The Impact of Chartered KTSP and 2013 Curriculum: The teachers’ view among the Curriculum, Philosophy of Science.
The
Impact of Chartered KTSP and 2013 Curriculum: The teachers’ view among the
Curriculum
Dian Ardiansah
Ardhy079@gmail.com
Indonesia University of Education
Abstract: Curriculum as the foundation of
teaching and learning process covers subject matters and students’ learning
experience from inside and outside of school. In Indonesia, it has two
curriculums as guidelines for every school in conducting teaching and learning
process. There are; KTSP (2006-School based curriculum) and K-13 (2013
Curriculum). Both of curriculums have different approach, such as communicative
approach in SBC, and scientific approach in 2013 curriculum. This research is an endeavor to examine the
teachers’ perception of the impact of both curriculums in developing students’
characters, especially in teaching English language. The participants of the
study are two teachers at one of Islamic senior high school in Kawali-West
Java. The data collection was conducted through two ways, namely, open-ended
questionnaire and semi-structured interview. The collected data were analyzed by
using the data processing model by Miles & Huberman consisting of data
reduction, data display, and conclusion. The findings showed that the respondents
had similar and different perspective on the implementation of curriculums in teaching
activity.
Key
words: Curriculum, KTSP (School based Curriculum), and K-13 (2013 Curriculum).
1.
INTRODUCTION
The curriculum
in Indonesia has been changing and developing overtime. Indonesia has already
implemented ten curriculums known as: The 1950 curriculum, 1958, 1962,
1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006 (school based curriculum), and the current
curriculum known as 2013 curriculum. In Indonesia, it has two curriculums as
guidelines for every school in conducting teaching and learning process. There
are; KTSP (2006-School based
curriculum) and K-13 (2013 Curriculum).
The KTSP is designed in order that every school can develop the teaching and
learning process according to the student’s character and the situation of
school (Education Minister Regulation, 2006). Furthermore, K-13 is a form of integrated work
between reconstruction of passing grade competence, suitability and adequacy,
expansion, advancement of the materials, learning revolution and evaluation
reform (Decree
of Education Minister, 2012). In Indonesia itself, it has several schools which
still applying two curriculums in conducting teaching and learning programs (KTSP and Curriculum 2013), it means
that there has so many teachers in Indonesia who teach across two curriculums
in their teaching.
Moreover, in
developing of students’ proficiency, especially in English language learning
proficiency, the curriculum should appropriate with the unit of language
learning programs in ELT methodology. According to Sahiruddin (2013, p.2), he states that
Indonesian curricula always changed as refers to ELT methodologies and
curriculum needs.
In conducting teaching and learning process especially in
English teaching, Indonesia has been based on the curriculum which designed by
the central government throughout provision of curriculum policies. It
is similar to Richards and Platt (1993, p.94), they point out that curriculum
can be defined as an educational program based educational purpose of the
program, the content of teaching producers and learning experience which will
be necessary to achieve.
There
are some previous studies which investigating the implementation of curriculum
in Indonesia. They are Intasari (2013), Cai and Ni (2011), and Lunenburg
(2011). In addition, similarity to the three previous
studies, in this study the writer focuses on how the implementation of
curriculum in building students’ characteristics. More particularly, dissimilar
to those previous studies, this study only investigate teachers’ perception in
across curriculum in teaching English language.
In
addition, the government always revised the curriculum depend on the trend and
issues in education. Nevertheless, the implementation of curriculums which
changes the teacher style in teaching process is a main factor which determined
students’ goals and achieved in their learning (Olivia, 1992, p. 10). The views
of teaching method, students characteristic, and trend and issues in ELT
(English Language Teaching) additionally changed the valuable of teaching
philosophy towards the curriculum, and the influence of learning progression,
the existence of teaching method is also become the main points for the
government in order to improve the quality of curriculum itself.
Meanwhile,
both of curriculums agree that curriculum as one of teaching and learning guide
in order to emphasize students’ character in their daily activity such as: in
the school, home, and environment. In line with this issue, the writer
interested in what are the teachers’ views among Curriculum 2013 and School
Based Curriculum (KTSP) and what are the problems
faced by the teachers in emphasizing students’ character in learning English
language among Curriculum 2013 and KTSP in order to improve students’
proficiency in English language.
