TRANSFORMATIVE LEARNING FOR CONTROVERSIAL HISTORY OF G 30 S/PKI

G 30 S/PKI is a controversial issue in Indonesian history and a sensitive material because of past traumatic memories. It is a challenge for history teachers in learning in schools. This research aims to analyze the controversial history material of the G30 S/PKI in history textbooks in school and formulate the learning concepts that are relevant for the controversial history. This type of research is qualitative with the content analysis. The data source is the history textbook and any other sources appropriate. The results show that in the Indonesian History Book for grade XII, 7 (seven) versions of the theory of the G30 S/PKI are presented. The various versions need to be integrated into the substance of the G30 S/ PKI incident material so that it reflects the balance in the construction of the content with its arguments and weaknesses. In learning, the concept of transformative learning that is directed at historical didactics based on academic history is needed. History learning introduces educational content to build awareness of values. Students are actively involved through cooperative learning accompanied by exploration activities related to G 30 S/PKI material. Learning is directed at active historical thinking that opens an open dialogue. In this way, the teaching of controversial material history has the potential for character education (critical, analytical, objective, open-minded) that relies on internalization to minimize indoctrination.


INTRODUCTION
G 30 S/PKI was controversial material in teaching Indonesian history. The School-Based Curriculum (KBK 2004) have been eliminated the content or books that contained about PKI or G 30 S/PKI. This case made the attorney general, and the Ministry of Education and Culture took serious attention and be participated to pull the books that had published about it. Adam said that the return of writing of the word "PKI" (Indonesian Communist Party) was considered as a reckless action because the epilogue of G 30 S events still occurred and had an impact continuously (Adam, 2009).
For History teachers, teaching G 30 S/PKI materials was being a challenge. Its content became the historical debate that made demanding roles for the teachers (Krisnadi, 2006). Teachers found obstacles in controversial historical learning, namely the factors which came from internally or externally of its history included the change of historiographical patterns from post-reformasi of Indonesia (Ahmad et al., 2014).
Suparjan's research showed that G 30 S/PKI learning was monotonous and uninteresting for students. The issue of PKI appearing, and the apology who have done by the government for the PKI victims was uninfluential to the G 30 S/PKI learning materials. The roles of the teacher in its learning was not varied and looked rigid. In the designing and formulating the learning devices, the teacher only took it from an internet source so that in its lesson plan, practices were not appropriate with what the teacher applied in the class. The teacher has still used curriculum guidelines as their source in the class. The method was used in the learning process, namely lecture methods, questionnaires, and giving an assignment. Its media only used the whiteboard and the simple package books. Besides that, the student responses to G30 S/PKI materials were not supporting, uninterested, and not active to ask questions about its controversial (Suparjan, 2016).
The G 30 S/PKI was not only being controversial materials in the learning process but also left traumatic memories among citizens. Based on Aquarta and Soebijantoro's research which held in Wungu Village, Madiun, East Java, it showed that G 30 S/PKI events were still influenced the people's psychological at this time. They have always had a fear of feelings and are worried. Their memories caused it because PKI has arrested some citizens from this village. Their scaring was still felt when they saw soldiers, police, or strangers who were unknown to them. Then, they would imagine that those troops as the government agents who had a mission to overseeing them or arrest them (Aquarta & Soebijantoro, 2014). G30 S/PKI material is subject to review. The history is still a controversy. According to Ahmad, the term controversial refers to the existence of competing narratives about both events, especially about the status and involvement of the communists. It is controversial because each opinion has a strong foundation, according to the author. Controversial history writing is still in process, which eventually led to several different ideas relating to a historical event (Ahmad, 2010).
Controversial issues have an advantage in fostering students' critical thinking. Students are expected to be able to see the problem, not as something that happens (given), but also be able to explore the background and reasons why the controversial problem occurs. Teaching controversial issues will foster a deep understanding of social reality to be able to prepare students as good citizens and be able to think critically (Ahmad, 2016).
Learning controversial issues is also relevant for growing student character if appropriately managed. Learning controversial issues has the potential to help students express ideas, make decisions, be prepared to face rapid change, and be responsive to the actual problems. Controversial history makes students think openly about differences of the facts about history, providing understanding that historical narratives are open to changes, and the conclusions produced are not final. It can eliminate the tendency of students to assess in a hurry. Students will understand more about differences, changes, and sustainability, cause and effect, interpretation of an event, as well as problems of historical evidence. Controversial history can provide a thorough understanding of the reality of the past. Through understanding various versions of history, students are expected to be able to see multiple points of view in explaining an issue. Thus, the reconstruction of traces of the past can be carried out more comprehensively (Ahmad, 2013).
