lembar - repository.uinjkt.ac.idrepository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789...hasil penilaian...
TRANSCRIPT
LEMBAR
HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW
KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL INTERNASIONAL BEREPUTASI
Judul Makalah : Exploring Materials Development of English Curriculum in Indonesia: A
Content Analysis Study
Penulis Makalah : Ratna Sari Dewi, Desi Nahartini, Dede Puji Setiono, Febria Afia Rahma,
Fahrurrozi, Apri Wahyudi
Status Pengusul : Penulis Pertama
Nama Pengusul : Ratna Sari Dewi
Identitas Jurnal : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Advanced Science And
Technology
Volume 29, No.6, Tahun 2020
: b. Nomor ISSN : 2207-6360
: c. Penerbit : Science and Engineering Research Support Society
: d. Tahun Terbit : 2020
: e. Jumlah Halaman : 1475 - 1482 ( 8 Halaman)
Kategori Publikasi Ilmiah √ Jurnal Internasional Bereputasi
(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi
Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :
Komponen Yang Dinilai
Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi Nilai Akhir yang
Diperoleh (Reviewer) Nilai
Maksimal
Nilai Pengusul
(FITK)
a) Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4 2.4
b) Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan
(30%)
12 7.2
c) Kecukupan dan kemutahiran data/informasi
dan metodologi (30%)
12 7.2
d) Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas penerbit
(30%)
12 7.2
Total 40 24
Catatan Penilaian Jurnal oleh Reviewer:
Jakarta, 26 Mei 2020
Reviewer 2,
Prof. Dr. Ir. Arita Marini, M.E
NIDN : 0025026804
Unit kerja : Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Negeri Jakarta
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1475
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
Exploring Materials Development of English Curriculum in Indonesia: A
Content Analysis Study
Ratna Sari Dewi1, Desi Nahartini2, Dede Puji Setiono3, Febria Afia Rahmah4, Fahrurrozi5,
Apri Wahyudi6 1,2,3,4FITK, UIN Syarif Hidayatulah Jakarta, Indonesia.
5,6FIP, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia.
Abstract
This study aims to know: 1) how English materials development is constructed within the latest two
curriculums in Indonesia, 2) how materials of English subject in senior high school are developed in
2006 and K13 in senior high school are in the two recent curriculums. This research employed a
qualitative approach by using content analysis method. The data obtained through questionnaire,
document analysis, and observation. This research’s findings showed that the development of ELT
Material Development in Indonesia from School-based Curriculum and 2013 Curriculum is not
followed by the changing of approaches used by teacher in classroom. Teachers tend to teach more
grammar and structure separately and explicitly out of their communicative competence. Teachers’
habitual and their previous experiences influence the way of their teaching. Therefore, the
government’s policy to certify teacher is very crucial in developing ELT syllabus and further for
providing ‘effective teaching’ as part of curriculum development.
Keywords: Curriculum, Material Development, SBC, 2013 Curriculum.
I. INTRODUCTION
Previous studies concerning in Curriculum issue has come to an understanding that
curriculum is defined as an educational program which states (a) the educational purpose of the
program, (b) the content, the teaching procedures and the learning experiences which will be
necessary to achieve this purpose, and (c) some means for assessing whether or not the educational
ends have been achieved (Fieman et al, 1988). Curriculum serves as the substance that gives the soul
to learning process. Curriculum should be primarily based on the consideration of promoting learners’
interest in identifying and developing their full potential. The term curriculum is used here to refer to
the overall plan or design for a subject and how the content for a Subject is transformed into a
blueprint for teaching and learning which enables the desired learning outcomes to be achieved
(Richard, 2013).
The planning of the curriculum itself should be set based on the students’ need. It is a fact that
students’ needs from era to era are slightly different. Hence, the changing of the curriculum as
periodically is a must. Then, materials of the instruction should follow the curriculum as it is the most
easily noticed as the mark of the changing (Anderson et al, 2010)In ELT curriculum context, firstly, it
should be agreed that language is not static. Principle of curriculum design is classification consists of
three principles including coherence, permanent change and innovation, and different approaches
integration (Johnson 1989). In addition, there are some principles that cannot be neglected in
designing curriculum; According to Brown (1995) these principles are divided into three groups,
namely:Content and sequencing, Format and presentation, and Monitoring and assessment.