·
Research Question
1. What
are the teachers’ views among Curriculum 2013 and School Based Curriculum (KTSP)?
2.
What are the
problems faced by the teachers in emphasizing students’ character in learning
English language among Curriculum 2013 and KTSP?
2. REVIEW
OF LITERATURE
2.1.Curriculum
Curriculum in Indonesia
refers to a set of planning and organization of aim, content, and learning
material as the guidance to learning activity to achieve a particular
educational objective (Republic of Indonesia law: 2003). Richards (2001) as cited in Muth’im (2014) defines
curriculum as something that includes the processes that are used to determine
the needs of a group of learners, to develop aims or objectives for a program
to address those needs, to determine appropriate syllabus, course structure,
methods, and teaching materials, and to carry out an evaluation of the language
program that results from these processes.
In 2006, the government
launched a curriculum known as KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan
Pendidikan/School Based Curriculum). The KTSP is similar to the KBK, was
competency-based (Muhaimin et
al., 2008; Muslich, 2007 as cited in Sulfasyah (2013, p.3). However, under the
KTSP, schools were given more autonomy,
that is, they were not only responsible for developing their syllabus and learning materials but also for
developing an operational curriculum (Decree of Education Minister, 2006). This
operational curriculum
produced by each school was called the KTSP, meaning school-based curriculum.
Based on the Education
Regulation no. 20 in 2003, about national Education system, the curriculum
refers to the consisting of the plan and stages that are aimed to establish
national education goals. Meanwhile, KTSP is defined as an operational
curriculum that is arranged and done by the school and adapted to the
characteristics, conditions and potency of regency including the religion and
pupils needs which stated as follows:
1.
Curriculum
development is referring to the standard of national education in order to
create national of education purposes.
2.
Curriculum
in all levels is developing by diversifications principal which agree with
education unit, region potential and students’ characteristic.
In addition, in KTSP
(School based Curriculum), the main focus of this curriculum is in improving
students potential based on regional potential. Meanwhile, Kunandar (2007,
p.103) argued that KTSP is an operational curriculum that is arranged and
applied by each educational unit that reflects on knowledge, skills and
attitude so that it can increase the whole student‘s potency. Nevertheless, the
implementation of KTSP changes not only the, teacher‘s methods and strategies
in learning process but also the teacher‘s paradigm philosophy underlying the
concept, the teacher‘s perception, the students, the school and other
personnel‘s related to education system.
Unlike the previous
one, In the 2013 Curriculum, meanwhile, comprises four core competences (CC),
namely CC 1 for religious, CC 2 for social, CC 3 for knowledge, CC 4 for
knowledge applications (Basic competence in the 2013 Curriculum, 2013, p.7).
The main purpose of
this curriculum is to shape the individuals who are
faithful in God, good in characters, confident, successful in learning,
responsible citizens and positive contributors
to the civilization (Ministry of Education and Cultures, 2012). This framework
has been supported by Government
Regulations No. 32 (2013).
2.2.Related Studies
There
are some previous studies which investigating the implementation of curriculum
as a guidelines in teaching and learning programs. They are Intasari (2013) who
conducted her study in investigating teachers’ strategy in implementing English
curriculum in a junior high school. This study showed that curriculum in English course seems to champion the
integrated nature of communicative language teaching, which requires that all
linguistic skills be taught in an integrated way and proportionally. It means
that all aspect in Curriculum SBC (School-Based
Curriculum) is more appropriate in teaching English. Moreover, Cai
and Ni (2011) in their study found that a curriculum guided the teacher in
determine what methodology and theoretical which could gave to the students in
teaching process. Curriculum also gave an effect on the teaching and learning
process. Meanwhile, Lunenburg (2011) assumes that curriculum as a conception in
content,
learning experiences, behavioral objectives, plan for instruction, and nontechnical
approach in teaching and learning programs.
2.3.Concluding
Remarks
In addition, since KTSP and K-13 has a
differences in teaching approach, such as in KTSP they used a Communicative
approach and in K-13 used a Scientific approach (Ministry of Education (2006,
2012), in teaching English as a foreign language is considered as an integrated
of four skills namely listening, speaking, reading and writing. Blending of
those skills are supposed to make the students communicative. The teachers are
expected to know the approaches, methodology and techniques in teaching which
are suitable for their learners towards the curriculums, and the students are
expected to achieve certain competencies in order to communicate in oral and
written form in daily context.
