ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2013 ENGLISH CURRICULUM AND KTSP: DIFFICULTIES AND DIFFERENCES (A Case Study at one of the Senior High School in Margahayu)

ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2013 ENGLISH CURRICULUM AND KTSP: DIFFICULTIES AND DIFFERENCES

(A Case Study at one of the Senior High School in Margahayu)

Submitted to fulfill a Final Examination assignment of EFL Curriculum Analysis course

Under the Direction of Dr. Wachyu Sundayana, M.A.

Written by:

Rezki Firdaus

1407335

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

2016

Abstract

Curriculum has changed several times since 1968 which adopted the grammar translation method until 2013 which adopted scientific approach. The curriculum changed due to some reasons such as the needs of the learners that required new competences. The curriculum is changed to improve the quality of our education. Unfortunately, the changes of curriculum are not accompanied by the changes of the teachers. It happened in Indonesia, when the government changed curriculum from KTSP to the 2013 curriculum, then after 2 years due to some reasons the 2013 curriculum have to be replaced by KTSP. The teachers found many difficulties to implement the new curriculum caused by the lack of teachers‟ experience in teaching, lack of knowledge and understanding about the curriculum. In line with the issues, this study is aimed at identifying the teachers‟ perceptions on the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP which focus on difficulties and differences. The qualitative case study was used in this research. The data are collected from two teachers who teach English at one senior high school in Margahayu by conducting the interview. Then the data from the interview were analyzed by applying five steps; organizing the data, engaging the data, coding the data, representing the findings, and then interpreting the findings. The findings reveal that in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum, teachers faced some difficulties related to the subject material, the teaching learning process and the evaluation. There are three major point in the differences between the 2013 curriculum and KTSP; the subject material in 2013 curriculum is integrated, while in KTSP is not integrated; the approach that used in 2013 English curriculum is scientific approach, while KTSP is genre- based approach; the evaluation of affective domain in 2013 English curriculum is evaluated explicitly, while in KTSP is evaluated implicitly.

A.            Introduction

Curriculum in Indonesia has changed several times (Hamied, 2014). Since 1960s which adopted the grammar translation method, the curriculum in Indonesia developed in order to make learner master English. Then, in early 1968 curriculum had changed by adopting the audio lingual method. The audio lingual method survived about 9 years, until in 1984 curriculum changed again by adopting the communicative approach. In 1994, it still used communicative approach but with different label “meaning based curriculum” with focus on theme based. After 10 years, in 2004, learners were expected to know the literacy “discourse” so the curriculum changed again, though it still adopted the communicative approach, but it more focus on competence or product, so the 2004 curriculum were known as curriculum based competence or KBK in Bahasa (Agustien, 2014). Then, in 2006, learners were expected to understand the English text, the curriculum changed again in which the teaching process was used genre based approach, it was known as KTSP. After 7 years, in 2013, the government introduced a new curriculum in order to make learners ready to the global challenge (Hamied, 2014). It focused on emphasizing the affective domain where the learners’ attitude and character are expected explicitly stated in terms of competences across curriculum (Agustien, 2014). Though it still used communicative approach, but the 2013 curriculum seems force students to be autonomous learners, so the teaching process is adopted by using scientific approach.

In implementing the 2013 curriculum, teachers faced many difficulties. They cannot teach the learners used the recommended approach „scientific approach‟ due to many reasons, such as they joined the training of 2013 curriculum but they did not understand how to implement it since some of the teachers were comfortable with the previous curriculum by using genre based approach (Shofiya, 2014). Others thought that in 2013 curriculum, there is no practical guideline for the teacher to teach English following the scientific thinking pattern as what desired by the curriculum (Matra, 2014). Those reasons were supported by Agustien (2014), teachers had a lot of pressure in implementing 2013 curriculum, since the aim of English language teaching is to develop the ability to communicate in both spoken and written language, so they think that genre-based approach is the suitable method for teaching English. On the other hand, the government adopted new approach called a scientific approach. Here, teachers must teach all subjects or across the curriculum use scientific approach, which the target skill is science skills, not communication skills like in genre based approach.