The phenomenon of controversial history above could be useful learning for teachers and students as a part of social life. They must be able to place their selves as citizens, namely a citizen who was aware of their responsibility through the positive acts that have meaning for their life together. For this reason, it is necessary to transform the concept of learning the controversial G 30 S/PKI history material, which is preceded by the reconstruction of the content in the history textbooks at school. This paper focuses on the multiple versions of the G30 S/PKI featured in history textbooks in high school and the idea of transformative learning concepts for the controversial G30 S/PKI historical material. This research aims to analyze the controversial history material of the G 30 S/PKI in history textbooks in school and the learning concepts that is relevant for it.

RESEARCH METHODS
This type of research is qualitative, which focuses on the material analysis of the history textbook and the learning concepts for the controversial. The data source is the history textbook and any other sources relevant. The book is the Indonesian history textbook of 2013 Curriculum for Grade XII of the senior high school published by the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia by Abdurakhman, Arif Pradono, Linda Sunarti dan Susanto Zuhdi. Inside there is the controversial history material of the G 30 S/PKI. The method used in this research was content analysis. The content analysis method is a method used for collecting and analyzing the contents of a text. The data source is the Indonesian history textbook of 2013 Curriculum for Grade XII of the senior high school and any other sources relevant. The analysis technique used was meaning to the narratives contained in the Indonesian history textbook. Based on this meaning, then it is reflected in need of a controversial history learning concept that is relevant. .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION G 30 S/PKI Interpretations in Indonesian History Textbooks
The interpretation of G 30 S/PKI had various meanings. All versions were explained through facts, data, logical and rational arguments. Its result could have the same data and reality but still had a different meaning taken from how to see and interpreted it. According to Ricklefs, G 30 S was essential to note. It because of the complexity of political situations, wherein the hate feelings that being the most character for the main actors (mastermind) to the others, and there was suspicion to the evidence-proof so that it could never found the truth of it. It looked impossible that only one mastermind controlled all events, although there was still interpretation that explained these events being a single act (Ricklefs, 2001).
In the Indonesian History textbooks for XII grade of Senior High School, there are seven verses that are tabulated in Table 1. (Abdurakhman, et al., 2018). Next, the construction of the material is dominated by conflicts between the Army and PKI, which began with the content about the actions of the Indonesian National Army against PKI (Abdurakhman, et al., 2018). The material explicitly mentions the G30 S/PKI in the history books material for Senior High School students. The word "PKI" written after the words "the G 30 S" was subsequently written consistently until the end of the book' chapter. It appears that the construction of G30 S/ PKI material in history textbooks in Soekarno wanted to eliminate the opposition forces from some of the High Army Officers. PKI was close to Soekarno and dragged along. The basis of this statement was the testimony of Shri Biju Patnaik, a pilot from India who became a friend of many Indonesian officials. On 30 September 1965 midnight, Soekarno asked him to leave Jakarta before dawn. Soekarno said, "After that, I will close the airport." Soekarno seemed to know that there would be "a big event" the next day Soekarno refused to support G30 S, even condemning it in a Cabinet meeting on 6 October 1965.

Chaos theory John D. Legge
There was no single mastermind, and there was no major scenario in G30S. The event was a combination of elements of Nekolim (Western countries), PKI leaders who were outraged, and one of the members of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Indonesia that was not in the right way". Everything broke out in improvisation in the field.

Transformative Learning Concept for Controversial History
Facing the problem of controversial material such as G 30 S/PKI, Widodo suggested that the historical learning about controversial materials was only like "metanarrative," the history should be a historical narrative that focused on this time for the students' life. The method that was used by telling the past story and had good aims for the future. Besides it, the dimension times that used in historical learning was not only past time but also the present time. Therefore, history learning should be directed, including learning by doing and learning how to learn. It could be explained that a teacher should be wise to make history as their teacher of life (Wododo, 2011). Transformation is needed in learning a controversial history. Various versions of the G 30 S/PKI need to be integrated into the substance of the material. So, it reflects the balance in the construction of the content. Various theoretical interpretations of the G 30 S/PKI incident are presented by revealing the strengths and weaknesses of each analysis and are integrated into the construction of the material. With the development of these materials, the structure of the content about the G 30 S incident can be more comprehensive and not biased towards one theoretical interpretation. In learning at school, transformative learning that is directed at historical didactics based on academic history is needed.