3. METHOD
a. Research Design
Relevant to the writer
purpose and research questions, this study employed descriptive qualitative
design since this study focuses on which is the teachers’ perception among Curriculum
2013 and School based Curriculum (KTSP) in teaching English language. Hancock (2002, p. 2) argues that qualitative research is
concerned with developing explanations of social phenomena. Qualitative
research usually concerned with finding the answers to questions which begin
with why and how. Besides, multiple sources of evidence or triangulation
as discussed by Yin (2003), Miles and Huberman
(1994), and Malik & Hamied (2014)
become another features of this study approach. The use of triangulation was
also intended to maintain the credibility of the entire research.
b. Data
Collection
·
Respondents
The participants in
this study were two English teachers at
one of Islamic senior high schools in Kawali-West Java. The
reason for recruiting the two teachers as the participants was that they used two
curriculums (KTSP and K-13) as the guidelines for teaching and learning
program, and the school still applying two curriculums (KTSP and K-13) as the
guidelines in teaching programs. Therefore,
purposive sampling method as discussed by Fraenkel
et al, (2012), Creswell (2009), and Malik and Hamied (2014) are used to
select the respondent.
·
Instrumentations
and Procedure
To collect the data, the
concept of triangulation as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) as cited in
Malik and Hamied (2004) has been employed to obtain the data by using different
techniques. The data were obtained by using two techniques namely open ended
questionnaire and semi-structured interview. The questionnaires were delivered
to the teachers to collect the main data about their perspectives, and problems
regarding the curriculum movement in teaching English (KTSP and K-13). Then, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
the teachers to confirm the data gathered from questionnaire and to add the
other data that were not completely obtained by the questionnaire. During the
interview sessions, recording and note taking was conducted to collect the
important data. The interviews and questionnaires session was conducted in two
times, the first interview was conducted on Monday, 14th December
2015, and the second interview was conducted on Monday, 28th
December 2015.
c.
Data
Analysis
In collecting data, the procedural was
employed model by Miles and Huberman (1994) as cited in Malik and Hamied (2014)
which consisting of data
reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification. In data
reduction, the collected data were summarize, edits, by the objectively of
information. After that, the sorted data were displayed in the form of
narration as can be seen in the findings and discussion section. Finally, the
drawing and verifying conclusion was made based on the data analyzed during the
process of data analysis.
4.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section encompasses the result
regarding the research questions of this study which is transformed into the
statement as follow:
a. Teachers’ perception among Curriculum
2013 and School based Curriculum (KTSP)
From the obtained data, it was found
that all of the teachers had joined both of the curriculums (KTSP and 2013
Curriculum) in one of Islamic high school in Kawali. However, as the teachers,
they really understand about the implementation of both curriculums itself,
especially in how they implemented both curriculums in teaching English
language. The first respondent in this study called as (TR1) and the second
respondent called as (TR2), both respondents mentioned their ideology,
perception and their philosophical toward the curriculums based on their
experience in teaching. The obtained data about the statement are as follow.
