A Critical Comparison of the 1994 and the 2006 English Language Teaching Curricula (A Critical Discourse Analysis)

A Critical Comparison of the 1994 and the 2006 English Language Teaching Curricula

(A Critical Discourse Analysis)

By: E. Elis Aisah

1.     Abstract

This research reports the comparison of the 1994 and the 2006 ELT curriculum, particularly based on MTs Negeri Ciranjang’s perception. This study employs a qualitative case study, in MTs Negeri Ciranjang as microscopic setting.  Data are obtained through document and textbook analysis, and interview. The data from document, particularly from both curricula are analyzed with concept of curriculum development (Miller & Seller 1985; Richard 2001) and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995) to ideologically contrast teachers and learners’ positions. The textbook analysis is used as basis of how content of curriculum is organized and, later, it reflects how teachers teach in classroom. The interview data are analyzed to gain teachers’ perspective in teaching English in both curricula. The result shows that similarly both curricula purpose to enhance learners with communicative competence although the content is arranged differently. Therefore, principally, teachers’ competence holds significant factors in developing curriculum. In the recommendation section, it is noted that government and institution need to facilitate teachers in developing their competency in teaching English language and tightly evaluate them in order to reach National education aim as mandated in National Preamble.

2.     Introduction

In the world of ‘no value free’ (Emmitte 2005), every documents of institutions, particularly curriculum, reflect and diverse social value (Lie 2000; Fairclough 1995). The 1994 and 2006 curricula socially emerge in two obviously different situations. The former was the first Indonesian curriculum under circumstance of president Soeharto’s first policy of education – National education Act No. 2, 1989, in the third year of National Development’s euphoria- Repelita III. The latter is the first well- socialized and completed of the 2004- based competence curriculum, as the implication of legalization of National education Act No. 20, 2003 and Local Autonomy Act No. 32, 2004, and of under the  democratic era- after eight years of the retreatment of president Soeharto from his legacy.

This study is to critically compare the 1994 and the 2006 English language teaching curricula in Indonesia, particularly based on MTs Negeri Ciranjang’s perspective. It focuses on the comparison of the goals of each curriculum in terms of contents of curriculum/organization of curriculum, teacher’s perceptions and techniques in class, and textbook organization as the major resource in EFL context (Kim & Hall cited in Vellenge 2004).

3.     The Research Problems

Many complaints are directed to government as the changing of curriculum (Retmono at http://www.suaramerdeka.com/harian/0412/30/nas09.htm, December 30, 2004, retrieved at April 8, 2009). In fact Government, as the responsible institution in education (Preamble of National Constitution (UUD) 1945), changes the curriculum based on the development of learner’ needs, situation, national development goal, the development of science, technology and art (Act No. 2, 1989: Chapter IX Article 37), whereas in Act No. 20, 2003 some addition are religious faith, morale, local potential, global trend, national unity and values (Chapter X, Article 36, Verses 3).

On other hand, the development of science and technology in other countries leads them as to be powerful and influencing countries in Education (The Times Higher Education supplement, November 2007 cited in Alwasilah 2008). In addition, although government has changed the curriculum, based on the UNESCO report in 2007, Indonesia’s rank in Education is at 62 from 130 countries where in previous year was at level 58 and Indonesia Education Development Index is 0.935, under Malaysia, 0.945, and Brunei, 0.965 (UNESCO 2007 report as cited by Kartasasmita, 2009). Moreover, National Statistic bureau (BPS) reports that in 2008, 40.1 % of Indonesian citizens are unemployed (The I’tibar 2009). Therefore, investigating the gap by critically comparing the 1994 and the 2006 English language teaching curriculum in Indonesia, particularly their development and implementation in classroom at MTs Negeri Ciranjang is necessary to be conducted.

4.     The Purpose of the Study and Research Question

As mention earlier in section 3 the problems of the changing curriculum and the fact of Indonesia education, this research is intended to investigate critically ‘potential – curriculum document and actual curriculum – implementation of curriculum in class’ (Mulyasa 2008: 3) in order to find out the gap of the governmental policy in changing curriculum to the fact by comparing two curriculums – the 1994 and the 2006 curriculum. Therefore, based on the purpose above, the research question of this study is:

What are the similarities and the differences of the 1994 and 2006 ELT curricula in term of goal of English as foreign language (EFL) taught in school context?