In Indonesia, with reference to Act No. 20 of 2003 Article 19, verse 1, the curriculum means a
set of plans and settings about the objectives, contents and teaching materials, and methods used as
guidelines for organizing learning activities to achieve certain educational goals. Hence, the
curriculum can be interpreted as a document or a written plan regarding the quality of education that
must be possessed by the learners through a learning experience (Sugiharto, 2013). In the history of
Indonesia's education, national education curriculum has experienced many changes, namely in the
years 1947, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006 and the latest is 2013. In all of these
changing, Indonesian curriculum designed is based on the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.
In Indonesia context, the teaching of English is an interesting issue. Many changing of the
curriculum in Indonesia has been made. Several factors over the previous ten years triggered the
movement toward a decentralized and competency-based curriculum in Indonesia. The first factor was
related to the implementation of regional autonomy that took place at the end of the 1990s. It was
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1476
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
widely agreed that the curricula developed previously by the government were considered to have
many weaknesses as students were treated similarly across Indonesia despite the linguistic, cultural
and religious diversity and differing potential of individuals (Sanjaya, 2005; Suderadjat, 2004; Us &
Harmi, 2011; Utomo, 2005). The second factor driving this curriculum change was poor national and
international results in most curriculum areas. For example, the World Bank, cited in Sanjaya (2010),
reported that reading skills of year four students in Indonesia were the lowest of all the Asian
countries surveyed. The unsettled integrated curriculum in Indonesia also became the issues.
Considering the needs and the demands on the English material in every changing of the curriculum,
English material instruction logically also should be developed (Brown 1995). Unfortunately, the
changing of curriculum in Indonesia let say the two latest curriculums; school based curriculum 2006/
KTSP and curriculum 2013/ K13 didn’t clearly tell about the material development of English
Subject.
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The approach used in this study is a qualitative approach with the use of content analysis as
the method. The content is analyzed by using six principles of materials design specified by Nunan
and his theory about curriculum, the study intend to investigate each curriculum (KTSP and K13)
towards English Subject material. To support the theory of Nunan, the theory proposed by Tomlinson
also will be used. Tomlinson provides critical reviews of ELT materials currently being used around
the world and most of its chapters make reference to the principles and procedures of materials
development (Cunningswort, 1984). In addition, the data used in the study are the documents in
curriculums and some textbooks used for senior high school published by the Ministry of National
Education (MONE) of the Republic of Indonesia.
The instruments used in this study are documents analysis and interview sheets. The
document analysis sheet is made from Nunan and Jack C. Richard theory about Material Development
with some adaptations and modifications. Interview sheet will be constructed by considering
Tomlinson’s research findings about material development. The instruments will be previously
validated to check the construct validity and the reliability of the instruments.
The data is obtained by compiling the result of interview, and document analysis sheets. The
data is classified into several categories such as: Clarity of Materials, Group of Basic competency and
the context and relation among materials in specific language skill (Listening, reading, speaking and
writing) and the goals of competency.
The data is analyzed through coding process, clustering, specifying and interpreting of data
which have been collected. Each category is analyzed by the theory of material development specified
by Nunan and Jack C. Richard. It enables the researcher to identify the difficulty level of each
observed activity. This analysis is then be followed by cluster analysis in order to specify the material
development of English subject in each curriculum.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Basic distinctions between KTSP and K13
Before more detailed discussion on the material development of both curriculums, it would be
noteworthy to expose how teachers perceive the clear distinctions between both of them. According to
the results of the open questionnaire, the teachers generally point out same idea that the main
characteristic of School-based curriculum (KTSP) is the authority of the school to develop, design and
implement this curriculum based on the school’s contexts and potentials. Also, the aspects of
cognitive, psychomotoric and affective become the main focus in this curriculum. Nevertheless, only
is cognitive aspect clearly defined to be assessed in the curriculum.
Therefore, most teachers characterize KTSP as an emphasis on students’ cognitive or
knowledge aspect. In terms of teaching method, interestingly teachers indicate KTSP as teacher-
centred learning despite of the point thatinstructional methods chosen by teachers in KTSP are
recommended to be student-centered and involve various active learning methods (BSNP, 2006). This
is also restated as another characteristic of KTSP by Idi (2013) that a variety of approaches and
methods could be used with teacher not as the only source of learning, and the use of other learning
resources is strongly encouraged. The perception KTSP as teacher-centered learning among the
teachers could be possibly caused by the methods offered in the curriculum (namely exploration,
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1477
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
elaboration and confirmation) to be implemented in classroom as mentioned by some teachers in the
interview.