Due to some reasons that many teachers cannot implement the 2013 curriculum, the government through the ministry of Education changed again the curriculum, back to School- based Curriculum or KTSP. Hence, the main purpose of this research is to investigate the teachers‟ perception toward KTSP and 2013 Curriculum in terms of approach they used in teaching learning process that focused on the difficulties and differences.

Research questions

There are three research questions in this study:

1.   What are the teachers’ perceptions on the difficulties in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum?

2.   What are the teachers’ perceptions on the differences in implementing curriculum between the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP?

3.   What are the teachers’ perceptions on curriculum changing from the 2013 English curriculum to KTSP?

The scope of the Research

This study focuses on the implementation 2013 curriculum and KTSP in terms of approach, the method that they used in teaching learning process. Then, what are being emphasized are the difficulties in implementing the 2013 curriculum and the differences between 2013 curriculum and KTSP.

Significance of the research

The result of the research is hoped to give benefits for teachers, the researcher, and the other researchers. For Teachers, through this research, the teacher will be able to increase their knowledge about the curriculum and able to implement it as required by the government. For researcher, through this study, the writer will be able to improve his knowledge in writing good paper, and to improve his knowledge in understanding the curriculum that can improve their knowledge in implementing the curriculum. Then, for other researchers, they can use the result of this research as a comparative study.

B.            Review of The Literature

Curriculum in Indonesia

Richards (2001) stated that curriculum is educational program which states: educational purpose of the program (ends/outcomes), the content, teaching procedures and learning experiences which will be necessary to achieve this purpose (means/process) and some means for assessing whether or not educational ends have been achieved (Vyas & Patel, 2009). Then, National system of Education Act Number 20/2003 stated that curriculum is a set of plans and arrangements covering educational goals, contents, learning material, and learning methods intended as the guidelines in implementing the teaching learning process to achieve the goals that have been set. Therefore, the role of curriculum in Indonesia is to improve the quality of education.

Since 1968, curriculum in Indonesia has changed several times. There are seven curriculums that have been implemented in Indonesia: 1) 1960s which adopted grammar translation method, 2) 1968-1975 which adopted the audio lingual method, 3) 1984 which adopted communicative approach, 4) 1994 which adopted communicative approach labeled meaning-based curriculum, 5) 2004 which adopted communicative approach label competence based curriculum, 6) 2006 which adopted genre based approach labeled school-based curriculum - KTSP, and 7) 2013 curriculum which adopted scientific approach (Hamied, 2014; Agustien, 2014; Matra, 2014). The curriculum is changing because of the situation at that time, it can be because of the social, economic, politic, or instructional which make the learners need and the goal of curriculum changed (Richards, 2001).

In 2004, the government introduced new curriculum called competence-based curriculum – KBK. the curriculum changed due to some reasons, there are: 1) learners have different potential and this potential will develop if they are given a suitable stimulus, 2) quality of education in Indonesia is still low and neglected the attitude, character, etc. 3) global competence requires competences; those who has competence will survive, while who has no competence will fail, 4) there is competition in SDM which is the product of  education, and 5) the competition is occurred in institutional of education (Mirzon, 2004). Then, after 2 years, in 2006, the government revised the KBK into new curriculum called KTSP. Theoretically, there is no big influence especially to English subject, since the goals of the curriculum is same as the KBK, but in KTSP, the schools were given an authority to develop their own syllabus based on the schools‟ vision and mission (Agustien, 2014). The teachers who usually became a user, changed become creator in making their own syllabus.

In 2013, the government introduced new curriculum. This curriculum emphasized the affective domain in Education (Agustien, 2014). The 2013 curriculum had to be introduced due to some reasons; the current global challenges, required competencies, current negative phenomena especially among young people, and discouraging perceptions among Indonesians regarding education (Hamied, 2014). Here, the stakeholders believed that it is important to introduce a new curriculum which also emphasizes the character building (Prisilya, 2014). Therefore, the 2013 curriculum adopted a scientific approach, that the government imposes that scientific approach is basically aimed at the ability to gain or develop new knowledge through science-based learning cycle in order to make them become autonomous learner.

