NEGOTIATING THE CURRICULUM: A CASE STUDY OF … · Sekolah tersebut pernah menerapkan Kurikulum 2013 selama satu semester, lalu ... Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes challenges in implementing

NEGOTIATING THE CURRICULUM:

A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH CURRICULUM

IMPLEMENTATION IN SMA SEMINARI MERTOYUDAN

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Pandu Wiyoga

Student Number: 131214152

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2017

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

i

NEGOTIATING THE CURRICULUM:

A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH CURRICULUM

IMPLEMENTATION IN SMA SEMINARI MERTOYUDAN

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By

Pandu Wiyoga

Student Number: 131214152

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

2017






vi

ABSTRACT

Wiyoga, Pandu. (2017). Negotiating the Curriculum: A Case Study of English Curriculum Implementation in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

Since the appearance of 2013 Curriculum, there have been different opinions among the educators about the implementation of this new curriculum. This event was the beginning of the very rapid curriculum change in the period of 2014-2016. Even in 2017, it seems that the debates have not been settled. Nowadays, it still can be found a significant number of schools that still use the 2006 Curriculum, while the other schools have already used the new 2013 Curriculum. Teachers are central of every curricular policy, and they are the persons who have the responsibility to implement the new changes. Provided that reason, teachers have to overcome challenges in implementing the National Curriculum to correspond to the school ideal.

Considering the background, SMA Seminari Mertoyudan was chosen to be the research setting. It was due to the fact that this school had already adopted the new 2013 Curriculum in one semester during the 2014/2015 school year. To investigate the case of curriculum implementation in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, the process starts with the question: How does the community of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan overcome challenges in the process of implementing National Curriculum for the tenth grade English subject to correspond to the school ideal?

Since the goal of this research is providing rich and detailed description about certain issue, a case study is appropriate since it concerns with rich and vivid description of the event that is relevant to the case. Moreover, two instruments of data gathering were used in this research: individual semi-structured interview and focus-group discussion. The individual semi-structured interview was for the school leaders and the English teacher, and the focus-group discussion was for the students. Those two instruments of data gathering are cross-referenced and serve as the basis of data triangulation.

The findings and discussions indicated that the challenges in implementing the National Curriculum for the tenth grade English subject mainly lay in the procedural level. For instance, the curriculum procedures in how they should assess the students were incompatible with their ideal. The school used two strategies to overcome the challenges in implementing the National Curriculum to correspond to their ideal: (1) Concern-based Adoption model, and (2) Negotiating the curriculum.

Keywords: Curriculum, implementation, negotiation, SMA Seminari Mertoyudan


vii

ABSTRAK

Wiyoga, Pandu. (2017). Negotiating the Curriculum: A Case Study of English Curriculum Implementation in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Ilmu Keguruan dan Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Sejak munculnya Kurikulum 2013, dunia pendidikan Indonesia nampak ramai dengan pro dan kontra terhadap implementasi Kurikulum Nasional tersebut. Peristiwa itu menandai perubahan Kurikulum Nasional yang sangat cepat selama periode 2014-2016. Di tahun 2017, nampaknya masalah ini belum juga tuntas. Sebagian sekolah menengah masih menggunakan Kurikulum Nasional 2006, dan sebagian lainnya sudah mulai menerapkan Kurikulum 2013. Melihat situasi ini, guru sebagai agen utama yang bertanggung jawab dalam implementasi Kurikulum Nasional menemui tantangan nyata yang harus dihadapi untuk menyesuaikan kebutuhan sekolah dan tuntutan kurikulum.

Berdasarkan latar belakang masalah tersebut, SMA Seminari Mertoyudan dipilih menjadi sampel penelitian mengingat bahwa sekolah tersebut pernah terlibat dalam pro dan kontra implementasi Kurikulum 2013. Pada tahun 2014, Sekolah tersebut pernah menerapkan Kurikulum 2013 selama satu semester, lalu hingga saat ini kembali lagi menggunakan Kurikulum 2006. Rumusan masalah yang diajukan adalah: Bagaimana cara komunitas SMA Seminari Mertoyudan menyelaraskan tuntutan Kurikulum Nasional dan visi sekolah demi menciptakan pembelajaran yang lebih baik bagi siswa?

Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah tersebut, peneliti menggunakan studi kasus sebagai metodologi penelitian dalam studi ini. Dengan menggunakan metode studi kasus, diharapkan studi ini mampu memberikan gambaran yang mendetail tentang proses implementasi Kurikulum Nasional di SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. Maka dari itu peneliti menggunakan dua jenis instrumen penilitian yaitu individual interview dan fokus grup diskusi. Individual interview diperuntukkan bagi guru dan pejabat sekolah, serta fokus grup diskusi digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data dari para siswa. Dua instrumen itu dibandingkan satu sama lain untuk menghasilkan gambaran data yang valid.

Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa komunitas SMA Seminari Mertoyudan memang menyadari bahwa ada beberapa aspek Kurikulum Nasional memang tidak sejalan dengan visi sekolah tentang pendidikan. Secara isi memang tidak ada masalah dengan Kurikulum Nasional, namun soal prosedur implementasi seperti contohnya soal cara guru harus menilai siswa kadang kala memang tidak sesuai dengan visi sekolah. Maka dari itu, sekolah memakai dua strategi untuk menyesuaikan tuntutan Kurikulum Nasional dengan visi sekolah: (1) Concern-based Adoption model, dan (2) Negotiating the curriculum.

Kata kunci: Curriculum, implementation, negotiation, SMA Seminari Mertoyudan


viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have come to this point without the presence of

several individuals in my life. First of all, I would like to show my deepest

gratitude to my mother, Maria Angela Meinawati. She always trusts and supports

me to follow my passion in this life. Her trust has encouraged me to finish what I

have begun.

I am very glad to get a valuable experience for conducting research in

SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. From the interviews with several participants, I learn

many things about teaching. I admire the way they interpret the challenges in

implementing curriculum as the opportunities to provide better learning

experiences.

I would also like to thank my thesis advisor as well as my academic

advisor, Markus Budiraharjo, M.Ed., Ed.D., who always motivates and

encourages me in his own unique way to finish my study in this department. For

me, it is an honor to be one of his students. I would like to thank all of ELSP

community who kindly educate me to be a man for and with others. Four years in

this department is an absolutely priceless privilege for me.

I would like to further thank my extraordinary friends, Judha Jiwangga,

Wisang Putrahesa, and Vio Rosario. They all have been extremely helpful through

their willingness to spare their time helping me to conduct my research. The last, I

would like to thank Ayu Priska Puspita Erene who has always been my grammar

and pronunciation tutor. I could not thank more for all of her kindness, but her

presence is always the biggest gift for me.

Pandu Wiyoga


ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................ i

APPROVAL PAGE (1) ............................................................................. ii

APPROVAL PAGE (2) ............................................................................. iii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ...................................... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...................................... v

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. vi

ABSTRAK .................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................... xii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background ......................................................................... 1

B. Research Questions ............................................................. 3

C. Research Significance ......................................................... 4

D. Definition of Terms ............................................................. 5

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Theoretical Description ....................................................... 7

1. The Nature of Curriculum ............................................... 7

2. Curriculum Implementation ............................................ 9

a. Curriculum Implementation Approaches .................... 10

b. Curriculum Implementation Models ........................... 11

3. Negotiating the Curriculum ............................................. 14

a. Classroom Negotiation Models ................................... 15

b. Learning as Active Process of Negotiation ................. 17

4. Bourdieu’s Field Theory ................................................. 18


x

Page

B. Theoretical Framework ....................................................... 20

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Method ................................................................. 22

B. Research Setting .................................................................. 23

C. Research Participants ........................................................... 25

D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ........ 26

E. Data Analysis Technique ..................................................... 28

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Research Results ................................................................. 30

1. The Learning Ideal of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan ........ 30

2. The Impact of Recent Curricular Policy ......................... 33

3. The Challenges in

Implementing National Curriculum ................................ 36

B. Discussion ............................................................................ 40

1. Concern-based Adoption:

Education as an Autonomous Domain ............................. 40

2. Negotiating the Curriculum .............................................. 44

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Conclusions ......................................................................... 48

B. Recommendations ............................................................... 51

REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 53

APPENDICES .......................................................................................... 55


xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 The Field of Power .................................................................... 19


xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

Appendix 1 Interview Guideline ................................................................. 55

Appendix 2 Verbatim Transcript 1 (Headmaster) ....................................... 56

Appendix 3 Verbatim Transcript 2

(Vice Headmaster for Curriculum Affairs) ............................. 61

Appendix 4 Verbatim Transcript 3 (Tenth Grade English Teacher)........... 65


(Forum Group Discussion - Students) .................................... 70

Appendix 6 Permission Letter ..................................................................... 73


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This research is intended to investigate how the community of SMA

Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes challenges in implementing the National

Curriculum for English subject to correspond to this school’s ideal. This chapter

consists of some parts namely research background, research question, research

significance and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Most of Indonesian students experience curricular change at least one time

during their study period from elementary school to senior high school. In

Indonesia, what students may notice on every curricular change are only two

things: the new name for particular subjects, and the extra time for the school day.

In most cases, people tend to understand curricular change only on how many

materials are added. Whereas, what more important is the change in the way

people learn and deliver the new curricular content. In other words, what really

matter in a curricular change is not how many changes are made but how the

changes are implemented.

During 1947-2013, Indonesian curriculum had been changed ten times.

Nowadays, some schools use the previous 2006 curriculum whereas the other

schools, which are considered as ‘ready’, are allowed to use the newest 2013


2

curriculum. In some cases, there are also schools which had already used the 2013

curriculum but chose to go back to the 2006 curriculum because they considered

themselves not ready to implement the 2013 curriculum. The problems varied, but

in most cases the problems were found in the procedural level. For example, the

teachers were not yet comfortable in the way they must assess their students. As

previously known, the 2013 curriculum requires teachers to have the ability

assessing three different areas namely; cognitive, affective, and psychomotor

aspect on every individual student.

In the recent years, the very rapid curriculum changes have brought real

challenges to the teachers in all around this country. Teachers have to adapt for

new curriculum in very short period of time. Also, because of the new curriculum

is only for the first year students, the teachers have to teach with two different

curriculums at the same time for at least two years before all of the students that

use the previous curriculum graduate from the school. Ornstein and Hunkins

(2013) noted that, in this era, “educators are being pulled in many direction, some

want progressive and others want more direct teaching and more conservative

curriculum addressing standard contents” (p. 223). In such kind of situation, it is

possible that educators are reluctant to change because, as human beings,

educators tend to avoid problems and changes if they seem too complex.

This research is not aimed to focus on technical nor structural curriculum

problems. On the other hand, it is made for investigating the process of

implementing the national curriculum to correspond to a particular school’s

culture. The research was conducted in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, as a boarding


3

school, it is assumed that this school may offer peculiar case of overcoming

challenges in implementing National Curriculum. Donohue (1963) has noted that

Jesuit’s schools realized that “they had never yet found that the curriculum

permitted by the government corresponded fully with their ideal” (p. 136).

Considering the background of SMA Mertoyudan which founded by the Jesuits

and Donohue’s statement of Jesuits’ school, one can note that this school may

need to modify certain aspect of National Curriculum to correspond to their ideal.

Since this study is attempted to provide in-depth and rich description of

curriculum implementation in the chosen school as research setting, case study

will be the appropriate approach to capture and describe the lived experience of

the participants.

B. Research Question

This case study research is conducted to investigate the curriculum

implementation process of English subject for the tenth grade in SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan. In order to understand the case which has been already chosen, the

researcher raises the question of: How does the community of SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan overcome challenges in the process of implementing National

Curriculum for the tenth grade English subject to correspond to the school

ideal? The answer for this question is expected to reveal the way community of

SMA Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes the tension between curriculum demand,

school culture, and students’ need of learning.


4

C. Research Significance

This case study research of curriculum implementation is conducted in

order to contribute to the study of curriculum implementation in English

Language Education Study Program. It might be just a small research, but it is

also expected to help future researchers. There are some thoughts in this writing

that may be useful as a reference to conduct more advance study about curriculum

implementation.

In the process to write this research, the researcher will involve in kind of

interview and discussion with the students, the English teacher, the vice

headmaster for curriculum affairs, and also the headmaster of SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan. After the research is conducted, it is expected to be a medium for the

community of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan to reflect and to understand the way

they implement the curriculum to correspond to their ideal of learning.

The process of curriculum implementation is a small piece of puzzle that

represents complicated relation between school as educational institution and

government as policy makers. For that reason, after this research is conducted, the

researcher expects that it will provide an idea for policy makers to revisit at very

practical life namely teaching and learning inside the classroom. Sometimes, it

will be nice for education policy makers to know that understanding the

curriculum as a theory is one thing, but knowing how to apply them in real life

situations is another thing that may be different from what we can imagine.


