Kognitif, afektif, dan psikomotor

Materi yang berisi aspek kognitif adalah materi yang berisi arti, definisi, konsep, asal usul konsep itu, data dan fakta. Aspek affektif berisi nilai dan norma yang secara eksplisit mengungkap hal hal yang menjadi keharusan dan larangan . Aspek psikomotor adalah materi yang berisi cara bertindak, contoh contoh dan perilaku. Materi yang mengundang keterlibatan peserta didik adalah materi materi yang berisikan hal-hal baru, hal-hal aneh, dilema, suatu masalah, unik dan mengundang rasa penasaran ingin tahu. Kemampuan dan pengalaman guru sangat menentukan dalam pengembangan materi pelajaran yang berkualitas. (Winarno, 2010)

Pendekatan pada materi PKn

Pendekatan program adalah cara kita didalam mengembangkan program atau bahan materi pelajaran PKn (Winarno, 2000). Penyusunan bahan materi pelajaran perlu mendasarkan pada:
1. Pendekatan nilai moral.
   Nilai moral harus menjadi saringan setiap bahan materi pelajaran
2. Pendekatan multi dimensional.
   Pembentukan totalitas 3 ranah kemampuan meliputi 1). Kognitif berupa konsep, fakta, data, teori, dalil, dan pengertian. 2). Affektif berupa nilai, sikap, norma, moral 3). Psikomotor berupa tata cara, prosedur, aturan , dan perilaku.
3. Pendekatan siswa centris.
   Diupayakan pembelajaran dimana siswa aktif, sedang guru berperan sebagai fasilitator

Standar Isi PKn

Standar Isi dari Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan (Permendiknas No. 22 tahun 2006). Dinyatakan bahwa Mata Pelajaran Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan merupakan mata pelajaran yang memfokuskan pada pembentukan warganegara yang memahami dan mampu melaksanakan hak-hak dan kewajibannya untuk menjadi warganegara Indonesia yang cerdas, terampil, dan berkarakter yang diamanatkan oleh Pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945.

Perubahan nama dalam PKn

PKn persekolahan dalam sejarahnya sering berganti- ganti. Bahkan dapat dikatakan dari sekian mata pelajaran di sekolah, mata pelajaran inilah yang paling sering berganti atau berubah nama. Perubahan tersebut adalah munculnya pelajaran Kewarganegaraan (1957), Civics (1961) , Pendidikan Kewargaan Negara (1968), Pendidikan Moral Pancasila/PMP (1975), Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan /PPKn (1994), Kewarganegaraan (uji coba kurikulum 2004) dan terakhir dengan nama pelajaran Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan (2006).

Pkn dilihat dalam lima status

Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan /PKn dapat dilihat dalam lima status (Udin S Winataputra, 2001). Kelima status itu adalah Pertama, sebagai mata pelajaran di sekolah. Kedua, sebagai mata kuliah di perguruan tinggi. Ketiga, sebagai salah satu cabang pendidikan disiplin ilmu pengetahuan sosial dalam kerangka program pendidikan guru. Keempat, sebagai program pendidikan politik yang dikemas dalam bentuk Penataran Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila (Penataran P4) atau sejenisnya yang pernah dikelola oleh Pemerintah sebagai suatu crash program. Kelima, sebagai kerangka konseptual dalam bentuk pemikiran individual dan kelompok pakar terkait, yang dikembangkan sebagai landasan dan kerangka berpikir mengenai pendidikan kewarganegaraan dalam status pertama, kedua, ketiga, dan keempat

Three Kinds of Citizens

Three Kinds of Citizens

by: Joel Westheimer, University of Ottawa and Joseph Kahne, Mills College

1. Personally responsible citizen
2. Participatory citizen
3. Justice-oriented citizen

Educating the good citizen

Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals

by: Joel Westheimer, University of Ottawa and Joseph Kahne, Mills College

At the level of rhetoric, most educators, policymakers, and citizens agree that developing students' capacities and commitments for effective and democratic citizenship is important. When we get specific about what democracy requires and about what kind of school curricula will best promote it, however, much of that consensus falls away. For some, a commitment to democracy is a promise to protect liberal notions of freedom, while for others democracy is primarily about equality or equality of opportunity. For some, civil society is the key, while for others, free markets are the great hope for a democratic society. For some, good citizens in a democracy volunteer, while for others they take active parts in political processes by voting, protesting, and working on political campaigns.