Unlike KTSP, for teachers, K13 states straightforwardly to use scientific approach in teaching
by operating 5M (Menanya (questioning), Mengumpulkan data (collecting data), Mengasosiasi
(associating), Menyimpulkan (making conclusion)). Furthermore, three teaching modelsare offered to
be implemented by the teachers at their school despite of any diversity in students’ level competence
and background. Those three models arediscovery learning, problem based learning and project based
learning. Indeed, this well-defined teaching approach and model lead teachers to characterize this
curriculum as student-center. In this curriculum, the graduate competency standard is clearly defined
as the criteria to be used by all schools. Besides, character education and the use of technology in
class are otherpoints to bear in teachers’ mind in planning the lesson and developing the material.
Last, even though the aspect of affective was previously discussed in KTSP, this curriculum provides
more comprehensible indicators in assessing this aspect during the learning with so called authentic
assessment.
Materials in the reference textbook of KTSP and K13
In the given the situation of some changes from KTSP to K13 above, six teachers find the
materials in reference textbooks to be generally same or have no significant difference. However, one
teacher considers the material in K13 reference textbook as a perfection of the textbook in the
previous curriculum. Nevertheless, with generally same materials, five teachers note some differences
such as reduction in certain materials, teaching method to be implemented, the use of High Order of
Thinking Skills (HOTS), an emphasis on character education, and the structure or order of the
materials.
Different from teachers above who consider the materials to be generally same, noticeably
thirty two teachers state several clear distinctions in both reference textbooks. In fact, some of them
underline the ones previously mentioned. The first clear distinction is the reduction of materials.
According to two teachers, reducing materials in the reference textbook of K13 matters and is clearly
distinct since they regard the omitted ones to be essential in learning. This reduction is closely related
to some changes made in the newer curriculum such as less time allocated for English subject in a
week (two hours per week) and less number of basic competences to achieve. Speaking of reduced
materials, a teacher thinks that KTSP has more balanced materials. As said by this teacher, the
reduction of materials impacts on unbalanced portions of the materials. Unfortunately no specific
examples provided for this matter. However, it can be implied from the response below that K13
provides one material, either the material of reading or listening more than another.
Second, the scope, theme or topic of the material is different as pointed by four teachers. Even
though no specific example is mentioned, the responses show that this happens due to the
classification of English subject as a core subject and an elective subject in the current curriculum.
Consequently, different topics of the material to teach in both classes are by some means different
such as text genres, expressions and grammar. Before, KTSP stressed the materials on text genres but
K13 provides more materials for expression and texts, and particularly English grammar in English as
an elective subject. In addition, different system of students’ classification in K13 for taking English
as a core and elective subject causes some changing in the structure or order of the materials. In this
case, three teachers point out the different target class for teaching certain material early. Regarding to
the difference on topics of the material, K13 designs the material thematically by taking into account
of four aspects; namely knowledge, skill, attitude and behavior. Further, it is not only thematic but
also integrated in terms of language skills; writing, speaking, reading and writing.
Third, in accordance with the results, the teaching methodology has clearly become the
biggest difference in the materials with the emphasis of scientific approach in teaching. This teaching
method covers material delivery, procedure and technique in teaching in order to build students’
understanding on the materials. Eight teachers share the same opinion about this matter. In material
delivery, K13 encouraged the teacher to deliver the material step by step using 5M as means of
suggested approach. Last, the importance of character building in K13 contributes to the changing
materials. This point of view is stated by two teachers. Related to the findings in the previous
paragraphs that the teaching method has become the major difference, students’ character is likely to
be built by the use of 5M questions regardless of the similarity of the materials with that in KTSP
reference textbook.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1478
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
The distinctions of materials in both curriculums
As previously discussed in this chapter that each curriculum has its own characteristics. KTSP
focuses on the assessments of affective, cognitive and psych motoric with the division of learning
activity in introduction, material and evaluation. Meanwhile, K13 concentrates on the character
building and national identity with the scientific approach implementation in teaching. By taking into
account of those differences, twenty one teachers view that the material is not different or generally
the same even though clear distinctions exist in terms of the teaching approach, method and
techniques in teaching, and an emphasis on students’ character building and21st century learning
skills (4C). In fact, regardless of the similarity of the materials, two teachers find the material of K13
more developed and completed by providing more examples than KTSP.
