Responding to the Call - A Transformative Learning Multimedia
Module Based on the Pancasila Values
Christine Edith Pheeney and Elly Malihah Setiadi
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Pancasila, Transformative Learning, Indonesia, Peace Education, Glocal.
Abstract: Amidst sectarian conflict and national identity debates, Indonesian education institutions are called to give
greater focus to the Pancasila values, to maintain the unity of Indonesia. Historically education efforts have
been criticised as an indoctrination process. Current President Joko Widodo calls for a mental revolution to
create a more humane paradigm, with an understanding of the history and sustainable ways related to the
national philosophy. Concurrently, International discourse describes that teaching-learning models must shift
to a “transformative” style, in order for humankind to learn how to live more sustainably on this planet.
Drawing on international research, a collaborative team at Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia has developed
materials that facilitate teachers engaging in transformative learning activities, specifically based on
Indonesia’s Pancasila values. These activities focus on building understanding of community interaction
dynamics, in a 4-session module titled: ‘Conflict Resolution Education’. The purpose of this paper is to
introduce the module to the educational research community and to position it within educational theory, as
a transformative education resource within the fields of peace and glocal education. We provide a brief
overview of the rationale and introduction to activities in the innovative module.
1 INTRODUCTION
Amidst sectarian conflict and national identity
debates, race and religion became divisive issues in
the recent Jakarta gubernatorial elections.
Subsequently Yudi Latif, (head of the presidential
working unit on the implementation of the state
ideology of Pancasila - UKP-PIP) calls Indonesian
Education Institutions to greater focus on the values
of the Pancasila, to maintain the unity of Indonesia
(Muryanto, 2017). This call builds upon current
President Joko Widodo’s mental revolution policy,
aimed at ‘creating a more humane paradigm, with an
understanding of the history and sustainable ways
related to the national philosophy’ (Kantor
Sekretariat Revolusi Mental, 2015).
The national philosophy captured in the
Pancasila–meaning 5 principles - was announced in
1945, when the Republic of Indonesia was
proclaimed, declaring a diverse and dispersed
indigenous population independent from
colonisation. The Pancasila were set out to define
foundational governance (Ramage, 1995) and are
précised as ‘Bhinneka Tunggal Ika’. Various
translations of this Sanskrit text are offered including
‘Unity in Diversity’ (Choy, 1977) and ‘although
different, we are one’ (Mumun, 2014). This phrase,
and the principles it encases, captures the ongoing
pursuit of reconciliation for both independences from
colonisation and inter-dependence as a collective
society.
The first principle, that is ‘belief in God’, is
described as having primacy to enable the unity
component, while diversity or pluralism is facilitated
through the inter-relatedness of all the principles
(Darmaputera, 1988). Reconciliation and
recommence of the details of difference is found
within an overarching belief that ‘Unity in Diversity’
is a divinely given human purpose (Supriatna, 2014).
Orientation for how to enact this belief is outlaid in
the other four principles paraphrased as ‘humanity,
sovereignty of the people, social justice and
democracy’ (Choy, 1977). Structural details are
provided in the nation’s constitution to establish the
‘sovereignty of the people’ in self-governance based
on the Pancasila (Nasional Secretariat, n.d.).
The mental revolution policy revitalises the
Constitution’s ideal of Pancasila based self-
governance, by outlining public embodiment of
values in 8 basic principles to align coordination of
492
Pheeney, C. and Setiadi, E.
Responding to the Call – A Transformative Learning Multimedia Module Based on the Pancasila Values.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education (ICSE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 492-499
ISBN: 978-989-758-316-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

nation building activities (Kantor Sekretariat
Revolusi Mental, 2015). This policy contrasts with
past presidential Pancasila initiatives that have been
criticised as indoctrination or binding the people in
superficial unity with formulaic representation of
national culture within institutional structures
(Ramage, 1995). Included in the critique is an
interpretation of the Pancasila as "a bowl without
substance" (Darmaputera, 1988, p172). Unlike
previous initiatives, the Mental Revolution policy is
situated in a decentralised landscape, with the
national government transferring authority to regions
in the nation building process. The characteristics of
this dichotomised landscape have similarities to
characteristics discussed in globalisation and
localization discourses, that describe that processes of
both impact people. Voisey and O’Riordan (2001)
suggest the processes are not to be considered
competing; instead that local identity is a
manifestation of the larger entity. Consequently, they
surmise that policies may only be of relevance at the
local level, in terms of seeing specific effects that
facilitate change (Voisey and O’Riordan, 2001).