5.     The Significance of the Study

This research focuses on the critical comparison of the ELT curriculum development between the 1994 and 2006, particularly in some aspects adopted from Miller and Seller curriculum development model (Miller & Seller, 1985) supporting by the theories of curriculum development of Richard (2001) and Zais (1976).  Although in some models (Garge, Taba & Robinson in Miller & Wayne 1985; Richard 2001), needs and situation analysis, and evaluation hold crucial factors in development curriculum. In this research needs and situational analysis are as the context of the emergence of both curriculums, and evaluation is as the reflection and implication of how teachers teach not as the main study of this research.

In addition, this research is significant in which it includes four aspects (Marshall& Rossman 2006: 33-38). Firstly, it theoretically endeavors to integrate both potential and actual curriculum analysis that is less conducted integrally (Lie 2000; Yeon, Acedo & Utomo 2002; Pezzoli & Howe2001). Secondly, it attempts to critically analyze policy of government in changing and developing curriculum, as curriculum as the government document (van Dijk at http://www.daneprairie.com ) . Thirdly, the result of this research is valuable information for teachers, particularly how their classroom action significantly impacts to curriculum development (Richard 2001; Harmer 2007) and textbook publisher. Lastly, it attempts to increase awareness that education is not only responsible of government but also teacher, textbook publisher (economic institution) and society in which critically control and manage the planning and process of curriculum development.

6.     Literature Review

6.1       Curriculum Development

6.1.1       Definition of Curriculum and Curriculum Development

The term “curriculum” is derived from the Latin word currere meaning “racecourse”. Further, the term of curriculum defines differently based on the intention of the experts. Taba (1949) simply circumscribes it as “a plan for learning” (in Nasution 1993:10). Alberty and Kerr argues that “the curriculum of the school is all the experiences that pupils have under the guidance of the school” (Nasution 1993; Idi 1999). Similar with Alberty and Kerr, Richard (2001: 39) adds that curriculum includes contents, learning activities, teaching methodology, supporting material, methods of assessment and facilities.

The above definition leads to the needs of development of curriculum predominantly in the context of planning and implementation (Zais, 1976: 471; Idi, 1999: 120; Richard 2001: 41). The concept of curriculum development has been adopted in language teaching from 1980s (Richard 2001: 40) in the movement of ‘meaning and communicative’ (See Levinson 1983; Connole, Smith & Wiseman 1993; Azies & Alwasilah 2000). Curriculum development is characterized as the process of determination of who will be involved, what procedures will be used, how it will be organized (Zais, 1976: 17). Moreover Richard focuses curriculum development processes on “needs analysis, situational analysis, planning learning outcomes, course organization, selecting and preparing material, providing for effective teaching and evaluation” (2001: 41). In addition, Miller and Seller (1985:12-13) suggest teachers to develop curriculum through setting aims and objectives, content, teaching strategies, and organizing the content.

6.1.2       Aspects of Curriculum Development       Aims/Goal, Objectives and Competence

In this research, the term of “aim” and “goal” are used interchangeably (Richard 2001; 112; Zais 1976) as the purpose and basic principle of curriculum development. The aim reflects position of curriculum in which underlines particular conception of philosophy, psychology, and society (Miller & Seller 1985: 173; Zais 1976; Richard 2001) of ‘global mega trend’ (Pezzoli & Howe, 2001). Eisner (1992) finds out five curriculum ideologies which influence the aim of ELT curriculum are rationalism, social economic efficiency, learner-centeredness, social reconstruction, and cultural pluralism (Eisner 1992 in Richard 2001: 114-120 with synthesizing).

Objective is more specific level of purposes. It is defined as “the most immediate specific outcomes of classroom interaction” (Zais 1976: 306). The Bloom taxonomy is widely used as hierarchies of educational objectives (Miller & Seller 1985; 179; Zais 1976: 309). Bloom distinguishes objective into three domains; respectively cognitive, affective and psychomotor (http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.html).

The cognitive domain involves intellectual tasks such as writing expository compositions. The affective domain deals with feeling, attitude, or value. The psychomotor domain intends to develop manipulative and motor skills (Zais, 1976). However, in the fact, applying four cognitive domains in classroom is rather complex. Particularly, adopting affective domain in learning language is rather hard in EFL context.

