*Keywords:* Systems of Knowledge, pedagogy, commodification,

‘mary-grace-vella’

---

Volume 1 9 , No. 1, 113 134

Faculty of Education©, UM, 202 5

Systems of Knowledge:

A Pedagogy of the Privileged or of the Oppressed?

Mary Grace Vella

University of Malta

marygrace.vella@um.edu.mt

Abstract: Fuelled by the hegemonic neoliberal agenda, education

policy in Malta is progressively becoming subservient to the needs of

capital, leading to the further commodification of learning in an

increasingly credential society. At the same time, the conventional

pedagogical discourse of education policy is that learning should

serve as an inclusive liberating force for creativity, innovation, critical

thinking and problem solving. This dichotomy between theory and

praxis in education policy is particularly evident in the pedagogy of

Systems of Knowledge, as its revolutionary potential as a progressive

force for social change is appropriated by the commodification of

learning, accreditation and market forces.

The superficial and inapt application of critical praxis in terms of both

pedagogical content and processes, infer the subordination of

progressive and liberal ideals to neoliberal policies, demeaning

Systems of Knowledge into another commodified tool of the

privileged over an emancipatory vehicle for liberation and social

justice. In this context, the paper questions; is Systems of Knowledge

truly a pedagogy of the oppressed or another oppressive apparatus for

the privileged?

Keywords: Systems of Knowledge, pedagogy, commodification,

social justice, critical praxis

Pedagogy of the Privileged or of the Oppressed?

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate

integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system

and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the

means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality

and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

(Freire, 1970, p.34)

Banking education vs Problem-posing education. Conservative vs Progressive.

Right-wing vs Left-wing. Formal vs informal. Exam-oriented vs life-long

learning. On which side lies Systems of Knowledge (SOK)? Is it an educational

tool for the practice of domination, or a tool for the practice of freedom?

In its written overt aims and objectives, SOK is definitely a tool for the practice

of freedom as it ambitiously aims to equip learners with “a body of

knowledge;…an awareness and application of values;…insight into different

systems of knowledge;…ability to view ideas, and situations from an

interdisciplinary perspective…and react to them; develop…skills necessary to

transform acquired knowledge into practice; acquire critical and creative

thinking and communication skills; [and] inculcate sensitivity and sensibility

towards diverse social and political contexts” (MATSEC, 2024, p.2).

Yet, how much are these objectives effectively being reached? Does SOK really

empower learners to “participate in developing the pedagogy of their

liberation” (Freire, 1970 p.48), or is there a gap between discourse and praxis;

in theory acting as a tool for the practice of freedom, in reality, sustaining

practices of domination? Guided by the following questions, the article aims to

contribute to the existing theoretical and empirical work on SOK by examining

its pedagogical potential for critical praxis.

Following a brief overview of SOK’s scope, origins and development, the

subsequent sections will elucidate its radical pedagogical potential based on its

interdisciplinarity, incitement of critical thinking and advancement of ethical

praxis. Examined within the context of the commodification of learning within

an increasingly credential society, the paper examines the lost potential of SOK

as a force of liberation and proposes remedial action in the area through the

reappropriation of its radical potential.

SOK: Its origins and development

As early as 1972, UNESCO decreed that education should promote world

peace, international understanding and unity and instil values which promote

such objectives. These principles, which have been reiterated through various

legal instruments and frameworks for action saw the introduction of values

and citizenship education in national education policies and curricula. Taking

different forms in different countries, in Malta values and citizenship education

also materialised through SOK.

SOK was introduced in 1989 in “an attempt to broaden the sixth-form

curriculum” through a “cultural course” to “break down departmental

separatism” in education (Heywood and Serracino Inglott, 1987, p.182).

Forming an integral part of the entry requirements to the University of Malta,

it was originally devised to impart greater “depth and breadth” to Advanced

level subjects by helping learners to contextualise their knowledge within

broader socio-political and cultural contexts and become “more adaptable,

flexible and broadly educated” (Heywood and Serracino Inglott, 1987, p.182).

It was also designed to “integrate thinking and doing”, “recreate the wholeness

of the person” and “militate[s] against an unreflective and mechanistic

approach to life” (Heywood and Serracino Inglott, 1987, p.182). SOK was also

designed with the intent of bridging the divide between arts and sciences and

facilitating “the transferability of intellectual skills” including analytical and

argumentative skills (Heywood and Serracino Inglott, 1987, p.182). Indeed, it

ambitiously endeavoured to teach young people “how to think, how to look

for truth and information, how to seek who is right” (Giordmaina, 1999 citing

Il-Mument, 18 October 1987, p. 24).

On the basis of these noble objectives, the SOK curriculum was designed to

address a wide cross-section of knowledge, skills and values. Initially, the

syllabus addressed six diverse topics, including ‘Man and Symbols’, Man and

Environment’, ‘Man and History’, ‘Scientific Methods’ and History of Science’,

‘Sea Texts’, and ‘Artistic Aims and Achievement’. Despite recurrent revisions

to the syllabus throughout the years, SOK has largely remained faithful to the

main themes of politics, science, art, and the environment.

Introduced in the aftermath of the tense political climate of Malta in the 1980s,

SOK was from the outset politically charged, with the party in government,

then the Nationalist party, arguing in favour of its introduction, whilst the

Labour Party in opposition retaliating against it. Indeed, the subject was

introduced amid significant contention between these two parties, where apart

from being criticised by the Labour Party as indirectly imposing a numerus

clausus for entry to tertiary education, concern was raised about its potential

“to promote the political ideology of the party in power” (Giordmaina, 1999,

p.4). This led to the issue being placed high on the media agenda, with

“questions…asked in Parliament, [and] student protests…held” (Giordmaina,

1999, p.3).