Inspection of the Mental Revolution principles
indicates that their development is premised on this
perspective, with a readiness to facilitate innovation
and provide structures for cooperative action towards
nation building that is independent from colonisation.
Other agendas and emerging technologies give
rise to The World Bank’s description of Indonesia as
‘one of Asia Pacific's most vibrant democracies’
(n.d.). In the transition to democratisation, other
ideologies, which were previously repressed through
authoritarian rule, are attributed to have brought
about the increase in collective violence (Tadjoeddin
et al., 2004). Alongside collective violence, sectoral
conflict is escalating, with religious bigotry and mass
demonstrations (Priyono, 2017). In response, the
Jokowi government has called for breaking up of
groups that are anti-pancasila (Mardzoeki, 2017;
Patria and Halim, 2017). Recent Independence
Anniversary reflections on the dramatic identity
debates describe Indonesia as behaving more like a
teenager than the 72-year-old entity it is (‘Editorial:
Forever young Indonesia’, 2017). However,
academics and journalists alike note that this struggle
is not a case of just growing up but rather part of the
growing pains of becoming a more open and
democratic nation (Editorial: Forever young
Indonesia, 2017). Other features of the landscape
include impact of emerging technologies that
facilitate greater public participation along with
proliferation of false information, also termed as hoax
in recent incidents, with academics call for media and
political literacy (Suryadi, 2007); and attention to
understanding of the complex narratives (Azca,
2011). It is in this context, with acknowledgment of
the necessity of overcoming past tendencies and
avoiding radicalism that comes Latif’s call to
Indonesian education institutions.
A working group at Indonesia’s University of
Education (UPI) has responded to the call. The group
made a study of international discourse related to
teaching-learning of values and the contemporary
context to gain insight in designing educational
activities. This is presented briefly below, followed
by an overview of the multi-media module that was
developed to facilitate transformative teacher
learning of Pancasila values.
1.1 International Education Discourses
Considering studies from a variety of disciplines is
essential to finding a way that responds to the
complex dynamics/landscape that the Education
Institutions are called to deliver to. Relevant
discourses include transformative education, teacher
learning, peace education and globalisation and
localisation processes. As the call engages
interacting dynamics, the following discussion is
characteristically interlinked.
1.2 Transformative Learning Discourse
Simultaneous to global trends that shift nation-state
governance to increased democracy, education
practice is called to shift from assumptions of
predictability and singularity to engage their diverse
learners (Kress, 2007). Engaging learners is
considered foundational to the growing field of
transformative learning, which seeks to understand
the complexities of transformation and experiences
(Taylor and Cranton, 2012). To facilitate
transformation and experience Taylor et al. (2016)
advise that opportunities to reflect critically on taken-
for-granted beliefs and values are essential. Mezirow
in (Taylor and Cranton, 2012) positions these
opportunities as acquired and validated through
human interaction and experiences.
Historical examples of transformative learning
include transformation of Soviet Society in the mid
twentieth century. Gorbachev, recognised for his role
in this transformation, describes that creation of joint
efforts were utilised to reawaken citizens to take
initiative, in a society that because of past
authoritarian rule could not recognise itself (Mikhail,
G., and Nobel, L., 1991). In his Nobel peace prize
speech Gorbachev described that focus on
Responding to the Call – A Transformative Learning Multimedia Module Based on the Pancasila Values
493

cooperative heritage values and resolutely discarding
old stereotypes nurtured in ignorance, combined with
opportunities to engage in exchanges to study each
other grew mutual trust.