What become controversy is that some teachers believe that English language teaching is more effective if we used the genre-based approach rather than using scientific approach. Since the aim of English teaching itself is that learners master the communication skills not the science skills. Though they believe that 2013 curriculum is the development of KTSP. Hamied (2014) illustrated some essential differences between 2013 curriculum and KTSP;

Table 1: Differences between the 2013 curriculum and KTSP (Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan, 2013)

KTSP	2013 Curriculum	Notes
A certain subject matter supports certain competencies	All subject matters support all competencies (attitude, skills, and knowledge)	All         layers      (primary and secondary)
A subject matter is designed on its own and has its own competencies	Each of the subject matters is designed to have relationship with other subjects with competencies bound together with core competencies of each grade	All layers
The Indonesian language is equal to any other subject matter	The Indonesian language supports all other subjects (attitudes and language skills)	Primary
Each subject matter is taught each with a different approach	All subject matters are to be taught using a science-based approach through observing, questioning, associating, experimenting, and networking	All layers
Each learning content area is separately taught (separate curriculum)	A range of learning content is integrated in teaching (integrated curriculum)	Primary
	Science content is integrated to stimulate other learning areas	Primary

School-based Curriculum (KTSP)

KTSP is the curriculum that is introduced in 2006 replacing KBK. This curriculum is a new strategy from government to develop our quality of education by creating a school which is effective, productive and creative. Therefore, 2006 curriculum was known as school-based curriculum. Here, the schools are given an authority to make their own syllabus. The government provided content standard, and Competence Standard for each subject, then the development of those aspects are carried out by the schools based on their needs and situations (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan, 2015).

In KTSP, especially for English subject, the aim of English language teaching is the students are able to use English written and spoken. The most influence is English written; here the students are expected to be able to read the textbook to gain the knowledge. Therefore, the English language teaching in KTSP used genre based approach. It is used in order to make students able to differentiate the type of text (Rachmawati & Madya, 2014).

Genre-based Approach

Genre based approach firstly develop in Australia and has been implemented in context SFL or EFL (Knapp & Watskin, 2005; Derewianka, 2003). In Indonesian context, Genre based approach is an approach that recommended to be used by the teacher in English language teaching. This approach is more effective and appropriate to the creation of the students‟ writing in term of communicative (Reppen, 2002), it is suitable to be used in Indonesia since the aim of English language teaching is concerned on a text-based.

There are two cycles and four main stages in genre based approach (Rothery, 1996 cited in (Emilia, 2010; Agustien H. I., 2006)). In the first cycle, the stages of GBA are: 1) building knowledge of the field (BKOF), 2) modeling of the text (MCOT), 3) Joint construction of the text (JCOT), and 4) independent construction of the text (ICOT). These stages are not linear process; these stages can be conducted several times based on the needs and situation of the teacher and learners (Thai, 2009; Emilia, 2010).

Agustien (2006) describe the stages of genre based approach as follows:

a.  In the first cycle, teachers start by conducting the Building Knowledge of the Field (BKOF) where teachers and students build cultural context, share experiences, discuss vocabulary, grammatical patterns and so on. They discussed the types of spoken texts and topics they are going to deal with at the second stage.

b.  Then, Modelling of Text (MOT) is conducted where students listen to statements of short functional texts, conversations, and monologues that are geared around a certain communicative purpose.

c.  Then, after listening, students enter the third stage called Joint Construction of Text (JCT). At this stage they try to develop spoken texts with their peers and with the help from the teachers. They can create different announcements, conversations on showing how to do things, monologues on how to make something and so on. They need to demonstrate their speaking ability and to show confidence to speak.

d.  After having the experience of collaborating with friends, they enter stage four called Independent Construction of Text (ICT). At this stage, students are expected to be able to speak spontaneously or to carry our monologues that are aimed at giving directions or showing ways to do things such as how to make a kite, how to make a paper cap, and so on. Thus, the first cycle integrates the development of speaking and listening skills.

e.  While, the second cycle is aimed at developing the ability to use written language.  The teachers and students go through all the four stages, but in MOT students are exposed to written texts.