Some critiques emerge for the use of objectives in defining learning outcomes (Richard 2001: 127). The competence – based language teaching (CBLT) in 1970s and well-accepted in 1980s focuses on the outcomes or ends of learning programs (Schneck 1978 in Richard 2001: 128). Competence, called as behavioral objectives (Zais 1976; Miller & Seller 1985; Krahnke 1987), defines as what a learner able to do as a result of instruction (Krahnke 1987: 50). In English language competence means learners demonstrate good understanding of other’s talk and in reading text, and demonstrate good English in conversation and in writing discourse (Wachidah, 2004).       Content

Content relates to what teacher will teach. Miller & Seller (1985: 185) are used “content” interchangeably with subject matter, knowledge, concepts and Idea. In language teaching context, content relates to subject matter and linguistics matter (Krahnke 1987: 3). In addition Dubin & Olshtain (1985: 45) argue that content consists of language content (structure/grammatical forms), thematic and situational contents.

The content of ELT curriculum reflects the planner’s assumption about the nature of language, language use and language learning, most essential part of language, and how content organized efficiently (Richard 2001: 148). Therefore, the content and its organization of ELT curriculum are obviously based on the development of theory of language.       Teaching Strategies/Learning Experiences

Meaningful learning experiences represent the heart of curriculum (Zais, 1976: 350) as “learning experiences are the means for achieving all objectives beside those of knowledge and understanding” (Taba 1962 in Zais 1976: 350). Providing good learning experiences is teachers’ jobs since teachers as resource of experiences (Harmer 2007: 110). Teachers’ choice of their strategies in teaching reflects their belief of learning (Nunan, 2003) in which temporarily enhances learners’ learning experiences (Harmer 2007: 396).

Miller & Seller give some criteria for teacher to select teaching models. Firstly, models should be congruent with aims and objectives. Secondly, models should be congruent with the general environment. Models should be examined to achieve multiple goals. Model should be related to the learners’ framework and level of development (synthesized from Miller & seller 1985: 196). Moreover, Azies & Alwasilah argue that in language class, teacher needs to provide many chances for learners to learn, practice, discuss and other interactive activities (2000:77).       Organizing Content

After selecting contents and deciding teaching strategies, teachers need to evaluate and organize them meaningfully. As mention in section, the content of ELT curriculum consists of language, thematic and situational contents (Dubin & Olshtain, 1986), therefore their organization is definitely influenced by the development of theories of language and learning (Krahnke 1987: 3) perceived by ELT curriculum maker – as curriculum document, teachers and textbooks publishers – as syllabus (Dubin & Olshtain 1986: 46).

In some circumstances, the term “organization” relates to “design” (Zais 1976; Krahnke 1987; Richard 2001) also used in this research. Curriculum design concerns with the nature arrangement of aims, content, learning experiences and evaluation (Zais, 1976: 393). However, syllabus design relates to decision of what gets taught and in what order (Krahnke 1987: 4). Both contains philosophical assumptions (Zais, 1976; Dubin & Olshtain 1986; Krahnke 1987; Nasution 1993; Idi 1999; Richard 2001) whereas “what knowledge is of most worth?” (Spencer in Idi 1999: 74) is placed as crucial reason.

Curriculum design consists of subject-centered, learner-centered and problem-centered (Zais, 1976: 393; Nasution 1993: 105). Moreover, there are six syllabus designs, respectively; structural, notional, situational, skill/ competence, task, content and integrated based (Krahnke 1987). Furthermore, Dubin & Olshtain add communicative – based as one of syllabus design (See Dubin & Olshtain 1986; Huda 1999; Azies & Alwasilah 2000). The names of those designs reflect intention and belief of designers. Therefore, developers need to be aware the organizational principles in developing curriculum (Nasution 1993; Idi 1999).