Taylor et al (2016) report current employment of
transformative learning methods in schools is used to
counter the spread of violent extremism. Further
development in the transformative learning field
includes ‘Theory U’ introduced as a social technology
for transformation of our way of thinking (Scharmer,
2007). Scharmer (2007) suggests that learning via
‘Presencing’, as a series of meta-processes facilitates
openness, allows for decision-making that is present
and sensing ‘a highest future possibility’. Scharmer
asserts that individuals and groups can apply their
awareness to bring about a shift in their lives,
organisations and greater society.
Ruminatively, this discourse provides instigation
to Educational Institutions to facilitate transformative
experiences for learners, as necessary to innovate
thinking for an inclusive, emerging
future/interactions. Pragmatic guidance in the
discourse insists upon incorporation of collective
processes in the learning process.
1.3 Teacher Learning Discourse
Teachers around the world are called upon to respond
to new policies and government initiatives to bring
about educational change. In working towards
educational change, consideration and facilitation of
teachers as learners is imperative (Hargreaves, 2004).
Similar to the transformative learning discourse
above, research related to teacher learning for change,
advocates collective and interactive learning
scenarios. Numerous researchers provide pragmatic
guidance for Educational Institutions to support
teachers in their learning. Including, Hargreaves who
asserts that ‘support systems of training, mentoring,
time and dialogue’ for teachers are essential (p.288).
Similarly Wesley and Buysse (2001) promote teacher
interaction that revitalises age-old collective learning
interactions, termed by Wenger-Traynor as
‘communities of practice’. Wesley and Buysse
(2001) describe that the revitalising occurs within
shared inquiry and reflection.
1.4 Peace Education Discourse
In working towards teacher learning for
transformation specifically related to peace, various
scholars outline specific challenges. Despite
considerable global institutional commitment to
Peace Education, Page (2008) states current
education practice is limited and stunted without an
articulated definition and rationale of ‘Peace’ and
correspondingly ‘Peace Education’. After reviewing
5 specific traditions Page surmises that fundamentally
peace education struggles with a substantially
assumed fuzziness. It is seen vaguely as something
humanity ‘ought to be committed to’ (p2). He submits
that a holistic and integrative understanding of Peace
is required, one that encourages a culture of peace.
The ambiguity of ‘peace’ as a concept is also seen in
Finley’s studies which recorded participants’
tendencies to conceptualise peace as negative peace,
that is, the absence of war or violence, rather than
positive peace, such as cooperation, respect, love and
tolerance (Finley, 2011). Further Bar Tal (2002)
finds that peace education can be elusive in nature, as
it must be appropriate to the country it is taught in and
to its local political, economic and social
environment. Bar Tal concludes that it is difficult to
implement a one-size-fits-all unified global approach
(2002). In looking for an approach, William Jones, a
Peace Psychology founder emphasised belonging in a
group, asserting that working towards a ‘moral public
service’ is central to seeing peace valued (Cooper and
Christie, 2016). Considering the post-communist and
recession-ridden culture social landscape, Schluter
and Lee (1993) argue that only through relational
democracies will personal fulfilment to facilitate a
truly stable global order be achieved. Sommerfelt and
Vambheim (in Taylor et al, 2016) emphasise building
peacefulness needs to start at the individual level.
They assert that the most important aspect of a peace
curriculum is providing spaces for reflection, which
then produce benefit to school and global institutional
levels.
In bringing this variety of contributions
together, Harris and Morrison offer that Peace
education is considered to be “both a philosophy and
a process involving skills, including listening,
reflection, problem-solving, cooperation and conflict
resolution” (2003, p. 9). Subsequently the call to
Educational Institutions requires a grappling with the
tensions of philosophy and process to substantiate an
agreement of what Peace Education goals and
subsequent commitment to action. Selection or
importance of specific traditions and/or local
environment as relevant to global and local operation
is considered next.
1.5 Globalisation and Localisation
Discourse
In pursuit of clarity, numerous International
Committees and forums discuss changing global
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
494

dynamics. One of these, UNESCO, expresses concern
for human security with: resurgence of violent
conflict, cultural chauvinism and identity-based
conflict, undermining the social fabric and cohesion.