Diagram 1: Cycles and Stages of Learning (Hammond et al. 1992:17)

The 2013 Curriculum

The 2013 curriculum is introduced by the government to develop the previous curriculum, KTSP. In this curriculum, the learners are expected to develop themselves as the well-behaved persons (Prisilya, 2014). The aim of 2013 curriculum is to prepare learners so that they have competence as a person and society who has faith, productive, creative, innovative and affective that can give contribute to our country (Permendikbud No 69, 2013). What makes different from KTSP, the concept in the teaching learning process teacher is not the only one source (Syahmadi, 2013). The teaching learning process more focus on students, known as student-centered approach. Here, the learners are expected to be more active in learning, or to be autonomous learners. That is the reason scientific approach is adopted in 2013 curriculum.

The 2013 curriculum explicitly claims that scientific approach is paramount to better the quality of teaching and learning. They believed that scientific approach can develop students‟ affection, skills, and knowledge. So, learning process should be done in a scientific process. Thus, how learning takes place should be scientific-based, meaning that all processes and steps of learning should reflect fixed procedures starting from observing, questioning, associating, experimenting, and networking (Suharyadi, 2013).

Scientific Approach

Scientific approach in 2013 curriculum is expected to be more effective in increasing students‟ learning outcomes than the traditional one (Suharyadi, 2013). Theoretically, there are seven stages in scientific approach proposed by Gerde, Schachter & Wasik (2013) cited in Agustien (2013), there are:

Table 2: Instructional Stages Adopting SA (Agustien H. I., 2014)

Stage	SA Method	Description	Target Domains
1	Observation	·  Opportunity for children to observe the world around them, to find things that intrigue them, and to start exploring phenomena. ·  Teachers help children by defining and describing what is being observed.	·  Scientific skills of observation, describing, and labeling ·  Oral language development
2	Generating a question	·  Based on children’s observations, create a question that they want to answer. ·  Teacher scaffold children’s language and help them take their ideas and make them into questions.	·  Scientific skills of generating a question ·  Oral language development ·  Vocabulary knowledge
3	Making predictions and arriving at a hypothesis	·  Children use their observation to make guesses about the answer to their question ·  Teachers help children use what they observed and background knowledge to make predictions about the answer	·  Scientific skills of predicting and verbalizing idea ·  Understanding of print knowledge ·  Oral language skill
4	Engaging in experimentation and testing	·  Engage in activities that allow for experiment and exploration in order to find answers to the question ·  Teachers arrange experiences that allow children to engage in learning about the research question	·  Scientific skills of observation. Charting, recording information ·  Literacy through writing and recording their observation ·  Language as they learn and use new vocabulary and report their observation and results to their peers
5	Summarizing and analyzing results to form conclusion	·  Pull together the different findings from the experimental phase to come up with results that answer the question ·  Reflection is a key part of this step where children return to what they hypothesized and compare it with what they have found ·  Teachers help students analyze their findings and put the ideas together into a summary statement	·  Science skills of summarizing results and drawing conclusions ·  Math skills of finding patterns, charting data and comparing ·  Oral language is developed as they explain idea
6	Communicating discoveries	·  Children share their findings with others ·  Teacher can provide various methods/media for children to tell others about what they learned	·  Science skills of communicating findings ·  Literacy developing their print knowledge and emergent writing skills
7	Identifying a new question	·  Extend children’s learning by identifying new questions building from their emerging interests	·   Science skills of developing questions and understanding science as a continuous process

In Indonesian context, learning steps in scientific approach are 1) observing, 2) questioning, 3) associating, 4) experimenting, and 5) networking (Suharyadi, 2013). Those learning cycle in scientific approach concerned in science skills, differ from genre based approach which concerned in communication skills.

C.            Research Methodology

Research Design

Case study research design is used in this study because this study focus on a case that involve in bounded context happened in one of senior high school in Margahayu. Case study is a detailed examination occurred in bounded context of one setting, or a single subject, a single depository of document or one particular event (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Malik & Hamied, 2014; Cresswell, 2012). The samples of the research are two English teachers who teach in senior high school. They have used the scientific approach and genre based approach in teaching English.

Data Collection

The data is collected by conducting interview. Interview is done to know the teachers’ belief regarding to the implementation of 2013 curriculum and KTSP. It is conducted in one on one interview. The process of the interview is recorded to make the researcher easy to recheck the data.