6.2       The 1994 ELT Curriculum

The 1994 ELT curriculum emerges as the approval of National Education Act No. 2, 1989. The goal of national education is to enhance intellectual life of the whole nation by mastering science and skills, health, good personality, independent and responsible (Chapter II, Article 4). In every school level, its development is based the development of learner’ needs, situation, national development, the development of science, technology and art (Chapter IX, Article 37). Therefore for the need of globalization and 21st century, the goal of ELT, as stated in Ministerial Decree No. 060/U/1993, February 25th 1993, addresses to acquire reading, listening, speaking and writing skills through themes selected by the level of learners’ interest, mastering vocabularies (1,000 words for Lower secondary level and 2,500 words for higher secondary level), and structure (Appendix II of Ministerial Decree No. 060/U/1993, February 25th 1993).

The approach of teaching is communicative approach (Kasihani cited by Emilia 2005) or meaningful approach (Ministerial Decree No. 060/U/1993, February 25th 1993). Reading, as mention earlier in the goal, and mastering vocabulary as well as structure still hold important skill to communicate (Huda’s survey at 1990). Reading is represented in some themes. Theme is the context of communication (Suplemen 1994, 2000) not as material which is learned by students. Grammatical rule is used and presented to express functional skills (Suplemen 1994, 2000) – integrated language skills. Learning process is focused on learner-centered orientation (Ernawan & Hardjomarso, 1996).

6.3       The 2006 ELT Curriculum

The spirit of decentralization, as showed by Act of local Autonomy No. 22, 1999 revised by Act of Local Autonomy No. 32, 2004 and hand in hand with Act No. 20, 2003, is seen in the 2006 curriculum. In this regard, education is not merely central government’s responsibility; local government also has responsibility in managing and funding education.  Therefore, Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP) is developed from Standard of content by schools based on their context and potential.

Although KTSP varies between one and other schools, Government gives some regulations stated in Governmental Regulation (PP) No. 19, 2005 concerning National Standard of Education (SNP) at May 16, 2005. It consists of:  standard of content, standard competence of graduate, standard of process, standard of educator and administrator, standard of medium and infrastructure, standard of funding, and standard of assessment. Furthermore, all standards are ruled by PERMENDIKNAS.

English, as stated in standard of content (PERMENDIKNAS No. 22, 2006), is learned at elementary two hours in a week (as Mulok for class IV, V and VI), at junior and senior high school four hours in a week except for language program in SMU – five hours in a week. Moreover, the standard competence of graduate of English (PERMENDIKNAS No. 23, 2006) for each level is communicative competence in the form of spoken of language accompanying action for elementary school, in the form of spoken and written for achieving functional literacy level for junior high school and in the form of spoken and written for achieving informational literacy level for senior high school.

The syllabus, in this curriculum, perceived as the plan of learning process with lesson plan- RPP (PP No. 19, 2005, chapter IV, article 20; PERMEN No. 41, 2007) which consists of standard of competence, basic standard, material, learning activities, learning indicators, assessment, time allocation and resources (PP No. 19, 2005, Chapter IV, article 20; Depdiknas, 2006; PERMEN No. 41, 2007). The syllabus is developed by a teacher or group teacher supervised by department of education based on standard of content, standard competence of graduate and guiding of arrangement of school-based curriculum (Appendix of PERMEN No. 41, 2007).

7.     Research Methodology

7.1       Research Design

This research uses a critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is used as the analytical framework of studying connections between language, power and ideology (Fairclough 1995: 23). This methodology arises in post-structural era. CDA tries to reveals all ideology behind discourse regarded as ‘social practices’ (Fairchlough 1989) and free human from domination of superpower (Eriyanto, 2001).

However, this research also has a similar characteristic to case study. First, it focuses on one case in ‘microscopic’ setting which is identical with natural setting (Travers 2001; Connole, Smith &Wiseman, 1993; Wallace, 1998: Hakim 1987; Silverman 2005). Second, it employs multi sources of evidence to allow for in depth- study (Wiseman 1993, Marshlall & Rosman 2006; Silverman 2005; Denzin & Lincoln 2003).

7.2       Participant

This research involves two kind participants. First are English teachers. There are two English teachers in the research site, both are involved in this research and interviewed to gain information of teaching strategies they used in two different curriculum. Second are documents. There are four documents. First is the 1994 ELT curriculum as stated in appendix of Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan No. 060/U/1993 tanggal 25 Februari 1993. Second is standard of ELT as states in PERMENDIKNAS No. 22, 2006. Third and fourth are textbooks used in the class, respectively English for SLTP Class 3: An integrated Course of English based on 1994 Curriculum and English on Sky for Junior High school student year IX.

