History fieldwork was introduced into the Integrated Curriculum for Secondary Schools ( ICSS ) Malaysia in 1988 and reviewed in 2000. This attack is mandatory for all students at lower secondary degree viz., Forms One, Two and Three. The purpose of presenting this method was to expose students, in conformity with their age degree, to the history of the nearest vicinity, a much smaller country than a territory, province or state. The accent of the ICSS history fieldwork constituent is on understanding community and environment in a Malayan context. It is designed to promote students to get cognition about ( and to expose sensitiveness towards ) groups and their environments as stipulated in the Policy of National Development, the Philosophy of National Education, and the Doctrine of History Education, Malaysia ( Ministry of Education, 1988 ; 2008 ).
The ICSS was formulated by the Curriculum Development Centre ( CDC ) Ministry of Education ( 1988 ; 2000 ). Its purposes in relation to the acquisition of the history fieldwork are:
i. to develop and heighten students‘ rational capacity with regard to rational, critical and originative thought ;
two. to get cognition, develop a command of accomplishments and be able to utilize them in day-to-day life ;
three. to develop their abilities and modules for the improvement of themselves and society ;
four. to develop the assurance and the resiliency to face challenges in life ;
v. to understand, be cognizant of and appreciate the history every bit good as the socio-cultural surroundings of the state ;
six. to be sensitive to, concerned about and appreciative of the environment and its aesthetic value ; and
seven. to be able to develop accomplishments to get by with new countries of cognition and development in engineering.
The ICSS in general purposes to supply students with a entire school experience which includes the acquisition processes indoors and outside the schoolroom. The first characteristic in the ICSS is the usage of a holistic attack which entails incorporating foremost, cognition, accomplishments and values ; 2nd, theory and pattern ; and eventually, the course of study, extra-curricular activities and the school civilization ( Ministry of Education, 2008 ).
The instruction and acquisition of history fieldwork is focussed on the survey of a peculiar geographical country and anything that is relevant in a student‘s immediate environment. Harmonizing to Black and MacRaild ( 1997 ) the accent is shifted from the remarkable state to the plural part. The greatest entreaty of this definition lies in its quality of immediateness.
As a foundation to history fieldwork, students should be given sufficient exposure and counsel refering the‘nature‘ of fieldwork attacks to history. This agreements with the findings of Andreetti ( 1993 ), Watts ( 1993 ), and, Southgate ( 1997 ) who realised that by utilizing artifacts discovered on sites as a stimulation it is possible to arouse and widen kids‘s apprehension of the historical constructs of alteration, chronology, and cause and consequence. Furthermore, the survey of artifacts in history fieldwork involves active acquisition and direct experience ( Wood and Holden, 1997 ). It besides provides chances for kids to discourse their thoughts and do connexions with their anterior cognition and experience in the pursuit for historical apprehension. This should be followed by the instructor rectifying misconceptions, widening kids‘s acquisition through the input of new cognition, and assisting them to do connexions with other subjects and anterior experience. This is because successful instruction and larning depends on appropriate instruction methods which take into history the nature of patterned advance in kids‘s apprehension ( Wood & A ; Holden, 1997 ; Cohen, Manion & A ; Morrisson, 1996 ; White, 1994 ; Brooks, & A ; Perry, 1993 ; Dickinson, 1992 ).
Archer ( 1985 ) clarifies that history fieldwork should affect‘field work‘ instead than‘field learning‘. He defines‘field learning‘ as the describing, explicating, presenting and replying of inquiries and the stimulation of treatment as conducted by the instructor. The term‘field work‘, on the other manus, places the accent on the students, who play a much more active function examining, depicting and explicating the historical characteristics of the site studied or visited. Archer ( 1985:49 ) explains that the engagement, engagement and part of students in a fieldwork survey are best described as follows:
Fieldwork is to be seen basically as one of the agencies whereby students can utilize the physical, seeable remains of the yesteryear, in concurrence with other beginning stuff, in category and in situ to build an history of the ideas and actions of people in the past. Such activity may take topographic point in the country instantly next to the school or much farther afield.