Data Analysis

To identify the findings then the data are analyzed by applying five steps according to Cresswell (2012), the steps are as follows:

1.   Organizing data, the researcher organizes the data by type from the interview.

2.   Transcribe data, the data that has been organized are transcribed. The results of interviews are converted from audiotape into text data, which is called transcription.

3.   Coding the data, coding is the process of segmenting and labeling text to form descriptions and broad themes in the data (Cresswell, 2012). The transcriptions are read carefully to find the major themes of findings that must be related to the research questions.

4.   Representing the findings, the major themes that have been found as findings are represented by creating sub theme and then reported it in narrative discussion.

5.   Interpreting the findings, the findings that have been reported in narrative wars are interpreted in the meaning of the research. The interpretation consists of advancing personal views, making comparison between the findings and the literature, and suggesting limitations and future research (Cresswell, 2012).

D.            Findings and Discussion

Findings

From the data analysis, three major phenomena were found. They are:

1.  Teachers’s perception on the difficulties in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum.

2.  Teachers’s perception on the differences in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP.

3.  Teachers’s perception on the curriculum changing from 2013 curriculum to KTSP.

Discussion

1.                           Teachers’ perception of difficulties in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum

The teachers have many perceptions about the difficulties in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum. I divided their perception about the 2013 English curriculum to the major point relate to the curriculum; the subject material, the teaching learning process and the evaluation.

a.        The subject material in the 2013 English curriculum

The subject material in the 2013 English curriculum is different from the previous curriculum. Since the target domain more focus on the affective, then the subject materials are more authentic than the last one. Here, all subject materials especially in English are changed, the subject materials are provided with many tasks to do by students. since there are many changing in the subject materials, the government provided the textbook for the teacher and students, but in fact not all teacher and students have textbook to support the teaching and learning process. Besides that, they also found difficulties in teaching learning related to the affective domain.

Table 3: Teachers’ Perception toward the difficulties in implementing the 2013 English curriculum related to the subject Material

No	Participants	Answer
1	Teacher A	The subject materials that have to teach are new since the target domain is affective. I think it is good for education in Indonesia, but in fact there is no textbook that government should facilitate, so we find difficulties in the teaching learning process
2	Teacher B	I think the subject material that should teach in 2013 English curriculum more effective rather than previous curriculum since the material more authentic, but we find the difficulties in teaching material that relate to the core competence in terms of attitude (affective).

b.       The teaching learning process

The teaching learning process in the 2013 curriculum is different from the previous curriculum. The 2013 curriculum adopted new approach called scientific approach. As it is stated by Suharyadi (2013), this approach is claimed to be more effective in increasing students‟ learning outcomes than the traditional one. There are five stages that is proposed to follow in scientific approach; observation, questioning, associating, experimenting, and communicating. In implementing those stages, teachers faced difficulties, since the approach is new for them. For teacher who has experience in the teaching learning process, they will have no problem since the stages are similar to the genre-based approach, they find difficulties from the students. In the teaching learning process using scientific approach, the students are expected to be active, or become an autonomous learner. So, it is difficult for them to adopt new approach, since they are not used to have more tasks and practice. For beginning teacher, there will be many difficulties they faced. There is no specific guideline for teacher to implement the scientific approach especially for English subject from the government. So, for avoiding the mistakes, they are used genre-based approach. It is also difficulties for some teachers who has been comfortable used the genre-based approach, they taught that there is no need to change because the genre-based approach is more effective than the new one.

Besides that, there is another difficulty related to time allocation. In the 2013 English Curriculum, the time allocation is reduced. There are many tasks to do but there is no much time. The teachers and students got pressured, they have to master the curriculum objectives, they also have not accustomed to the new curriculum, so they need to adopt this curriculum. But in fact, rather than adding the allocation time, the government reduced the allocation time for English subject.