7.3       Setting

This research is conducted in MTs Negeri Ciranjang . This research site is chosen for some reasons. First reason is feasibility. The researcher has been an English teacher for five years in this school. The familiarity with situation helps to create natural setting of the research. Second reason is concerned with the availability of the curricula and their supported resources.

7.4       Data Collection

The data are collected as supporting of ‘triangulation’ concept of qualitative research (Wiseman 1993, Marshlall & Rosman 2006; Silverman 2005; Denzin & Lincoln 2003) namely critical analysis of goal of curricula, interview of teachers’ perspective and textbooks analysis. These data collection procedure will be explained as follow:

7.4.1       Critical Analysis of ELT Goals

As mention earlier in section 2, institutional documents, curriculum, are no value frees (Emmitte 2005). Documents are usually written in particular text. Text is regarded as social practices (Fairchlough 1995; van Dijk 1995). Text varieties depend upon their social condition which are ideologically bounded (Foucault 1979; Fairchlough 1995; vin Dijk 1995).

To uncover the ideology of the curriculum is obviously important, particularly to criticize, understand government intention, and find out the place of reader, in curriculum term, teacher and learner as the user of the curriculum. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) intends to answer such phenomena by analyzing how text works in particular social practices especially in textual form, structure and organization (Fairchlough 1995). Moreover, CDA tries to “elucidate naturalization, make clear social determination and effects of discourse” (Fairchlough 1995: 28). Hence, in this research by using CDA, the researcher analyzes government intention and belief concerning theory of English language learning, and find out the position of teacher and learner in curriculum development.

7.4.2       Interview

In this research, collecting data from teachers’ perspective with interview is placed as supporting sources of document analysis. Interview is regarded as the most appropriate method in qualitative inquiry. It is based on assumption that “the participant’s perspective on the phenomena of interest should unfold as the participant views it (emic perspective), not as the researcher views it (etic perspective)” (Marshall and Rossman 2006).

The form of interview, in this research, is individual with semi-structured questions. It is used to enable the researcher to get all information required without forgetting questions. There are three questions. Each is to do with teacher s’ knowledge about curricula, the difference and similarities of their content, and teaching strategies they conducted in both curricula. In addition, before the interview, the researcher informs the interviewees about the goal of this research, the release of pseudonyms in the research report, the fact that this interview is tape-recorded to avoid loss of data, and the feel secure to talk freely using English, Indonesian or Sundanese.

7.4.3       Textbook analysis

In EFL context, text book is the major resource in learning English (Kim & Hall cited in Vellenge 2004).  The organization of text indeed influences how teacher teaches in classroom (Lie, 2000). As mention earlier in section 7.2, two textbooks are chosen and analyzed. The selection is based on the frequently of using those books in class by interviewees. The analysis of textbooks is conducted to find out how content of curriculum organized and arranged in text book, further, the organization reflects what teachers do in classroom. In this research, Krahnke (1987) and Richard (2001)’s theory of curriculum design and Skierso’ guideline of text book analysis are used. Skierso (1991) argues that textbook analysis consists of analyzing bibliographical data, aims and goals, subject matter, vocabulary and grammar, lay out and physical makeup, supplementary exercises for each language skill, methodological and pedagogical guide and linguistics background information. However, for the needs of this research, the indicators are limited into subject matter and supplementary exercise for each language skills.

7.5       Data Analysis

Data of this research are analyzed as follow. Firstly, the goal of both curricula is analyzed with critical discourse analysis to find out hidden ideology and position of teachers and learner in curriculum development. Secondly, the content of curricula represented by textbooks used by teachers will be analyzed based on kind of syllabus, their relation to goal curricula (Krahnke 1987) with analyzing indicators mention above. Thirdly, data interview are transcribed, analyzed and categorized to distinguish teaching methodologies used in both curricula.

Later, these triangulation sources of data are used to contrast, compare, ‘corroborate’ (Silverman, 2005) each other. In interpreting the data, researcher elaborate data to “bring meaning and coherence to the themes, patterns, categories, develop linkages” (Marshall & Rossaman, 2006: 161) of similarities and the differences of both curricula in the goal, content and its organization, and teaching strategies.