5

D. Definition of Terms

In order to avoid misunderstanding of the terms, there are some terms need

to be clarified. The terms that related to this research are:

1. National Curriculum

According to Hamilton (1990), curriculum is the ‘what’ of education,

whereas teaching and learning is the ‘how’ of education. Curriculum is configured

based on the cultural heritage that is believed worthy for the next generation. A

curriculum is based upon the past but is shaped to answer the future. In that case,

curriculum is more than a vision; it is also a cultural tool. Therefore, a national

curriculum is a set of curricular procedures that made by the policy maker for

realizing the national education goals.

2. Negotiating the Curriculum

In this research, the term negotiating the curriculum means a process of

modifying its procedures or contents to correspond to particular school ideal. It

should be noted that, there are three groups engage in this process of negotiation;

school leaders, teachers, and students. These three groups of school community

should contribute to the process of negotiation. Cook (1992) finds that negotiation

means about the same in education as it does in everyday life (p. 14). Each people

come together bringing their own points of view, needs, and wants. Together they

want to work for the outcomes that satisfy their hopes. In educational terms, the

result of negotiation may come to an agreement about how to bring the best

possible learning for the learners.


6

3. Case study

Ary et al. (2010) define case study as “a type of ethnographic research

study that focuses on a single unit” (p. 29). The aim of case study research is to

gain detailed description and understanding of the case which is being studied.

Yin (2009) adds that the desire of using case study is to understand the complex

social phenomenon and to keep meaningful characteristics of real-life events. A

case study is used in this research so that the researcher can offer a rich and in-

depth description of lived experience of the participants.


7

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the review of theoretical writings and researches

related to the study matter which are used by the researcher to design the logical

structure of the study. It consists of two parts, namely theoretical description and

theoretical framework.

A. Theoretical Description

In this part, the researcher reviews some theories which are directly

relevant to the study of curriculum negotiation. Those theories are believed as

useful to help the researcher understands the nature and the concept of curriculum

implementation.

1. The Nature of Curriculum

There are many ways to define the word curriculum, and there is no

shortage of definitions available. According to Moore (2015) one of the best

known and influential curriculum definers is Lawrence Stenhouse (p. 44).

Stenhouse (1978) notes that people “appear to be confronted by two different

views of the curriculum” (p. 2). One side may understand curriculum as an

intention, plan, or idea about what would happen in school. Whereas, the other

may see it as reality or what really happens in school. Based on this distinction,

Stenhouse (1978) defines curriculum as “an attempt to communicate the essential


8

principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to

critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice” (p. 4).

The simpler definition of curriculum is offered by Hamilton (1990), he

argues that curriculum is the ‘what’ of education, whereas teaching and learning is

the ‘how’ of education (p. 48). Curriculum is configured based on the cultural

heritage that is believed worthy for the next generation. A curriculum draws upon

the past but is shaped to answer the future. To this extent, a curriculum can be

defined as a social artifact. A curriculum is more than a vision; it is also a cultural

tool since it can be shaped by its users, both those who utilize it and those who

steer it. Stenhouse (1978) has described earlier about curriculum as a cultural tool:

A curriculum is rather like recipe in cookery. It can be criticized on the grounds of practicality – we can’t get hold of six dozen larks’ tongues and grocer can’t find any ground unicorn horn! A curriculum, like a recipe for a dish, is first imagined as a possibility, then the subject of experiment. The recipe offered publicly is in a sense a report on the experiment. Similarly, a curriculum should be grounded in practice. Finally, within limits, a recipe can be varied according to taste. So can a curriculum (p. 5).

Every curriculum can be structured in many ways, it depends in the socio cultural

where the curriculum should be applied. By the same reason, the potential of

every curriculum can be delivered in many ways. To sum up, curriculum is an

unified education system, “a curriculum is more than a cluster of educational

topics, just as a house more than a pile of bricks” (Hamilton, 1990, p. 41). If an

educational program can be reduced to a list of topics or subjects only, there is

perfect reason for labeling it as table of contents rather than as a curriculum.


9

2. Curriculum Implementation

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) differentiate curriculum change into three

levels: initiation, implementation, and maintenance (p. 226). First, initiation level

is needed to prepare the basic stage for the next level which is implementation. In

this stage, people could raise essential questions such as who will be involved,

what level of support is expected, and how ready people for the change. Second,

implementation level deals with how people innovate the change inside the

classroom. Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) add that to implement “means accepting

the new curricular content and adapting the suggested educational activities into

particular classroom, but it does not mean accepting without question what the

change presents” (p. 226). In this level of change, teachers are expected to be

creative to personalize suggested curriculum content so that they can optimize the

learning experiences upon the students’ unique need.

Hill (1986) describes that perhaps it is good to realize that curriculum may

have changed in name only even though the actual teaching and learning in the

classroom may have changed not at all (p. 72). In addition, Ornstein and Hunkins

(2013) add that, in this era, “educators are being pulled in many direction, some

want progressive and others want more direct teaching and more conservative

curriculum addressing standard contents” (p. 223). In such kind of situation, it is

possible that educators are reluctant to change because, as human beings,

educators tend to avoid problems and changes if they seem too complex. Hill

(1986) describes earlier about the fact of curriculum implementation in the life-

world.


10

A curriculum cannot be assumed to be implemented because the teachers refer to it by a particular. There are many conditions which must be present for a curriculum to be implemented. Some of these are: an understanding of the design of the curriculum, a valuing of the curriculum by staff; financial, personnel, and policy commitment by the school boards; organizational support and leadership by the school principal; in service support and skills and understanding of supervisors; and perhaps most critical to outcomes, new or changed teaching behaviors by instructor, and new or changed classroom behaviors by learners (p. 72).

This phenomenon of reluctance to change is normal and caused by feeling of

insecurity among educators. Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explain that “people

often resist change if no financial or time support is given to the effort, project for

which no monies are budgeted is rarely destined to be implemented” (p. 225). On

the other hand, the reluctance to change is beneficial for certain reason. It could be

a positive element because it would help the educators to think carefully about the

proposed change.

a. Curriculum Implementation Approaches

As previously discussed, there are several ways to define the word

curriculum is. The problem is all definitions about whatsoever thing is never

politically or philosophically neutral. According to Posner (2004) at least there are

two approaches that may influence people’s concept of curriculum (p. 217). The

first is research, developmental, and diffusion (RD&D) model. This approach

views the teachers as passive agents whose do not have any particular goals in

teaching except which are suggested by the curriculum maker. It expects teachers

completely cooperate to the curriculum set of procedures. In the educational

world, this model is illustrated by the market parable: the curriculum is produced

by the policy maker and marketed to the school.


11

The problem with the RD&D approach may be found in the way it deals

with classroom activities. Indeed, RD&D approach requires well prepared

classroom activities but this also where the problems are emerged. It suggests how

teacher should behave but gives no room for collaboration in teaching. It gives

teachers answers to question they never ask and to problems they never have. On

the other hand, the second approach, the collaborative approach views teachers are

also like students that “should participate in decisions that affect the condition

under which they must work" (Posner, 2004, p. 228). This approach supports

negotiation and compromise, both teachers and students should be viewed as

active participants because they have their own sets of purposes and beliefs.

b. Curriculum Implementation Models

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) note that curriculum implementation requires

restructuring and replacement (p. 227). Shaping the school culture is required in

curriculum implementation. To implement a curriculum, people have to deal with

numerous changes, including new curricular contents, new pedagogical

approaches, new educational materials, and even new educational environments.

The most important thing to consider is to give the educators enough time to think

and try on different beliefs that lead them to the understanding of such

innovations which should be made later. It could be noted that without the

presence of those things, it is hard to believe a curriculum can be implemented

accordingly.


12

1). Modernist Models

Modernists believe that implementing new curriculum should be created

through careful reasoning (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017, p. 270). Although, they

also realize that even in well-tested procedures of development and

implementation, there will be still a kind of surprise of something that have never

been expected would happen. They do realize that careful reasoning and well-

tested plans do not guarantee for the expected result. Ornstein and Hunkins (2017)

state that “a well-written play does not guarantee, nor should it, that all audience

members will leave the theater with the same knowledge, the same affects, and the

same psychological aspects” (p. 271).

a). Overcoming Resistance to Change Model

The overcoming resistance to change model has been known for many

years. Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explain that “the strategy for overcoming

resistance to change is to give school administrators and teachers equal power” (p.

228). They should be involved in discussion and decision about what needs to be

changed. To this extent, it is possible “when leaders adopt such strategies, the

staff members tend to view the innovation as self-created and feel committed to

it” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 228).

b). Organization Development Model

Shmuck and Miles (1970) suggest an approach called organizational

development model (as cited in Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 229). It is designed

to be a long-range project to improve an organization’s problem-solving for


13

renewal process. This model emphasizes heavily on teamwork and organizational

culture. Furthermore, this model views implementation as an ongoing and

interactive process. In short, it can be concluded that this model believes that

individuals care about the future and want to be actively engaged in the renewal

process of educational system.

c). Concern-based Adoption Model

There is similarity between Concern-based Adoption model and

organizational development model. It can be seen in the way these two theories

deal with individuals’ involvement in curricular change. Ornstein and Hunkins

(2013) believe that “all change originates with individual change” (p. 229). The

difference between those two models lies on the way they address their field.

Unlike organizational development model, Concern-based Adoption model only

addresses adoption (implementation) as their field, when organizational

development model addresses implementation of curriculum, curriculum

development, and even the curriculum design. Generally, this model believes that

curriculum implementation happens when teachers are able to modify the

curriculum creatively where it is necessary for the benefit of their students.

2). Postmodernist Models

Ornstein and Hunkins (2017) explain “postmodernism is more of a

philosophy that is still in a dynamic state of emergence, it is more of a critique of

modernism and its influence on various realms of being and doing than a ‘guide’

for specific actions” (p. 275). According to Slattery (1999), postmodernism does


14

not offer particular method or approach to educational thinking (as cited in

Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017, p. 276). People who identify themselves as

postmodernists or post-constructivists, argue that modernists work under a

mythical assumption of precise plans. Postmodernists reject the conception

between precise plans and predicted results. They believe that there are gaps

between plans and results. The plans, curricula in this case, are essentially general

and the people addressed within the curriculum are unique and bounded with their

own culture and beliefs.

Roth (2014) assumes that “too many other factors are at play: the students’

abilities, their interests, their social situations, and their cultural backgrounds,

among other factors. Also, we must consider the teacher’s competence, interest in

the subject matter, even the teacher’s social and cultural background” (as cited in

Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017, p. 275). As previously discussed, postmodernists do

not offer any particular method or approach but they do believe that there are

some actions can be done for creating postmodern model. Those actions are as

follows: “reflective dialogue, autobiographical journals, non-confrontational

debate, cooperative investigations, and probing question (Slattery, 1999, as cited

in Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017, p. 276).


The term negotiating the curriculum originally belongs to the work of an

Australian educator, Garth Boomer. It began on 1970s when he “wanted to

explore an issue that went behind language to the eternal triangle of education: the

teacher, the child, and the curriculum” (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook, 1992, p.


15

4). Boomer concerned on the question of how children learn. He believed that

even though teacher has wide powers in school, teacher is powerless within the

education system. The reflection on power within education system led him to

develop his theory on how some existing learning strategies can be improved. Up

to that point, Boomer began to develop a theory what is called as negotiating the

curriculum.

Boomer (1992) contrasts his negotiated learning model to early learning

model (motivated learning) in order to unveil what he had already discovered on

the study of curriculum negotiation (p. 9). He explains that motivated learning is

traditional curriculum model in which teacher intends to teach certain subject after

they reflects on past experience and the content to be taught. In real world, this

model can be seen when students are given marks for their work based on how

close they have come to the teacher’s intention. On the other hand, in negotiated

learning model, teacher talks over openly about the reason why students must

learn certain topic listed in the curriculum and they come together to plan the

negotiable options. Therefore, “negotiating the curriculum means deliberately

planning to invite students to contribute to, and to modify the educational program

so that they will have a real investment both in the learning journey and in the

outcomes” (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook, 1992, p. 13).

a. Classroom Negotiation Models

Negotiating the curriculum is not a simple matter, the practicalities of how

negotiation can be implemented remain unravel. Hence, Jonathan Cook proposes

two models which may help to synthesize the concept of negotiating the


16

curriculum and to provide required methodological approaches. The two models

are as follows:

1). Model 1: Learners’ Requirements

Boomer (1992) indicates “traditionally there has been very different role in

classrooms; teachers teach and children learn, teachers guide and children are

guided, teachers decide what is to be done and children usually try to comply” (p.

24). Teachers accommodate children and children accommodate teachers, but they

have different roles. At almost every moment of teaching activities, teacher has to

make delicate choices in order to avoid the classroom shallowness. In this sense,

teaching has always been a matter of negotiating the curriculum. If there is

constraint of an imposed syllabus, the teacher must declare the fact, explain why

and clarify the constraints. The idea that students must come to own something

that is not theirs is by no means impossible, whatever the content is chosen,

students should know why they are dealing with it.