This is really much in line with Watts and Grosvenor‘s ( 1995 ) suggestion that students are entitled to larning experiences which allow them to show their advancement in cognition and apprehension of history, and imbues them with:
the ability to give historical account
the ability to look into and work with historical beginnings of different sorts
the ability to supply readings of the yesteryear that are consistent with the grounds
the ability to turn up, select and organize historical information
the ability to present findings suitably and efficaciously give historical accounts
a sense of the past – an consciousness of how the yesteryear has helped to manner the present
enthusiasm for researching the yesteryear
regard for grounds, acceptance of a scope of sentiments, and a constructive attack to collaborative working.
Assuming this to be true, fieldwork enables students to be more independent in their survey, more motivated to larn history, more originative in their thought, more productive and more self-assured.
Furthermore, a fieldwork attack to history is in conformity with the theories of Jean Piaget ( 1958 ) which are concerned with the development of logical, interconnected systems or believing forms known as‘operations‘. The theory focuses on the creative activity of logical, deductive thought in kids and their wont to develop the capacity to believe in abstract footings, to present hypotheses and to make decisions. The kid‘s actions and ability to map in an environment are of cardinal importance in his or her emotional and rational development. This aptitude may look in the formal operational phase at 11 or 12 old ages of age, i.e. Form One.
In position of the above, this survey focuses on the debut of history fieldwork as a compulsory coursework in the ICSS history course of study and the scrutiny and observation of its development at the assorted phases of its execution.
Purpose of the Study
The intent of this survey is to analyze the students‘ perceptual experiences refering the basic function and map of fieldwork attacks to history. More specifically, the research intends to reply the undermentioned inquiries:
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks gives them an chance to place differences between the yesteryear and the present?
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks gives them an chance to propose grounds why people in the past acted as they did?
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks gives them an chance to understand that narratives may be about existent or fictional people?
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks gives them an chance to develop an consciousness that different narratives give different versions of what happened?
In fact, these inquiries are considered as‘guiding hypotheses‘ with the purpose of appraising students‘ perceptual experiences about ICSS history fieldwork.
Methodology of the Study
The research worker identified that the population of this survey are students of Malaysian Lower Secondary Schools involved in the ICSS. The beginning of information for finding the population and permission to carry on this research were obtained from the Education, Planning and Research Development ( EPRD ), Ministry of Education Malaysia, the States Education Department of Perak and Terengganu, and, the principals of the several schools.
The choice of respondents in this study was based on‘stratified-random trying‘. A sum of 400 students from Lower Perak District in Perak and 400 students from Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia participated. The sample population involved in the study was stratified harmonizing to territory, type of school, degree of instruction, gender and cultural group. The research worker distributed the questionnaires to the respondents with the aid of senior helpers and schoolroom instructors.
Each questionnaire was verified by the research worker to guarantee that it had been satisfactorily completed. The informations collected were processed utilizing the Statistical Package for Social Sciences ( SPSS Version 14 ). For content cogency, the research worker sought aid and counsel from lectors of the Birmingham University School of Education, lectors and co-workers of the International Islamic University Malaysia ( IIUM ) Institute of Education ( INSTED ). The questionnaire was successfully pilot-tested on 50 sample students to achieve dependability ( Cohen and Manion, 1994 ).
The consequences of this survey are displayed harmonizing to the figure of responses, per centum, mean and standard divergence. Best and Kahn ( 1990 ), Coolican ( 1996 ) and Wiersma ( 2005 ) stated that in normal linguistic communication‘mean‘ is an mean, and‘standard divergence‘ is merely the square root of the discrepancy. Mean is usually used to mensurate the‘central inclination‘ of responses in‘descriptive statistics‘. Standard divergence is used to mensurate the‘dispersion‘ of responses.
In add-on to the questionnaire, the research worker conducted a thirty-minute, face-to-face interview with each respondent. Forty respondents were involved. The respondents were selected via convenience sampling and with the aid of the schoolroom instructors ( after obtaining anterior permission from the school principals ). Overall, the principals, instructors and pupils were really supportive and helpful. The interviewees were asked criterion closed and semi-structured inquiries which had been antecedently pilot-tested.
After having replies from interviewees, the research worker followed up with relevant, provocative inquiries aimed at analyzing their cognition and apprehension of certain issues ( Babbie, 1977 ; Wiersma, 2005 ). Every reply was correlated to a checklist so as non to disrupt the flow of the interviews.
The interviews were taped with anterior permission from the interviewees and granted informed consent from the schoolroom instructors and principals. All information acquired from the interviews was treated as extremely confidentiality and used merely for intent of this research.
