HEGEMONY OF CHEMISTRY LEARNING IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN BALI PROVINCE

I Gusti Lanang Wiaratma Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Ganesha University of Education Udayana Street, Singaraja email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study was intended to explain the power and the struggle of meaning behind the hegemony taking place in the management of Chemistry learning in the senior high schools developed to be the ones with International status “rintisan sekolah bertaraf internasional” (SMA RSBI) in Bali. This could be observed from the management of Chemistry learning in SMA RSBI in Bali Province which tended to develop the students’ competence in the cognitive domain. This was done to make the students able to pass the national examination and to be the winners in academic competitions. The main theory used in the present study was the theory of hegemony, eclectically supported by several other theories. The method used in the present study was the qualitative method in which the sample was purposively determined. The data were collected through observation, interview, and documentation. The instrument used was an interview guide. The data were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The results of the study showed that the management of Chemistry learning was not optimal yet; it tended to be partially developed. The reason was that there was hegemony of the dominating class over the dominated class, hegemony of the teachers over the students. The students did not acquire maximum learning experience as prescribed in the curriculum. What was developed was the students’ competence in the cognitive domain. This took place due to the politics of image which maintained the status quo which tended to comodify education.

Keywords: hegemony, power, learning management, SMA RSBI.

INTRODUCTION

The quality of education in Indonesia has been one of the central issues in the framework of the current critical pedagogic discourse. The improvement in the quality of education cannot be separated from how the teachers manage the learning process. The reformation in education, especially in the lesson of Natural Science, has been highly important since the competence-based curriculum which gives emphasis on the understanding of the principles of the nature and encourages the learners to work and behave scientifically (Mulyasa, 2006: 80-81) has been applied. Many attempts have been made to improve the quality of learning by improving the teachers’ professionalism; however, in fact, the learning process has not significantly changed. The teachers still have problems in the management of Chemistry learning, as the government, through the Department of National Education, has urged that the students pass what is referred to as

‘Ujian Nasional (UN)’ [the examination which is nationally conducted]. Apart from that, the headmasters also expect that the students are successful in taking part in the academic competitions regionally, nationally, and internationally conducted. It is assumed by the teachers that it will be easier for the students to pass the UN if they are trained to do exercises. The experience of the Chemistry teachers in the field shows that the laboratory learning slightly contributes to the success achieved by the students in the UN. Such a condition has caused the teachers to give more priority over learning through doing exercises, meaning the laboratory learning should be reduced.

In such a condition, hegemony of the government over the teachers has taken place; in other words, the government has directed the teachers in the process of Chemistry learning at school. Hegemony presents itself in the form of an ideology in which the dominated class has consciously had and approved the values and interests of the dominating class. The dominating class dominates the dominated class by implanting a way of life, social and human relationships in such a way that they are accepted as things which are true by the dominated class that is actually subordinated (Tilaar, 2003: 76-77; Maliki, 2010: 189-192).

This study was intended to explain the form of the hegemony of the power, to reveal the meaning behind the management of Chemistry learning in SMA RSBI in Bali, and to find the conceptual framework of the quality management of Chemistry learning. It was expected that the results of the study would be taken into account when making policies regulating the implementation of Chemistry learning at schools.

RESEARCH METHOD

This present study is a qualitative one which was intended to understand the phenomenon undergone by the subject under study (Iskandar, 2008: 186; Moleong, 2007: 6). The sample was determined using purposive sampling technique. The data were collected through observation, interview, and documentary study. The data were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1992: 15-21). The data were searched after by observing the planning, implementation, evaluation and supervision of Chemistry learning.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The results of the present study are as follows. First, as far as the aspect of the planning of learning is concerned, it was found that the process of compilation was initiated through socialization made by the headmasters, then a workshop was held, next technical supervision was given, and later discussions were held among the teachers whose major

was Chemistry. After that the learning instruments were compiled by the teachers. Based on the RPP document, it was found that the planning of learning, if compared to the standard of the process in the aspect of planning, was more than being adequate. It contained the component of character assessment and the student work sheet “lembar kerja siswa” (LKS) was made in two languages, Indonesian and English. The process was made structured by the schools to make the learning instrument complete as required by the management of ISO.

Second, in the aspect of the learning implementation it was found that several teachers taught with RPP as the reference; however, the others did not; they only referred to the textbooks. Explaining concepts and doing exercises was more dominantly done to improve the students’ activities. Laboratory practices were less dominant and were too far from what was required by the curriculum. As additional learning, the schools undertook acceleration program in the afternoon, in which the exercises related to the subjects which are nationally examined, including Chemistry, were discussed.

Third, in the aspect of learning evaluation, it was found that the teachers assessed three domains; cognitive domain, affective domain, and psychomotor domain. The cognitive assessment varied in regard to its forms and types. The assessment was given in the forms of tests and non tests including portfolio. However, the affective and psychomotor assessments were limited as the teachers’ way of thinking was influenced by what to do to make the students successful in the UN. Therefore, cognitive assessment was given priority.

Fourth, in the aspect of supervision, it was found that internal supervision was more meaningful than external supervision. As far as the external supervision is concerned, it turned out that the major of some supervisors was not Chemistry. Supervision was not intensively made; what was supervised was to what extent the teachers were administratively equipped. In this case, it seemed that the Department of National Education did not seriously supervise the teachers.