Unlike the teachers above, the other eight teachers are aware of the focus on 21st Century
Learning Skills and Scientific Approach in K13 as a clear difference in the material of both
curriculums. Thus, this is necessary for teachers to look for the material which is able to facilitate
students to be more creative and productive by providing factual material, practical examples, unlike
KTSP which provides more theories. Also, the material needs to be relevant with the teaching
procedures to be implemented with required certain quality of questions (HOTS). During the teaching,
teacher needs to make sure that the material makes possible to strengthen students’ character of
nationality, religiosity, mutual help (gotong-royong), caring, cooperation, confidence. Eventually, the
material should enable teachers to assess students’ behaviour and social skill, not only the knowledge
aspect.
Document Analysis Result
The discussion of documents analyses on the material development of both curricula was
referred to the six principles of material design by Nunan (2001). According to the data of the
document analyses gained by analyzing the lesson plans and the materials from both curricula (KTSP
and K13) given by the 20 selected teachers to their students, the results proved in the following:
a. Materials should be contextualized to the curriculum they serve.
The materials given by the teachers were contextualized to the curricula they are intended to
address. Since it is significant during the design stages that the goals of the curriculum, syllabus or
scheme within the designer’s institution are kept to the fore, all of the materials still followed the both
curricula. Evidently showed from the lesson plans and the materials, contextualizing materials to the
curriculum was assuredly among the initial considerations done by the teachers.
b. Materials should be authentic in terms of text and task.
Much space has been devoted in language teaching literature to debating the desirability of
using authentic materials in language teaching classrooms and indeed, to defining exactly what
constitutes genuine versus stimulated texts and tasks. It is such imperative for second language
learners to be regularly exposed in the classroom. In this case, the aim for authenticity in terms of
written and spoken texts and tasks presented to students was discussed.
A common tendency was to immediately think of written and oral materials such as
newspapers, magazines, video, newspaper, letter, or movie for the authentic materials. From the
documents analyses, it enlightened that 80% of the materials given by the teachers to the students in
terms of text were not authentic. The teachers developed the texts adapted from internet or English
textbook. The spoken and written texts were not the genuine ones either from newspapers or videos.
Meanwhile students need to hear, see and read the way native speakers communicate with each other
naturally.
Regarding to the authenticity in terms of the tasks which students are required to perform with
them, consideration of the types of real world tasks specific groups of learners commonly need to
perform will allow the teachers to generate materials where both the texts and the things learners are
required to do with them reflect the language and behaviors required of them in the world outside the
classroom. From the data, it proved that all tasks are not authentic. The teachers just developed the
tasks from the textbook and internet.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1479
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
c. Material should stimulate interaction.
According to the data, the teachers provided the materials which highly likely stimulated
interactions. Although most of the materials were not authentic, however, they were considered as
important. Some materials are applied in special circumstances of daily activity such as
congratulating, complimenting, expressing if conditionals, etc., some other materials can encourage
students to ask, to answer and to write because they might have their own different cases such as
asking about plans, writing application letter and analytical exposition text.
d. Material should allow learners to focus on formal aspect of language. According to the lesson plan and materials added by observations, the result showed that 70%
of the teachers lead the students to focus on formal aspect of language, the rests just focused on the
topic and examples. As stated that language teaching materials can tend to focus on one particular
skill in a somewhat unnatural manner. The teachers inserted the formal aspect of language in the
process of teaching and learning in the classroom. When the teachers found mistakes of formal aspect
of language on students’ work, the teachers explained it. It was such integrated language teaching.
Meanwhile the other teachers who just focused on the topic and examples are considered as
ineffective language teaching materials.
e. Material should encourage learners to develop learning skill and skills in learning.
In terms of this principle, the result showed that 70% of the teachers encouraged students to
develop their learning skills and strategies in learning. They provide the students with the confidence
to persist in their attempts to find solutions when they have initial difficulties in communicating, for
example, in teaching writing application letter, the teacher asked students to make mind map of the
information needed for application letter, another, in teaching if conditionals, the teacher asked
students to use correctly the types of if conditionals by recognizing the time of the events happening.