2). Model 2: Negotiation as Process Helper

What needs to be underlined in this model is that negotiation after all is a

shared procedure between teacher and students (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook,

1992, p. 21). It is better that the teacher can introduce some things that they have

not considered yet but it is both necessary and interesting to consider. The

students should know what and why things should be done during the learning

process. It might be wise if the teacher and students discuss together the lesson

plan which is going to be used later on. Indeed, students are also expected to raise


17

questions and to give suggestions during the discussion. This process is designed

to make the consensus agreement between teacher and students about what things

to be learned and why things should be learned. Most importantly, teacher should

also help students to understand the goal of certain learning subject before they

begin to travel toward it.

b. Learning as Active Process of Negotiation

Cook (1992) finds that people tend to strive hardest for things they wish to

own, or to keep and enhance things they already own (p. 14). That is the principle

of negotiating the curriculum. Negotiating the curriculum means about the same

as it does in everyday life. Each people comes together bringing their points of

view, needs, and wants. Together they want to work for the outcomes that satisfy

their expectation. In educational terms, the result of negotiation may come to an

agreement about how to bring the best possible learning for the learners.

Cook (1992) adds that the rule is simple, “learners will work harder and

learn better, and what they learn will mean more to them if they are discovering

their own ideas, asking their own questions and fighting hard to answer them for

themselves” (p. 15). As a shared procedure between teacher and students,

negotiating the curriculum offers the best chance to maximize classroom learning

productivity. Learning is an active process, students will learn best when they

want to. They want to when they are doing it for themselves as a result of their

needs.


18

4. Bourdieu’s Field Theory

Social field theory is Bourdieu’s main contribution to social sciences.

Hilgers and Mangez note “when Bourdieu was developing field theory, the same

concept of the field was already in common use in other disciplines” (p. 2).

Mathematics, psychology, and physics have already adopted field theories. It

nonetheless shares a common epistemology with other disciplines, and according

to Cassirer (2000) what is meant by the word ‘field’ is not merely a thing-concept

but a concept of relation (as cited in Hilgers & Mangez, 2015, p. 4). In addition,

Lewin (1943) notes that field theory is probably best characterized as a method,

namely a scientific constructs method of analyzing causal relations. One could not

call it as correct or incorrect in the same way as a theory in the usual sense of term

(as cited in Hilgers & Mangez, 2015, p. 4). Therefore, the theory of field is a

scientific method which meant to analyze a system relation between two agents or

institutions in order to describe a power relation structure among them.

A field is an autonomous domain of activity that responds to rules that are

specific to it (Hilgers & Mangez, 2015, p. 5). Every field has specific rules, for

example, the political field has to maintain a close relationship with the people

outside the field, because political agents derive their legitimacy from the

representation of the citizens. By that example, Bourdieu tries to explain that each

field is always struggling to win its autonomy back from social, political and

economic constraints. In his research on religion, education, science, symbolic

goods, culture, economy, law, politics, journalism, etc., Bourdieu concludes that

the greater a field’s autonomy, the more it functions in accordance with the


19

interests inherent in the type of activity characterizes it (p. 7). In other words, as

autonomy increases, the freedom grows and the agents tend to interpret the world

in terms of their logics and beliefs.

Fig. 2.1: The Field of Power Adapted from Hilgers and Mangez (2015:8)

The picture above is showing the concept of field of power in Bourdieu’s

field theory. Hilgers and Mangez (2005) describe that the field of power is the

space of force between agents or institutions (p. 8). Within the field of power, two

poles, namely cultural pole and economic pole. These two poles compete with one

another. The economic pole is the dominant pole, while the cultural pole is the

dominated pole. For example, in Bourdieu’s early work, he writes that sometimes

the literary field will generate an autonomous pole (art for the art’s sake) or

heteronomous pole favorable to those who dominate the field economically and

politically (bourgeois art). Following the same logic, Hilgers and Mangez (2005)

suggest “in education, one can also note an opposition between those who

conceive education as an autonomous domain primarily concerned with cultural

matters, and those who emphasize education in relation to external concerns such

as economic prosperity and competitiveness” (p. 9).


20

B. Theoretical Framework

In order to understand and interpret the data, some theories are used. As

elaborated in the previous part, the researcher uses three theories. The first theory

is about the curriculum implementation theory, the second is curriculum

negotiation theory and the last is Bourdieu’s social field theory. Those three

theories are expected to give reasonable points of view to interpret the case of

curriculum implementation of tenth grade English subject in SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan.

The first theory about the curriculum implementation theory is used to

understand the process of implementing the National Curriculum in the research

setting. As stated by Hill (1988) “a curriculum cannot be assumed to be

implemented because the teachers refer to it by a particular. There are many

conditions which must be present for a curriculum to be implemented” (p. 72).

This theory is the framework for the researcher to understand the condition of the

school which is being investigated. The purpose is to understand the curriculum

implementation model that is being used in this school.

Second, Boomer’s negotiating the curriculum theory is used to explore the

case related to the curriculum implementation in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. By

using this theory, the researcher concerns to the eternal triangle of education: the

teacher, the student, and the curriculum. It has been explained before that a

curriculum is like a recipe which can be varied according to taste. It means that

negotiating curriculum is a must for every institution who utilizes it. Negotiating

curriculum means inviting both teachers and students altogether to contribute to,


21

and modify the educational program so they will have real investment both in the

learning journey and in the outcomes. Boomer’s theory of negotiating the

curriculum provides a framework to determine how the process of negotiating

curriculum should be happened.

Bourdieu’s social field theory is the third theory which is used in this

research. Bourdieu’s social field theory is a scientific method which meant to

analyze a system relation between two agents in order to describe a power relation

structure among them (Hilgers and Mangez, 2015, p. 4). According to Bourdieu,

every institution is a field of power which is characterized by an opposition of two

poles, namely cultural pole and economic pole. Following the same logic, in

education, one can also note that the conflict of those poles is the opposition

between people who conceive education as an institution primarily concerned

with cultural matters, and those who emphasize education in relation to external

concerns such as economic prosperity and competitiveness. The purpose of using

Bourdieu’s social field theory is to analyze which pole is dominant in SMA

Seminari Mertoyudan. By analyzing the dominant pole, it is possible to

understand the school’s position taking on curriculum implementation.


22

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METODOLOGY

This chapter presents a rationale for the method of research and analysis.

The researcher describes the method of research and analysis, outlines the

procedure in gathering and analyzing data, and reveals the boundaries of the

research.

A. Research Method

This research belonged to qualitative approach. Normally, qualitative

research tries to understand the phenomenon by interpreting and representing the

data which were drawn during the research. Hancock and Algozzine (2006)

indicate that qualitative research will result in a wealth of rich information. It can

be assumed that qualitative research was more time consuming than quantitative

research since it requires considerable time and resource in order to understand

rich and complex information. Henceforth, Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Ravazieh

(2010) write that qualitative research paid a lot attention to context meaning that

it was bounded by a particular setting. On balance, qualitative approach was

chosen since this study was dealing with the research question which required

detailed understanding about particular community.

In addition, this research was expected to give in-depth description of

curriculum implementation in form of case study. Ary et al., (2010) define case


23

study as “a type of ethnographic research study that focuses on a single unit” (p.

29). The aim of case study research was to gain detailed description and

understanding of the chosen case. On the other words, in line with what is written

by Yin (2009), the desire of using case study is to understand the complex social

phenomenon and to keep meaningful characteristics of real-life events. Although

general characteristics between several types of qualitative research are the same,

Hancock and Algozzine (2006) state that “case study is different from other types

in that they are intensive analyses and descriptions of a single unit or system

bounded by space and time” (p. 11). Above all, case study method was chosen

because it offered opportunities for the researcher to examine further questions

related to the case.

Generally, there are three types of case study which were intrinsic case

study, instrumental case study and multiple or collective case study. In Particular,

this research carries the intrinsic case study. Ary et al., (2010) explain that

intrinsic case study is conducted to understand a particular case that may be

unusual, unique or different, and in some way, it drives the researcher’s attention.

Meanwhile, Hancock and Algozzine (2006) write that intrinsic case study is “less

examining general theories or generalizing research findings to broader

populations” (p. 34).

B. Research Setting

In this case study of the implementation of National Curriculum, the

researcher needed a kind of school where there is strain between its own concept


24

of education which is often represented by its existing legacy and government

education concept which is often represented by the National Curriculum. Apple

(2004) suggests the importance of acquiring detailed description of classroom

sample in a certain school in the study of curriculum implementation.

The points also imply that one must study the curriculum in use within schools. Instead of input-output studies of school achievement, the researcher needs to “live” in classrooms, to see the complex forms of interaction that occur in classrooms. In this way, more accurate pictures can be got of which particular “kinds” of students “get” what particular kinds of knowledge and dispositions. This makes analyses of the labeling process in schools of particular importance, obviously (p. 15).

As a result, this research was conducted in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. It is a

private school located on Magelang, Central Java. As matter of fact, this school is

under the control of the Jesuits. It is the oldest Jesuit school in Indonesia among

the seven other schools. In this school, the students are called seminarians which

mean students in a seminary of Roman Catholic Church (“Seminarian”, Merriam-

Webster). This school has four grades: Kelas Persiapan Pertama (KPP), Medan

Tamtama (tenth grade), Medan Madya (eleventh grade), and Medan Utama

(twelfth grade). Specifically, the research was conducted in Medan Tamtama

(tenth grade).

In this school, the teachers are varied, which means that the teachers do

not consist only of the staff teachers, but the priests and brothers are also

considered as teachers since they are also engaged in teaching process of some

subject lessons. Another thing to consider is that the subject lessons in this school

are often different compared to other schools. For instance, in SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan, some special subjects are added into the learning process such as


25

Latin Language, History of Christianity, and Bible Criticism. The other subject

lessons may be same to other schools in the term only but completely different in

the contents such as music subject which consists of cantus (theoretical music)

and orchestra (practical music), and English subject which consists of English

lesson and rhetorics or public speaking. In this research, the researcher focused to

investigate how the community of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes

challenges in implementing National Curriculum to correspond to the school

ideal.

C. Research Participants

Since the focus of this research was to describe the implementation of

National Curriculum on English Subject in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, data of

this research were collected from the individuals who experienced the case.

Creswell (2011) suggests that the participants of the research should be the

individuals who are included and related directly to the research question (p. 9).

For this reason, purposive samples were believed to be sufficient to provide

maximum insight and understanding of what researcher is studying (Ary et al.,

2010, p. 428). In particular, the researcher applied the stratified purposeful

sampling in which guaranteed that subgroups were represented so that

comparisons could be facilitated. What means by subgroups were students,

teachers, vice headmaster for curriculum affairs, and school principal. Those

three different strata were expected to give reasonable data comparisons.


26

Boomer (1992) emphasizes that implementing curriculum means inviting

both teachers and students altogether to contribute to, and modify the educational

program so they will have real investment both in the learning journey and in the

outcomes. Notably, student is one of the most important actors in curriculum

implementation process, without their contribution there is no need to implement

the curriculum. Moreover, teachers are central to any curricular improvement.

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explain that they “must be viewed as full

participants in curriculum implementation, not passive recipients of the

curriculum” (p. 233).

To get the overall picture of how curriculum was implemented in SMA

Seminari Mertoyudan, the vice headmaster for curriculum affairs was the key

player which is needed to be investigated. Vice headmaster for curriculum affairs,

ideally, should help the teacher to acquire the pedagogic and curricular requisite

for curriculum implementation. The last key player in this research was the

school principal. The school principal’s leadership is an important key to the

success of curriculum implementation. Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) write that

“effective principal foster enthusiasm for the new program, if the principal

creates good atmosphere in which good working exist among teachers and

between teachers and support staffs, it is more likely that curricular change will

be implemented” (p. 234).


27

D. Research Instruments and Data Gathering Technique

To understand the case, in this research the mainly used instruments were

interviews. The interview processes were conducted in two levels: focus group

and individual. This allowed information which was collected during the two

types of interviews to be cross-referenced. It was better to understand that what is

meant by interview here is in line with what have been explained by Ary et al.

(2010), “the qualitative interview is typically more probing and open-ended and

less structured than the interview used in quantitative research” (p. 438). In

particular, the researcher used semi-structured interview. As stated by Hancock

and Algozine (2006), semi-structured interview is well-suited for case study

research since it allows researcher to ask predetermined but flexibly questions. It

also allowed the researcher to ask follow-up questions to probe more deeply

issues. Apart from this, focus group interview was implemented only for

interviewing students. This kind of interview was considered more suitable

revealed several participants’ point of view.