Table 4: Teachers’ Perception toward the difficulties in implementing the 2013 English curriculum related to the teaching learning process

No	Participants	Answer
1	Teacher A	I find difficulties in teaching using scientific approach since I have been comfortable used genre-based approach; it is difficult for me to change this habit. When I tried to use the scientific approach, I find that my students are passive; I think that they also have been comfortable with last approach. There is also no guideline for teacher to implement the scientific approach. For teacher who has no experience in teaching learning will face difficulties, then because they do not want make any mistakes, they used genre-based approach.
2	Teacher B	In the teaching learning process, we have to use the scientific approach. There are five stages; observation, questioning, associating, experimenting, and communicating. Since this approach is new for English teacher, we find many difficulties, especially in questioning, because many students are passive, so it takes time for students to adapt with this approach. Then, the allocation time is reducing, so it gave us more problems, the stages of this approach need much time, but the time for teaching process is reduced. Besides that, when we have to implement problem-based approach, we also find difficulties because it is difficult to find authentic problem in terms of language.

c.         The evaluation in the implementation of the 2013 English Curriculum

The evaluation in the 2013 English curriculum is different from the previous curriculum. In the assessment, the tasks are given more authentic. As it stated by Hamied (2014), the assessment in 2013 English curriculum should be carried out with a competency- based, and also it should be more authentic in which attitude, skills, and knowledge are to be evaluated through process and outcomes in tandem.

When evaluating, teacher faced many difficulties related to evaluate the affective domain. Because this curriculum focus on the character building, the teachers should evaluate the students’s attitude individually and explicitly. The problems occurred because teachers have many students, so it is hard for them to evaluate them one by one. It will not be problems if there are many teachers who teach English at school. Since there are only two teachers who teach English at that school, it is hard for them to evaluate students‟ attitude individually.

Table 5: Teachers’ Perception toward the difficulties in implementing the 2013 English curriculum related to the evaluation

No	Participants	Answer
1	Teacher A	2013 English curriculum make us a teacher busy. We have to evaluate students in 3 target domains. In cognitive domain, we have no difficulty since we have been used to this domain, but we find many difficulties in assessing the affective domain. We have to evaluate students‟ affective individually and explicitly. It is hard for me, because I have and I also have many tasks regarding my position at school. many students, and I also have many tasks regarding my position at school.
2	Teacher B	I find many difficulties in evaluation the affective domain. Since I have many students, it is difficult to assess their affective domain explicitly.

2.                           Teachers’ perception of differences in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP

The teachers have many perceptions about the differences in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP. Here, the findings were divided into three sub-point relate to both curriculum; the subject material, the teaching learning process and the evaluation.

a.        The subject material in the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP

As it is stated above, the subject material in the 2013 English curriculum is taught integrated. Differ from KTSP, the subject material is taught separately. Besides that, the content of the material in 2013 English curriculum are more authentic than KTSP. Besides that, the use of language is also different, in the 2013 English curriculum, the subject material more focus in language use, in which they have to use language as tool of communication. While in the KTSP, the subject materials more focus on grammar, since the students are expected to be able to identify the text types.

Table 6: Teachers’ perception on contrasting between the 2013 English Curriculum and KTSP related to the Subject Material

No	Participants	Answer
		2013 Curriculum	KTSP
1	Teacher A	·     The subject material is more logic, authentic. ·     The      subject      material      is     taught integrated	·      The material seems illogical ·      The subject material is taught separately
2	Teacher B	·     The subject matter more focus on language use, students are forced to use language as a tool of communication. So it is good to improve theirs speaking skill.	·      The subject materials are more focus on grammar, since the material are text-types.

b.     The teaching learning process in the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP

In the teaching learning process, both curriculum has different approach. The 2013 English curriculum adopted scientific approach, while KTSP adopted genre-based approach. As it is stated by Agustien (2006), genre based approach has two cycle and four stages, they are: 1) building knowledge of the field (BKOF), 2) modeling of the text (MCOT), 3) Joint construction of the text (JCOT), and 4) independent construction of the text (ICOT). While scientific approach, as it stated by Suharyadi (2013) has five stages, they are; observation, questioning, associating, experimenting, and communicating. The centered of the teaching learning process is also different, genre-based approach tend to teachers-centered, while scientific approach tend to students-centered.