Indeed, “no other curricular innovation…has, arguably, stirred such

controversy” within the local educational context (Giordmaina, 1999, p.3). Yet,

despite that more than thirty-five years have passed since its introduction, the

subject remains to the present day mired in controversy. Resistance towards

the subject remains widespread. Most students declare to ‘hate it’, seeing it as

an additional imposed burden a mandatory adjunct and “inconvenience”

rather than as “complementary” (Gatt, 2018, p.293) to their opted A level and

Intermediate subjects, thus contributing to added work to their already hefty

curriculum.

SOK: A revolutionary pedagogy?

Since its inception, SOK has been subject to various content, pedagogical and

assessment reforms. These transformations reflect wider trends in education as

well as innovative endeveours to enhance the subject’s unity and coherence

(Gravina, 2003). Yet, despite these various revamps, the subject’s core

objectives have essentially remained the same. Equally extant remain the

challenges for the successful accomplishment of its pedagogical potential

which, apart from its innovative curriculum content, results from its

interdisciplinarity, promotion of critical thinking, inculcation of values, and

applied knowledge and skills through the amalgamation of theory and

practice.

Knowledge content

The curriculum content of SOK covers a wide range of topics across four

different modules dealing with ‘Democratic Values and Responsible and

Active Citizenship’, ‘Culture, Art and Aesthetic Values’, ‘The Environment and

Sustainable Development’ and ‘Scientific Values and Technology’. Whilst this

breadth of content offers incentives for student engagement due to its wide

spectrum of areas of interest, this presents challenges of memorising

knowledge content (Gravina, 2003, p.31). This may result in a superficial

examination of the topics apart from leaving little leeway for undertaking

arduous initiatives (Gravina, 2003). This is exacerbated by the fact that unlike

other Intermediate-level subjects, in most post-secondary institutions, SOK is

allocated only two formal lessons per week (instead of three) in addition to

tutorials which are generally assigned to the project component.

The breadth of the subject not only hinders an indepth examination of the

issues concerned but also the possibility of adopting a more engaging

pedagogy that encourages debate and discussion and enables more active

participation and engagement. Indeed, these tangible limitations perpetrate the

top-down ‘banking concept of education’, whereby information and

knowledge is deposited (Freire, 1970) onto learners, primarily within the

parameters of the syllabus.

Since SOK forms an integral aspect of the entry requirements for tertiary

education at the University of Malta, it is often conceived as ‘another’ subject

to be studied first and foremost ‘for the exam’, which factor hinders motivation

to go beyond the expected syllabus and learning for its own sake. This

undermines a core objective of SOK: to empower students to engage actively

in socio-political life and to become central protagonists in their own learning

journey.

Interdisciplinarity

SOK is distinguished by a broad spectrum of knowledge and concepts drawn

from multiple fields of study. Whilst a chronological and historical analysis

underlines these areas, SOK goes beyond the acquisition of historical, artistic,

scientific or environmental literacy since its underlying scope is the inculcation

of interdisciplinary knowledge (Gravina, 2003). Indeed, a main objective when

first introduced was that of doing away “with years of compartmentalized

learning” which shapes the local education system (Giordmagnia, 1999, p.7).

This interdisciplinarity makes SOK ‘broader’ than other disciplines since it

bridges the historical divide between the sciences and the arts (Gravina, 2003).

Interdisciplinarity purports to present comprehensive and integrated

understandings of complex problems and situations through looking at issues

from a multidimensional perspective. A key objective is that of “answering a

question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex

to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline” (Klein and Newell, 199 7,

p.3). While complexity “has traditionally been studied through an analysis of

its parts” (Kapila and Moher, 1995, p.1), interdisciplinarity aims to integrate

rather than amalgamate diverse strands of knowledge. Interdisciplinarity

draws on ‘pre-established discipline’s (Misiewicz, 2016) by “comparing,

contrasting, connecting, adding to and changing disciplinary concepts, theories

and methodologies” (Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, 2024, para.1) with

the aim of generating new insights and mitigating against fragmentation of

knowledge.

Integrative learning goes beyond the acquisition of content material but

extends to overarching baseline skills such as communication, teamwork,

critical thinking, ethics and applied knowledge. SOK seeks the integration of

knowledge, skills, and values on both the theoretical and practical level and

emphasises purposeful learning and individual and social responsibility.

Emerging as part of a wider liberal approach to education, interdisciplinarity

offers various benefits to learners but also to educators and the wider

educational community by encouraging collaboration and the sharing of

expertise, whilst widening opportunities for personal and professional growth

(Institute for Interdisciplinary studies, 2024 ). Interdisciplinarity develops

critical thinking, creativity, communication, and problem-solving, helping

learners to overcome biased perspectives and develop tolerance towards

divergent ideas. Despite its substantiated benefits of transcending the

restrictiveness of individual disciplines, particularly in the context where

“crossing boundaries is a defining characteristic of our age” (Klein, 1996, p.1),

the interdisciplinary approach in SOK remains characterised by various

outstanding challenges. The establishment of a unifying framework based on

the integration of different disciplines presents a cardinal problem (Gravina,

2003. and it remains debatable as to what levels of integration this interaction

should take.

As currently taught, SOK may be considered more multi-disciplinary than

interdisciplinary, since “the relationship between the disciplines is merely one

of proximity” rather than integration (Moran, 2010, p.14). Thus, despite

bringing insights from different disciplines, it does not fully integrate this

information, and knowledge remains fragmented. This siloism is also

embedded in the structure of the exam as students are expected to answer four

different questions from each module rather than integrating knowledge from

the different modules to particular issues.

Unlike most other academic subjects, there is no specific pedagogical course

qualifying educators in SOK. The academic background of educators traverses

across disciplines from the arts, humanities, natural sciences, law and

medicine, and pedagogy. While in some post-secondary institutions educators

teach across the whole curriculum, in other settings modules are taught

according to the educators’ area of specialisation. While both methods have

their respective advantages and disadvantages, they also pose challenges for

interdisciplinarity, particularly in maintaining continuity and establishing

meaningful connections across the various modules and the issues they

explore.