Based on what was observed from the management of learning from the aspects of planning, implementation, evaluation and supervision, it turned out that the management of Chemistry learning was not optimal; it turned out that it was partially managed. This resulted from the hegemony of the power. The teachers were made hegemonic by what was required by the school policy. The students were made hegemonic by the teachers who created a condition that they should receive what was done by the teachers although the curriculum was optimally applied. The students did not acquire maximum learning experience/process especially practical practices (the students’ rights were neglected). The teachers assumed that the more the students did exercise the easier for them to pass

the UN; in other words, the less they did laboratory practices, the more difficult for them to pass the UN. The teachers wished to show to the headmasters that they were successful. The reason was that what was expected by the headmasters was that the students could pass the UN and successfully in participating in the academic competitions. The success made by the students in passing the UN and participating in the academic competitions symbolized the success made by the schools which was intended to show to the government through the Department of National Education, and to the community that the schools were superior and had excellent performance. The headmasters desired that they were recognized in such a way that their leadership was not criticized and they would not be transferred by the government.

The teachers’ way of thinking which was strongly adhered to the structure described above could not be separated from the hegemonic power. The initial concept of hegemony proposed by Antinio Gramsci stated that one class and its members dominated the other classes under it with violence and persuasion. In the condition described above, it was clear that the students were dominated by and suffered from the symbolic and persuasive violence undertaken by the teachers; the teachers were dominated by the headmasters, and the headmasters were dominated by the government. In this case, intangible structured hegemony took place as something which was mutually agreed. This caused the students to lose part of what they were entitled to; they were entitled to having complete learning experience; otherwise, they could not develop the potentials they had wholly and impartially.

Hegemony is the form of an ideology in which the dominated classes have the values and interests which the dominating class has in such a way that such values and interests are theirs and have been approved. A social class dominates the other social classes. It successfully implants its way of life and social and human relationship in such a way that they are accepted as things which are assumed to be true by the classes which are actually dominated. The extent to which hegemony is successful is determined by the agreements made through the learning process or educational relationship. It is here the social ideological institutions such as legal institutions, educational institutions, mass media, religions and so forth play their roles as the arena where hegemony takes place. From this point of view, it turns out that the social institutions such as schools and other educational institutions are never neutral; in fact, they strengthen hegemony in society. In other words, hegemony is related to the interests the dominating social class has (Tilaar and Nugroho, 2009).

The superiority of a school which is always shown to the public and government cannot be separated from the interest of the politics of image. Image is a process, or the

way in which an impression is made, meaning that the image of a school is a process or an attempt made by it to give impression to the public. According to Baudrillard (in Barker, 2008), the post modern culture is indicated by the great simulation and image which attract attention, or a hyper reality in which the community is inundated with images and information. Jameson (in Barker, 2008) stated that postmodern is indicated by fragmentation, instability, and disorientation. It is an expression of the system of the multinational world or capitalism which presents the final capitalistic cultural style which operates in the new global space. Capitalistic culture moves by extending comodification to all domains of social life and personal life by transforming what is factual into an image or simulacrum. An image frequently precedes narration and sight; a feeling becomes important, meaning that what is factual is not shown (Barker, 2008).

In the SMA RSBI in Bali Province, as far as the management of learning is concerned, one aspect of learning was not managed as well as the others. The activities which developed the cognitive competence were given priority. In other words, the only intellectual competence which was developed as one of the attempts made to be successful in the UN and academic competitions. The activities which had been maturely prepared as what was required by the curriculum were not well undertaken. In this case, the community tended to be made to have an impression that such schools were superior and had excellent performance. Such an image caused the parents to desire to send their children to such schools although going there could cost much more than going to the other schools. The postmodern way of thinking interfered with the educational world and it was this which would lead to comodification.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The Chemistry learning in SMA RSBI in Bali Province was impartially and not proportionally developed; meaning that the students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competences were not proportionally developed. The cognitive competence was more dominantly developed as an attempt to make the students able to pass the UN and participate in the academic competitions. This is what is referred to by structural hegemony of the upper structure over the lower structure or those who are subordinated. The ruling party has an interest to maintain its position through image. It is the image that a school is superior determined by the success made by the students in passing the UN and participating in the academic competitions that supports the popularity of the school. People will voluntarily spend a lot of money to make their children accepted in such a school.

It is suggested to the government, as the dominating party, that it should direct the schools in such a way that they will make the learning process as required by the curriculum. It is also expected that the teachers will improve their professionalism as the teaching staff and that the headmaster should not treat the school he leads as a commodity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In this opportunity, the writer would like to thank Prof. Dr. I Gde Semadi Astra, as the main supervisor, Prof. Dr. I Wayan Subagia, M.App.Sc., Ph.D., and Prof. Dr. I Made Suastika, SU, as co-supervisor 1 and co-supervisor 2 respectively for their guidance and supervision during the completion of this dissertation. The writer would also like to thank the Rector of Udayana University, the Director of School of Postgraduate Studies, Head and Secretary of the Doctorate Program of Cultural Studies of Udayana University, for their assistance and facilities provided to the writer during the completion of his study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barker, Chris. 2008. Cultural Studies Teori dan Praktik. Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana.

Iskandar. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan dan Sosial (Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif). Jakarta: GP Press.

Maliki, Zainuddin. 2010. Sosiologi Pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Miles, Matthew B. dan Michael A. Huberman. 2007. Analisis Data Kualitatif. Jakarta: UI-Press.

Moleong, Lexy J. 2007. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Mulyasa, E. 2006. Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 41 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses.

Tilaar, H.A.R. 2003. Kekuasaan dan Pendidikan. Magelang: Indonesiatera.

Tilaar, H.A.R dan Riant Nugroho. 2009. Kebijakan Pendidikan: Pengantar untuk Memahami Kebijakan Pendidikan sebagai Kebijakan Publik. Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta.

Wiratma, I Gusti Lanang. 2013. “Pengelolaan Pembelajaran Kimia pada SMAN 1 Singaraja dan SMAN 1 Gianyar”, disertasi, Program Doktor, Program Studi Kajian Budaya, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Udayana, Denpasar.

7