They describe the paradox of increased
interconnectedness and interdependency of society,
as facilitating greater opportunities for both
collaboration and crises (UNESCO, 2013, p. 10). In
these changing times, the process of globalisation has
been credited (or discredited) as inducing
homogeneity or increasing domination of one societal
or regional culture over all other (Ferguson in
Robertson, 2012). Doku and Oppong Asante (2011)
are cognisant of globalisation trends and the influence
on individual and collective psychological
functioning. They stress the need for conscious
attention to systems that promote global unity but
retain local identity. Bengtsson and Östman (2013)
also consider globalisation and ordering, and assert
that an alternative theoretical outlook, in the context
of education policy-making is needed. They advise
that instead of hegemonic structures highlighting
partiality, spatiality and historicity of meaning
making, that a constitutive framework and discursive
environment be fostered. They submit that in this
framework and environment, emancipation and
tensions between objectivity and subjectivity are
given opportunity to be explored. However other
scholars identify ‘glocalisation’ - as a convergence of
global dynamics operating in local contexts that is
with a local reinterpretation in operation (Backhaus,
2003; Robertson, 1992, Swyngedouw, 1997).
Robertson (2012) asserts that there are four main
elements of the global-human condition, these being:
societies, individuals, the international system of
societies, and humankind (Robertson 1992b). He
explains that these related elements not only make
each other possible, but also the fluidity of
interactions between them produces different
emphases upon and often conflicting interpretation in
the processes that shape identity, analysis and
interpretation. In efforts to ‘crystalise the
comtemporary context’ he offers that the intersecting
processes have produced a ‘compression of the
world’, manifest in an increasingly cosmopolitan
composition of local populations that perpetuate the
ongoing narrative for global unity. Keith (2005) also
discusses this narrative, but calls it novel and a
romantic ideal. Keith asserts that recognition and
celebration of diversity are not enough. He describes
that elements of exchanges related to economy and
recognition also can’t be relied upon as holding static
meanings as ethics and aesthetics identities are fluid.
He says “we have instead to understand how the very
reading of the spaces .. demands a carto-graphic
sensibility that can understand simultaneously
proximity and distance..”. New Learning (2017) also
explores the contemporary era and prescribes
educational institutions to support the development of
multi-literacies for peaceful interactions. They
describe multi-literacies as capacity for “meaning
making in different cultural, social or domain-specific
contexts” where ‘meaning is made in ways that are
increasingly multimodal’ (para 2 and 4).
In identifying factors hindering peace or
glocalisation education, Davies and Hicks (in Taylor
et al 2016) describe that a key challenge lies within
the very structure of education systems. They convey
that typically rigid national curricula with clear
subject demarcations are in place and these offer little
scope for localised approaches to global issues.
Similarly Cook (in Taylor et al, 2016) claims that
peace education struggles to find its place, due to its
explorations of the interpersonal experience
interlinked with more global and structural
dimensions of peace studies. Thus it is imperative for
Educational Institutions to make a path to forward to
develop local interpretations that respond to the
compressed world we live in. In this task, Zukin (in
Keith, 2005) reminds us that great progress has been
made, and provides direction to making paths of
hope: “The continuous growth of cultural institutions
and the increase in ethnic diversity have reduced the
sense of an unbridgeable gap between monumental
space and slums”. In summary, future potentials are
hopeful if application can disrupt education practice
to overcome colonising tendencies by intentional
inclusive engaging inter-dependent relational,
collaborative transformative practice. Elements
specific to developing a response for the Indonesian
Educational Institutional context follow.
2 METHODS
Peace Education is a term used globally;
reinterpretation of this term to an Indonesian specific
context begins with the focus on the ‘Pancasila
values’. As mentioned earlier, the Pancasila are
considered the national philosophy of Indonesia and
therefore provide a starting point to develop the
process aspect of glocal peace education in Indonesia.
It was noted, that the five principles distil to ‘Unity in
Diversity’ or ‘although different, we are one’
(Mumun, 2014), requiring reconciliation of
difference via enacting of each principle as a system
of governance to achieve independence or inter-
dependence. Exploration of the five values, by
Responding to the Call – A Transformative Learning Multimedia Module Based on the Pancasila Values
495

various scholars, provides insight for reconciliation or
reinterpretation processes relevant to the endeavour
Indonesian Educational Institutions have been
directed to. Scholarly insight specific to Peace
Education discourse is summarised in the following
table 1.