The research worker discovered that students‘ statements or statements were based on the subjects they had covered in history fieldwork either separately, in a group or via a category visit. ( This may explicate why some of the students used plural pronouns, particularly‘we‘ in their conversations ).
The presentations of the findings were chiefly based on the interviewees‘ verbal replies and non so much on their gestural communicating. Hence, merely answers important to the research inquiries were selected and included in the treatments. Some of the common replies by the students were scrutinised and presented in one citation, sentence or point.
Background information on the pupils/respondents ( including distribution ) is presented in the undermentioned subdivisions.
Description of Samples: Pupils‘ Backgrounds
The study was conducted in two territories ; viz. the Hilir Perak District of Perak and Kuala Terengganu District of Terengganu. These territories were selected from the provinces because they met the standards required for this research, particularly with respect to the type of school, students, and location. The respondents involved in this research were 400 students ( 50.0 % ) from each territory.
There were three types of schools involved in the study, viz.‘regular‘ ( n=520 or 65 % ),‘science‘ ( n=140 or 17.5 % ) and‘religious‘ ( n=140 or 17.5 % ) schools.
The chief sample of this research comprised lower secondary school students from Forms One, Two and Three, with 240 ( 30.0 % ) respondents chosen from each. The research worker besides included selected Form Four students ( n=80 or 10 % ) who had experienced history fieldwork instruction and acquisition in Form Three. The ground for this was to congratulate the findings of this research. The research worker selected and distributed the questionnaires to the same figure of male childs ( n=400 or 50 % ) and misss ( n=400 or 50 % ).
The proportioning of the cultural groups involved in the survey was representative of the state as a whole, with the Malays being the major participants followed by the Chinese and the Indians. In footings of distribution, the Malays accounted for 66.0 % of the participants ( n=528 ), the Chinese, 21.0 % ( n-168 ), and the Indians 13 % ( n=104 ).
The findings and consequences of this research on history fieldwork attacks are presented and discussed in the undermentioned subdivisions.
Analysis of Findingss
The findings of the questionnaire study are presented harmonizing to the figure of responses, per centum, mean and standard divergence.
Pupils‘ Percepts on Fieldwork Approaches to History
The students were asked to react to four inquiries sing the basic elements of the history fieldwork attacks. The consequences are presented in Table 1 below:
Pupils‘ perceptual experiences on the nature of fieldwork attacks to history
Do you believe that fieldwork attacks give you an chance to:
Pupils‘ Responses ( N=800 )
place differences between past and present?
61 ( 7.6 % )
739 ( 92.4 % )
suggest grounds why people in the past acted as they did?
121 ( 15.1 % )
679 ( 84.9 % )
understand that narratives may be about existent or fictional people?
92 ( 11.5 % )
708 ( 88.5 % )
develop an consciousness that different narratives give different versions of what happened?
128 ( 16.0 % )
672 ( 84.0 % )
Key: VSDA -Very Strongly Disagree, SDA – Strongly Disagree, DA – Disagree,
AA – Agree, SAA – Strongly Agree, VSAA – Very Strongly Agree.
Table 1 reveals the students to be most in understanding with‘item 1‘ with 92.4 % ( n=739 ) agreeing ; and least agreed on‘item 4‘ with 84.0 % ( n=672 ) agreeing.
The analysis and treatment of the students‘ perceptual experiences on point 1‘ harmonizing to‘state‘,‘type of school‘,‘level of instruction‘,‘gender‘ and‘ethnic group‘ is presented in Table 2 below. The other findings are from the three interview inquiries given to the selected respondents.
Do you believe that fieldwork attacks to history give you an chance to place differences between the yesteryear and the present?
The findings in Table 2 reveal the positive responses to the inquiry from the province of Perak to be truly impressive and higher than from Terengganu. The tonss were 95.5 % ( n=382 ) and 89.2 % ( n=357 ) severally. The consequences indicate that different vicinities have somewhat different perceptual experiences about the statement.
With respect to the type of school, positive responses from Science and Regular schools were really high with 95.7 % ( n=140 ) and 92.3 % ( n=520 ) holding severally. The figure for Religious schools was 89.2 % ( n=140 ). The consequence indicates that all three types of school by and large agree with the statement.