TR1: Kurikulum itu panduan, tentang
bagaimana materi pembelajran, tujuan pembelajaran dan capaian pembelajaran
membawa siswa untuk bisa mencapai ketiga hal teresebut dengan tergantung kepada
keprofesionalan seorang guru dalam memandu siswa nya dengan berbagai tekhnik
dan metode dalam aktivitas pengajaran nya. Dan dalam hal ini, KTSP merupakan
sebuah panduan yang memberikan kebebasan kepada dalam hal pengajaran karena
metode dalam KTSP sangatlah banyak memberikan kesempatan kepada guru untuk
lebih banyak memberi dari pada menerima, yang berarti guru lebih banyak
aktivitas dalam pemberian materi daripada melihat siswa nya lebih aktiv. Lain
hal dengan Kurikulum 2013, guru hanya sebagai pembimbing dan fasilitator, yang
berarti memberikan kebebasan lebih kepada siswa, yang ditakutkan dalam
kurikulum 2013 adalah siswa di daerah ini tidak seperti di perkotaan, mereka
lebih banyak terlihat introvert dalam kelas dan extrovert ketika diluar kelas
karena yang saya rasakan siswa di daerah memiliki ketakutan tersendiri dalam ber
explorasi dalam mata pelajaran, terutama dalam pelajaran bahasa inggris. (Curriculum
is a guide, in how learning materials, learning purposes, and target learning
can guide the students in order to achieve the three aspects above. In this
case, professionalism of the teachers it is more important, the teachers can
use several techniques and methods in teaching and learning activity. In line
with this, School-Based Curriculum is an escort which gives more times for the
teachers to give than receive. It means, in SBC, the teacher more active in
giving material in class. It is different with 2013 curriculum, a teacher only
as facilitator in this curriculum. As we know, students villages is differ with
students in the city, almost of students in villages didn’t like in
exploration, they seem like introvert person, especially in English course, if
2013 curriculum wishes the students can explores their language skill such as
in speaking, reading, writing and listening, the villager students prefer to
quiet and sometimes they felt worried in English course).
TR2: Kurikulum merupakan bagian
terpenting yang menjadi pembawa arah lembaga pendidikan, dengan kata lain
kurikulum adalah sebuah jantung bagi dunia pendidikan yang membawa maju dan
mundurnya pendidikan didunia akademik ini. Di Indonesia sendiri ada dua
kurikulum sebagai landasan dan acuan bagi guru guru untuk mengembangkan
kompetensi, dan pengembagan karate peserta didik, yaitu kurikulum KTSP dan
kurikulum 2013. Dalam KTSP, pengembangan kompetensi lebih banyak di
mendengarkan dan menulis karena dalam kurikulum ini guru sebagai pemberi materi
dengan metode guru lebih banyak aktiv dan berbicara dalam penyampaian materi, berbeda
dengan kurikulum 2013 guru lebih banyak diam dan melihat aktivitas siswa yang
lebih dominan untuk meningkatkan segi karakter siswa itu sendiri, yang di
khawatirkan disini adalah kurang nya professional guru dalam menjadi pengajar
karena memberikan kebebasan lebih kepada siswa dikelas, tapi dalam peningkatan
kompetensi, kurikulum 2013 lebih bisa meningkatkan siswa dalam hal berbicara,
menelaah dan menyimpulkan materi karena tuntutan kurikulum 2013 ini lebih
banyak menuntut siswa lebih aktiv lagi. (Curriculum is one of
an important thing as a guide for education world, its mean that curriculum is
a heart of education, in Indonesia, it has two curriculums as a basic reference
for the teachers in developing students’ characters and knowledge, those are:
School-Based Curriculum and 2013 Curriculum. In curriculum of SBC, a basic
competence is emphasizes in listening and writing aspects. In curriculum of
SBC, the teachers only as facilitator in giving the materials, this curriculum
makes the teaching activity likes presentation, the teachers as a presenter and
the audience is their students. It is different with 2013 curriculum, the
activities of the students is more dominant than the teachers. But, the worried
thing in 2013 curriculum is that the students felt freedom in their activity to
explore everything, if the teacher is not professional, their students were
uncontrolled. But, 2013 curriculum can develop students’ characteristic, 2013
curriculum can improve students’ proficiency in English language, especially in
speaking, beaten out, and conclude the material, and this curriculum required
the students more active in class).
With
respect to the first and second respondents’ perception about the curriculums,
the writer in this study argues that curriculum is an important thing in
education, the teachers need curriculum in order to guide them in developing
students’ proficiency, students’ characteristic, students’ knowledge, and also
guide the teachers in developing of learning materials, learning strategy, and
target learning. The underlined of this perception is, that the teachers also
need to improve their professionalism in teaching. And the teachers also need
to understand well about the all characters and aspects in curriculum itself.
The writer perceptions is in line with Hamied (2014) who states that the Ministry of Education and Culture of the
Republic of Indonesia has been replaced the SBC with the 2013 curriculum, it
means that the current global challenges is required competencies. In addition,
in response of the implementation of this new curriculum, it is suggested for
all Indonesian teachers of all school subjects to understand the essence of
curriculum in general and especially to understand the 2013 curriculum
profoundly and comprehensively, and to continuously.
b.