The first column in the matrix includes the five
principles, recognised in Indonesian Independence
proclamation and the constitution. The second
column ascribes a relational connection to each of the
principles, developed by Besar (in Ramage, 1995).
Indonesian Cultural properties are entered into the
third column. Various sociology scholars document
these as being present in community life of the people
of the Indonesian archipelago for centuries (Jones,
1973; Hudalah et al., 2014). The fourth column
contains a summary of the five peace education
traditions, documented by Page (2008).
Table 1: Scholarly insight specific to Peace Education
discourse.
Pancasila
Values
Relational
connection
Indonesian
Cultural
Properties
Peace Education
Tradition
Belief in
God
Between
God and
mankind
Faith,
spirituality,
religion in
various forms
Virtue ethics, whereby
peace may be interpreted
as a virtue, and/or virtue is
interpreted as
peacefulness, and peace
education as education in
that virtue;
Just and
Civilised
Society
Between
all
people,
Family
Leadership
Model, respect
for elders,
inclusivity
The ethics of care,
whereby care may be
interpreted as a core
element in peace, and
peace education as
encouraging trust and
engagement with the
other.
Unity of
Indonesia
Between
people
and the
state,
Ethno-
p
edagogy
– wisdom
evident in
culture, teaching
that perpetuates
sustainable
p
ractice based on
cooperative
values
Conservative political
ethics, whereby peace
education may be
interpreted as emphasizing
the importance of the
evolution of social
institutions and the
importance of ordered and
lawful social chan
g
e;
Demo-
cracy
Between
the
rulers
and the
ruled
Village
Collaborations
coming to
consensus
Aesthetic Ethics, whereby
peace (and democracy)
may be interpreted as
something beautiful and
valuable in itself, and
peace education as
emphasizing the
importance of that beauty
and value;
Social
Justice
Between
‘this
world
and the
universe
’
Gotong Royong
– A Cooperative
Spirit, mutually
help one another
Consequentialist ethics,
whereby peace education
may be interpreted as
education regarding the
consequences of our
action and inaction, both
as individuals and
collectives;
Present in the matrix, and also in numerous
Pancasila commentaries is the theme of relationships
or inter-relations. This is both between the principles,
and between the principles and the people to interpret
them in daily living. Relational engagement is also
considered necessary in Peace Education as described
by Page (2008):
‘Curriculum content is important. However what
is far more important is the relationship between
the teacher and the student, and the institution
and the student, within all levels of education.
Ultimately it is through nurturing and supportive
relationships that we can say that individuals can
learn peace’.
Analogously Voisley and O’Riordan (in
O’Riordan, 2001) note that looking at grand ideas of
peace on the day-to-day level looks like harmonious
relationships.
Analysis of this permeating relational theme,
being evident in philosophy and necessary to daily
processes, provides direction to Indonesian
educational institutions. It becomes apparent that
attention must be given to equipping learners to
develop skills and processes and facilitate relational
engagement based on the principles to make
interpretations at the various intersections of
contemporary glocalisation described earlier by both
Besar and Robertson. By facilitating this, the
Pancasila (and the connection, properties and ethics it
embodies) become the conciliator to interpret and
engage with difference and the compressed diverse
world we live in. Broadly, skills or processes of
reconciliation have been termed ‘conflict resolution’
(Brock-Utne, 2009). Synthesis and evaluation of the
above literatures and analysis directs that an
Indonesian appropriate Peace Education or glocally
termed ‘Pancasila Values’ Education require
implementation of conflict resolution education with
glocal inclusivity. This paper will now briefly
describe activities developed with this focus.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In responding to the call to focus on Pancasila values,
Sociology staff at UPI and a team of volunteers
including both Indonesian and an Australian worked
collaboratively. After making the above study and
analysis of related discourses, the team focussed on
development of materials for Conflict Resolution
Education, for teacher learners. Conflict Resolution
Education was selected as a theme for engaging
conciliatory relations between the Pancasila values
and collegial teacher relations, as a microcosm of
Indonesia. This theme facilitates teacher learners to
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
496

explore their own beliefs, attitudes and actions, with
practical tools to facilitate transformative unity in
diversity, while building relationships. The module is
not attached to a specific subject matter, or directed
to corral teachers of a specific year level, or specific
subject, or gender, age, years of teaching, socio-
cultural or religious backgrounds. This openness
facilitates more flexibility to connect teachers and
also reflects the importance of this to permeate
pedagogy and be the ongoing responsibility of all,
within all activities.