Before the interviews took place, several open-ended questions were

prepared and designed to discover what was important to understand about the

case. Moreover, the researcher took a note and recorded the whole interview

process with audio recording during the interview so that the data would be easy

for the further analysis. For the most part, the researcher used this instrument in

order to collect the data about participants’ opinions, beliefs, and feelings about

the implementation of the curriculum.


28

As stated before, alongside the interview, the researcher also used focus

group discussion as another instrument to gain understanding the case under the

research. This kind of interview provided more balance picture to emerge. It also

served as integral part of the triangulation process, a process using multiple

methods to study an issue or case. Yin (2012) describes that “finding and using

additional sources bearing on the same topic would help even more” (P. 13).

Focus group discussion was examined to verify comments made during the

personal interview. The data which were collected from individual semi-

structured interview and focus group interview served as the basis for

triangulation.

E. Data Analysis Technique

There were three steps in analyzing the data which involved organizing

the data, summarizing the data, and interpreting the data. The first step began

when the researcher formulated the research question and scribbled the

information from the research instruments. The second thing that the researcher

had to do in organizing was to reduce the data which could be done through

coding. Coding was a process when the researcher sorted the data into categories

which represented the similar ideas, concepts, setting, and so on. Ary et al. (2002)

suggest that the researcher should “identifies each category by choosing a word

or phrase that describes the essence of the category, these words become the

codes for the categories” (p. 466).


29

The code which was used in this research was type of context codes.

According to Bogdan and Biklen, this type of code contained general information

of the topic and subjects which were internally consistent but distinct from

another. The code consists of two letters that represent terms from the theory.

The codes are LI means learning ideal, CP means curricular policy, CL means

curriculum challenges, AD means autonomous domain, NC means negotiating

curriculum, and EL means English learning. The code which was used in this

research was type of context codes. According to Bogdan and Biklen, this type of

code contained general information of the topic and subjects which were

internally consistent but distinct from another. In detail, the researcher used

constant comparative method which allowed the researcher to examine each new

unit of meaning to determine its distinctive characteristics then group them with

similar categories (as cited in Ary et al., 2002, 467).

The third step was to summarize the data through examining all entries

with the same code and then merge these categories into patterns by finding links

and connections among. The fourth step was interpreting the data to reflect

meaning and insights from the data. The researcher described what was

important, why it was important and what could be learned from it. It was an

inductive process, which the researcher made generalization based on the

connections and common aspects among categories and patterns categories.

Although interpretation process was personally processed without set of rules, the

researcher relied on the theoretical framework which was presented in Chapter II

in order to avoid personal feelings when interpreting the data.


30

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chapter is intended to elaborate the interpretation of the findings in the

light of the research question of how the community of SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan overcomes challenges in implementing the National Curriculum for

the tenth grade English subject to correspond to the school’s ideal. The

elaboration of the findings is divided into two parts namely research results, and

discussion.

A. Research Results

This section presents the results of data gathering activity. In this section,

the results are divided into three themes namely the learning ideal of SMA

Seminari Mertoyudan, the impact of recent curricular policy, and the challenges in

implementing National Curriculum. Those three themes are expected to give

comprehensive understanding about the background of the case which was being

investigated.

1. The Learning Ideal of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan

SMA Seminari Mertoyudan is a boarding school located in Magelang,

Central Java. It is a senior high school as well as a seminary for educating priest

candidates. As a boarding school, it has different culture compared to other

schools. For example, there is a distinction between school activities and


31

dormitory activities. School activities refer to the formal learning activities inside

the class during the school day which begins at 06.45 until 12.45. During the

accreditation process, the assessors often asked about the time allocation for

school activities which was very short compared to other schools in Magelang.

For instance, most of senior high schools allocated around minimum of eight

hours on each school day. However, they usually did the tricky answer, they said

that the assessors did not need to worry because as a boarding school the students

had twenty four hours to study.

SMA Seminari Mertoyudan is a boarding school just like Taruna Nusantara (TN) or Van Lith. It means that time exchange between academic time allocation and dormitory time allocation is allowed. Compared to other schools, we have different and longer duration for learning. In Magelang, there are many schools which the learning hours are up to evening or even night. Actually twenty-four hours in this school can be considered also as academic activities. Even when we were informed about the governor policy of five-day school, we can still have dispensation to have six-day school. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

Whereas, the dormitory activities refer to the informal learning activities focus on

students’ personality development. The teachers led by the Father Director are

responsible for the school matter, and the other Fathers (called as Pamong) led by

the Pamong Umum (which was also a Father) are responsible for the dormitory

matter. In the same way, school staffs are responsible for the students’ scientia

(Latin: knowledge), and dormitory staffs are responsible for the students’

sanctitas (Latin: religiosity) and sanitas (Latin: sanity).

Throughout the interview which was conducted on 9 June 2017, the Vice

Headmaster for Curriculum Affairs pointed that the Director alongside with the

teachers in this school did not prioritize students’ score in the National Exam. It


32

was due to that National Exam score did not affect the students’ chance to

continue their study in the university. It was also because they took the option to

encourage students’ talents and interests rather than focused on National Exam

score.

Our focus is not National Examination. We are focused more in the students’ developmental process. However, we still try to encourage the students to do the National Examination seriously. Truthfully, even though they do not do the National Examination, it will cause no problem. In our opinion, National Examination is not that interesting. (See appendix 3, verbatim transcript 2)

This Vice Headmaster for Curriculum Affairs’ statements were strengthened by

the Director’s comment which indicated the learning ideal of the school. The

priority was to provide meaningful learning that led the students to follow their

passion as human beings. It might be due to the fact that the students were

expected to declare their choice whether they wanted to continue their study in

this school or leave the school in the third year.

We want to provide meaningful learning for the students. Sometimes they complain about how hard it is to learn, but I think the most important point is when they are able to master certain subject they will be happy. The thing that should be emphasized by teachers and Kepamongan is the meaning of what they are studying so that students will be able to implement science accordingly. Meaningful learning process is a must to lead the students finding their passions of life. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

Considering those statements that were said by the Director and Vice Headmaster

for Curriculum Affairs, one could interpret that this school had to negotiate the

National Curriculum to correspond to their ideal providing meaningful and

authentic learning. Cook (1992) finds that negotiation means about the same in

education as it does in everyday life (p. 14). Each people comes together brings


33

their points of view, needs, and wants. Together they want to work for the

outcomes that satisfy their expectation. In educational terms, the result of

negotiation may come to an agreement about how to bring the best possible

learning for the learners. It is in line with what have been stated by Donohue

(1963) that Jesuit’s schools realize that “they had never yet found that the

curriculum permitted by the government corresponded fully with their ideal” (p.

136).

2. The Impact of Recent Curricular Policy

On June until December 2014, the school had already adopted the 2013

Curriculum before they turned back to the 2006 Curriculum. They only used the

2013 Curriculum for around one semester before the Minister of Education

declared that the 2013 Curriculum needed further development before it was ready

for the school all around Indonesia. This School was given the option to continue

using the 2013 Curriculum or they could turn back to the 2006 Curriculum.

We only implemented the 2013 Curriculum for one semester before we moved back to 2006 Curriculum until now. But, the decision had been revised on 2016/2017. We are obliged to implement the 2013 Curriculum since our school’s accreditation is A. However, as the beginning we only implement the 2013 Curriculum to grade ten since the implementation is in some continuous steps. In other words, it cannot be implemented directly to the whole classes all at once at the same time. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

On August 2016, Anies Baswedan was replaced by Muhadjir Effendy as the new

Minister of Education. Indeed, there was also change on the National Curriculum

policy. The schools that had gotten an A for accreditation score were obliged to

turn back once again to the 2013 Curriculum. The question needed to be raised to


34

the Director of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan was the reason why on December

2014 they chose the 2006 Curriculum rather than continued to use 2013

Curriculum.

Truthfully, the consideration was only about the technical aspect. At that time, the teachers seemed not understand yet about the 2013 Curriculum. Although we had been trained, the fact was that we still could not implement it well. For instance, we had to change the Learning Implementation Plan, then the scoring system or the scoring criteria. The 2013 Curriculum used interval in scoring rather than specific number. This made us difficult to assess the students. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

As described by the Director, the difficulties to implement the new curriculum

was mainly in technical matters, such as how they needed to change the way they

assessed their students and the way they had to make the lesson plan. It might be

wise to assume that teachers were like other people that often refused to change if

they did not have enough time to think and adapt to the new thing.

In SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, the problems in this curricular change

mainly lay in the teacher developments, even though there were several teacher

training programs on how to implement the new curriculum along with its

changes. As a matter of fact, because of the significant number of curricular

training, sometimes teachers became too busy and neglected the importance to

develop their pedagogy and methodology understanding to correspond to the

students’ needs which evolved through the time.

In my opinion, the important point that has not been touched is about teachers. Teachers are very important, no matter what the curriculum is, teachers are the most important agents. Usually, teachers are only trained with several material development trainings. It leads the teachers to be busy, but they forget about the basic matters. I think there are two important things; pedagogy and methodology, but these have not been touched at all. The methodology should be changed because time has


35

changed, and also every science has its own method. The pedagogy is also important because the way teachers teach students to understand the lessons are complicated. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

Provided that reason, it was no surprise that in this country the teachers only

changed slightly though the curriculum had been changed very rapidly. It is very

true that an ideal curriculum is a blueprint for the future which is shaped by its

users for realizing such goals (Hamilton, 1990, p. 48). However, how it can be

possible for students to utilize the new curriculum as future blueprint if even the

teachers are reluctant to it.

3. The Challenges in Implementing National Curriculum

As previously discussed, there were some aspects of National Curriculum

which were not suitable to be adopted in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan. Since this

research was not addressed to be a technical or structural curriculum study, it was

better for now to emphasize those constraints as the educators’ real life

experiences. Those experiences gave them a consideration to reflect the presence

of National Curriculum from their perspectives as people who utilized it as a

foundation to educate the students.

All kinds of curriculum have lots of demands. For instance, in 2013 Curriculum, the teachers are demanded to give two kinds of assessment simultaneously. The two aspects are cognitive aspect and attitude aspect. In this school, we assess those aspects in different way. The academic aspect is assessed by the teachers. The students are given time from 06.45-12.30 to develop their cognitive aspect with the teachers in the class. Then, the attitude aspect is considered as the responsibility of the Kepamongan. Provided this reason, indeed, this aspect can only be assessed by Kepamongan objectively. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

Whatsoever the curriculum was, it seemed the problem was the same. Firstly, it

should be noted that in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan there was a distinction


36

between school activities and dormitory activities. Those two different areas had

different purposes. School activities were designed to develop students’

knowledge. On the other hand, dormitory activities were designed to develop

students’ affective and psychomotor aspects. Notably, the National Curriculum

offered to develop those three aspects in one place and at one time inside the

class. The school leaders along with the teachers in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan

had understood and tried to negotiate this matter. However, sometimes for people,

especially those who are senior enough, adapting the new thing was not as simple

as that.

The routine and generation gaps sometime make it difficult. When the curriculum requires teachers to change their learning pattern and method, it will not easy for teachers who are senior enough and already have their patent methods. For certain people, to change is never as easy as it is. (See appendix 3, verbatim transcript 2)

To implement means to change, that is the nature of implementation. Seymour

(1990) notes that since 1980, millions of dollars have been spent to develop

curriculum projects, yet many of the projects do not succeed because those in

charge of the efforts had little understanding of the culture of the school. Seymour

(1990) names it as the predictable failure of education (as cited in Ornstein &

Hunkins, 2013, p. 218).

Similarly to what had been said by the Director, the Vice Headmaster for

Curriculum Affairs argued that the challenges to implement National Curriculum

mainly lay in technical and administrative matters. The government as the policy

makers, through the curriculum, required very detailed assessment process which

could be very consuming in time. Indeed, it could be assumed that sometimes


37

those obligations could distract the teachers from their first responsibility to

educate the students.

The government requires the academic assessment should cover cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspect which means the assessment should be complete and well prepared from the beginning to the end. Furthermore, the assessment should be administrated completely, in other words the written form is a must. Indeed, we fulfil the administration until the end for the cognitive assessment. In fact, we only did the formal procedure for certain subjects. We think if those things should be done in that way, it will be a much time consuming. (See appendix 3, verbatim transcript 2)

The culture of this school was democratic, meaning that there was a negotiation

between teachers, students and the school leaders for searching the best way for

them to learn together as one community. In Bourdieu’s field theory, it can be

defined as an institution which primarily concerns with cultural matter, they do

not concern to the external concerns such as economic prosperity and

competitiveness (Hilgers and Mangez, 2005, p. 9).

The other constraint was the assessment tool which was not compatible

with the culture of this school. This school believed in the importance of students’

analytical ability to solve problems, but how it would be internalised by the

students if the multiple choices test was one and only kind of test considered as

legitimate by the Education Authorities. Although they found some technical and

administrative constraints in National Curriculum implementation, they did not

have serious problem with its content.