It is not surprising, then, that the growing number of educational programs that seek for further democracy by nurturing “good” citizens embody a similarly broad variety of goals and practices. Educating the “Good” Citizen to call attention to the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do that are embodied by democratic education programs nationwide. The subtitle Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals to reflect our belief that the narrow and often ideologically conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at teaching for democracy reflects neither arbitrary choices nor pedagogical limitations but rather political choices with political consequences.

Consider, for example, the following perspectives. In 1985, Bill Bennett, then secretary of education under Ronald Reagen, wrote: “ A democracy depends on schools that help to foster a kind of character which respects the law and ... respects the value of the individual” (1985).

Presentasi Kelas 2013

Tugas presentasi masing-masing kelompok untuk mata kuliah Pengantar Ilmu Politik Kelas 2013.
Terdiri dari 11 kelompok.

1. Sejarah perkembangan ilmu politik;
2. Teori-teori politik;
3. Ruang lingkup ilmu politik;
4. Keterkaitan antara ilmu politik dan ilmu sosial lainnya;
5. Struktur politik;
6. Pembangunan politik;
7. Keterkaitan antara media dan politik;
8. Hak asasi manusia;
9. Kesetaraan gender dalam kehidupan bermasyarakat,
10. Ilmu politik demi mencapai tujuan baik bagi orang banyak termasuk menerapkannya di dalam administrasi pemerintahan.
11. Pengertian, Tugas, Asal mula,Sifat, Unsur- unsur, Tujuan dan fungsi Negara, Istilah Negara dan sistem Politik

Moral character education

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD’S MORAL CHARACTER EDUCATION?

By: Badeni from University of Bengkulu

As presenter in International Teacher Education Conference, July 2013

at University of Lampung, Sumatera – Indonesia

Moral education generally has been regarded as an integral part of institutions such as the family, the religious bodies and the school. However, in recent times the influence of these institutions on moral development has diminished greatly, and the moral confusion being reflected in these situations is obvious to any critical observer. In the following part of this writing, I will give reasons and evidence to clarify this claim.

First, along with developing society, some of the features characteristic of many families today that have contributed to the diminishing influence of moral education. Not only is the father absent from the family a great part of the day, but the mother (in many cases) works outside the home in situations that do not permit her to be home when the children return from school. This decreases the amount of time and contact parents have with their children; thus, the opportunity to influence the moral thinking of children is greatly reduced. Further, many families are broken, i.e., one of the parents is dead, or the parents are separated or divorced. Hence, the family’s influence on moral development is diminished further. Even when families are united, moral confusion exists since different family members hold to conflicting moral values and are not united on traditional value ideals.

Second, the religious bodies (such as Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddha etc.) manifest features that tend to point to its decline in influence and its relationship to moral confusion. The lack of religious body attendance and respect for the authority of the religious body indicate the declining influence of the religious body on the world today. Further, moral confusion is apparent when the traditional, fixed moral doctrines upheld by the religious body have given way, in many instances, to the view of further some religious bodies leaders that, each person is autonomous and therefore must make up his (or her) own mind concerning moral values.

Third, some brief comments concerning the relationship of the school and moral development should be noted. Since the time of many of the Greek philosophers, the teacher has recognized the function of the school as a moral educator. Many educational scholars have recognized the school’s role in moral development. Dewey viewed moral education as crucial to the basic purpose of a school. “The child’s moral character must develop in a natural, just, and social atmosphere. The school should provide this environment for its part in the child’s moral development”. This statement reflects the general notion that the school should help to develop students’ morals. However, this function of the school has become a much-debated issue. It generally is held by many who believe, although in many countries are not, such as Indonesia, in separation of religious body and state that it is not the school’s role to function in the development of moral values. These people believe that moral values are matters of private opinion and should not be discussed in the classroom.

Along with the development of the society and concerted review of literature has revealed that moral character education is becoming an increasingly popular topic in the fields of psychology and education. Media reports of increased violent juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, embezzlements, and human rights violation, numerous abuses and suicide have caused many people both within and outside the country to declare a moral character crisis in several countries. Though not all of these social concerns are moral character in nature, and most of them have complex origins. There is a growing trend towards linking the solutions to these and related social problems to the teaching of moral character and social values in both public and private schools. However, considerations of the role of formal education, either preparation, elementary, and secondary schools) can and should play in the moral character development of youths are themselves of the subject of controversy debate. There are quite often that most of them give argument according to their personal views rather than informed opinion. So who are the responsibilities of the child moral character development/education? Related to the question, the purpose of this is to try to give answer “Who is Responsible for the Child’s Moral Character Education?”