To develop a useable format for replicable
engagement, the team employed their various skills,
in various roles to develop a module comprising of 4
audio-visual-media sessions and a teacher-learner
handbook.
The four session titles are:
 Roots and Responses to Conflict;
 Classroom Strategies for Conflict Resolution
Education;
 Engaging the Community in Conflict
Resolution Education;
 Prioritising Reflection.
Each session comprises of a roughly 15-minute
video for stimulus which is to be utilised within a
group of teacher learners with a facilitator,
conversing on the stimulus questions provided within
the video within an anticipated session length of one
hour. The videos and accompanying handbook are
made available to participants to access both a-
synchronically and synchronically and deepen their
engagement with the content.
The heart of the module is introspection, with the
goal of transformative collective introspection of
attitudes and behaviours in daily living. The module
design is for engagement with in a safe supportive
small group environment, facilitated by a community
leader (who has familiarity with the materials and
goals). In this environment, teacher learners are
encouraged to consider their attitudes and behaviours
and consider if they line up to Pancasila values. They
are encouraged to look at dynamics that lead to
conflict behaviours while seeking to understand these
dynamics and be more self-aware. Within prompts in
the materials, the teachers are given opportunity to
express their diverse identities while building a sense
of belonging within their group, where synergy and
cooperation are valued.
The module includes tools of everyday analogies
to utilise in conversing about behaviours and
tendencies. It is anticipated from employment of
transformative learning principles that this
conversing or sharing openly about themselves along
with encouragement to spur on their colleagues to
resolving conflict on personal level, will foster
respect and cooperation within the group. Beyond
introspection of their personal attitudes, the teachers
are prompted to explore conflict dynamics in their
classroom and school environments. Posters,
Analogies, Icons, Examples, Shared Experiences and
revisiting of education and social theories are
combined to produce varied stimulus for the teachers
to explore in their introspections. The stimulus is
designed to assist teachers to build on their past
learning then make analysis, application, evaluation
and synthesis within their current practice. The
reflective questions and prompts are provided to offer
teacher-learners a place to initiate new responses and
behaviours that facilitate day-to-day ‘Unity in
Diversity’ interactions. Within these daily
interactions, teachers are guided in considering the
relational, cultural properties and ethics of the
Pancasila values. Within the materials, teacher
specific planning formats are used to show direct
opportunities for correlation to classroom and school
settings.
Resources/Materials shared also have the strategic
opportunity for teachers to use and share in their
activities beyond their interaction with other module
participants, i.e. their class and community. It is also
hoped that the teachers will continue to share
resources with their (module) colleagues (and fellow
citizens) that they find or develop that continually
assist in self-awareness and cooperative living.
3.1 Specific tool to build relational
skills and processes – ‘SOAD’
One of the module resources specifically focussed on
transformative engagement with all aspects of the
Pancasila values is the ‘SOAD’ strategy. SOAD is an
acronym for Stimulus, Observation, Application and
Doa (Prayer). This strategy is a four step collective
and reflective tool, versatile to a diversity of stimuli.