The curriculum principles fortunately are compatible with our vision to educate our students. One thing which is not compatible is its assessment instrument. We teach the students to analyse, but the tests are in the form of multiple choices. Although the assessment instrument is in the form of multiple choices, its variety should be developed such as determining true or false for a complicated case. (See appendix 3, verbatim transcript 2)


38

All of the constraints could be challenges for the school, but at the same time

could also be an opportunity for them to negotiate the National Curriculum to

correspond to their culture. Considering Bourdieu’s field theory, it is normal for

an institution to negotiate the world to correspond to their logics and beliefs. Like

other institutions, school is field which is always struggling to win its autonomy

back from social, political and economic constraints (Hilgers and Mangez, 2005,

p. 7).

B. Discussion

This section elaborates the answer of the research question “How does the

community of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan overcome challenges in the process of

implementing the National Curriculum for the tenth grade English subject to

correspond to the school ideal?” The elaboration is derived from the interpretation

of findings which linked tightly to the theoretical framework of the research.

1. Concern-based Adoption: Education as an Autonomous Domain

Case study was essentially not a positivistic approach, meaning that case

study did not attempt to prove or disprove any theories that have already existed

before. The goal of this study was to capture and describe the lived experience of

the participants. It attempted to see how they perceived their experience and what

factors influenced their decisions. At the first the researcher would focus only on

the English teacher’s experience in overcoming challenges in implementing the

National Curriculum. However, the progress of the study proved that curriculum


39

implementation was the active process engaging all of the individuals as one

school community which contributed to the whole process of implementing the

curriculum. Without a proper support by school leaders and students’ active

contribution, it was nearly impossible for teachers to address any curricular

change accordingly.

As previously discussed, the challenges to implement National Curriculum

in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan were mainly found on the technical and

administrative level. The research result showed that these challenges happened to

all of the teachers in this school, no matter what subject they taught was. The tenth

grade English teacher in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan was the one of the oldest

teachers in this school. It should be noted that sometimes for people, especially

those who are senior enough, adapting to the new thing will not be a simple

matter. Indeed, during the interview which was conducted on 10 June 2017, the

English teacher indicated that he never paid great attention to the curricular

change.

No, I do not keep up with the curriculum. I only follow the content that should be taught to the students. The matter of material delivering, I do not follow the recommended procedure from the curriculum. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

On one hand, his choice could be interpreted as the sign of reluctance to change.

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) explaine that “people often resist change if no

financial or time support is given to the effort, project for which no monies are

budgeted is rarely destined to be implemented” (p. 225). On the other hand, it

could be interpreted as the sign of autonomous manner.


40

It could be interpreted as an autonomous manner because he chose to

accept any curricular changes, but he believed that the best way to implement the

change was only through his own way. According to Bourdieu’s field theory, this

self-belief was needed in order to be able interpret the world in terms of their logic

and beliefs. There were people “who conceive education as an autonomous

domain primarily concerned with cultural matter, and those who emphasized

education in relation to the external concerns such as economic prosperity and

competitiveness” (Hilgers & Mangez, 2015, p. 9).

Generally, the materials are the same, for example the materials in teaching reading more or less are same. However, the matter of methodology depends on my creativity. This school does not keep up with the curriculum procedures. Only the procedure which we do not obey, but we still keep up with the contents. I will teach based on my quiet long teaching experience. In my teaching activity, I will deliver the materials in hierarchical gradual steps. Therefore, it begins from the easy parts to the more advance one. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

As an experienced teacher that had been taught for over 35 years, he believed that

students would learn language better if they learned it by the level according to

their skill. For the extent of his experience as English teacher, he believed that

curricular change did not bring fundamental change in the way he taught the

students. For the most parts, it only changed the procedure of how material should

be delivered. His statements about the way he implemented the National

Curriculum indicated that sometimes curriculum changed in name only and the

actual teaching and learning in the classroom may have changed not at all (Hill,

1986, p. 72).

Teacher’s autonomy or self-belief was an important factor in curriculum

implementation. The National Curriculum was something came from outside.


41

Even though curriculum was made for the sake of the school, it was never made

by the school themselves. Something that came from the outside never

corresponded fully to the ideal of its community. According to Hill (1986)

“curriculum cannot be assumed to be implemented because the teachers refer to it

by a particular, there are many conditions which must be present for a curriculum

to be implemented” (p. 72). To this extent, teacher’s autonomy is needed to

reshape the curriculum to correspond to the school ideal.

As I see in the 2013 Curriculum, there is an emphasis on character education. It means that in every meeting hour, the teachers must teach about character education for few minutes. Do you think so? But here, it does not run that way. It is not in every meeting hour, but students will learn about it wherever and whenever we have opportunity. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

It should be noted that, what really matters in a curriculum implementation is not

how many changes are made but how the changes are implemented. Indeed,

curriculum is a cultural heritage which is worthy for the next generation as

suggested by Hamilton (1990, p. 38). However, Stenhouse (1978) have described

earlier that curriculum can be imagined as a recipe, a recipe can be varied

according to taste so that the same with the curriculum (p. 5). Here the researcher

sees that Concern-based Adoption model will work accordingly once teachers get

their autonomy in teaching. Concern-based Adoption model assumes that

curriculum implementation happens when teachers are able to modify the

curriculum creatively where it is necessary for the benefit of their students

(Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013, p. 229). Bordieu’s field theory proves that teachers

will be creative in teaching, or in Bourdieu’s words to interpret the world in terms


42

of their logics and beliefs, once they win their autonomy back from the social,

political and economic constraint (Hilgers & Mangez, 2015, p. 5).


Negotiating the curriculum is a process of modifying its procedures or

contents to correspond to the school ideal. As previously discussed, although this

process centres in teachers’ and students’ experience in classroom, it will work if

the school leaders, teachers, and students come together and work for the

outcomes that satisfied their hopes (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook, 1992, p. 14).

The result of negotiation may come to an agreement about how to bring the best

possible learning for the learners. Most importantly, teachers should be trusted to

do what need to be done because they are the centre of every curricular change.

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) add that to negotiate “means accepting the new

curricular content and adapting the suggested educational activities into particular

classroom, but it does not mean accepting without question what the change

presents” (p. 226). In this level, teachers are expected to be creative to personalize

the suggested curriculum content so that they can optimize the classroom learning

experiences.

In SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, one could note that this process had been

already happened. As previously discussed by the Director, in every semester

there was a discussion forum for school leaders, students, and the teachers to

discuss and evaluate their academic process during the semester. This discussion

forum was important for teachers to understand the students’ suggestions about

how they could improve the classroom learning experiences. Some of the


43

students’ suggestions became things for them to be considered for providing

better learning experiences.

Actually, the teacher teaches us well, and provides detail information. It is true, since I can do my test well. Indeed, we still experienced difficulties in learning English even though it may be because the materials are mainly grammar in our class. I think it will be more enjoyable if the teacher is willing to have small chats and guide every single student. However, I realized that it is impossible since there are so many students in class. (See appendix 5, verbatim transcript 4)

The statement above was said by the Participant 2 during the focus group

discussion. As a student, Participant 2 likely noted that there was a need for

change in the way the English teacher taught. The students were different

compared to two or three decades ago. Although the teacher was considered as a

great teacher, the Participant 2 expected that the teacher should do cura personalis

(Latin: respecting each student’s unique needs) teaching.

I think the learning process has been good enough for me even though it will be better if the teacher is willing to have a more open dialogue with the students. So, it won’t be just teacher gives and students receive. (See appendix 5, verbatim transcript 4)

In line with what had been stated by Participant 2, the Participant 3 also noted that

in this era students were likely learn better by having close relationship with the

teacher. The students expected that teachers would be able to eliminate distance in

classroom where teachers taught and children learned, teachers guided and

children were guided, teacher spoke and children wrote.

It is true. Time demands us to change. The principle or scientific concept may remain the same, but if it is not accompanied by the changes of methodology and attitude of the teachers, then the learning process is no more effective. For instance, today’s students are not enough to be prepared with lectures only, but they have to be guided to find new things or ideas. Yes, there is a meeting forum between teachers and students formal gathering called forles or forum lesehan for them to share and give


44

ideas to the community. For past years, this forles is for common community problems, but now I change it only for things related to the school matters. (See appendix 2, verbatim transcript 1)

An autonomous field will only respond to rules that function in accordance with

their own logics and beliefs (Hilgers and Mangez, 2015, p. 5). Following the

Bourdieu’s logic of field theory, if SMA Seminari Mertoyudan was an

autonomous field, as previously discussed, it was likely that discussion forum

such as forles might have bigger effect to bring the new change than something

that came from the external field such as National Curriculum.

Boomer (1992) indicates that “traditionally there has been ‘apartness’ in

classrooms; teachers teach and children learn, teachers guide and children are

guided, teachers decide what is to be done and children usually try to comply” (p.

24). It is clear that they have different roles in classroom learning activity. In

almost every moment of teaching activities, teachers have to make delicate

choices about how to bring the best possible learning experiences. The set

curriculum, available resources, the school policies and the children themselves

are the challenges that have to be accommodated. In this sense, teaching has

always been a matter of negotiating the curriculum.

The concept is good, both the 2006 and 2013 Curriculum concept are good. Whereas, it is possible that most of the teachers will experience difficulty. It is because many things should be done in the same time. For me, an old-fashioned person, doing kind of integral work is confusing. All things should be clipped and filed in some various well-organized administration. It leads to confusion then I cannot teach my students since I run out of time. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

Research results indicated that the main challenges that had to be accommodated

by the tenth grade English teacher of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan lay in the


45

curricular procedure. He was overwhelmed by the curriculum procedure, there

were too many things should be done in one time. For example, in the lesson plan

teacher should spend a few minute to internalize character building education and

another few minutes to teach the importance of reading habits.

Hence, teacher should make delicate choices to accommodate this

constraint. Considering that he only had 180 minutes to teach English every week,

he had to be creative in order to fulfil the curriculum requirements and at the same

time maintaining students’ understanding of the subject matter. The curriculum

was essentially general and the people addressed within the curriculum were

unique and bounded with their own cultures and beliefs. Roth (2014) assumes that

“too many other factors are at play: the students’ abilities, their interests, their

social situations, and their cultural backgrounds, among other factors. Also, we

must consider the teacher’s competence, interest in the subject matter, even the

teacher’s social and cultural background” (as cited in Ornstein & Hunkins, 2016,

p. 275).

As I see in the 2013 Curriculum, there is an emphasis on character education. It means that in every meeting hour, the teachers must teach character education for few minutes. Do you think so? But here, it does not run that way. It is not in every meeting hour, but students will learn about it wherever and whenever we have opportunity. Then, related to building a reading habit, the other schools need teachers to give something that makes the reading habit formed. In our school, we just simply give them a book report activity but it’s not in every lesson or hours, then ask them to make a summary. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

The key was in the flexibility of the teacher. The curriculum was planned

deliberately, and if there was a constraint of an imposed syllabus, teacher clarified

to the students why certain things should be learned. Most importantly, teacher


46

acknowledged students’ what the goals were, and specified what routes should be

followed for realizing the goals.

The curriculum for English subject is not specific, as it usually it only covers the general topics. For instance, in reading skill, the material of understanding text types such as review, narrative, or discussion are always in the same way from time to time. In this school, it is free for us to deliver those materials. I put the importance more on the students’ mastery of English gradually. When we talk about grammar, it is impossible for teacher to teach compound or complex sentence directly for first grade students. Based on my experience, I will set which one is easier for beginning then it will gradually move to the difficult materials. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

Ornstein and Hunkins (2013) believe that curriculum implementation happens

when teachers are able to modify the curriculum creatively where it is necessary

for the benefit of their students (p. 229). The idea that teacher should follow the

curriculum as close as possible is by no means immature because, as stated by

Cook (1992), the rule is simple: people tend to work harder for things they create

by themselves (p. 14). Learning is an active and dynamic process so that it should

be enough room for creativity and innovation in it.

The other challenges in implementing National Curriculum came from the

very limited time to teach the subject matter and students’ lack of learning

motivation. As Cook (1992) suggests, negotiating curriculum is an active process

which requires both teachers and students’ contribution and cooperation to bring

the best possible learning for both of them (p. 14). In SMA Seminari Mertoyudan,

both the teacher and the students were concerned with the limited time for

learning English, it was nearly impossible for students to master the subject if they

only learned it during the formal learning process in the class.


47

English is a difficult subject. The other thing is we lack of time. We only have four meeting hours for two meetings. I only have a little chance to learn how to speak in English since usually we only learn tenses. Every Monday, we have English Day program, but the fact is that we still speak and murmur in Indonesian to each other. Besides, we also have Sidang Akademi, but it’s only once a week. (See appendix 5, verbatim transcript 4)

Bounded by the time limitation and students’ lack of learning motivation, the

teacher tried hard enough to modify the contents of subject matter even though in

the end he should admit that what he could do was only teaching them, then the

rest was the responsibility of the students whether they wanted to master the

subject.