Pupils‘ perceptual experiences on whether fieldwork attacks to history give them an chance to place differences between the yesteryear and the present
Respondents ( N=800 )
Disagreement ( % )
Agreement ( % )
Perak ( n=400 )
18 ( 4.5 )
382 ( 95.5 )
Terengganu ( n=400 )
43 ( 10.7 )
357 ( 89.3 )
Type of School
Regular ( n=520 )
40 ( 7.7 )
480 ( 92.3 )
Science ( n=140 )
6 ( 4.3 )
134 ( 95.7 )
Religious ( n=140 )
15 ( 10.7 )
125 ( 89.3 )
Degree of Education
Form 1 ( n=240 )
16 ( 6.7 )
224 ( 93.3 )
Form 2 ( n=240 )
25 ( 10.4 )
215 ( 96.4 )
Form 3 ( n=240 )
10 ( 4.2 )
230 ( 95.8 )
Form 4 ( n=80 )
10 ( 12.5 )
70 ( 87.5 )
Boys ( n=400 )
29 ( 7.3 )
371 ( 92.7 )
Girls ( n=400 )
32 ( 8.0 )
368 ( 92.0 )
Malayans ( n=528 )
43 ( 8.1 )
485 ( 91.9 )
Chinese ( n=168 )
10 ( 6.0 )
158 ( 94.0 )
American indians ( n=104 )
9 ( 8.7 )
95 ( 91.3 )
At the secondary instruction degree, Form Three students responded most positively, with 95.8 % ( n=240 ) agreeing, followed by Form One, with 93.3 % ( n=240 ) and Form Two, with 89.6 % ( n=240 ). In Form Four, 87.5 % ( n=80 ) agreed. The findings indicate that all signifiers were by and large in understanding with the proposition.
Boys and misss had about the same per centum of positive responses to the statement with 92.7 % and 92.0 % holding severally from 400 respondents in each class.
Finally, the study reveals that the positive responses to the proposition based on ethnicity were truly high. The highest degree of understanding was from the Chinese with 94.0 % ( n=168 ) agreeing, followed by the Malays with 92.0 % ( n=528 ) holding and the Indians with 91.3 % ( N=104 ) in understanding. The consequence indicates that all cultural groups by and large agreed with the statement.
The undermentioned subdivisions discuss the consequence of the interviews with the selected respondents based on the four inquiries related to the nature of history fieldwork attacks, ICSS, Malaysia.
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks to history give them an chance to place differences between the yesteryear and the present?
The consequences reveal that respondents raised different positions about their determinations which were discussed in the interview with the research worker.
Most of the respondents admitted that fieldwork attacks can place differences between the yesteryear and the present. As one of the students in Lower Perak indicated,‘By sing the historical site we could see different type of edifices, tools and other artifacts. These things could be used to place differences between past and present‘ ( P4 ).
From the study it is clear that the positive responses to‘question 1‘ ( Table 2 ) were higher in Perak than in Terengganu. In fact, the District of Lower Perak, where the study was done has fewer historical sites and leftovers compared to the territory of Kuala Terengganu. There is a possibility that the students in Perak discovered they have lost most of their local heritage and tourer attractive forces. Their vicinity is non every bit attractive as earlier and what is left is merely the narrative of the yesteryear. This could be one of the grounds why so many of the students in Perak strongly agreed with the statement.
One of the grounds for the high understanding in scientific discipline and regular schools could be that students‘ understanding about the nature of history, peculiarly‘the yesteryear‘ is in line with most of the definitions of Western history authors, such as Blyth ( 1989 ) and Marwick ( 1989 ), i.e., it is to enable students to distinguish between the yesteryear and the present. Furthermore, Carr ( 1990 ) emphasises that the map of the historiographer is to get the hang and understand the yesteryear as the key to the apprehension of the present.
On the other manus, there is a great possibility students in spiritual schools were besides influenced by the‘nature of history‘ as conceptualised in spiritual topics. They understood more about life and the affects of what people did and therefore can larn how to act in future and even for all clip to come. This was mentioned by a student from one spiritual school:‘What I learned from history fieldwork is good for the present and the hereafter‘ ( P20 ).
This is in line with the remarks of another miss who said that,‘The narrative of famishment during Nipponese business in Malaya as told by my female parent truly impressed me. I can larn a batch of lessons from it‘ ( P22 ). In fact, the acquisition of lessons from the yesteryear for the benefit of those populating in the present and future is believed to be the most common attack to learning history in spiritual schools.
