The Learning Experiences of Students in School as Viewed from Students

In this section, the analysis focuses on the viewpoint of students about their learning experiences in school. To enrich the understanding of students about their in-school learning experience, the documents such as the SBC-based assessment practice at SMK1GT, the Education Law 2003, and relevant documents are also carefully considered.

The interviews of students revealed that the students recognised the vocational skills and knowledge they learned in school were mainly theoretical and sometimes simply procedural.

S3/IS and S9/JA explained:

“Learning at school is not the same as in the workplace. At school, most of the time we are given learning materials [theory] as compared to practice [workplace]. But in the workplace, we are at work [practice] all the time.”

(Interview, S3/IS November 15, 2011)

“Well, learning at school ... yah … most of the time is learning material [theory] ... Most of the time we are given materials or theory.”

(Interview, S9/JA November 22, 2011)

138

The quotations indicate that the in-school learning experience of the AD students had not sufficiently prepared them to engage in the workplace. Lacking practical exposure to what they learned theoretically in the classroom (for example, car transmission repair) led to their poor learning experiences in their field prior to their placement for apprenticeship. However, Molander (1992) and Eraut (2013) argue that adequate practical exposure to a task/tasks are needed in order to increase students’ performance in any situation. Moreover, as the in-school learning of the AD students is an experience (see Kolb, 1984; Mezirow, 1991; Heron, 1992), lacking in practical exposure to the process might impede the students from gaining the vocational skills and knowledge that are ready for transfer to the workplace.

Moreover, the AD students admitted that they were mainly taught by lectures. This learning experience has simply provided information (rote learning) for the students to understand how to do a particular task but has failed to prepare them with practical vocational skills and knowledge which are transferable to any situation as Eraut (2013) suggests. As a consequence, such learning experience does not adequately help the students to transfer their knowledge to the workplace. However, this is not surprising, because the findings of the research and development agency of the Ministry of Education of Indonesia (2007) suggest that the majority of the teachers do not understand the content, substance and implementation of the SBC. If the teachers, as in the case of SMK1GT, do not understand the content of the curriculum, they will not be able to design their lesson plan accordingly. Therefore, the learning by doing adopted in the SBC (Depdiknas, 2006) cannot be effectively implemented.

Other students viewed their learning experiences specifically from the skills needed in the workplace in relation to the learning facilities available at school. S1/JA, S3/IS, and S8/HL explained:

“There is no training in car EFI systems at school. What we learn at school is only how to overhaul a car’s brake system, replace engine oil, and overhaul car engines … even then we very rarely practise them.”

(Interview, S1/JA November 15, 2011)

139

“We have not learned EFI (Electrical Fuel Injection) systems at school.

Well, we have, but only theory.”

(Interview, S3/IS November 15, 2011)

“At school, practices are only sometimes given. For example, car transmission systems are very rarely practised. Most of the time we are given theories.”

(Interview, S8/HL November 19, 2011)

The quotations indicate that there were skills required in the workplace that were not taught at school. The students’ view was that some skills which they needed to learn were not appropriately imparted to them because the appropriate learning facilities were not adequately available in school (discussed earlier in this section). For example, a practical exercise on the Electrical Fuel Injection (EFI) car system was not currently possible in the AD department because the car engine was not available at the AD department workshop.

This situation was confirmed by S3/IS and S2/ST as they explained:

“We do not have an EFI car engine at school. The teachers just gave a type of procedure about how to fix such an engine”

(Interview, S3/IS November 15, 2011)

“There is no EFI car engine in our school. I didn’t even know anything [skills] before attending the apprenticeship programme because even when the time for the apprenticeship approached, we very rarely had practical exercises”

(Interview, S2/ST November 15, 2011)

The quotations indicate that there was a strong connection between the poor practical exposure of the AD students and the condition of the learning facilities available in the AD workshop. However, this was not the only factor, as S2/ST explained that any practical exercise was rarely provided at school even at the approaching time for the apprenticeship programme. The situation was confirmed by the comments of I2/IS and I5/MP, instructors at Imam Stainless and Mawas Perdana. They related the in-school learning experiences of the AD students to the situation of the students at the beginning of the apprenticeship programme:

140

“Some students do not even know the name of some mechanical tools and equipment. I feel sorry sometimes. That’s why I assign them to identify the tools by asking them to bring me different tools.”

(Interview, I2/IS September 12, 2012)

“If I may say so, some students do not know the tools and spare parts of a car engine. But the reason is not only that they do not know the name…

eee…we also sometimes use different terms”

(Interview, I5/MP September 17, 2012)

The explanation of the instructors confirmed the poor state of the in-school learning experience of many AD students. However, the instructors had different views. I2/IS, for example, tended to generalise the poor condition of the in-school learning experiences of the AD students. Therefore, he treated the students indifferently (this issue is further discussed in Chapter 6). Unlike I2/IS, I5/MP admitted the poor in-school learning experiences of the AD students, but he recognised the connection between the use of different terms for tools or some car spare parts and the students’ understanding of the instructions. VT1/AD commented that: “in the workplace, the mechanical tools and equipment are far better than what we have in the school” (Interview, VT1/AD November 14, 2011).

The assessment practice in the SMK1GT also contributes to the poor learning experience of the AD students. Although the SBC emphasises the assessment of students’ learning in both academic and practical aspects (for example, mid-semester and end of semester tests;

portfolio; performance-based tests), the vocational teachers of the AD department mainly assess the academic achievement of the students. As an illustration, the mode of the assessment stated in a lesson plan developed by VT2/AD indicates the assessment mainly based on the academic or to a lesser extent the procedural knowledge of students on particular task. The assessment reads: “the teacher aims to assess students on the material of the lesson, in the form of a quiz with several questions” (see Appendix 4 – 3d). Such assessment simply assesses what the students literally know about the task they learn. However, it fails to equip them with understanding and skills required for transfer to a different situation. In other words, the assessment developed in the AD department does not sufficiently provide

141

opportunities for the students to become independent learners as Jossberger et al (2010) and Kicken et al (2008) suggest it should be.

In addition, the root of the problems relating to the poor learning situation in the AD department is the discrepancy in teacher distribution amongst VUSSs. The situation was the result of badly-organised teacher displacement in the Tolitoli district which has continuously increased since the decentralisation of education in 2004. It is a fact that since the AD department was opened in SMK1GT in 2005 until 2008, the government of Tolitoli (the government body that is responsible for teachers’ recruitment and placement in the district) has not yet placed a single full-time teacher specialised in automotive work in the department.

This situation has therefore obliged the SMK1GT to hire a vocational part-time teacher to fill the position in the AD department. Unfortunately, the part-time teacher recruited has no teaching experience and even graduated from a non-pedagogic university. This practice is contrary to the recommendation of the Education Law 2003:

“Recruitment, placement, and distribution of teachers are organised by an institution [the local government] based on the needs of schools” (Chapter 41, point 2)

“The central and the local governments are obliged to facilitate schools by providing teachers who are needed to increase and maintain the quality of education provided by school” (Chapter 41, point 3).

The poor vocational teaching in the SMK1GT shows that there was a kind of negligence on the part of the local government of Tolitoli for the improvement of the quality of education.

The situation indirectly affected the in-school learning experiences of the AD students, which are contrast to the spirit of SMK1GT of a high-achieving institution both in academic and vocational field (see Chapter 3.8.1).