It depends on the teacher’s capacity. If it’s based on my ideal opinion, then it is not enough. When the students only depend on their teachers, and they are not willing to learn independently, they will not master the subject. I think memorizing vocabularies is a must for every language learner. It is a kind of continuous learning for them, whether they like it or not. Nowadays students barely learn independently. They are rarely capable to compare two subjects which are connected to each other such as English and Latin. The Latin subject is very helpful to learn English and vice versa. To learn something means to feel pain and suffer, but when people succeed, they become happy and accustomed to the learning process. This process is not always easy and enjoyable. (See appendix 4, verbatim transcript 3)

In SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, there were three language subjects that students

had to deal with: Indonesian Language, English, and Latin. The English teacher

had high expectancy of students’ abilities to integrate their knowledge about those

three language subjects. From the teacher’s perspective, the students’ knowledge

in Latin could help them significantly in learning English and vice versa.


48

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

This research is intended to investigate how the community of SMA

Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes challenges in implementing the National

Curriculum for the tenth grade English subject to correspond to the school ideal.

The previous chapters have discussed the background, the theories, the research

method, and the research results. In the same way, this chapter presents

conclusions of the study and proposes suggestions for the future researcher.

A. Conclusions

The very rapid National Curriculum changes during 2014-2016 periods

have brought real challenges to the community of SMA Seminari Mertoyudan to

implement the National Curriculum accordingly. The research results indicate that

the challenges can be categorized into two areas: the challenges that come from

the school community, and the challenge that come from the curriculum itself.

The school community expects the teacher to adjust his methodology and

pedagogy approach to be more sensible to the students’ need of learning. At the

same time, the curriculum policy requires the teacher to plan the learning process

as detail as possible which is considered as impractical and time consuming for

the teacher.


49

Curriculum is designed to guide for both teachers and students. Indeed, it is

necessary for school to utilize a particular curriculum. However, curriculum needs

to be reshaped to correspond to the particular school ideal. As suggested by

Stenhouse (1978), curriculum is like a recipe for a dish which can be varied

according to taste because it will never suitable for all kind of people’s tongues. In

the case SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, it is found that the National Curriculum

rarely corresponds to its ideal to provide meaningful learning that leads the

students to follow their passion as a human being.

At first, the researcher would focus only on the English teacher’s

experience in overcoming challenges of implementing the National Curriculum.

However, the progress of the study proved that curriculum implementation is an

active process engaging all of the individuals as one school community which

contributes to the whole process of implementing the curriculum. Without a

proper support by the school leaders and the students’ active contribution, it was

nearly impossible for the teacher to address any curricular change accordingly.

The school community overcomes the challenges in curriculum

implementation by utilizing Concern-based Adoption model. This model assumes

that curriculum implementation happens when teachers are able to modify the

curriculum where it is necessary for the benefit of the students. In real classroom

experience, it is found that tenth grade English teacher in SMA Seminari

Mertoyudan still utilizes the English curriculum but only for the core contents.

Moreover, the teacher indicates that English curriculum only changed slightly in

every curricular change. The contents of the curriculum are rarely changed. The


50

procedure of how teachers should deliver the materials is the aspect which

undergoes constant changes.

As previously discussed, the Concern-based Adoption model can be

utilized accordingly once the school has its autonomy back from the social,

political, and economic constraints. Bourdieu’s field theory is the method which is

used to conclude that assumption. As a matter of fact, Bourdieu’s field theory

distinctly differentiates two poles of every institution, cultural pole on the left side

and economic pole on the right side. Indeed, the research results indicate that the

left side, cultural pole, is more dominant in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan.

However, it does not mean that they do not have the economic or political

interests. The researcher believes that every school institution should find balance

between those poles to perform national education goals while at the same time

maintaining their culture and beliefs.

The process of curriculum implementation in SMA Seminari Mertoyudan

is close to the Garth Boomer theory of negotiating the curriculum. As previously

discussed, negotiating the curriculum happens when the community of the school

comes together to make an agreement about how to bring the best possible

learning for them. In SMA Seminari Mertoyudan, there is a forum namely forum

lesehan when school leaders, teachers, and students come together as a

community to propose changes they need to make. The National Curriculum is

something which comes from outside. Even though curriculum is made for the

sake of the school, it is never made by the school themselves. Something that

came from the outside never corresponds fully to the ideal of its community, only


51

a change that originates from inside the community will bring about desired

benefits for them.

B. Recomendations

This case study research of curriculum implementation was conducted in

order to contribute to the study of curriculum implementation in English

Language Education Study Program. Indeed, like other researches, this research

also has its own limitation. This research mainly deals with the educators’

experiences in implementing the National Curriculum. Ideally, a curriculum

implementation study should provide in-depth data analysis which derived from

the educators, the policy makers, and even the parents. However, beyond its

limitation, it is expected that this research can be a stepping stone as a reference to

conduct more advance study of curriculum implementation. As teacher

candidates, it is necessary for students of English Language Study Program to

understand how the curriculum works and why it has to be.

The research results indicated that SMA Seminari Mertoyudan is an

autonomous institution which tends to interpret the world based on their logics

and beliefs. In this era of rapid education policy changes, this school should work

together as one community and listen to each other to try different strategies in

order to provide better learning experience for the students. The time has changed

and the need has evolved. It may be necessary for teachers to develop their

pedagogy and methodology understanding to correspond to the students’ needs of

learning, which always evolves through time.


52

This curriculum implementation study is only a piece of the puzzle

representing complicated relation between school as educational institution and

government as policy makers. For this reason, the researcher expects that it would

provide enough reason for policy makers to revisit at a very practical life namely

teaching and learning inside the classroom. Sometimes, it will be nice for

education policy makers to know that understanding the curriculum as a theory is

one thing, but knowing how to apply them in real life situations is another thing

that may be entirely different from what we can imagine.


53

REFERENCES

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge

Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., Sorensen, C. & Ravazieh, A. (2002). Introduction to

research in education (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., Sorensen, C. & Ravazieh, A. (2010). Introduction to

research in education (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C. & Cook, J. (Eds.). (1990). Negotiating the

curriculum: Educating for the 21st century. London: The Falmer Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.

Donohue, J. W. (1963). Jesuit education: An essay on the foundation of its idea.

New York: Fordham University Press.

Hamilton, D. (1990). Learning about education: An unfinished curriculum.

Philadelphia: Open University Press Milton Keynes.

Hancock, D. R. & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research: A practical

guide for beginning researchers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hilgers, M. & Mangez, E. (2015). Bourdieu’s theory of social field: Concept and

applications. New York: Routledge.

.

Hill, J. C. (1986). Curriculum evaluation for school improvement. Illinois:

Charles C Thomas Publisher.


54

Moore, A. (2015). Understanding the school curriculum: Theory, politics and

principles. New York: Routledge.

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundation, principles,

and issues (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum: Foundation, principles,

and issues (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Stenhouse, L. (1978). An introduction to curriculum research and development.

London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los

Angeles: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2012). Applications of case study research. Los Angeles: SAGE

Publication, Inc.


APPENDICES


55

Appendix 1

Interview Guideline

STUDENTS 1 Under what conditions you learn most effectively? 2 What is your goal in learning English? 3 Can you achieve your goal through the provided learning process? 4 Do you agree with the selected materials taught by your teacher? 5 Do you ever have a chance to modify the content of a selected material?

ENGLISH TEACHER

1 Does the curriculum matter for you, and why? 2 How do you implement the curriculum to correspond to the school ideal? 3 Why do you implement the curriculum in such way? 4 What are the challenges that you face while implementing the curriculum? 5 Does the curriculum help the school to provide better learning experiences,

and how?

VICE HEADMASTER FOR CURRICULUM AFFAIRS 1 What your role in curriculum implementation? 2 What kind of help do you provide for the teacher relating the curriculum

implementation? 3 What are challenges that teachers usually face while implementing the

curriculum? 4 How does the curriculum implementation in this school differ compared to

other schools? 5 Does the curriculum help the school to provide better learning experiences,

and how?

HEADMASTER 1 What is the school ideal? 2 How does the school ideal affect the learning process inside the class? 3 Does the curriculum matter for you, and what is your opinion about the

recent curriculum? 4 Does the curriculum help the school to provide better learning experiences,

and how? 5 Do you think there is a need for teachers to implement the curriculum in

order to fulfil the school ideal?


56


(Headmaster)

Name : Bisma Dewabrata

Location : School living room

Type of interview : Semi-structured interview

Time : 9 June 2017

Q/A Transcript Code Q1 Saat ini Seminari menggunakan kurikulum apa, Kurikulum 2006

atau K13?

A1 Saya urutkan ketika saya mulai bertugas di sini sebagai direktur sejak 2014. Pada waktu tahun ajaran 2014-2015 kami memakai K13. Tapi itu hanya berjalan selama satu semester karena Menteri Pendidikan saat itu mengubah kebijakan bahwa bagi yang sudah siap silahkan lanjut menerapkan, sedangkan yang belum siap atau kurang siap silahkan kembali ke Kurikulum 2006. Kami lalu ambil pilihan kedua. Jadi kami menjalankan K13 hanya satu semester lalu kami kembali lagi ke Kurikulum 2006 sampai sekarang. Kebijakan itu lalu direvisi tahun 2016/2017 karena akreditasi kami A, maka kami diwajibkan kembali menerapkan K13, tapi hanya untuk kelas X karena pelaksanaannya bertahap, tidak bisa langsung diterapkan di semua kelas.

CP

Q2 Mengapa Seminari kembali ke Kurikulum 2006? Pertimbangannya apa? Apa Seminari memang belum siap?

A2 Sebenarnya pertimbangannya itu teknis saja. Waktu itu, nampaknya para guru belum begitu memahami K13. Walaupun sudah diberi pelatihan, tetapi kenyataannya, para guru tetap belum merasa bisa mengimplementasikan dengan baik. Misalnya harus mengubah RPP, lalu sistem penilaiannya atau kriteria penilaiannya. K13 kan tidak lagi memakai angka untuk menilai, melainkan interval. Hal ini kan mempersulit kami untuk menilai. Pada akhirnya kan nilainya itu kan pakai huruf, interval sekian sampai sekian A, dst. Itu yang menjadi kesulitan, lalu kami berdiskusi baiknya kami mengambil langkah apa. Waktu itu, keputusan yang diambil adalah kami kembali lagi ke Kurikulum 2006. Sebenarnya selain itu tidak ada kesulitan yang terlalu mendasar. Kami sadar bahwa setiap ada

CP


57

perubahan pasti ada kerepotan yang harus dilalui. Apalagi ada jenjang kelas yang awalnya memakai Kurikulum 2006 lalu berubah ke K13, yang akhirnya menyebabkan seminaris memiliki dua buah rapor yang berbeda. Ini menjadi kesulitan bagi seminaris yang pernah mengalami K13 selama satu semester. Mereka harus mengkonversi nilai kembali. Jadi rapor K13 yang satu semester harus dikonversi ke model Kurikulum 2006 ketika mereka mendaftar ke perguruan tinggi.

Q3 Apakah Seminari mengalami kesulitan dalam hal pengimplementasian kurikulum, contohnya soal jam sekolah di Seminari yang pendek (6jam)?

A3 Ada. Tuntutan kurikulum, apa pun kurikulumnya, kan sangat banyak. Contohnya soal K13 itu kan dalam satu waktu guru dituntut untuk memberikan dua macam penilaian. Dua aspek itu adalah aspek kognitif atau akademis dan aspek sikap. Padahal, di Seminari ini menilai hal itu dalam dua ranah yang berbeda. Aspek akademis itu dinilai guru di kelas, jam 06.45-12.30 itu kan waktu yang disediakan bagi para seminaris untuk mengembangkan aspek kognitif bersama guru. Aspek sikap itu merupakan tugas kepamongan, dan memang hanya kepamongan yang bisa menilai aspek itu secara objektif. Dua aspek itu oleh K13 mau disatukan dalam satu ruang dan satu waktu dan dibebankan pada satu orang. Bagi kami itu sulit.

CL

Q4 Apakah ada aspek dari kurikulum nasional yang berlawanan dengan konsep pendidikan atau kultur Seminari?