In addition, this can provide valuable opportunities for self-evaluation by providing the necessary
language and incorporating activities which encourage learners to assess their own learning and
language development.
f. Material should encourage learners to apply their developing language skills to the world
beyond the classroom.
Since the students would have different cases of each material, the materials given by the
teachers were considered that the materials encouraged students to apply their developing language
skills to the world beyond the classroom. The students would experience certain situations in different
cases in their daily activities and in the future. The materials prepare them to develop their skills.
The Result Analysis for Student Activity
Activeness Attention Team Work Responsibility Mean
Total 75 77 61 75 72
Mean 3,00 3,08 2,44 3,00 2,88
Result Good Good Enough Good Good
Based on the observation, it was good students’ activity, because of the total of the score
from all of the students was seventy five (75), with mean was three point zero (3.00) and it was
categorized as good students’ activity in the activeness aspect. From the twenty five students only
seven students who got score two and eleven students got score three, while in seven students got
high score in the active aspect. The descriptions were; being active giving the opinion, questioning,
doing the task well, and answering the question.
In the attention aspect, the researcher stated that it was categorized good students’ activity
because of the total of the score all of the students was seventy seven (77), with mean was three
point zero eight (3.08). Five students gave full the attention, seventeen students got score three and
two students who got score two because they did not pay attention clearly. As the consideration
were: paying attention the teacher’s explanation, showing the enthusiasm, interesting, and
happiness in the teaching learning process. Meanwhile in the team work it was categorized enough
because of the total of the score all the students was sixty one (61), with mean was two point forty
four (2.44). The description in the team work were; helping the other friends, appreciating the other
friends, having solidarity, and being active in group was the criteria for team work aspect. There
were twelve students who got score three and thirteen students got score two, there were no
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1480
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
students who got for both high and poor score.
The last was responsibility, the researcher stated that it was categorized as good because
the total of the score from all of the students was seventy five (75), with mean was three points
zero (3. 00). The student’s activity was important, there were four students who got high score
(four), eighteen students got score three and only three students who got score two because of their
lack of the responsibility. Based on the research students’ activity, the researcher observed the
students’ activity by seeing the activeness, the attention, team work and responsibility of the
students through visual, oral, listening activities was all the activities in the process of teaching
learning, students’ activity always related to the problem of learning; writing, making a note,
reading, remembering, exercising. In line with Hamalik (2001:172) classifies learning activity
were: visual activity, oral, listening, writing, drawing, motor, mental and emotional activity. It
could be proved by seeing that every groups, observed their picture given by teacher and they took
a note for the important thing from the picture. To increase their understanding, the teacher gave
them the exercises. They discussed very clearly and tried to associate all of their tasks.
The Result for Teacher Activity
According to the observation, the researcher stated that the teachers’ activity was
categorized good activity. In the pre-activity the teacher prepared clearly, so the researcher gave
high score (four) because she explained the basic competence to the students and motivate them,
related to the material with the previous material, she also tried to invite them to explain how to
learn with the picture, how to analyze and explain how to make a summary from the picture.
In the while-activity she taught them very good and clear by asking them to make a group
work, she had enthusiasm to guide them to solve what was in the picture. She gave motivation to
the students to learn in group work, to be active, pay attention, and be responsible in the group
work. In the post-activity, the teacher guided the students in order to make them can communicate
with their friends in the group work and she invited them to solve the problem (picture) together.
But in the time allocation she did not divide it clearly, in the teaching learning process they needed
more time to associate and to network their lesson clearly. She was successful to invite the students
to have enthusiasm in the teaching learning process.
The Result for Teaching Learning Process Analysis
Based on the observation, the researcher took notes in the teaching learning process, and it
was categorized very good teaching learning process. Because before the teacher came to the class,
she prepared the lesson plan very well but she did not create the objective soft he learning in her
less on plan although she delivered it orally and implemented in her teaching learning by
connecting the material to the previous material. She prepared the students physically and
psychologically before starting the teaching learning process in the class and also she prepared the
media to support the activity in the class such as hand book, picture, in focus, white board etc. But
she did not prepare the setting of the learning.