Stimuli could include: an experience they were
involved in or observed via media – such as a lesson,
event, film, quote, interaction, poster, art, speech or
other media. After recalling or being introduced to a
stimulus, the learners are lead in steps to produce
higher-level thinking, with goal of transforming
thinking via conciliation of the principles. The first
step when engaging in SOAD is: (1) learners are
requested to write a short statement that overviews a
key message of the Stimuli. From here they are asked
to (2) make an Observation, that is make a comment
on the social dynamics at work or consider ‘what
social interactions, are taking place and can be
observed?’ (of the stimuli). Development of the
Responding to the Call – A Transformative Learning Multimedia Module Based on the Pancasila Values
497

observation provides the learner with greater clarity
of the broader context of the stimuli also. In the next
step (3) the learners are asked to make a comment
relating to ‘Application’ – of their learning from the
stimuli and their observation. As a higher level of
thinking the learners can consider similar situations
and make connections of the social dynamics to one
or more of the Pancasila values. Depending on the
stimulus they can make inferences of how to apply
Pancasila values to the scenario in their own
interactions. And the last step (4), in humility the
learners consider aspects of their character and
perspective that need development and input from
God, acknowledging the primacy of the first
Pancasila principle. In developing a prayer, the
learners take time to consider a highest possible
future (previously guided in elements of Theory U)
that is centred upon their willingness to live
cooperatively. They are encouraged to write a prayer
as a relational communication with specific request or
points of interaction that foster moral and cooperative
behaviours premised in the Pancasila. Learners are
encouraged to make specific and focussed SOADs
and share with other learners. This collective sharing
offers opportunity to strengthen community
relationships in mutual goals, recognised as innate
human needs in Peace psychology.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Production of the module has recently been
completed (September 2017). The content of the
module was introduced to a group of teachers in
August 2017. Informal feedback from these teachers
was positive with many acknowledging the
usefulness of the materials and strategies presented.
It is hoped that other teacher-learners will have
opportunity to engage with the module in coming
months. Proposals to conduct research of teachers’
experiences engaging in the module as designed are
being developed. Research is considered necessary
to ascertain the appropriateness of this response to the
call to Indonesian Education Institutions to focus on
Pancasila values and maintain unity.
It is considered that if this module design is
effective, development of future modules could be
beneficial in inspiring sustained conciliation of the
Pancasila to everyday life. Also it is possible the
module could be adapted for use in other contexts in
the global pursuit of peace.
REFERENCES
Azca, M. N., 2011. After jihad: A biographical approach to
passionate politics in Indonesia, University of
Amsterdam. PhD diss, Amsterdam. Retrieved from
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1322217/92002_After_Jiha
d_Najib_Azca_Final16April2011.pdf.
Bar-Tal, D., 2002. The elusive nature of peace education.
Peace education: The concept, principles, and
practices around the world. 27-36.
Bengtsson, S., Östman, L., 2013. Globalisation and
education for sustainable development: emancipation
from context and meaning. Environmental Education
Research. 19:4, 477-498.
Brock-Utne, B., 2009. Introduction: Education for
Reconciliation and Conflict Resolution. International
Review of Education. 55: 145. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/10.1007/s11159-009-9130-7
Choy, L. K., 1977. Indonesia Between Myth and Reality,
Federal Publications. Singapore.
Cooper, T., Christie, D., 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica:
Peace Psychology, Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/science/peace-psychology
Darmaputera, E., 1988. Pancasila and the search for
identity and modernity in Indonesian society: a cultural
and ethical analysis: Brill.
Doku, P., Oppong, A. K., 2011. Identity: Globalization,
culture and psychological functioning. International
Journal of Human Sciences. 8(2), 294-301.
Editorial: Forever Young Indonesia, 2017. The Jakarta
Post. Retrieved from: http://www.thejakartapost.com,
2017 August 16.
Finley, L., 2011. Building a peaceful society: Creative
integration of peace integration, Information Age
Publishing. Charlotte, NC.
Hargreaves, A., 2004. Inclusive and exclusive educational
change: Emotional responses of teachers and
implications for leadership. School Leadership and
Management: Formerly School Organisation. 24(3),
287-309.
Hudalah, D., Firman, T., Woltjer, J., 2014. Cultural
Cooperation, Institution Building and Metropolitan
Governance in Decentralizing Indonesia. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 38(6), 2217-
2234. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12096.
Kantor Sekretariat Revolusi Mental, 2015. Gerakan
National Revolusi Mental, Kementerian Koordinator
Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan.
Retrieved from http://www.revolusimental.or.id/
Keith, M., 2005. After the cosmopolitan?: multicultural
cities and the future of racism, Routledge.