A4 Biasanya, kesulitan kami ada pada saat harus menentukan prioritas materi. Ada beberapa materi yang tumpang tindih. Misal, fisika sudah mengajarkan bahan A lalu di jenjang berikutnya materi A harus diajarkan kembali di Matematika. Padahal kan materinya sama hanya saja diberikan di jenjang berbeda. Kesulitannya pada saat kami harus memutuskan kapan kami harus mengajarkan materi. Harusnya materi yang sama dikaitkan dan tidak perlu diulang, hanya perlu diingatkan saja. Yang kedua, para guru itu kalau diharuskan mengajar materi yang banyak malah sulit menghubungkan logika antar materi itu. Akibatnya anak kurang terlatih untuk mengaitkan pengetahuan antar disiplin ilmu. Guru termakan pengaruh banyaknya materi, dan kurang menyadari kaitan antar materi, mereka terlalu fokus pada materi mapel mereka sendiri. Yang ketiga, seringkali guru memberikan konsep pemahaman yang lemah. Kalau konsepnya aja lemah maka


58

seminaris sulit memahami materi berikutnya. Jadi tiga hal itu yang menjadi tantangan. Banyaknya materi membuat guru lelah dan kurang berpikir luas dengan mengaitkan disiplin ilmu lain.

Q5 Bukankah guru sudah diberi pelatihan, mengapa masih kesulitan? A5 Sebenarnya kalau saya lihat tentang penerapan kurikulum nasional

yang belum banyak disentuh itu soal guru. Padahal guru itu penting, apa pun kurikulumnya yang penting ya gurunya. Biasanya guru hanya dijejali dengan pelatihan bahan. Guru jadi sibuk ikut pelatihan sana-sini tapi malah melupakan hal yang dasar. Ada dua hal yang penting menurut saya; pedagogi dan metodologi, dan ini yang justru tidak tersentuh sama sekali. Metodologi harus berubah karena zaman berubah, juga karena tiap ilmu memiliki metodenya sendiri yang khas. Pedagogi juga penting, cara dan tahapan guru mengajar serta mendampingi seminaris sampai paham itu kan rumit. Tapi lagi-lagi malah aspek ini tidak pernah mendapat perhatian untuk dikembangkan. Biasanya di banyak sekolah, termasuk Seminari, skor UKG yang rendah itu ya soal metodologi dan pedagogi.

CP

Q6 Menurut pengalaman Anda sebagai direktur Seminari, apakah dengan adanya kurikulum national Seminari merasa terbantu untuk menciptakan pembelajaran yang lebih baik?

A6 Nek aku, terus terang ki yo malah mung ganggu. Itu ngrepotin aja. Tapi begini, negara kita kan sejak 2004 atau sejak penerapan KBK itu kan menerapkan yang namanya otonomi sekolah, tapi dalam proses pembuatannya kurikulum dan sistem pendidikan itu salah kaprah. Kurikulum disamakan dengan sistem pendidikan, padahal ini dua hal yang berbeda. Sistem pendidikan nasional itu bukan hanya kurikulum. Kurikulum itu harusnya milik sekolah dan diserahkan 100% ke sekolah, kan begitu yang namanya otonomi. Sistem pendidikan boleh hanya satu tapi kurikulum itu harusnya bisa banyak. Kalau pemerintah hanya memberikan ruang untuk satu kurikulum ya kesulitannya banyak, karena konteks tiap sekolah beda. Satu kurikulum bisa sebenarnya, tapi hanya kerangka saja penerapannya ya masing-masing. Tapi ya tetap susah.

CL

Q7 Dalam konteks pendidikan Seminari, apakah kurikulum membatasi formatio para seminaris?

A7 Jelas membatasi. Contohnya alokasi jam pelajaran Seminari paling banyak cuma tujuh jam untuk kelas tiga, sedangkan materi yang harus diajarkan sangat banyak. Pelajaran olah raga harus dipindah ke sore karena jam pelajaran normal pagi selama enam jam sudah


59

habis untuk mapel lain. Harusnya kan jam sore itu untuk kegiatan asrama milik kepamongan. Bahkan dulu waktu penerapan K13 sampai ada jam ke delapan, jam 13.45. Waktu itu asrama agak kacau, dapur masaknya molor tambah siang dan karyawan mundur jam kerja, dst.

Q8 Waktu akreditasi apakah pernah pengawas protes soal jam efektif sekolah yang pendek jika dibandingkan dengan sekolah lain?

A8 Mereka hanya bertanya, tapi tidak pernah mempermasalahkan. Kami biasanya menjelaskan bahwa Seminari ini adalah sekolah asrama seperti TN (Taruna Nusantara) atau Van Lith jadi antara jam akademis dan jam asrama kan boleh tukar menukar. Dibanding sekolah luar ya beda, kalau sekolah luar memang lebih panjang, di Magelang ini banyak sekolah yang bahkan jamnya sampai sore atau malah malam. Tapi kalau Seminari kan 24 jam itu sebenarnya juga sekolah. Bahkan ketika ada edaran lima hari sekolah dari gubernur itu, kami masih bisa minta dispensasi untuk tetap enam hari sekolah.

LI

Q9 Apakah para guru pernah berdiskusi bersama untuk membahas kesulitan yang dialami pada saat mengimplementasikan kurikulum nasional?

A9 Sebenarnya sudah. Persoalannya kan dalam implementasi, apalagi kurikulum yang baru, itu kan para guru butuh selalu diingatkan. Tapi rutinitas dan perbedaan generasi kadang membuat itu jadi sulit. Ketika guru harus mengubah pola dan metode belajar misalnya, para guru senior yang punya metode paten kan tidak mudah kalau mau berubah. Berubah itu kan tidak pernah mudah. Kalau guru medior dan yunior masih bisa dituntut untuk berubah. Ada juga kesempatan bagi para guru yang namanya hari studi guru untuk bersama-sama mendalami seminaris jaman sekarang. Dengan zaman yang berubah harusnya metode juga harus berubah.

CL

Q10 Apakah Anda sebagai direktur memang menginginkan adanya perubahan dalam cara mengajar para guru?

A10 Ya, jelas. Zaman memang menuntut kita berubah. Mengenai prinsip atau konsep ilmu mungkin memang tetap sama, tapi kalau tidak dibarengi dengan perubahan metode dan sikap dari para guru ya pembelajaran tidak bisa efektif lagi. Selama tiga tahun saya di sini, berdasarkan pengalaman saya pribadi, evaluasi dari para seminari dan berdasarkan kebutuhan zaman, sepertinya hal ini yang harus dilaksanakan. Contohnya, anak-anak zaman sekarang tidak lagi cukup hanya diceramahi tapi memang harus dibimbing untuk

CP


60

menemukan hal baru. Jarak usia yang jauh antara guru senior yang berumur 56 atau 57 berbanding usia seminaris yang 15-an atau 17-an, ketika jarak ini mau dijembatani juga tidak mudah. Sebenarnya, ada forum perjumpaan antara guru dan seminaris yang namanya forles (forum lesehan) bagi mereka untuk saling memberi masukan. Dulu forles ini sifatnya umum, tapi sekarang saya khususkan untuk hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan kesekolahan.

Q11 Sebenarnya pembelajaran seperti apa yang hendak diciptakan oleh seminari?

A11 Kami ingin sebuah pembelajaran yang memungkinkan bagi seminari untuk memahami ilmu secara mendalam. Memang ada kalanya mereka mengeluh soal betapa beratnya belajar, tapi saya kira ketika mereka sudah bisa mereka akan gembira. Itu yang penting. Yang harus selalu ditekankan oleh para guru dan kepamongan memang adalah soal makna, supaya seminaris bisa menerapkan ilmu. Contohnya soal karya tulis, itu kan sebenarnya mengajari mereka menemukan passion. Pembelajarannya di sini harus mendalam dan menuntun seminaris untuk menemukan passion atau panggilan hidupnya entah jadi imam atau tidak.

LI


61


(Vice Headmaster for Curriculum Affairs)

Name : Sugriwa Ajidarma



Time : 9 June 2017

Q/A Transcript Code Q1 Apa peran Anda sebagai wakil kepala sekolah bidang kurikulum? an Jadi untuk (wakil kepala sekolah) bidang kurikulum itu yang pokok

itu ya mempersiapkan dari sisi kurikulumnya sendiri kemudian pembagian tugas mengajar guru, kemudian mengurusi pengadministrasiannya, lalu juga melakukan koordinasi untuk kegiatan penilaian dan kordinasi pelaporan hasil penilaian sampai pada kenaikan dan kelulusan. Jadi memang cakupannya cukup banyak untuk bidang kurikulum. Jadi garis besarnya seperti itu.

Q2 Berapa lama Anda menjabat sebagai wakil kepala sekolah bidang kurikulum?

A2 Ini sudah ketiga kalinya. Zaman Romo Ekalaya (sebagai direktur) dua kali, dan sekarang (ketika Romo Bisma direkturnya) satu kali.

Q3 Sudah pernah mengalami pergantian kurikulum? A3 Waktu ganti kurikulum Kurikulum 2006 ke K13 itu wakakurnya Bu

Madri.

Q4 Menurut kepala sekolah ada tantangan tersendiri bagi para guru di Seminari menghadapi tuntutan materi yang bagi mereka terlalu banyak, apa benar begitu?

A4 Kalau tantangan yang umum memang perkara perbandingan materi dan kompetensi yang harus dikuasai dengan alokasi waktu yang tersedia. Sebenarnya untuk beberapa mapel yang diujikan secara nasional itu kita sudah memberikan tambahan waktu. Hanya saja perkaranya untuk Seminari itu kan penambahan jam ini kan tidak bisa leluasa karena ada kebutuhan fokus juga pada pengembangan kepribadian. Hal ini beda sekali misalnya dengan sekolah-sekolah umum, yang bisa mengalokasikan waktu tambahan untuk mapel UN misalnya dengan jumlah (jam pelajaran tambahan) yang lebih banyak. Kami sebenarnya juga menambah (jam pelajaran), tapi

CL


62

tambahan ini kan cuma 60 menit untuk satu mapel dalam satu minggu. Lalu kalau untuk tahun terakhir kemarin, problem umum itu tidak terlalu dirasakan. Justru yang di masalah di ujian tahun lalu itu malah mapel agama, kewarganegaraan dan sejarah. Itu karena kami mengajar tiga mapel itu tanpa berorientasi pada kurikulum pemerintah lalu saat ujian kami diharuskan menggunakan soal dari Provinsi dan materinya mengacu pada Kurikulum Nasional. Waktu itu pengumumannya mendadak, maka ketika tiba-tiba kami harus menggunakan soal dan standar dari provinsi muncul sedikit masalah. Contohnya saya ketika mengajar sejarah juga tidak mengikuti kurikulum karena misalnya kelas IPA yang alokasi waktunya hanya satu jam tapi alokasi materinya disamakan dengan kelas IPS. Tapi secara keseluruhan kita rasakan sebagai problem ternyata tidak sungguh-sungguh menjadi problem yang pelik. Seminaris bisa mengerjakan ujian (secara keseluruhan) dengan cukup baik.

Q5 Apakah ada tantangan lain dalam hal pengimplementasian Kurikulum Nasional?

A5 Karena kita menyadari kemampuan dasar seminaris, mereka itu grade B bukan grade A. Secara akademis kita tidak mematok target akademis yang terlalu tinggi. Yang terpenting kan dengan kemampuan dasar yang ada, kita coba kembangkan melalui proses (pembelajaran) untuk membantu hingga seminaris bisa berkembang secara optimal dan siap untuk melanjutkan ke jenjang selanjutnya, konotasi dasarnya ke perguruan tinggi. Yang pokok kan sebenarnya itu, sebab faktanya nilai UN kan tidak mempengaruhi ke Seminari Tinggi. Untuk yang melanjutkan ke perguruan tinggi umum kan juga ini (nilai UN) tidak begitu masalah. Problemnya mungkin lebih di masalah problem teknis administratif, program akreditasi yang diselenggarakan pemerintahkan lebih mengarah ke formalistis dan administratif, nah kultur kita tidak ke situ. Kita memang membuatnya, tapi tidak terlalu saklek dan rinci kalau soal yang formal-formalan gitu.

LI CL

Q6 Apa yang Anda maksud dengan ‘formal-formalan’? A7 Misalnya begini, kalau yang diminta pemerintah itu kan penilaian

secara akademis mencakup (aspek) kognitif dan afektif juga psikomotoris itu kan benar-benar direncanakan utuh dan lengkap dari awal hingga akhir. Juga kalau (menuruti pemerintah) itu semua harus teradministrasikan secara faktual dalam artian harus ada bukti tertulis. Nha kalau untuk yang kognitif memang kita penuhi dari

CL


63

awal hingga akhir, sampai pada proses pengadministrasian. Yang (aspek) psikomotoris dan dan afektif tetap kami selenggarakan tapi tidak semua mapel kami buat pengadministrasiannya secara formal. Ini dilakukan karena kalau itu semua dibuat maka akan sangat menyita waktu dan tenaga. Penilaian afektif tetap kita buat melalui realisasi pembelajaran di kelas. Kami bisa mengetahui dari sisi semangat dan tanggung jawab baik atau kurang, itu kita kenal. Untuk yang psikomoterik ya memang untuk mapel yang ada prakteknya seperti bahasa dan seni, gurunya juga bisa mengenali kemampuan masing-masing seminaris. Tapi tetap saja kami tidak buat laporan administrasinya secara rinci dan lengkap. Guru-guru yang senior, misalnya romo Semar (guru seni musik) kan juga gak bisa bikin nilai yang merinci semua aspek itu, tapi yang penting nilainya ada.