One of the grounds for the high figure of positive responses from Form Three students is that their work in history fieldwork is by and large assessed and included in the Lower Secondary Assessment. Therefore, they can be expected to give more attending to the basic construct of fieldwork. Therefore, the construct and nature of the topic will still be fresh in the students‘ heads. The ground for the less positive response from the Form Two students was likely because the lessons are taken for granted in Form One due to the absence of emphasis. There is a possibility that the Form Four students, might believe that the past corsets in the past and therefore has small relation to their other school topics, such as Science and Mathematics. As one of a Form Four male childs in Perak said,‘It is hard to see the relationship between history and Additional Mathematics‘ ( P9 ). This is in line with the comments of another student who said,‘We do non discourse history in Pure Mathematics‘ ( P31 ). Both of them agreed that what they acquired in history fieldwork was for the interest of the topic itself. However, the figure of responses in understanding among groups of different gender and ethnicity was really encouraging.
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks give them an chance to propose grounds why people in the past acted as they did?
The interviews in Perak were conducted at a school located near padi Fieldss. Nowadays, the country has been developed into a modern padi farm funded by the World Bank under the Krian-Sungai Manik Development undertakings.
One of the students in Perak said,‘I still can retrieve that my gramps used American bisons to plow the padi ( rice ) field behind our house. He took several yearss to complete the occupation. At that clip the people used a “ sabit ” ( chisel or L-shaped knife ) to reap padi‘ ( P2 ). Another student stated:‘The husbandmans carried the padi on their dorsum to travel to topographic points nearby and used bikes to travel farther distances. Some of them used bullock carts‘ ( P1 ).
Asked why such activities were practised at the clip, students P1 and P2 gave the same reply:‘At that clip there was no plowing tractor and no harvest home machine in their topographic point. The route was really little and non suited for autos or lorry to transport the harvested padi‘. One of the students said,‘It was non really long ago… sometime in the sixtiess… my male parent had non married yet. This is what he told me about his experiences during his younger yearss‘ ( P2 ).
A Form Four miss clarified,‘Nowadays, everything is different. The husbandmans use tractors to plow the Fieldss. They use reaping machines when the padi is mature. They transport the padi in burlap pokes largely on bikes, and sometimes in little lorries‘ ( P4 ). This information enables students to develop understanding and accomplishments to get by with new countries of cognition and development in engineering as stated in the aims of ICSS history.
In fact, Statement B2 is basic to the nature of history fieldwork, in peculiar being related to the construct of empathy. The students need to believe and give grounds why people in the past acted as they did, or why people in the yesteryear failed to follow evidently better classs of action. Possibly some students might see the failure in a really general map of clip and development: that is the farther dorsum we go, the more backward or crude people can be expected to be.
The existent footing of all this is the inability of the student to recognize that people in the past frequently could non cognize – either in general or in item – what the student now knows and takes for granted. Add to this students‘ inability to imagine the built-in complexness of human establishments and interactions, and the past becomes a catalogue of absurd behavior, to which the merely possible reaction is one of annoyed incomprehension and disdain.
At this degree, the extra trouble of people in the past visual perception things really otherwise from us, and holding different values, ends and outlooks, begins to come in the students‘ computations merely as portion of the job, non as the first measure towards trying a solution. However, some students begin to gain that it was the engineering that was less modern than today, non the people. This was confirmed by one of the students who said,‘At that clip there were no tractors available here. The land surface was non suited for reaping machines. The husbandmans had to make everything manually. Most of them were self-subsistence husbandmans‘ ( P4 ).
Many of the interviewed students mentioned that they discovered this during their history fieldwork. They agreed that this attack gave them chances to propose grounds why people in the past acted as they did.
This is in line with the purpose of ICSS, formulated by the CDC Ministry of Education ( 2009 ) which states that analysis and opinion must be illumined by imaginativeness to supply the apprehension of people of the yesteryear that characterises the historiographer‘s position. The student has to be able to come in the head and feelings of all the individuals involved in an event and appreciate their differing attitudes without needfully O.K.ing of their motivations if they are to understand why, given their state of affairs, they acted as they did. Furthermore, the imaginativeness must be disciplined by the available grounds ( Andreetti ( 1993 ).