Critical thinking

A main goal of education is that of promoting “the critical thinking capability

of students and thus, to create good citizens for a just society” (Uddin, 2019 ,

p.109). This underlines various Marxist and liberal educationalists’ pursuit to

transform education from transference of knowledge to its creation, through

learner-centered activities such as dialogue and problem-posing.

Arising from the Hellenistic period and emphasised through the

Enlightenment to the Frankfurt School, critical thinking is interwoven within

the Western tradition of education. The pioneers of the critical pedagogy

movement, amongst others saw education as a way of emancipating the

oppressed and transforming society. Criticality entails “epistemic adequacy”

to contest flawed argumentation, unfounded generalisations and lack of

evidence-based claims. Thus, critical thinking as “the art of explicating,

analyzing, and assessing” the consumption of information (Paul, 1990 , p.66) is

essential for addressing “irrational, illogical, and unexamined living”

(Burbules & Berk, 1999, p.46).

Critical reflection considers one’s views as open to challenge and whilst not

necessarily leading to relativism, or equal validity of arguments, refutes

“universality or finality” of ideas (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.61). From this

perspective, criticality cannot be exercised solely on an individual level, as it

results from dialogue and other forms of interaction (Burbules, 1993).

SOK aims to foster this criticality by engaging learners in questioning,

examining, and exchanging ideas and values, thus becoming “more skeptical

toward commonly accepted truisms” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.45). Its multi

perspective approach promotes increased acceptance of conflicting and

ambiguous scenarios and advances reflexivity and positioning. Yet, given that

“standards of critical thinking…are culturally biased in favour of a particular

masculine and/or Western mode of thinking”, other ‘ways of knowing’ are

devalued (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.49). To be true to its pursuance of

criticality, SOK needs to challenge dominant world views, including its

restrictive Eurocentric vision by valuing that the history of the world extends

beyond the European narrative (Gravina, 2003). Eurocentrism creates an ‘us

and them’ mindset, emphasising exclusion and prejudice which easily gives

rise to racism and xenophobia (Gravina, 2003).

The dialogical method, promoted as an educational tool since the times of

Ancient Greece, not only facilitates interaction and exchange of ideas, but “is

also capable of generating critical thinking” (Freire, 1970, p. 92). Based on a

two-way communication where educators and learners adopt an active role as

equal partners, dialogue offers a “technique to break the silent nature of the

students and the monologue of the teacher” (Uddin, 2019, p.113). Dialogue is

intrinsically linked to problem-solving as it proffers different perspectives and

inculcates reflection on one’s positionality, encouraging learners “to see the

world not as a static reality but as a reality in process” (Uddin, 2019, p.83).

Indeed, Freire (1970) considered problem-posing education as a mechanism for

transformation, as it also assists learners towards ‘learning to learn’.

‘Learning to learn’ entails the inculcation of skills which enable learners to

differentiate between information, and discern factual knowledge from

subjective opinion (Gravina, 2003). Such ‘learning to learn’ tools (Gravina,

2003, p.27) which “unfortunately… tend to succumb to the dominance of

content knowledge” (Gatt, 2018, p.296) are pivotal for critical thinking. But,

“what is the moral, ethical and political dimension of learning to think

critically?” (Cowden and Singh, 2015, p.1). Acquiring factual knowledge alone

is not sufficient to shift attitudes; rather, such change is more likely to occur

through learning that engages empathy.

Values and Ethics

As principles and standards of behaviour, values offer guidance as to what is

relevant and important to our lives, encouraging reflection on our “attitudes,

choices, decisions, judgments, relationships, dreams and vision” (Lakshmi and

Paul, 2018 , p.29). Values materialise “through the priorities we choose,

and…act on” (Hall, 1994, p.39). Values education aims at enhancing engaging

reflection of the relevance of and impact of certain values over others with the

aim of promoting ethical living both within and outside the classroom and

school environment (Lakshmi and Paul, 2018). Indeed, criticality entails

contestation of not only “demonstrably false beliefs, but also those that are

misleading, partisan, or implicated in the preservation of an unjust status quo”

(Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.51). By questioning inequalities of power and how

these are perpetrated and legitimatised by social structures and myths of

meritocracy, critical pedagogy aims at promoting progressive social change.

Critical pedagogy does not take place in a vacuum. It offers a right way of

thinking by acting as a form of problem-posing and putting knowledge to the

wellbeing of society (Freire, 1970; Dewey, 1916). By empowering people to

become “more critical in thought and action”, critical pedagogy aims at

transforming “inequitable, undemocratic, or oppressive institutions and social

relations” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.4647 ) in the pursuit of social justice. The

critical learner is thus one who “is empowered to seek justice, to seek

emancipation” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p. 50 ). Despite this clear stance

towards social justice, critical pedagogy is not “monolithic or homogeneous”

(Burbules and Berk, 1999 , p.48). Conversely, it helps us to overcome

‘egocentric’ and ‘sociocentric’ beliefs (Paul, 1990, p.7) by nurturing dialogue

and assessment of truth claims from multiple perspectives. Critical pedagogy

thus fosters a “humanizing effect” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.46).

But, as argued by Gravina (2003, p.23-25), is the aim of SOK to teach values or

to “teach about valuing?” As it stands, SOK is focused entirely on the essence

of values despite this not being “the best approach to learn values” (Gravina,

2003, p.23-25) since it offers little opportunity to inculcate the valuing of values.

The reconciliation of values is largely dependent on learning “how to value”.

Such process entails reflecting and gaining insight on one’s voluntarity, viable

alternative options, and consideration of any arising repercussions (Gravina,

2003).

Values create controversy**.** It lies within the nature of SOK to address

contentious issues on which people have divergent views and opinions

(Gravina, 2003). Yet, in the examination of these controversial issues in class,

debate and dispute are rarely allowed to surface let alone instigated. It is thus

imperative that SOK does not shy away from examining and dissecting

controversial issues but instead enables and instigates learners to discuss and

position themselves on such matters.

Values are not emotionally neutral. Indeed, under the right pedagogical

conditions, emotional feedback is to be expected (Gravina, 2003). This emotive

response whether of joy, sadness or anger, could be channelled towards

supporting learners in their search for meaning and prompting proactive

action towards this meaning.

