less talking about ""character building"" and are more talking about ""character confinement"".
To really build character students need opportunities to practice and exercise their powers of analysis, judgment and thought; this they need to do for themselves with unobtrusive guidance from their teachers. If a teacher wishes to see his/ her students develop powers of judgment and critical thought, it follows that he/she must give them freedom in which to do this.
Simply telling a student of a thing will not suffice. A student will not think or analyze just because his teacher tells him he must. A student will think when given a task to do or a problem to solve, and then the teacher will be there to, again, unobtrusively guide and when the task is done or hopefully the problem solved the teacher will be able to review with the student and make the learning experience even more meaningful and lasting.
Some teachers may construe a critical or active student as being ""out of order"" or disruptive but this should not cloud their assessments and abilities to work with such a student. As the ancient Roman playwright Seneca pointed out ""A man can be wise without display and without arousing enmity"".
If students are to develop wisdom, they need to be engaged, involved and critical to practice, exercise and so learn. Teachers need to help students to nurture powers of critical thought and this should not be construed as undermining them, or showing lack of respect or be allowed to ""arouse enmity"". Engaging students in thought is surely a primary function of being a teacher.
The writer is Principal of Raffles International Christian School, Pondok Indah, Jakarta.