With respect to the above, Sebba ( 1994:7 ) clarified that‘the importance of history as a vehicle for presenting this entitlement comes from a figure of facets of learning history which are intrinsic to the topic‘. First, history trades with human motive ; and secondly, history has a really of import portion to play in students‘ cultural development. Carpenter ( 1990 ) and Smith and Holden ( 1994 ) stated that an geographic expedition of why people acted in the manner they did frequently reveals dimensions of motive which are normally societal and cultural, frequently moral and sometimes religious. It is hard to happen a better manner to understand one‘s ain civilization than by looking at others. In fact this is the true district of history.
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks give them an chance to understand that narratives may be about existent or fictional people?
The respondents raised different positions refering their determinations which were discussed in the interviews with the research worker.
Three Form One student ( P36, P39 and P41 ) from three different schools in Terengganu, who were coincidently analyzing the same subject, stated that they visited Telemong, the topographic point associated with Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong who led the Farmers Uprisings in 1926, 1927 and 1929 ( Abdullah Zakaria 1986 ). They claimed that they got the facts and grounds by questioning his households and relations. All of them agreed that fieldwork attacks give them an chance to separate which narratives may be existent and those which may be fictional. This idea is in line with Blyth ( 1989 ) who stated that history is about existent people and existent events interacting with each other in the yesteryear.
In the interviews, a Form Three student said,‘What I acquired from my fieldwork were facts about Kiyai Haji Yasin. His parts to spiritual affairs, instruction, socio-economic activities and political relations were existent‘ ( P15 ). Another student mentioned that‘Dato Haji Hasan Adli was the figure who was responsible for the development and upgrading of Madrasah Ulum-Syariah. At the present this school has a joint-programme with the University of Al-Azhar, Egypt‘ ( P14 ). The research worker was informed by the school disposal that Madrasah Ulum-Syariah was the first spiritual school in Perak to hold such‘great‘ advancement, that is, a partnership with a higher instruction constitution in another state. This can assist pupils to understand, be cognizant of, and appreciate the history every bit good as the socio-cultural surroundings of the state as aspired to by the ICSS.
The students re-affirmed that a fieldwork attack can give them an chance to happen out whether the narratives were approximately existent or fictional people. This is in line with Marwick ( l989 ) who stressed that one of the of import facets of history is the activity of question into the yesteryear, based on the strict survey of beginnings, and endeavoring scrupulously to dispute myth and fable.
These replies were normally highlighted by respondents during the interviews. They realised that some of the information presented by the storytellers or beginnings was exaggerated. This was mentioned by a Science school student in Lower Perak‘It is hard to turn out a narrative that Sungai Manik was defended by eight‘bullet-proofed‘ leaders during the Bintang Tiga Communist attacked on the small town‘ ( P16 ). This is line with the statement of another student who stated that,‘ … and it is besides hard to wholly reject the narrative, because we can see the consequence that there is no individual Chinese life in Sungai Manik today‘ ( P15 ). Possibly, this can give pupils the assurance and the resiliency to face challenges in life as stipulated in the ICSS attack to history.
Therefore, farther probe and more nonsubjective research needs to be carried out by more qualified historiographers.
Do students believe that fieldwork attacks give them an chance to develop an consciousness that different narratives give different versions of what happened?
In this regard, the research worker wishes to foreground one of the interesting in-depth interviews with the students in Perak as discussed below.
One of the students in Form Two scientific discipline school stated,‘We visited Pasir Salak in Kampung Gajah Teluk Intan. It is a topographic point where J.W.W Birch, the first British Resident was assassinated‘ ( P17 ). Another student, who did the same subject said,‘We acquired different information about the grounds for the blackwash. There were three chief grounds given by the local people‘ ( P13 ). These were as follows:
First, the debut of a new jurisprudence by Birch, 2nd, the involvements of local Lords were threatened, and, 3rd, Birch tak faham Indonesian which means Birch did non understand the linguistic communication. The students claimed‘the grounds were given by three different classs of people‘.