Reflecting on values generates insight of one’s influences and biases, but also

recognition that values are dynamic. This reflection, which lies “at the heart of

the Values Shift” empowers us to consciously pick our values, thereby enabling

us to “choose a new set of futures” (Hall, 1994, p.14). As the search for meaning

has become increasingly complicated in contemporary life, it becomes all the

more imperative that SOK enables the uninhibited expression of ideas and

supports learners in channelling their sentiments into meaningful experiences

and transformative action.

Praxis: Theory and Practice

Knowledge content and the inculcation of values are of minor relevance in the

absence of relevant skills, capacity and disposition to bring forth change

through concrete action. Indeed, “’criticality’ requires that one be moved to do

something” (Burbules and Berk, 1999, p.46).

In banking education, curriculum content and learning is often ‘deliberately’

extracted from real-life leading to a “gap in kind…between…experience

and…course of study” (Dewey, 1916, p. 11). A progressive pedagogical

potential of SOK resides in its integration of “different elements of the learning

experience” (Hughes, Munoz and Tanner, 2015) through the amalgamation of

knowledge, skills and values. By connecting learning with real life situations,

such as through the SOK project, experiential learning makes knowledge

significant and relevant. The more that the gap between the classroom and the

community is narrowed, the higher the relevance and contextualisation of the

field of enquiry to real life. Apart from its civic action, the voluntary work

experience of the SOK project helps to reconcile thought and action whereby

links are established between academic and theoretical understanding and

hands-on proactive action (Gravina, 2003).

Through the journal entries of the project, learners are expected to describe

their experiences but also to reflect critically on what has been learnt and what

could be done better. This reflective praxis “through the authentic union of

action and reflection” (Freire 1970a, p.48) complements experiental knowledge,

as learners become more actively engaged in the learning process and use their

knowledge and skills to solve real-life problems. However, whilst most projects

provide a good descriptive overview of the activities carried out, in general

they tend to fare low in terms of reflective analysis and present a very

superficial introspection of the learning experience. Moreover, this reflective

analysis is rarely linked to the theoretical knowledge-base of the syllabus or

examined in terms of ethical values and principles. It also tends to be limited

in terms of presenting critique for progressive social change.

Despite the benefits accrued from the project experience, it remains the case

that a significant proportion of initiatives are carried out within mainstream

entities and organisations which learners would be already familiar with, thus

limiting conversance with alternative viewpoints outside the mainstream and

comfort zone. For example, the choice of project experience remains

significantly gendered, with boys mainly taking on football coaching whilst

girls engaging within the sphere of childcare services.

For reaping the full benefits of the project experience, it is thus pivotal that

effort is made to encourage uptake of experiences outside mainstream

organisations and the pursuance of novel enterprises. A good practice example

in this regard was the Junior College’s decision to proscribe ‘voluntary’ work

with partisan student organisations as well as with private profit-based entities

and to encourage uptake with organisations which the students are not already

affiliate in.

SOK: A failed revolutionary pedagogy?

SOK thus upholds various attributes of progressive education protractivism

• by engaging interdisciplinarity, critical thinking and problem-solving,

appreciation of values, and ‘learning by doing’ through praxis. It emphasises

that:

An exemplary citizen is made, not born…. Just as we learn mathematics

and languages, we should also become specialists in those lessons that are

fundamental to living in harmony and social progress such as respect,

empathy, equality, solidarity and critical thinking. Without these and

other ethical principles that define us as human beings, it will be difficult

for us to build a better world (UNDP, 2020, paras 14-15).

But is this revolutionary potential being reached? Is SOK education, the

practice of freedom or the practice of domination? Does it contribute to

people’s subservience to repressive and oppressive structures or does it

empower them to strive for humanization and social justice? Despite its

restricted scope, an examination of the outcome of the subject’s assessment

should help to shed light on these questions.

The assessment of SOK comprises two main components; a written paper

which carries 60% of the total mark with a remaining 40% of marks allocated

to the project. The written examination is based on a three-hour paper assessing

each of the four modules through essay type questions, whereby candidates

need to respond to one question from each of the modules with each question

carrying equal marks. For each module, students are granted a choice of 2

questions. Candidates are enabled to respond in either Maltese or English to

facilitate language command and proficiency.

The questions focus on main areas addressed in the SOK syllabus and often

relate to current issues of national or global concern. Thus, it is expected that

candidates apply their theoretical knowledge to real life situations. Questions

are very topical, demanding little in terms of learning knowledge by heart.

Candidates are often asked to corroborate answers through relevant historical

or current real-life examples to demonstrate applicability. Whilst examining

both the advantages and disadvantages of a given issue, candidates are also

encouraged not to shy away from their personal positioning and stance on the

subject. Though expecting demonstration of tangible basal content knowledge,

the marking scheme adopted generally enables wide interpretation of the

topics concerned. Indeed, as originally set out, “guidelines are provided rather

than exact prescriptions, since what is being examined is more the “candidates’

ability to grasp, and experiment with, ideas and principles and not simply their

capacity for memorizing facts” (Heywood and Serracino Ingott, 1987, p.181).