8.     Discussion

After analyzing the goals, both curricula purpose to enhance learners with communicative competence. However, there are some differences in viewing communicative competence in both curricula. Further discussion will be explained as follow:

8.1       Analyzing the Goal and Content of both Curricula

As mention in literature review, the goal represents principle of philosophy, psychology, and society (Miller & Seller 1985: 173; Zais 1976; Richard 2001) perceived by government. It is reflected in the arrangement of curriculum component. The analysis of both curriculum goals as follow: The goal of ELT In 1994 is

pada akhir sekolah lanjutan tingkat pertama siswa memiliki keterampilan membaca , menyimak, berbicara, dan menulis dalam Bahasa Inggris melalui tema yang dipilih berdasarkan tingkat perkembangan dan minat mereka, tingkat penguasaan kosa kata (lebih kurang 1,000 kata), dan tata bahasa yang sesuai.

The goal explicitly does not mention the purposes of learning English as means of communication, although in the explanation (Keputusan Mentri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan No. 060/U/1993, 25/02/1993) communicative competence is highlighted.

Reading, theme and mastering 1,000 of vocabularies with adequate structure are the keywords. Fairclough (1989; 1995; 2003) said the place of particular component holds the main focus of the document. Therefore, the goal insists to perceive communicative competence through reading comprehension and mastering sum of words. It is absolutely contrast with the principle of communicative competence, in which it enhance learner  to communicate in target language through semantic notion, social function, not just linguistics structure (Celce-Murcia M. , 1991).

However, by mastering particular sum of words, the police maker perceived teachers and learners requiring control individuals, therefore learning was conceived as mechanistic process (Zais 1976: 397). It is obviously contradiction with the principle of communicative approach which places learners as the centre of learning activities (Celci Murcia 1991; Harmer 2007, Brown 1994).

In addition, in 1994 curriculum, the arrangement of skills are, respectively, reading, listening, speaking and writing.  Reading, as mentioned earlier and supported with themes and sum of words, indicates the important of reading above other language skills. In addition, other skills, respectively listening, speaking and writing, are perceived as next level of skills. In other words, after mastering reading, listening, speaking and writing are as indicators of the advance level of ability. Moreover, in some circumstances and some context these three skills are rare to be learnt by children. Therefore, reading and all aspects of text, particularly vocabularies and structure, are regarded as the most important aspect in learning English language.

In contrast, the 2006 curriculum perceive communicative competence as follow:

Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMP/MTs bertujuan agar peserta didik memiliki kemampuan sebagai berikut: (1) Mengembangkan kompetensi berkomunikasi dalam bentuk lisan dan tulis untuk mencapai tingkat literasi functional. (2) Memiliki kesadaran tentang hakikat dan pentingnya bahasa Inggris untuk meningkatkan daya saing bangsa dalam masyarakat global. (3) Mengembangkan pemahaman peserta didik tentang keterkaitan antara bahasa dengan budaya (PERMENDIKNAS No. 22, 2006).

The goal shows that communicative competence in functional literacy level is the concern. The word ‘peserta didik – learner’ as the subject in active sentence represents that learner is the center (see (Eriyanto 2001; Fairchlough 1995). In order to achieve functional level of literacy, learners’ discourse competence is developed (Wells 1987: Celce-Murcia, Dorney & Thurrell 1995). It is derived from assumption that discourse is perceived as form of social event (Fairchlough 1995; van Dijk 1995) in euphoria of post-structuralism, post- feminism and post- modernism movement of philosophy. However, although the 2006 goal seems unproblematic in goal arrangement, the fact, this post- philosophical movement is hard to employ in urban area.

In 2006, the arrangement of skills is respectively, listening, speaking, reading and writing. Listening as places earlier is regarded as the bottom up skills in learning language (see Nunan, 2003). All skills focus on genre (PERMENDIKNAS No. 22, 2206). Genre perceives as general model of utterance (http://www.WebWritingThatWorks.com). Therefore, being able to listen, read and produce particular genre enhance learners and facilitate them in communication with others. However, in fact it is very difficult to practice all kind of assumptions above in classroom, particularly with teachers who lack knowledge of it. Genre is regarded as text, as well as, theme in 1994.