Problems faced by the teachers in emphasizing
students’ character in learning English language among Curriculum 2013 and
School based Curriculum (KTSP)
TR1: Dalam hal
pengembangan karakter, kurikulum KTSP membatasi siswa untuk ber explorasi,
karena siswa ditutntut untuk lebih banyak mendengarkan ceramah dari guru dan
memahami segala aspek pembelajran atas apa yang disampaikan guru dalam kelas,
sehingga kemampuan siswa yang hanya diukur dalam hasil akhir (Ujian) sebenarnya
kurang effektiv dalam hal pengembangan karakter dan pengembangan kemampuan
siswa terutama dalam pelajran bahasa inggris yang membutuhkan latihan berbicara
langsung lebih banyak daripada mendengarkan guru. Untuk Kurrikulum 2013,
kesulitan yang dihadapi adalah dari siswa sendiri, setiap siswa memiliki
kemampuan yang berbeda beda dalam hal bagaimana mereka ber exploarasi atau ber
expresi didalam kelas, sehingga hal ini menyulitkan guru untuk menerapkan
pembelajaran berbasis siswa aktiv, selain itu kurikulum 2013 menuntut guru
untuk bisa menggunakan tekhnologi dalam pembelajaran, sedangkan untuk
tekhnologi dan penguasaan nya tidak merata semua guru bisa, terutama guru guru
di daerah dan guru guru senior. (In
emphasizing students’ character, SBC bounded the students to explore all things
in education, SBC only requires the students to pay more attention to the
teachers and tried to comprehensible all material aspects depend on what they
heard in their learning. And the teachers only assessing the students by final
examination, and actually this method is ineffective in developing students’
character, especially in developing students’ proficiency in English language
which need more in practices, such as practice in speaking which need the
students to be talkative in class. Meanwhile, in 2013 curriculum, the teachers
found that students’ capability is different between one and another, some
students is talkative in class, but another student prefer to less communicated
in class. By this situation, the teachers felt difficult to applied learning
process based active classroom. Moreover, 2013 curriculum is required the
teachers to use technology in teaching and learning process, whereas almost of
teachers in villages didn’t like to use technology in teaching and learning
process, because they felt difficult in using some technology, especially for
an old teachers).
TR2: Dalam kurikulum
KTSP, guru dimudahkan dalam hal penilaian nya karena hanya menilai dari sisi
akhir (Ujian), tapi sangat kesulitan dalam mengembangkan karakter dan
pengembangan pengetahuan dan ketertarikan siswa dalam mata pelajaran terutama
dalam bahasa inggis. Berlainan dengan Kurikulum 2013, guru dituntut untuk
menilai bermacam macam kompetensi siswa, guru harus selalu melakukan observasi
untuk memantau perkembangan siswa, kesulitan yang di hadapi dalam kurikulum
2013 adalah guru membutuhkan banyak waktu untuk bisa melakukan observasi lebih
kepada siswa dan ini membutuhkan tenaga dan biyaya lebih untuk melakukannya,
sehingga kebanyakan guru kurang effektiv untuk melakukan observasi. (In SBC, teachers found their easier in assessment,
it because the teachers only assess the students only in final exam, but the
teachers also found several weaknesses in this curriculum, the teachers felt
difficult in developing students’ character, knowledge and students’
interesting to the materials or to the courses, especially to the English
course. It is different with 2013 curriculum, the teachers need to assess all
competencies aspect. It means that the teachers are required to observe
analyze, and monitor the students every day. The teacher also found the
difficulties in this curriculum, they argues that in conducting observation,
analyzes, and monitoring to the students, it takes a lot of times, and it also
need extra energy and extra costs, so that several teacher ineffective in
conducting their observation).
Regarding to the data interview above,
both of curriculum gives a positive value to education, communicative and
scientific approaches drives all learners to the target goals in their daily
learning. In line with this, the writer assumes that a successful learning can
be caused by some factors, such as internal and external factors. Fullan
(2006, p.3) says that theory or knowledge can be very powerful in informing
education change strategies and in turn, getting results, but only in the hands
of people who have a deep understanding of dynamics of how the factors in
question operate to get quality.