Table 1: Distribution of SOK MATSEC Examination Grades (2006-2023)

YEAR

/GRADE

A B C D E F

2006 1.6 19.9 50.8 7.6 1.3 18.4

2007 2.6 16.9 50.4 6.8 0.5 21.8

2008 2.2 16.3 50.9 4.9 1.4 22.9

2009 2.3 17.0 51.5 10.0 1.2 17.5

2010 2.2 14.7 35.1 18.0 12.0 17.7

2011 2.3 15.8 36.6 18.4 11.8 14.5

2012 3.33 16.3 36.2 17.8 11.0 15.2

2013 3.8 14.0 36.4 18.5 11.3 15.2

2014 3.7 15.9 36.6 18.0 9.4 15.0

2015 4.2 17.2 35.2 17.7 15.1 8.1

2016 8.2 16.5 35.5 18.4 4.0 15.7

2017 No

report 2018 No

report 2019 4.3 11.9 33.8 10.1 7.1 18.7

2020 4.0 9.5 32.6 19.6 4.5 23.0

2021 No

report 2022 5.7 13.1 34.1 20.7 3.8 15.6

2023 6.0 16.1 34.7 17.0 5.7 12.2

2024 6.3 15.8 33.9 16.4 8.1 11.6

Yet, a review of the Board of Examiners’ reports for SOK from 2006 to 2024

excluding the years 2017, 2018, and 2021 due to the absence of publicly

available reports shows that, in general, candidates are not faring

exceptionally well in this realm. The very large percentage of examination

marks fell in the C grade bracket, standing at an average of 39.0%. The average

F rate is that of 16.4%, ranging from as low as 8.1% in 2015 to as high as 23.0%

in 2020, significantly higher than the average A grades obtained, which stood

at 3.9%, ranging from a low 1.6 in 2006 to a high 8.2% in 2016. Please refer to

Table and Figure 1: Distribution of SOK MATSEC Examination Grades (2006

2024).

Apart from limited content knowledge, many of the responses lack a logical

and structured approach, demonstrated insufficient use and understanding of

relevant terminology and do not offer elaborate and detailed answers. Many

essays demonstrated poor command of grammar and writing style and

deficiencies in the effective expression and communication in both Maltese and

English.

The SOK Board of Examiners’ report for 1989 decreed that the examination

results reflected fragmented and limited contextual application of knowledge,

as “quite a few candidates gave completely irrelevant answers, compulsively

regurgitating notes” (as cited in Giordmaina, 1999, p.10). Citing the 1992

examiners’ report, it again transpires that candidates seem to “expect to pass

this examination with the least effort, almost completely disregarding the set

syllabus and simply answering questions from their often-limited background

of general knowledge” (as cited in Giordmaina, 1999, p.13). This same trend is

sustained across the years as ensuing reports call for “stronger argumentative,

critical and analytical skills” (MATSEC, 2006, p.8) highlighting not only the

superficial knowledge of course content and memorisation work but also “the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2019 2020 2022 2023 2024

Distribution of SOK MATSEC Examination Grades

A B C D E F

tendency to “play it safe” and stick to the set texts and lecture notes” (MATSEC,

2006, p.9), the “limited thinking outside the box” and avoidance of

“controversial or less well publicly discussed issues” (MATSEC, 2013, p.6).

Moreover, giving “more importance to the problem than to the solution,”

responses often lack the relevant use of examples to substantiate their answers

(MATSEC, 2013, p.5).

Recent reports (for 2022 and 2023) sustain this same critique, as in terms of

content, most exam essays exhibited “lack of general knowledge” (MATSEC,

2022, p.2-3), were “short or inaccurate” (MATSEC, 2023, p.3) and based on

“information presented directly in class and in textbooks” and “the

memorisation of model answers”, with responses made to “fit at all costs” with

these archetypes. (MATSEC, 2022, p.2-3). Indeed, many essays “did not relate

to the specific demands” nor “meet the requirements of the question” ending

up “out of point” (MATSEC, 2023, p.2-4).

Responses also demonstrate “compartmentalisation of knowledge” (MATSEC,

2022, p7-8), with limited “critical analysis and appraisal” and “application

of…knowledge to real life situations” (MATSEC, 2022, p.2-3). This ineptness to

relate to the factual is revealed in difficulties shown “when giving relevant

examples” (MATSEC, 2023, p.2) since many made no mention or “gave

irrelevant examples” (MATSEC, 2023, p.3). Moreover, most essays

demonstrate “an inability to apply theoretical knowledge to current affairs,”

(MATSEC, 2022, p7-8) offering “a weak and superficial discussion of possible

measures that can be taken at national level” (MATSEC, 2023, p.3) to respond

to contemporary challenges.

The project component was also subject to much the same critique, as in general

submitted coursework “did not contain enough interdisciplinary

understanding or evaluation” and demonstrated “lack of critical analysis and

reflection”. Moreover, most coursework lacked “logical and thought-out

claims” connecting theory and practice, presented limited attention to values,

and demonstrated inadequate distinction between skills or attributes and

values within the political, social, ethical or cultural realms. In addition,

coursework was lacking in relevant citations and lack of discrimination in the

validity of sources of information (MATSEC, 2022, p. 2).

Thus, it may be stated that despite its progressive pedagogical potential, the

desired aims and objectives of SOK are not being fully reached, with learners

demonstrating limited aptitude and competency in interdisciplinarity, critical

thinking and the appreciation of values and praxisessentially “the very nature

and aims of the subject” (MATSEC, 2022, p.78 ).

SOK: To discard or reform?

Despite its various outstanding challenges, SOK offers a number of

opportunities for radical praxis. Masked by intangible long-term ripple effects,

such positive outputs are however difficult to qualify and quantify unlike the

limited analysis of examination marks and other quantitative performance

indicators.

A noble subject in terms of content but also pedagogy, SOK attempts to provide

synergy between theory and praxis. Yet, its compulsorily tuition within the

formal academic establishment compromises this potential as through

indoctrination it is recast “not only into something dead but also unreal”

(Gravina, 2003, p.26).

Various proposals and recommendations have been put forward to address

these limitations and challenges; from leaving things as they are, disposing of

SOK altogether, making it an optional instead of compulsory subject, offering

elective units instead of preset modules, to various calls for the reform and

revamp of its content, mode of delivery and assessment method.

Disposing of SOK as a compulsory integral requirement of the MATSEC

certificate would defy its original purpose; that of ensuring that irrespective of

their pursued area of studies, each learner at post-secondary level would have

a basic understanding of different disciplines and appreciation of

interdisciplinarity. Yet, reform of SOK is pivotal for accomplishing its aspired

objectives.