In the transformative learning concept, learning of history should be centered on the students. The students should be active, and the teacher became a facilitator and motivator in its learning process. It was necessary to understand the student's preference that was used to encour-age their activeness. Talin's research (2013) showed that the student preferred to be given the training and assignment from their book and laptops when answering the questions. They also preferred eclectic and blended approaches. The research showed that choosing the right methods could be able to stimulate the student to learn. In learning history, it was needed a technique that could stimulate critical thinking and gave a chance to illustrate the intellectual thinking through exploring the various historical events (Talin, 2013).
The students could be more active in cooperative learning. Haenen and Tuithof, in their research, showed that the advantages of cooperative learning for "doing history." Since the learning process, the students who had full awareness always needed exploration acts in every historical learning process. Cooperative learning was being a method that gave power and creativity for History teachers (Haenen & Tuithof, 2008). Schmidt's research (2013) showed that the transformation of the fixed procedure and the behavior in the learning history could be understood from the pragmatic source that has been improved, separated included the theme which lost from its concept. It was only a word that not clear articulation with pluralistic experiences that became the primary struggle of Brazilian for this time or past time. Because of it, the separation between historical didactic and historical academics would make a contribution to the creation of historical disciplines with the different special characteristics that could encourage history learning into the social environment than for a closed school culture (Schmidt, 2013).
Havekes and Coppen suggested that history as a piece of knowledge and history as a verb was being two main approaches in the historical learning process. Although it was recognized as a critical integration of both remains difficult for teachers and students. Havekes, et al. proposed a conceptual framework for combining the two into learning that focused on histori-cal contextualization. Based on this framework, the main design was identified to combine aspects of knowledge and historical work in contextualizing history earning. These principles could help students to develop epistemic beliefs and integration between knowledge and historical work. Suggestions made to review the design of learning continue to think of history actively (active historical thinking). Historical awareness would awake in contextual history learning and presented an open dialogue (Havekes H, Coppen P.A, 2012).
The transformative historical learning provided the contents of character education. The essence of character education was called internalization. Internalizing values was the most critical process in character education. Internalization was a change in the development that externally controlled behavior into internally controlled acts. Internalization of values occurred when someone found their meaning as a person at a time when specific values gave sense to the way of life.
Internalization of values has taken place gradually that must be passed by students, namely knowing values, understanding values, accepting values, making values as attitudes (internalizing), and applying value (implementing) (Zubedi, 2005). The final result was the creation of actions/behavior based on values that were driven by three other aspects, namely, competence, will, and habits.
In the knowing phase, the students actively explored the character values in each historical event, individually, and continuing with the group activities. Every historical event had its actors, either individuals or groups. In the phase of understanding (knowing), the students explored the indicators of values so they could provide an experience of values (comprehending) to themselves. Through the discussion process in groups, the students did not only know the values of national character but also indicators that provided an understanding of its implementation by national heroes.
The process of finding the national character values in every group was relevant to the constructive learning of cooperative models with explorative activities. As stated by Haenen and Hanneke (2008) that the students would be more actively involved in cooperative learning. Since the beginning of the learning process, students with the full awareness that history learning was always accompanied by exploration activities (Haenen J, 2008). The dynamics of the group would further enhance the students' understanding of character values found. They would give and receive the knowledge and understanding of character values in the group. Various studies have shown that teamwork influences student achievement, especially in cognition or academic achievement (Slavin, 2008).
Cooperative learning was one of the models recommended by experts in character education. Chavez et.al (2014: 8) said that the Proponents of character education programs recommended cooperative learning as a foundation in character education. Building a positive foundation for adolescents further enables the impact of targeted behavior and predictive behavior from unwanted behavioral interventions. Cooperative learning is involving students in working as effective team members who must be used to provide a foundation in character education (Chavez et al., 2014).
Slavin suggested that one of the non -cognitive outcomes that resulted from cooperative experience in the school was the students would become more collaborative and generous. The cooperative experience could enhance the components of cooperative and altruistic behavior compared to competitive and individualistic experiences. Cooperative learning would develop pro-social behaviors that were increasingly needed in each condition where people's ability to get along with others becomes increasingly crucial (Slavin, 2008). The process of knowing and understanding the character values was the cognitive domain. The learning theory is used in it, namely constructivism. The students built their knowledge individually and continue with collaborative learning in the groups. The teacher had a role in helping empower all students' potential in understanding the values (Muchith, 2008).