The material of the learning was suitable with the objectives of the learning, but in the
lesson plan the teacher did not deliver the objectives of the learning. During the teaching learning,
she walked around the students to check their understanding, asking them every group and she
gave the concentration to the students who got the difficulties. The teacher gave them the strength
and gave them the example clearly. The media was used very well and effective. The teacher
guided students during the teaching learning process. The teacher had the task to provide
knowledge, attitude, value and skills to the student during the teaching learning process. It could be
said that teacher was able to influence the teaching learning.
In the teaching learning process, the teacher motivated students in order to make them
interested in learning in the class. She explained the material of the learning by the group
discussion and based on the scientific approach systematically. The teacher suggested them to
observe the picture and encourage them to ask the question, and do the experiments. She invited
them to make conclusions and ask them to communicate in front of class, all the activities were
clearly.
The researcher found the teacher’s activity in teaching learning was categorized very good
teacher’ activity. In the teaching learning process there was an interaction between teacher and
student were; pre-teaching, while teaching and post teaching by following the observation
checklist from Depdikbud. It was supported by Sadiman (2000:98) divides into three stages; Pre
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1481
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
teaching, while- teaching and post-teaching. Based on this research the researcher found that, the
teacher implemented the all aspects of the teaching were; the teacher gave the motivations to the
students, explained the way to learn through the picture, guided students to learn and discuss with
their friends, gave exercises to the students in their group, evaluated the result of the group work,
guided students to present the group discussion and guided them to make a summary.
In line with Rusman (2012: 59) some teachers’ activities in the teaching learning process
are;, set the time allocation with respect to the learning process, give the motivations for the
students to grow a passion in learning, implement the discussion in the class, discussion is an
appropriate thing to create the students’ creative and productive, observe the students: teachers can
know the student who needs more exercise, provide oral and written information with a simple and
easy to understand by the students, give the problem, so that the students can solve the problem,
ask the questions and provide the responses and use the media/ property.
IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Based on the results of this research we concluded that: the first, the management process
applied learning is the learning of planning activities, implementation of learning activities, and
evaluation of learning activities.
The second, the constraints faced by the teachers' lesson plans are still not referring to the
Curriculum 2013; application of learning with a scientific approach by the teacher is not optimal;
teachers less than optimal in applying the learning model; and teachers are not optimal assess student
learning outcomes that cover three domains of learning, namely the attitude, knowledge and skills.
And the third, alternative solutions to resolve the problems faced is the need to make
mentoring to teachers on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 (which deals with lesson plans,
scientific approach, models of learning, and assessment of student learning outcomes) and conducting
lesson study club.
REFERENCES
1. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. 1988. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4): Using textbooks and
teachers’ guides: A dilemma forbeginning teachers and teacher educators.
2. Browns, J. D. (1995): The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program
development. Massachusets: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
3. Cohen, Louis, Laurence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2005. Research Methods in Education
(Fifth edition). USA: The Taylor Francis E-Library.
4. Cooker, L. 2008. Self-access materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning
materials: A critical review. London, UK: Continuum.
5. Cunnings Worth, A. 1984. Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching material. London, UK:
Heinemann
6. Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
7. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Anderson, N. J. 2010. A principled approach to content-based
materials development for reading. In N. Harwood (ed.). English language teaching materials:
Theory and practice ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
8. Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold
9. Hartoyo. 2011. The Indonesian Quarterly 21(1) : Curriculum Inquiry English Language
Education in Indonesia
10. Johnson, R. K. 1989. The Second language curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Nastaran Chegeni & Nasrin Chegeni, ELT Voices – India (Vol. 3 Issue 4) August 2013 Language
Curriculum Development and Importance of Needs Analysis
12. Nunan, D. 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson
& P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. London, UK: Longman
13. Peacock, M. (1997) The Effect of Authentic Materials on the Motivation of EFL Learners in
English Language Teaching Journal 51, pp 2
14. Richard J C, 2013, RLEC Journal 44 (1): Curriculum Approach in Language Teaching-Forward,
Central and Backward Design.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482
1482
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
15. Sugiharto, S. 2013. The Indonesian Quarterly 41(3): Rethinking Globalization, Reclaiming the
Local: A Post-Colonial Perspective of English Language Education in Indonesia.,
16. Wiggins G, Mc Tighe J, 2006, Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular
Development and Assessment. Alexandria: VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.