It has been proposed that to truly reach its goals, SOK should be removed as

an examination assessed subject. However, within a credential system, this

may result in students allocating more time and resources to assessed subjects

to the further detriment of SOK and what it stands for. While any ‘meaningful’

assessment proves challenging (Heywood and Serracino Inglott, 1987, p.181),

the current examination practice of a written examination (apart from the

project component) at the end of the course could be re-examined to enable

continuous assessment on different components of the course; including the

adoption of soft skills.

Due to its varied and wide remit of study, SOK tends to invariably be “on the

verge of losing focus” (Gravina, 2003, p.17). While this focus is to some extent

negotiated through an underlying historical analysis, this could be better

achieved through a more profound analytical reflection which contributes

towards the appreciation of commonalities. This endeavour constitutes an

essential preliminary step towards the development of a unified

interdisciplinary programme of studies (Gravina, 2003). As the challenges of

interdisciplinarity demand ‘ingenuity’ and ‘creativity’ (Broido 1979), it is

worthwhile reviewing existing syllabi, teaching and examination methods

which fully provoke this interdisciplinarity, including the feasibility of

introducing specific programmes of study in interdisciplinarity for SOK

educators.

Whilst addressing a wide range of topics, SOK also endorses varied issues

which uphold overarching relevance across all areas of study. Better

integration of the different modules through highlighting cross-cutting issues

could help to further bridge between entrenched disciplinary silos. This could

for example be addressed through the adoption of a wider and more in-depth

historical or value-based approach or any other effectual method which

addresses core notions of SOK (Gravina, 2003) in a complementary and

cohesive manner. For example, through adopting a historical analysis as an

underlying cross-cutting issue, one can come to better appreciation of how for

example a particular historical epoch and philosophies of thought such as the

Renaissance and Enlightenment led to huge parallel developments and

innovations in governance mechanisms, artistic expression and scientific

discoveries and innovations. By examining how different values intersect

across different areas one could come to better understanding and appreciation

of the transferability of values. Indeed, interdisciplinary approaches are the

most effective approach for the tuition of values (Gravina, 2003). Similarly, by

exploring research design and methodological philosophies, processes and

frameworks and the relevance of ethical research, learners are enabled to

transfer this knowledge to different research pursuits.

The symbolic importance of the subject needs to be pragmatically

acknowledged through the allotment of additional time-slots per week,

possibly in the form of seminar-based sessions, tutorials and activities which

extend beyond the standard lecture schedule. Given that ‘time-spent’ does not

necessary correspond to ‘time-engaged’ (Renzulli, 20 09, p.4), SOK pedadogy

could be enhanced through complementing lecture-based lessons with more

informal activities, and engaging and interactive sessions such as quizzes, role

plays, debates and discussions, visits and outings. Each module could have a

practical component. The art module could be accompanied by the creation of

artworks and/or visits to artistic exhibitions, and the environment module

through visits to nature reserves, recycling plants and initiatives which

embody action through praxis such as tree planting and beach cleaning

activities, and why not, environmental protests and demonstrations. The

scientific module could be brought to life through for example, the conduction

of participatory action research, which encourages community engagement in

the identification of problems and solutions.

Renzulli and Reis (2009) argue for an education which sustains the acquisition

of high-end learning skills, such as the ability to amongst others, plan tasks,

consider alternatives, identify patterns and relations, ask relevant and

meaningful questions, present explanations and arguments, identify

discrepancies and biases, apply theoretical knowledge, draw conclusions and

predict outcomes, and creatively resolve problems through innovative

solutions. Relevant high-end learning skills also depend on mastering effective

communication, collaborative teamwork, and active engagement in the act of

learning. Such reforms demand acknowledgement that one should “cease

conceiving of education as mere preparation for later life, and make it the full

meaning of the present life” (Dewey 1916, 239).

Student diversity characterised by divergent experiences and backgrounds,

impact levels of interest and motivation in the subject but also shape the

learning experience (Gravina, 2003). Such personal experiences and

circumstances make the learning process unique. Yet, the type of learning that

often occurs in the classroom is a one-size fits all approach. The use of multiple

pedagogies, self-led learning and design of classes “based on student capacity”

(Uddin, 2019, p.115) combined with practical sessions should help to embrace

student diversity and make SOK more inclusive, interesting and relevant to

learners’ realities.

Many of the topics addressed in SOK are framed around local and global

realities that young learners ‘are’, ‘should be’ or ‘are expected to be’ passionate

about; climate change, equality, and technology to name a few. Yet, education

is often designed and delivered in such a way that is cut off from the learners’

point of view and their construction of reality (Kincheloe, 1993). Education

policy has tended to be developed and imposed through a top-down approach

without adequate stakeholder involvement (Atkin, 1996). It is thus imperative

that any reform in curriculum content and delivery should consider the views

of young people themselves to make learning relevant since “more often than

not, they know best” (Gatt, 2018, p.305).

If current approaches and practices have proved wanting, “perhaps it is time

to examine a counter-intuitive approach based on a pedagogy that is the polar

opposite of the pedagogy that Pavlov used to train his dogs!” (Renzulli, 20 09,

p.5). Yet, low achievement is often counteracted by a more didactic “’drill and

kill’ approach to learning; an approach that has turned many of our schools

into joyless places that promote mind numbing boredom, lack of

genuine…engagement, absenteeism, increased dropout rates, and the other

byproducts of over dependence on mechanized learning” (Renzulli, 2009 , p.3

4 ). Engagement as “the infectious enthusiasm that students display when

working on something that is of personal interest” (Renzulli 20 09 , p.6) needs

to underpin SOK reform. Empirical work on the impact of student engagement

is unequivocal; high levels of engagement result in more favorable disposition

toward learning and higher levels of achievement (Renzulli, 20 09).

SOK needs to be transformed through motivational experiences that promote

enjoyment, engagement, and enthusiasm for learning, as is generally

experienced in informal and non-formal educational activities where learners

have a choice in the type of engagement along other likeminded people. As

argued Renzulli (20 09 , p.8):

How many unengaged students have you seen on the school newspaper

staff, the basketball team, the chess club, the debate team, or the concert

choir?…The engagement that results from these kinds of experiences

exemplifies the best way to approach learning, one that differs completely

from the behaviorist theory that guides so much of prescriptive and

remedial education.