In this case, internal factor refers to the teachers’ professionalism such as:
teaching methods, technique and approaches, and external factor refers to the
classroom management (students).
c. Curriculums as guidelines in
teaching English language
TR1: Kurikulum adalah sebuah dasar dari
segala kegiatan yang akan dilakukan guru dalam hal pemberian materi, dan
pencapaian target yang diharapkan dari siswa siswa nya. Contoh seperti dalam
KTSP yang menggunakan pendekatan berbasis komunikatif dan di kurikulum 2013
menggunakan pendekatan scientific, kedua nya sama memberikan acuan dan batasan
untuk bagaimana guru bisa memeberikan materi sesuai dengan target capaian yang
diharapkan. Namun, kurikulum itu sendiri tidak akan berjalan baik ketika guru
yang mengampu mata pelajaran kurang professional dalam hal bagaimana mengajar,
baik dan buruknya suatu kurikulum bukan berdasarkan Standar Kompetensi,
Kompetensi Dasar, tapi bagaimana hasil capaian nya berhasil sesuai target yang
diinginkan, sekalipun kurikulum terus di ganti ganti seperti di Indonesia. (Curriculum
is a basic of all activities and teachers’ planning in conducting teaching
process, giving materials, and goal achievement that the students expected. For
example, in KTSP which used communicative approach, and 2013 curriculum which
used scientific approach, both of approaches are same in giving references and
constraint to the teachers in how they teaching based on goal target. However,
curriculum will not works well if the teachers itself is not professional in
teaching, good or bad the curriculums is not depend on standard competencies,
basic competencies, but in how a target achievements is work well based a
target goals itself, although the curriculums always change in every years like
in Indonesia, it will not effective if there is not a professional teachers who
can make the curriculum effective).
TR2: Kurikulum adalah jantung
pendidikan, dan guru adalah wadah untuk bagaimana capaian dan target
pembelajaran bisa tercapai, semua kurikulum baik itu KTSP atau Kurikulum 2013
memiliki tujuan yang sama yaitu meningkatkan kualitas pendidikan di Indonesia,
dalam hal ini guru yang professional lebih dibutuhkan daripada kurikulum yang
professional, sebaik apapun kurikulum tidak akan berjalan dengan baik ketika
guru yang menjadi wadah itu tidak professional, Profesionalitas dituntut lebih
daripada sekedar terus merevisi kurikulum dan mengganti nama namanya. (Curriculum
can be called as a heart in education, and a teacher is a planner in how a
target achievement and target learning achieved. All curriculums (SBC and 2013
Curriculum) have a same purpose, which is improving quality of education in
Indonesia. In line with this, a professional teachers is indispensable than
professional curriculum. Good curriculums will not effective if a planner is
not professional. Indonesia needs a professional teacher than a new curriculum).
With respect to the respondents, the
writer assumes that although new changes in curriculum have been brought in
with the aim of making positive effect in goals achievements, there is a lot
that needs to be done to make it work for the better of education when it comes
to teaching and learning. It relevant with National Education System, Law (No.
20/2003), who stated that the curriculum should reflect competency based education
which focuses on what the students are expected to achieve rather than on what
they are expected to learn. The main focuses from the data interview above,
that the professional teacher is more important than best curriculum.
5.
CONCLUSION
As
the completion of this research report
of the topic “The Impact of
Chartered KTSP and 2013 Curriculum: The teachers’ view among the Curriculum”, all of research questions of the study are clearly
answered. Two teachers who become the respondents of this study had the same
perspective about the impact of curriculums. Moreover, the teachers faced
several problems in implementing both of curriculums (KTSP and 2013 Curriculum)
in their teaching activity, especially in teaching English. The teachers felt
difficult to assess a big number of students with several domains in limited
creativity in their thinking. To cope with the problems, the teachers need to
get the comprehensive and sustainable training and workshop in implementing
both of curriculums (KTSP and 2013 Curriculum), so that, they can fully
understand and implement it.