Kress, K., 2007. Meaning and Learning in a World of
Instability and Multiplicity. doi:10.1007/s11217-007-
9070-2.
Mardzoeki, F., 2017. Being Indonesian: Not by memorising
the Pancasila, The Jakarta Post. Jakarta. Retrieved
from: http://www.thejakartapost.com.
Mikhail, G., and Nobel, L., 1991. The Nobel Peace Prize
1990, Retrieved from: http://www.Nobelprize.org.
ICSE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sociology Education
498

Mumun, M., 2014. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika – Understanding
Indonesia’s Slogan on Diversity [Blog post]. (online)
Retrieved, 2014 October 26 from
http://indohoy.com/opinions/bhinneka-tunggal-ika-
understanding-indonesias-slogan-diversity/
Muryanto, B., 2017. Educational institutions must focus on
promoting Pancasila values: Working unit, The Jakarta
Post. Jakarta. Retrieved, 2017 September 16 from:
http://www.thejakartapost.com
Nasional Sekrietarat, The 1945 Constitution of the Republic
of Indonesia, (n.d.), Includes Amendments, Retrieved
from www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
ed_protect/---.../wcms_174556.pdf on March 12, 2016.
New Learning, 2017. Multiliteracies, Retrieved from
http://newlearningonline.com/multiliteracies on
October 1, 2017.
Page, J. S., 2008. Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and
Philosophical Foundations, Information Age
Publishing. Charlotte, NC.
Patria, N., Halim, H., 2017 Jokowi to ‘clobber’ intolerant
groups, The Jakarta Post. Jakarta Retrieved from:
http://www.thejakartapost.com on 2017 May 18.
Priyono, B., 2017. INSIGHT: Indonesia – a nation of three
clichés, The Jakarta Post. Jakarta. Retrieved from:
http://www.thejakartapost.com on 2017 August, 16.
Ramage, D., 1995. Politics in Indonesia, Routledge.
London.
Robertson, R., 2012. Globalisation or glocalisation?. The
Journal of International Communication. 18:2, 191-
208, DOI: doi=10.1080/13216597.2012.709925.
Scharmer, O., 2007. Theory U: Leading from the Future as
it Emerges. The Society for Organizational Learning,
Cambridge, USA.
Schluter, M., Lee, D., 1993. The R Factor, Hodder and
Stoughton. London.
Supriatna, M., 2014. Problema Ontologis Pedagogik
Transformatif Indonesia dalam Membangun
Keunggulan Bangsa, Paper presented at the Makalah
Forum Pimpinan Pascasarjana LPTK, Bali.
Suryadi, K., 2007. Media Massa dan “Political Literacy”:
Pemanfaatan Berita Politik di Kalangan Remaja. Kota
Bandung. Mediator, Jurnal Komunikasi. Vol 8(1), 77-
82.
Taylor, E., Cranton, P., 2012. The Handbook of
Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and
Practice, Jossey-Bass. Hoboken, US.
Taylor, E., Taylor, P., Karnovsky, S., Aly, A., Taylor, N.,
2016. “Beyond Bali”: a transformative education
approach for developing community resilience to
violent extremism. Asia Pacific Journal of Education.
Vol.37(2), p.193-204.
The World Bank. (n.d.) The World Bank in Indonesia.
Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/indonesia on
October 1, 2017.
Varshney, A., Tadjoeddin, M., Panggabean, R., 2008.
Creating datasets in information-poor environments:
Patterns of collective violence in Indonesia, 1990-
2003. Journal of East Asian Studies. 8(3), 361-394.
Voisey, H., O'Riordan, T., 2001. Globalization and
Localization. In T. O'Riordan (Ed.), Globalism,
localism, and identity: Fresh perspectives on the
transition to sustainability (pp. 25-42), Earthscan
Publications. London, UK; Sterling, VA, USA.
Wesley, P., Buysse, V., 2001. Communities of Practice:
Expanding Professional Roles to Promote Reflection
and Shared Inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education. 21(2), 114-23.
Responding to the Call – A Transformative Learning Multimedia Module Based on the Pancasila Values
499