In this regard, reflecting on her practitioner’s research in SOK, Gatt (2018)

argues that that even simple little efforts can make significant differences in

heightening learners’ interest and engagement. Though it is difficult to change

habits and patterns and “it will not be easy to turn around a school system”

embedded “in one particular brand of learning,…the powerful influence of the

textbook…a prescriptive curriculum and standardized test-driven

approaches” (Renzulli, 2009 , p.13), it is through engaging approaches that

learners can be challenged “to ‘stretch’ above their current comfort level”

(Renzulli, 2009 , p.6) and seek new terrain.

SOK upholds a huge potential to liberate learners from the indoctrination of

the classroom. This needs to take place within wider reforms of the education

system. One cannot expect a life-time of banking education to be shed away on

following SOK, as learners are often already too stuck in the normative

experience of the classroom. Through its revolutionary pedagogy, SOK carries

the potential to be a truly liberating experience acting as a good practice

example for wider reforms in education. Yet, while “it takes courage to admit

a need for change: it takes more to act upon it” (Gatt, 2018, p.302).

SOK: An overt anti-capitalist agenda?

As capitalism has taken over the values of democracy and active citizenship

through individualism and competition, the natural environment ruthlessly

destroyed through urbanisation and overdevelopment, art and culture

commodified with aesthetics prized according to its popularity, and the ethics

and neutrality of science and technology flexed according to its profitability,

SOK cannot remain an ‘apolitical’ political subject.

As the nature of oppression has become one where we have become slaves to

capital, learners have become:

commodities acquiring a marketable value on the one hand and consumers

of services on the other. Likewise, academic staff become less valued for

their qualities as educationalists vested with a responsibility to nurture

inquisitive critical thinkers, but increasingly as ‘service providers.

(Cowden and Singh, 2015, p.17-18)

In an increasingly credential society, education is being progressively

downgraded into a private commodity and personal investment with

educational institutions primarily targeted at promoting skills for

employability rather than a tool for the public good. The progressive

differentiation of the labour market also calls for greater specialization which

in turn leads to a tapered curriculum, contrary to the embracement of a more

expansive view of education which prepares learners for life through the

transferability of skills and competences. Yet, as the labour market also

becomes more fluid and more insecure and uncertain (Kalleberg, 2019),

adaptability and lifelong learning become increasingly significant.

The appreciation of ethical, political, aesthetic and scientific values serves as an

underlying integrative framework (Gravina, 2003), not only in terms of

knowledge content but also for inculcating ideological and moral capital

amongst learners from different area specialisations and diverse personal

circumstances and backgrounds. Yet, this appreciation is embedded within an

infrastructure which promotes a particular set of ethical, political, aesthetic and

scientific values. This overarching value dominated by neoliberalism indeed

shapes the value of studying SOK itselfits worth relegated to a pass mark in

a MATSEC exam and a certificate for entry to tertiary education, reinforcing

credentialism and corporatism.

As time becomes money and the value of education and knowledge becomes

transmuted into profits and personal investment for employability, SOK

attempts to present an alternative viewpoint. It continues to highlight the

values of democracy and active citizenship, the value of the natural

environment, and the value of unadulterated aesthetics and ethics in science.

It also proffers a protest against pre-set banking education and commodified

learning. Yet, by operating within the ‘value-free’ yet political context of formal

education, it continues to perpetrate existing systems of oppression and

domination. It is thus high time to acknowledge and appropriate the political

nature and ideological ramifications of SOK.

This demands a cultural revolution, addressed at liberating people from the

oppression and domination of the alienating forces of neoliberal postmodern

society, the commodification of not only goods, services and knowledge, but

also the commodification and neoliberalism of values themselves, often

masked under the precept of relativism.

As critical thinking, values and skills have become subservient to capital, SOK

needs to take a direct and overt ideological stance by positing itself as a counter

challenge to the commmodification of knowledge and values through a

deconstruction of the capitalist agenda. Only can then SOK truly achieve its

progressive revolutionary potential.

Through ‘revolutionary pedagogy’ (McLaren, 2000), SOK can empower

learners “to govern rather than be governed” (Giroux, 1994, p.57). Radical

pedagogy entails re-examination of the role of educators as “impartial

facilitators” within a “value-free” setting (Giroux, 1981, p.80). Through

‘eduvism’ (education/activism) (Vella, 2023, p.35), educators need to overtly

align with the counter-hegemonic struggles of civil society (Gramsci, 1971)

with the aim of making the “pedagogical more political and the political more

pedagogical” (Giroux, 2004, p.209).

Various educators such as Wain (1991) have argued that SOK needs to be

initiated at an earlier age through the incorporation into the primary and

secondary school curriculum. In 1999, Giordmaina argued that; “this idea,

however, has not yet been translated into reality” (1999, p.12). We’re now in

2025 and this inculcation of values and citizenship education has still not fully

materialised. We’re still one of the most partisan and politically charged people

in Europe. Yet, we’re still discussing whether politics should be introduced as

a taught subject in our primary and secondary schools. In the meantime, the

privileged have become more privileged and the oppressed more oppressed in

the context of substantial economic growth, yet very little socio-political and

environmental advancement (Borg, 2017). So, is it a question of too little too

late? Or is it the case that in an inceasingly commodified system, SOK has

merely become another ‘critical’ ‘alternative’ pedagogy for the priviledged?

Another box to tick in terms of good governance and values education?

References

Atkin, J. (1996). From Values and Beliefs about Learning to Principles and Practice.

IARTV, Seminar Series No. 54. https://www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/

curriculum/tfel/tfel-resource-library/from_values_and_beliefs_about_

learning_to_principles_and_practice.pdf

Borg, C. (2017). ‘Reclaiming social Europe in the shadows of a global predatory

economy’, MEDAC Publications in Mediterranean IR and Diplomacy, Med Agenda –

Special Issue , pp. 17-30.