It is hard to find the‘immediate and ultimate‘ ground because the students acquired different versions of what happened. In fact, pupils P13 and P17 both argued that they were more confused by the 3rd ground‘tak faham Indonesian‘. This phrase could be interpreted in assorted ways, such as‘did non understand the linguistic communication‘,‘did non listen to people‘,‘did non esteem the people‘ and‘did non understand the norms and civilization‘. The students ( P13 and P17 ) stated that they managed to clear up the grounds acquired during the fieldwork through treatment with the instructor in category. Marwick ( 1989 ) considers this as the general effort by worlds to depict, reconstruct and construe the yesteryear. This‘dilemma‘ has been clarified by Cooper ( 1992 ) and Southgate ( 1997 ) : 1 must read non merely on, but between, the lines of a record to accomplish Reconstruction. But this normally can non be done, without an underpinning of enabling cognition.
From the findings of the survey, it is clear that fieldwork attacks to history are significantly related to the theory of Jean Piaget ( 1958 ), which concerns the development of logical, interconnected systems or believing forms known as‘operations‘. The survey focuses on the creative activity of logical, deductive thought in students and their wont to develop the capacity to believe in abstract footings, to present hypotheses and to make decisions. These wonts, known as job work outing abilities, are formed through the interaction of the student with his or her environment where new experiences are assimilated into bing thought forms.
The student‘s actions and environment or historical sites are basically of import in his or her emotional and rational development. This aptitude may look in the formal operational phase at 11 or 12 old ages of age ( Form One ). As a consequence of this bing dimension of‘pure thought‘, students may demo the ability to take consequences of concrete operational idea, determine them into propositions or hypotheses and infer farther information from them. Therefore the relation of the determination of this survey to Jean Piaget‘s theory is entirely obvious and logic.
Summary and Recommendations
The consequences from the interviews show that the survey of fieldwork in history can carry through a assortment of intents and purposes of the ICSS, Malaysia ( 1988, 2000 ) ; foremost, to do students cognizant that the seeable remains of the yesteryear around us are every bit of import as a resource for understanding history as written paperss ; 2nd, to fit students with cognition, accomplishments and techniques which will enable them to place remains, survey and construe them, and put them in their wider historical context ; 3rd, to enable students to retrace the lives of the people associated with a colony at a peculiar period or periods in the yesteryear ; and eventually, to build pupils involvement in researching the environment‘s history which they will happen a rewarding leisure chase as a school pupil for old ages to come.
However, the overall average accomplishment of 4.62 out of 6.00 for nature shows that the overall inclination to hold with the statements is still non entirely fulfilling and could be enhanced. These accomplishments indicate that there are still some failings in the execution of the topic in the ICSS Malaysia.
Therefore, judging from the consequences of the survey, there is foremost, a demand to animate students to be more sensitive and take portion in the development of their milieus ; secondly, a demand to clear up to the scientific discipline schools pupils the significance and importance of history fieldwork, in order to animate them to be more scientifically originative ; and thirdly, a demand to rouse some of the Malay students from the regular schools from their‘aimless dreams‘ and assist them to happen nonsubjective grounds why people in the past acted as they did.
Another important job, in dealingss to the instructors‘ function, is that failings were identified in the execution of the fieldwork methods. The research worker believed that this was non because of a deficiency of motive on the portion of the instructors, but instead a deficiency of exposure, cognition and accomplishments. They need to use expertness to work out these jobs. In relation to this affair, the research worker strongly recommends that instructors should be given sufficient preparation in order to fit themselves with the appropriate cognition and accomplishments about the execution of fieldwork attacks to history. This should besides include the exposure of instructors to the elements associated with effectual history course of study development, harmonizing to ICSS.
It can be concluded that the perceptual experiences of students on fieldwork attacks to history in the ICSS were extremely positive. The survey reveals that fieldwork attacks give students an chance to place differences between past and present. The instruction and acquisition of history through fieldwork can expose students to assorted sorts of historical beginnings from the simplest and nearest to the more complex and abstract with activities set by the instructor to assist pupils understand further. Possibly, capturing the students‘ involvement by utilizing exciting beginnings should be implemented as the cardinal phase followed by find acquisition for of import beginnings. This would enable students to get cognition, develop a command of accomplishments and be able to utilize them in day-to-day life, which besides can develop and heighten students‘ rational capacity with regard to rational, critical and originative thought.
Fieldwork in history assigns to pupils the undertaking of judging the yesteryear, and of teaching the present for the benefit of the coming epoch ( in order to develop the abilities and modules necessary for the improvement of themselves and society ). This is in conformity with the statement that history is about the past instruction by illustration, animating people in the present and indicating them in the right way for the hereafter.