The building process of student's knowledge about the character values individually was based on the personal psychological constructivism of Piaget with schemata concepts. Creating knowledge was being a cognitive process wherein an assimilation and accommodation process had occurred to achieve a balance so that a scheme could be formed. A person who learns was mean forming understanding or knowledge actively and continuously (Thobroni & Arif, 2011).
Assimilation was a cognitive process wherein someone integrated new perceptions, concepts, or experiences into the structure or scheme that has already been in his mind. Assimilation could be seen as a cognitive process that placed and classified new events or stimuli in the existing structures. Assimilation did not cause changes/removal in the existing structures/schemes but instead developed it. The assimilation process would keep going continuously, and everyone could develop this process.
Whereas accommodation was forming a new structure that could be matched with the new stimuli or modified existing structures so that they matched with those stimuli. The accommodation process could have occurred because someone faced a new stimulus or experience, and they could not assimilate the new experience with the scheme that they already have. Hence, it was necessary to establish a new plan or modify the existing system so that it matched the stimulus or new experience.
The transformation has caused the process of assimilation and accommodation. An assimilative process occurred when new experiences are formed to match with the existing knowledge structure. Then, accommodative processes occurred when the structure itself changed into the response of the new experience. Assimilation and accommodation were two complementary processes. When the reality was assimilated, then the structures were accommodated (Schunk, 2012). Through assimilation and accommodation, the students' knowledge and understanding of the nation's character values would be stronger and more developed.
Suppose the students' process of building their knowledge is based on the personal psychological constructivism of Piaget with the schema concepts. Then the learning in groups with peers was based on the social-psychological constructivist of Vygotsky (Schunk, 2012). Vygotsky, with Zona Proximal Development (ZPD) who emphasized the importance of social influence on child development (Santrok, 2007). ZPD focused on social interactions that facilitated development. When students were doing work in their schools, their development may be slow. The students should do work with their friends who were skilled and could lead to solving the complex problems so that it could maximize their capability.
The phase of accepting values occurred after the students knew and understood the character values. By identifying and understanding, the students would recognize the character values easily. The process of accepting these values have been entered in the affective domain (Budiningsih, 2005). The learning theory that underlined the process in this model was humanistic. According to this theory, students were individuals who had potentials that could be cultivated in the context of self-actualization, as stated by Maslow as the highest need (Herpratiwi, 2009). The students acted as the main actors who interpreted their learning experience, so they could understand their potential, develop it positively, and minimize negative potential. The learning process could be more fun and meaningful for students.
The teacher's role would encourage the students to recognize themselves and develop their full potential. The ways that are used to humanize humans so that they could achieve their actualization. Rogers's stated that the teacher was a facilitator who built the climate in the classroom and oriented to the importance of learning and helped students achieved the goals of selfactualization (Schunk, 2012). Fulfillment of self-actualization needs, among others, by giving students the freedom to explore their abilities and potential and created meaningful learning for them. In other words, what taken place was internalization, not indoctrination. The phase made a value as the attitudes and beliefs (internalizing) for students that confirmed the values of the nation's character as values that are believed and used as guidelines for behavior and implemented in daily life.
The internal motivation was being important in transformative history learning. Through internal motivation, internalization would make the values stuck firmly in the individual or become their character. According to Miskawaih, a situation that caused the soul to act without thinking or being considered deeply after going through the process of training and habituation (Hidayatullah, 2018). Through transformative history learning, the material of controversial history learning, such as the G 30 S/PKI, was directed at historical didactics based historical academics. Here is the transformative learning concept for the controversial history material.

CONCLUSION
The transformative learning concept for the controversial history material of G 30 S/PKI presented the history with an educative content of awareness of building values. Students were actively involved in creating awareness of that value or historical learning that used student-centered. Cooperative learning was needed, along with exploration activities. Learning history was directed at active historical thinking so that historical awareness could be developed in contextual learning and presented open dialogue. Transformative history learning provided the content of character education based on internalization. Through transformative history learning, the material of controversial historical learning such as the G 30 S/PKI was directed at historical didactics based historical academics. Controversial history learning has the potential for character education that relies on internalization to mitigate indoctrination.