Broido, J. (1979). Interdisciplinarity, Reflections on Methodology. In J.J. Kockelmans

(Ed.). Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education (pp.244-304). Pennsylvania State

University.

Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations,

Differences, and Limits. In T.S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds). Critical Theories in

Education (pp.4565). Routledge.

Cowden, S., & Singh, G. (2015). Critical pedagogy: Critical thinking as a social practice.

In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 559-572).

Palgrave Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.

Macmillan

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1970a). Cultural Action for Freedom. Harvard Educational Review.

Gatt, S. (2018). Systems of Knowledge: strategies in challenging the current perceptions

through improvement of lecturing strategies. Symposia Melitensia, 14, 293305

Giordmaina, J. (1999). Systems of Knowledge: A Case Study of Curriculum Innovation

in Malta. Innodata Monographs, 3. International Bureau of Education, UNESCO.

http://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/108313/1/Giordmaina_J

oseph_Systems_of_knowledge_a_case_study_of_curriculum_innovation_in_M

alta.pdf

Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling. Temple University Press.

Gravina, J. (2003). Values in Systems of Knowledge 1: an introduction to the main themes of

the first year. P.E.G.

Hall, B. P. (1994). Values Shift: A guide to personal and organisational transformation. Twin

Lights Publishers, Inc.

Heywood, P & Serracino Inglott, P. (1987). Systems of Knowledge. HYPHEN, 5(4), 181

203. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/24382/1/

Systems%20of%20Knowledge.pdf

Hughes, P. C., Munoz, J. S., & Tanner, M. (Eds) (2015). Perspectives in Interdisciplinary

and Integrative Studies. Texas Tech University Press.

Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Amsterdam. (2024). The Benefits of

Interdisciplinary education .https://iis.uva.nl/en/degree-programmes-courses/

the-benefits-of-interdisciplinary-education/the-benefits-of-interdisciplinary

education.html

Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Towards a critical politics of teacher thinking mapping the postmodern.

Bergin & Garvey.

Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities.

University Press of Virginia.

Lakshmi, V. V., & Paul, M. M. (2018). Value education in educational institutions and

role of teachers in promoting the concept. International Journal of Educational

Science and Research , 8(4), 29-38.

Misiewicz, J. (2016). The benefits and challenges of interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary

Studies: A Connected Learning Approach. In R. DeRosa. Interdisciplinary Studies:

A Connected Learning Approach. (Chapter 28).

https://press.rebus.community/idsconnect/

Kapila, S., & Moher, R. (1995). Across disciplines: principles for interdisciplinary research.

International Development Research Centre, Ontario. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://idl-bnc

idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a733ad29-686b-44a0-8f3d

65a615f4d3b1/content

Kalleberg, A.L. (2019). Precarious Lives: Job Insecurity and Well-being in Rich Democracies.

Polity.

Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J.T. Klein & C.

Mitcham (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity , 15-30.

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H. (1997). Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies. In J. G. Gaff,

J. L. Ratcliff, & Associates (Eds.). Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum. A

Comprehensive Guide to Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change (pp. 393-415).

JosseyBass.

MATSEC. (2006). Systems of Knowledge Examiners’ Report: May Session 2006. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.um.edu.mt/m

edia/um/docs/directorates/matsec/researchandreports/examinersreports/i

m/2006/200620-20Examiners20Report20

20IM203220Systems20of20Knowledge.pdf

MATSEC. (2013). Systems of Knowledge Examiners’ Report: May Session 2013. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.um.edu.mt/m

edia/um/docs/directorates/matsec/researchandreports/examinersreports/i

m/2013/201320-20Examiners20Report20

20IM203220Systems20of20Knowledge.pdf

MATSEC. (2022). Systems of Knowledge Examiners’ Report: First Session 2022. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.um.edu.mt/m

edia/um/docs/directorates/matsec/researchandreports/examinersreports/i

m/2022/202220-20Examiners20Report20

20IM203220Systems20of20Knowledge.pdf

MATSEC. (2023). Systems of Knowledge Examiners’ Report: First Session 2023. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.um.edu.mt/m

edia/um/docs/directorates/matsec/researchandreports/examinersreports/i

m/2023/2023-ExaminersReport-IM32SystemsofKnowledge.pdf

MATSEC. (2024). Systems of Knowledge Syllabus 2024. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.um.edu.mt/m

edia/um/docs/directorates/matsec/syllabi/2024/im/Syllabus20

20IM203220Systems20of20Knowledge202024.pdf

McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paolo Freire and the Pedagogy of Revolution. Rowman

and Littlefield Publishers.

Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866184

Paul, R. (1990). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing

World. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

Renzulli, J. S. (2009). The Achievement Gap: Using Strength-based Pedagogy to Increase the

Achievement of All Students. The University of Connecticut. chrome

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.researchgate.n

et/profile/Joseph

Renzulli/publication/266353405_The_Achievement_Gap_Using_Strength

based_Pedagogy_to_Increase_the_Achievement_of_All_Students/links/550c4

8e20cf275261095bf45/The-Achievement-Gap-Using-Strength-based-Pedagogy

to-Increase-the-Achievement-of-All-Students.pdf

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2009). A technology-based application of the schoolwide

enrichment model and high-end learning theory. International handbook on

giftedness , 1203-1223.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education.

Routledge.

Uddin, M. S. (2019). Critical pedagogy and its implication in the classroom. Journal of

Underrepresented & Minority Progress , 3 (2), 109-119.

UNDP. (2020, February 10). National Youth ConferenceSession: SDGs and Youth.

Statements by the Resident Representative, UNDP Banglades.

https://www.undp.org/bangladesh/speeches/national-youth-conference

session-sdgs-and-youth

Vella, M.G. (2023). Art activism: Art of dissent. International Journal of Education through

Art (IJETA), 19(1), 1127.

Wain, K. ( 1991 ). The Maltese national curriculum: a critical evaluation. Mireva

Publications.