8.2        Teaching Strategies

After transcribing interview, the data shows as follow: when the researcher asked their knowledge concerning both curricula that both interviewees know about the 1994 and 2006. First interviewee – Mr. X answered ‘yes’, doubtfully, in contrast, second interviewee – Mrs. Y, clearly said yes. However, when the second question concerning their similarities as well as the differences is addressed to them, Mr. X said that the differences is only in new terms, for instance terms of “competence” and “discourse” however, he principally clarifies both are same. In line with Mr. X, Mrs. Y said that basically both are same, although listening and discourse are the major concerned, reading and structure are crucial factors. The last question, when the researcher asked how they teach in classroom, both agreed that the way they teach in both curricula are similar, although in 2006 generic structure of particular genre is explicitly taught to learners.

From data above, the interpretations are teachers perceived that there are no differences between both curricula. The new term they know only discourse and competence in which they are regarded as same as text in particular theme and goals. In addition, they explain the teaching strategies they conduct in class are similar in both curricula. Furthermore, they said that explaining grammar is important in order to be able to write in particular genre type. Therefore, grammar still holds crucial part in teaching and learning process and the changes of curriculum does not change their perception about ELT and the learning strategies they conducted in classroom. Hence, this situation is contradicted with Undang-Undang No. 20, 2003, Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19, 2005, and PERMENDIKNAS No. 41, 2007. However, this finding is in line with Huda (1999).

8.3        Textbook Analysis

As mention earlier in section, the organization of curriculum content can be seen from the syllabus design and table of content of textbooks (Krahnke 1987; Richards 2001). In 1994 textbooks, the content is theme-based.  Krahnke(1987) and Richard (2001) called thematic syllabus as topical/content and competence based- syllabus  which emphasizing the essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes (See Krahne 1987:66, Richard 2001; 157).

Unit Theme Sub-theme Skill- developed Language focus
1 Technology (1) Electronic Media
  1. Reading
    1. Reading for gist
    2. Understanding explicitly stated information
    3. Reading for specific information
    4. Deducing meaning from context
  2. Speaking
    1. Interviewing  friends about extra curriculum activities
    2. Spotting differences
  3. Writing
    1. Arranging jumbled sentences
    2. Expressing certainty and uncertainty
    3. Comparing two or more objects

Adopted from table of content of English for SLTP Class 3: An integrated Course of English based on 1994 Curriculum, page: vii).

However, in this book, text, language focus, reading and grammar exercise almost bear out in each unit. It is seldom found some exercises that relate to listening, speaking and writing. Moreover, in the end of unit evaluation, the test is in the form of multiple choices not in the form of producing and writing particular text.

In 2006, as same as the 1994, the textbook is theme-based as well as the title of the themes.

  1. Earth: Our mother nature
  2. And, here is the news
  3. Advance technology
  4. Art is art
  5. The sports that people do
  6. Places where we go

Adopted from table of content of English on Sky for Junior High school student year IX.

In contrast with the 1994, language focus is not stressed. Theme is regarded as context of language. Furthermore listening holds crucial skill. Mostly there are seven tasks for listening section compared with twelve tasks provided in each unit. Other skill exercises are provided sufficiently. However, this book does not provide some cassettes for teachers to conduct listening section as mention in the task. So, this important skill is abandon in classroom.

9.     Conclusion and Recommendation

The major conclusion of this research is that principally both have same philosophical perspective in which learning English language is perceived to enhance learners to have communicative competence. However, different curriculum content arrangement, in which principally may lead to different learning strategies, in fact, does not change the way teachers teach in classroom. Moreover, although two textbooks used by teachers as the one and only major source of English language environment for learners in both curricula are organized differently, it does not change teachers’ paradigms concerning teaching English. Weaken environment, the lack of teaching competence and punishment and reward system of institution influence teachers’ creativity in classroom. So, the teachers’ competences in teaching are very important in curriculum development.

In addition, based on the findings, which may not be generalized in other setting, it is recommended that (1) teachers’ competencies as mentioned in Act No. 20, 2006 need to be increased and developed through MGMP, seminar, training and other professional discussion (Richard 2001; Harmer 2007). (2) Institution needs to facilitate and give good situation for teachers to apply their competency in classroom (House 1974; Richard 2001). (3) The book publishers need to have same educational responsibility in writing textbooks beside profit orientation (Huda 1999). Finally tightly governmental evaluation concerning teachers’ competency needs to be conducted fairly and regularly in order to increase quality of education.