Table 7: Teachers’ perception on contrasting between the 2013 English Curriculum and KTSP related to the teaching learning process

No	Participants	Answer
		2013 Curriculum	KTSP
1	Teacher A	·      The teaching learning process is conducted used scientific approach. ·      The students are more active (student-centered)	·      The teaching learning process is conducted used genre-based approach. ·      The students are passive (teacher-centered)
2	Teacher B	·      the approach used is scientific approach ·      the teacher become a guide for students, since the teaching learning more focus on students‟ centered ·      The students are expected to be an autonomous learner, so they are provided many tasks and practice, the students are more active in the teaching learning process.	·      the approach used is genre- based approach ·      the teacher become a source, the teaching learning more focus on teachers centered ·      The students are less active, since they are not provided many tasks to do.

c.       The evaluation in the 2013 English curriculum and KTSP

Evaluation is one important aspect that make both curriculum are different. This aspect also become reasons for the teachers who cannot implement the 2013 English curriculum. The aspect that make different is the affective domain. In the 2013 English curriculum, the affective domain has to be evaluated explicitly, while in KTSP the affective domain is evaluated implicitly.

Table 8: Teachers’ perception on contrasting between the 2013 English Curriculum and KTSP related to the evaluation

No	Participants	Answer
		2013 Curriculum		KTSP
1	Teacher A	The affective domain is evaluated explicitly individually	The      affective      domain      is      not evaluated explicitly
2	Teacher B	The character building is evaluated explicitly using rubric	The character building is evaluated implicitly.

3.                           Teachers’ perception of the curriculum changing from 2013 curriculum to KTSP

It is usual that curriculum will be changed by government to improve the quality of education. It occurred not only in Indonesia, but also in other countries. Since 1968, curriculum in Indonesia has changed several times (Hamied, 2014; Agustien, 2014). Different from the last changing, the curriculum changing from the 2013 Curriculum to KTSP became hot topic due to some reasons. Though the changing is for our quality of education that many teachers are no ready to implement this curriculum, but some teachers thought that the solution is not by changing the curriculum. They thought that the teachers are not ready because they have not trained well about the curriculum. So it will be better if they are trained again about the curriculum. Besides that, the teachers implemented this curriculum about 1 year, even for some teachers they only implemented in one semester, so we cannot judge that this curriculum is not good to be implemented. Because they thought that what we need to improve the quality of education in Indonesia is the teacher who has good quality. So, what the government needs to do is to improve the quality of teacher by giving them training to improve their self-development.

Table 9: Teachers’ perception toward curriculum changing from the curriculum 2013 to KTSP

No	Participants	Answer
1	Teacher A	In my opinion, when curriculum changes, it is a good movement for education in Indonesia, since the aim of the curriculum change is to improve the quality of our education. In 2013 curriculum, I find that the students are more active, and it is good for them to improve their skills especially in English subject. They become an autonomous learner, and there are no spoon-fed again in the teaching learning process. Though, I still find difficulties in implementing 2013 English curriculum, I think this curriculum is better than the previous one. When we have to change the curriculum and back to the KTSP, I felt disappointed because what we need is a time and the training for the teachers. It doesn’t mean KTSP is not good, but some teachers felt confused in the teaching learning process especially for teacher who has no experience in the teaching learning process.
2	Teacher B	I think there is no big influence when 2013 curriculum changed to KTSP, because the aim of the curriculum itself is to improve our quality of education. But, in the teaching learning process, cause the approach used changing, the situation of the teaching learning also changes. Since there are no much tasks to do by students, they are less active than when we taught used scientific. but I think, it become a task for teacher to be more creative, we still can use GBA but the teaching learning focus on student, students‟ centered. In my opinion, the big problem in our education is the “teacher”. Since there are many teachers who still comfortable with the traditional way, and do not want to improve their self-development. So what we need is not only the changing of curriculum but also the teachers‟ training to improve our self-development.