With respect to the
findings, the main suggestion goes to the teachers and the government. The teacher can develop his methods and techniques
in the teaching and learning process and increase the students’ competencies
too. The successful of the implementation of Curriculum may rely on some
factors. These factors include a complete readiness of the teacher’s language
proficiency, the teacher’s language teaching, and the teacher’s ability to
media or tools in the teaching and learning process. If those factors are
fulfilled, the main goal of the implementation of curriculum which is to
develop students’ competencies will be achieved. Meanwhile, the government should not only change the curriculum
and assessment but also involve the teacher in the change (Hamm & Adams,
2009). It means that changed of curriculums is not a main point in this study,
but improving teachers’ professionally is more important than change the
curriculum.
REFERENCES
Cai, J. & Ni, Y. (2011). Investigating Curricular
Effect on The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics in a Cultural Context:
Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Education Research, 50 (2011), pp.65-70.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research
design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd
Ed.). London: SAGE publications.
Department of National Education. (2003)
Standard of Competence of English subject
for Senior High School and Madrasyah Alyah. Jakarta. Curriculum Center,
Balitbang: Department of National Education of Republic of Indonesia.
Education Ministerial Regulation (2006).
Standard of Content. Jakarta
Department of National Education of Republic of Indonesia.
Fullan, M. (2006). Change Theory: A Force
for School Improvement. Seminar Series
Paper: Genre for Strategic Education. No. 157. Victoria.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N.E., Hyun, H.
H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research
in education (8th Ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hamm, M. & Adams, D. (2009). Activating assessment for all students: Innovative activities, lesson
plans, and informative assessment. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Hamied,. F.A.
(2014). Curriculum Change: What does it mean to Indonesian TEFL? In Handoyo
Puji Widodo dan Nugrahaeny T. Zacharias (Eds). Recent Issues in English
Language Education: Challenges and Directions. Bandung: The Association of
Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN).
Hancock, B. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Nottingham University:
Trent Focus Research.
(KBK), 2006(KTSP), dan
Kurikulum 2013 [Curriculum Comparison :The 2004, (CBC), 2006 (SLC),
and 2013]. Retrieved from http://ayahalby.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/perbandingan-kurikulum-2004-kbk-2006-ktsp-dan-2013.pdf
Intansari, R. (2013). Teachers’ Strategy in
Implementing English Curriculum in A Junior High School in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
2(2), pp. 235-244.
Lunenburg, F.C. (2011). Theorizing About Curriculum:
Conceptions and Definitions. International
Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, 13(1), pp. 1-6.
Malik, R.S., & Hamied, F.A (2014). Researcher Methods: A Guide for First Time
Researcher. Bandung: UPI Press.
Ministry of Education and Culture.
(2012). Public Trial of the 2013
Curriculum. Jakarta. Department of National Education of Republic of
Indonesia.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013).
Basic Competence for Senior High School.
Jakarta. Department of National Education of Republic of Indonesia
Muth’im, A. (2014). Understanding and
Responding to The Change of Curriculum in The Context of Indonesia Education. American Journal of Education Research.
2(11), pp. 1094-1099.
Olivia, P.F. (1992) Developing the Curriculum (3rd ed). New York: Harper.
Republic of Indonesia law No. 20 year
2003 about Sistem Pendidikan Nasional (National Education System). Jakarta.
Department of National Education of Republic of Indonesia.SK-KD
Bahasa Inggris SMA (2006).
Retrieved from http://campuscemara.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/09-sk-kd-bahasa-inggris-sma.pdf.
Richards & Plat. (1993). Curriculum as Teaching Anvil and The Escort.
London: Longman.
Sahiruddin. (2013). The Implementation
of the 2013 Curriculum and the Issues of English Language Teaching and Learning
in Indonesia. The International Academic
Forum, pp. 567-547
Sulfasyah.(2013). Investigating the Implementation of the Indonesian KTSP (School-Based
Curriculum) in the Teaching of Writing in Year Two. PhD. Thesis: University of Edith Cowan.
The Board of Standards of National
Education (BSNP). 2006. Panduan Penyusunan Kurikulum Tingkat
Satuan Pendidikan Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: BSNP.
Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research design and method (3rd ed.). USA:
SAGE Publication, Inc.
Post a Comment for "The Impact of Chartered KTSP and 2013 Curriculum: The teachers’ view among the Curriculum, Philosophy of Science."