Acar, A. (2007). Models, Norms and Goal for English as an International Language. The Journal of English as an International Language, Volume 1 , 61-72.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2008). Pokoknya BHMN: Ayat-Ayat Pendidikan Tinggi. Bandung: Lubuk Agung .

Azies, F., & Alwasilah, A. C. (2000). Pengajaran Bahasa Komunikatif: Teori dan Praktek. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewoods: Prentice Hall, Inc.

BSNP. (2007). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia No. 41 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Proses. Jakarta: Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language Teaching Approaches : An Overview. In M. Celce-Murcia, Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 3-10). Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dorney, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Applied Linguistics, 6/2 , 5-35.

Connole, H., Smith, B., & Wiseman, R. (1993). Research Methodology 1: Issues and Method in Research. Victoria: Deakin University.

DEPDIKBUD. (1993). Lampiran II Keputusan menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan No. 060/U/1993, 25 Februari 1993. Jakarta: DEPDIKBUD.

Depdiknas. (2005). Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19 Tahun 2005 Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse and Society, Vol 6(2) , 243-289.

Dikdasmen. (2000). Penyempurnaan/Penyesuaian Kurikulum 1994 SLTP (Suplemen GBBP). Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Dubin, F., & Olshtain, E. (1986). Course Design. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eriyanto. (2001). Analisis wacana: Pengantar Analisis Teks Media. Yogyakarta: LKis.

Ernawan, & Hardjomarsono. (1996). English for The SLTP: An Integarted Course of English. Bandung: Penerbit Angkasa.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. England: Longman Group Limited.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. England: Longman Group UK Limited.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

House, E. R. (1974). The Politics of educational Innovation. Urbana: McCuthcan Publishing Corporation.

Huda, N. (1999). Language Learning and Teaching. Malang: IKIP Malang Publisher.

Idi, A. (1999). Pengembangan Kurikulum Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta: Gaya Media Pratama.

Kartasasmita, G. (2009, No. 01/Th. VII). Pendidikan Agama Dalam Era Otonomi Daerah. I’tibar , 1-10.

Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lie, A. (2000). The Multicultural Curriculum: Education for Peace and Development. The 35th Southest Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Language Centre (SEAMELO RELC) Conference. Singapura, 17-19 April 2000: SEAMEO Jasper Monograph Series.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research (Fourth Edition). California: Sage Publication, Inc.

Miller, J. P., & Seller, W. (1985). Curriculum: Perspectives and Practice. New York: Longman Inc.

Mokarto, Sujatmiko, Josephine, & Kiswara. (2004). English on Sky for Junior High School Students Year IX. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.

Mulyasa, E. (2008). Implementasi KTSP: Kemandirian Guru dan Kepala Sekolah. Jakarta: Penerbit Bumi Aksara.

Nasution, S. (1993). Pengembangan Kurikulum. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Nunan, D. (. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. Mac Graw-Hill: Mac Graw-Hill Company.

Nunn, R. (2007). Competence and Teaching English as an International Language. The Journal of English as an International Language, Volume 1 , pp: 11-28.

Patil, Z. (2007). On the Nature and Role of English in Asia. The Journal of English as an International Language, Volume 1 , 25-47.

(2006). PERMENDIKNAS No. 23. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

(2006). PERMENDIKNAS No. 45. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Pezzoli, K., & Howe, D. (2001). Planning Pedagogy and Globalization. Journal of Planning Education and research , 365-375.

Phan, L. H. (2007). Toward a Critical Notion of Appropriation of English as an International Language. The journal of English as an International Language, Volume 1 , 48-60.

Retmono. (2004, December 30). Suara Merdeka online. Retrieved April 8, 2009, from http://www.suaramerdeka.com/harian/0412/30/nas09.htm

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

Wachidah, S. (2004). Introduction to Competence-Based Teaching in Action. Naional Seminar: Competence-Based Teaching in Action (pp. -). Bandung: HIMA Bahasa Inggris UPI Bandung.

Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum Principles and Foundation. New York: Harper and Row, Inc.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s