E.            Conclusion and Recommendation

Conclusion

In conclusion, in the implementation of the 2013 English curriculum, teacher faced some difficulties, they are: the material that is different from the previous curriculum which focus on the affective domain, the approach that used to teach is new called scientific approach, and the evaluation is wider than the previous one, the affective domain is evaluated explicitly. Then, there are three major point in the differences between the 2013 curriculum and KTSP; the subject material in 2013 curriculum is integrated, while in KTSP is not integrated; the approach that used in 2013 English curriculum is scientific approach, while KTSP is genre-based approach; the evaluation of affective domain in 2013 English curriculum is evaluated explicitly, while in KTSP is evaluated implicitly.

Teachers thought that the problems that occurred in our education are not because of the curriculum changing, but it occurred because of the teachers. Though some curriculum changed because of the challenged and some required competences, but last changing caused by the teachers are not ready to implement the new curriculum. It means that there are some teachers in Indonesia who has low quality or has not trained well. So the task for the government before they changed the curriculum is that give the training to the teacher to improve teachers‟ self-development and their quality of teaching.

Recommendation

Since this research is a case study that occurred in one school at Margahayu, so the result of this research will not be same as the other schools. Besides that, the samples in this research are only two teachers who have taught English more than 10 years, so their opinions will not be same as the teachers who have taught for 1 year. So it is recommended to do a deep research with more samples and do it in many schools to get more objective results.

F.             REFERENCES

Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. (2015). Retrieved January 2^nd, 2016, from Wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org

Agustien, H. I. (2006). Genre-Based Approach and the 2004 Curriculum. A plenary paper presented in National Seminar at Indonesia University of Education.

Agustien, H. I. (2014). The 2013 English Curriculum: The Paradigm, Interpretation, and Implementation. The Association of Teaching English as Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Conference (pp. 39-64). Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education; An Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson.

Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and Issue in Genre Based Approaches. RELC Journal, 34(2), 693-722.

Emilia, E. (2010). Teaching Writing: Developing Critical Learners. Bandung: Rizqi Press.

Hamied, F.  A.  (2014).  Curriculum Change: What does it mean to Indonesian TEFL? The Association of Teaching English as Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Conference (pp. 13-37). Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Knapp, P., & Watskin, M. (2005). Genre, Text, Grammar: Technologies for Teaching and Assessing Writing. Sidney: UNSW Press Ltd.

Malik, R. S., & Hamied, F. A. (2014). Research Methods: A Guide for First Time Researchers. Bandung: UPI PRESS.

Matra, S. D. (2014). The English Teachers' Perceptions toward School-based Curriculum (SBC) and 2013 Curriculum: Complaints, Comparisons and Contrasts (an Investigation on English Teachers' Perceptions in Pekalongan). The Association of Teaching English as Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Conference (pp. 63- 66). Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Mirzon, S. (2004). 2004. Some Aspect of English Competency Based Curriculum, 24(1), 67-86.

Nation, I., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. New York: Routledge.

Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the Curriculum. New York: McGraw Hill.

Prisilya, A. (2014). Which one is Better; KTSP (School-based Curriculum or 2013 English Curriculum? The Association of Teaching English as Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Conference (pp. 6-9). Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Rachmawati, U., & Madya, S. (2014). Pengembangan WEBQUEST sebagai Media Instruksional Membaca SiswaSMA Negeri 1 Muntilan. Jurnal Kependidikan, 44(1), 83-91.

Reppen, R. (2002). A Genre Based Approach to Content Writing Instruction. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya, Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 321-327). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sari, N. E. (n.d.). Enhancing Report Writing for Eleventh Grade Students through Genre Based Approach (GBA): An Attempt to Connect Reading Comprehension and Writing Comprehension.

Shofiya, A. (2014). Teachers' Response toward 2013 Curriculum after a tear of Implementation. The Association of Teaching English as Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Conference (pp. 10-11). Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press.

Suharyadi. (2013). Exploring “Scientific Approach” in English Language Teaching. Seminar Nasional Exchange of Experience (pp. 1348-1355). Malang: Malang University Press.

Syahmadi, H. (2013). Bedah Kurikulum 2013 bagi Guru Bahasa Inggris. Bandung: CV. Adoya Mitra Sejahtera.

Thai, M. D. (2009). Text-based Language Teaching. Cecil Hills, NSW: Mazmania Press.

Vyas, M. A., & Patel, Y. A. (2009). Teaching English as a Second Language: A New Pedagogy for a New Century. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.