Q8 Apakah Anda merasa direpotkan dengan mengurusi guru senior yang kesulitan membuat laporan administratif?

A8 Ini memang problem lama yang tak pernah terselesaikan. Terutama para pengajar yang romo-romo itu kan gonta-ganti dan ketika kami sudah coba bantu dengan pelatihan sering hasilnya tidak sama dengan yang diinginkan oleh pemerintah. Memang untuk komponen itu waktu akreditasi kemarin memang bolong dan karena bukti fisiknya gak ada maka nilainya tidak maksimal. Ya administrasi seperti program tahunan, silabus, apalagi RPP itu ada sih ada tapi biasanya tidak pernah lengkap.

Q9 Apa memang di Seminari tidak ada tuntutan untuk melengkapi administrasi tersebut?

A9 Ada, selalu diminta tapi pada akhirnya memang tidak bisa diprioritaskan. Karena problem itu untuk akreditasi kami tidak bisa meraih nilai penuh.

Q10 Assessor tidak pernah menegur masalah ini? A10 Yang penting yang kami punya kami kasih. Tapi sebenarnya

sebagian besar aspek lain bisa kita penuhi. Artinya kualifikasi untuk beberapa komponen masih bisa diusahakan, nyatanya kami masih bisa dapat akreditasi A dengan skor 96.

Q11 Apakah skor itu termasuk tinggi? A11 Iya, sekolah di Magelang yang dapat A juga tidak banyak. Sebagai

salah satu indikator, hasil UN kelas IPS menduduki ranking 2 dan kelas IPA ranking 3.

Q12 Jika dibandingkan dengan sekolah lain apa perbedaan mendasar soal


64

implementasi kurikulum di Seminari? A12 Saya rasa perbedaannya kecil. Misal soal alokasi jam pelajaran,

kalau di Seminari ya hanya sedikit saja jam tambahannya. Juga jam belajar di kelas lebih pendek.

Q13 Apakah memang jam tambahan itu dibutuhkan di Seminari? A14 Sebenarnya tidak perlu. Yang tambahan 60 menit tadi juga hanya di

kelas 12, utnuk kelas lain tidak ada. Sebagai indikator, hasil ujian kelas IPA nilai rata-ratanya di atas 70 dan kelas IPS di atas 80, jika dibanding dengan nilai rata-rata nasional masih cukup tinggi, karena nilai rata-rata nasional itu hanya 50.

Q15 Menurut Anda apakah Kurikulum Nasional membantu terciptanya pembelajaran yang lebih baik di Seminari?

A16 Orientasi kami bukan nilai UN, tapi lebih pada proses perkembangan seminaris. Hanya saja kami masih mencoba untuk mendorong seminaris agar mereka mengerjakan UN dengan sungguh-sungguh, sekalipun jika seminaris tidak mau sebenarnya ya tidak masalah. UN bagi kami tidak menarik, tapi perkara ujian sekolah tetap kami jaga kualitasnya. Lucunya, soal yang dibuat Provinsi malah lebih jelek dari yang kami buat, mungkin itu gara-gara mereka tergesa-gesa.

LI

A17 Melihat visi SMA Seminari untuk mendidik calon imam apakah isi Kurikulum Nasional bisa membantu Seminari mewujudkan visinya?

Q17 Sebenarnya tidak masalah dengan konten esensialnya. Masalahnya ada pada siswa yang harus menjalankan kurikulum itu. Kurikulum SMA di Indonesia itu kurikulum yang bagus, tapi pertanyaannya bagus untuk siapa? Bagus untuk 30% lulusan SMP yang terbaik. Sedangkan yang masuk ke Seminari kan bukan lulusan yang terbaik. Prinsip-prinsip yang ada di kurikulum sebenarnya sudah kompatibel dengan visi kami untuk mengembangkan seminaris. Yang tidak kompatible itu alat tesnya. Anak kita ajari untuk menganalisis tapi soalnya malah pilihan ganda. Kalau dari sisi akademis, yang pokok dari visi kami adalah mengembangkan seminaris untuk siap melanjutkan di jenjang Perguruan Tinggi. Kalau pun alat tesnya pilihan ganda seharusnya variasinya dikembangkan. Misalnya, menentukan benar dan salah untuk sebuah kasus yang kompleks.

CL


65


(Tenth Grade English Teacher)

Name : Drona Sukaca

Location : School yard


Time : 10 June 2017

Q/A Transcript Code Q1 Apa bedanya belajar Bahasa Inggris di Seminari dibanding

dengan SMA pada umumnya?

A1 Kalau yang tidak di Seminari itu mestinya lebih baik. Lebih baik dalam arti karena mereka harus menuruti kurikulum, mau tidak mau kan mereka harus menuruti kurikulum. Mereka tidak menyimpang dari kurikulum. Sehingga semacam urutan dan prosedurnya juga materinya kalau di luar harus begitu. Tapi kan kalau di Seminari ya bebas saja dan semau gurunya, sehingga kalau di sini, gampangannya, mereka ya harus mengerti saja. Sebenarnya, kalau dibanding dengan sekolah lainnya ya sama. Yang dimaksud sama itu misalnya materinya. Materinya secara garis besar ya sama, misalnya mengajar readingnya kira-kira bahan yang diajarkan ya kurang lebih sama. Kalau soal metode ya sekreatifitas gurunya. Saya kira itu, hanya saja kalau di sini kita tidak mengikuti prosedur seperti yang diatur oleh kurikulum. Prosedurnya saja yang tidak kita ikuti, kalau kontennya sih kita tetap ikut.

AD

Q2 Mengapa Anda tidak mengikuti prosedur yang ada dalam kurikulum?

A2 Menurut saya pribadi itu akan berdasarkan pengalaman saya yang sudah cukup lama mengajar. Kalau saya akan memberikannya secara berjenjang hirarkis. Jadi mulai dari yang mudah ke yang lebih sukar begitu. Kalau di luar (sekolah lain) kadang-kadang di awal sudah taraf kesulitan sedang, lalu berapa hari kemudian bahannya sulit tapi juga ada yang mudah, kalau di sini kan tidak begitu. Lalu misalnya di K13, kan saya ngerti dikit soal K13, di sana kan misalnya

AD NC


66

ditekankan soal pendidikan budi pekerti. Itu kan selalu setiap jamnya guru harus mengajarkan budi pekerti selama beberapa menit, nha masa ya harus begitu? Kalau di sini kan ndak, tidak harus setiap jam tapi di mana pun perlu dan ada kesempatan. Lalu soal penanaman kebiasaan membaca, kalau di luar kan berapa menit setiap guru masuk kan harus memberikan sesuatu yang membuat kebiasaan membaca itu terbentuk. Kalau di sini ya ndak, kasih aja book report lalu buat ringkasan, tidak harus tiap jam pelajaran. Buku-buku ya sebenarnya kalau di sini ya kita gunakan buku yang sudah ada di sini, tidak perlu yang terbaru dan sesuai dengan yang direkomendasikan kurikulum. Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris itu kan tidak menunjuk pada materi yang spesifik, biasanya yang umum-umum saja. Misalnya pada keterampilan membaca, mengenal jenis teks review, narrative, discussion ya cuma gitu-gitu aja dari dulu. Kalau di sini pokoknya bebas saja.

Q3 Kepala sekolah tidak pernah mempermasalahkan pengajaran yang seperti itu?

A3 Tidak, tidak pernah. Memang yang saya pentingkan ya (siswa) menguasai (Bahasa Inggris) secara berjenjang. Misalnya soal grammar, kalau grammar itu ya tidak mungkin begitu mengajar kelas satu langsung soal kalimat majemuk, tidak mungkin begitu. Menurut pengalaman saya, saya akan mengatur mana yang lebih mudah dahulu dan terus meningkat ke yang lebih sukar. Itu sih kalau saya, saya kan guru model lama.

AD NC

Q4 Sudah berapa lama anda mengajar di Seminari? A4 Baru tiga puluh lima tahun. AD Q5 Apakah latar belakang sekolah ini yang notabene adalah

Seminari turut mempengaruhi cara Anda mengajar?

A5 Ya jelas, sebagai alat komunikasi dan bahasa internasional maka tentu saja penguasaannya harus betul-betul mantap. Tapi ya siswa-siswa sekarang itu rada-rada ora manut. Misalnya menghafal vocabulary, namanya belajar bahasa tanpa menghafal vocabulary ya mana mungkin, absurd kan? Tapi ya sekarang ini menghafal vocabulary itu ya rasanya malas sekali, pada akhirnya tetap harus dipaksa. Mereka harus tetap pandai membaca, berbicara, juga menulis.

Q6 Masih pakai buku Living English Structure? A6 Masih, itu wajib. Itu cukup standard, kitab suci kedua. Saya


67

nilai bagus kok itu, untuk orang yang mau mengasah structure. Ada tingkatan elementary, intermediate,dan advance, dari yang mudah sampai yang sukar di sana ada.

Q7 Apa pendapat Anda pribadi soal kurikulum sekarang? (10.20) A7 Konsepnya bagus. Kurikulum 2006 atau pun K13 itu

konsepnya bagus. Tapi kemungkinan sebagian besar guru-guru itu mengalami kesulitan. Kesulitannya karena berbagai macam harus dilakukan, dalam satu waktu pembelajaran diharuskan menjadi integral. Bagi saya yang orang kuno, melakukan sesuatu yang sifatnya integral itu malah bingung. Sarana dan pra sarana sekarang sudah bagus, ada media elektronik berbagai macam juga ada internet itu kan sangat membantu sebenarnya. Bagi siswa yang rajin itu bagus, tapi untuk guru mungkin sedikit bingung. Untuk masalah administratif itu nggak karuan. Semua hal harus diadministrasikan, dan harus dibukukan dan diarsipkan yang seperti itu dan macam-macamnya itu malah bikin bingung dan tidak bisa mengajar, habis waktunya. Tapi kembali lagi, konsepnya sebenarnya bagus tapi kalau guru tidak benar-benar memahami ya akan kesulitan. Kalau saya nilai, sebenarnya di Seminari ini sudah sama hanya tidak teristilahkan, misalnya soal di tengah pelajaran harus memberi pelajaran budi pekerti lalu kebiasaan membaca dan macam-macam itu semuanya ada. Lebih enak seperti yang di Seminari ini, flexible. Dalam jangka waktu tertentu sebenarnya semua itu tetap tercover dengan baik. Apa yang ada dalam K13 misalnya, di Seminari tercover juga dalam jangka waktu tertentu tapi memang tidak prosedural (urut) seperti kurikulum pada umumnya. Jadi kalau (saya) masuk kelas ya tidak harus mengabsen dulu, lalu lima menit memberi motivasi, dan dilanjutkan kegiatan literasi, di sini ya nggak begitu pokoknya diselesaikan saja materinya dulu. Kalau ada kesempatan ya diselip-selipkan saja, tidak wajib urut.

NC

Q8 Jika ada perubahan materi dalam kurikulum baru apakah Anda juga mengikuti?

A8 Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris itu tidak jelas kok. Soal materi misalnya, kan tidak ada materi reading bacaannya harus ini atau itu. Yang ada di kurikulum itu kan hanya misalnya mengenal teks jenis spoof beserta dengan ciri-cirinya.

Q9 Apakah jam yang disediakan cukup untuk menyampaikan


68

materi? A9 Pintar-pintarnya gurunya. Kalau sesuai dengan ideal saya

memang tidak cukup. Kalau siswa tidak rajin dan mung oleh seka gurune ya nggak cukup, terlalu sedikit. Harus banyak menghafal vocab, saya pikir vocab tu ya wajib. Mau tidak mau ya harus mengembangkan terus. Membaca juga jangan hanya membaca buku yang ada di kelas, koran atau buku di perpus misalnya. Siswa sekarang tidak menyediakan waktu sendiri untuk belajar, habis sekolah ya sudah main aja.

NC

Q10 Apakah ada tantangan lain mengajar siswa zaman sekarang? A10 Daya serapnya juga kurang. Diterangkan kok ya susah sekali

mengertinya. Jarang sekali mereka bisa membandingkan dua mata pelajaran yang berhubungan, Bahasa Latin dan Bahasa Inggris misalnya. Padahal Bahasa Latin sangat membantu Bahasa Inggris dan sebaliknya.

NC

Q11 Saya dengar sempat ada gonta-ganti Kurikulum selama dua tahun belakangan di Seminari, kalau menurut Anda kurikulum mana yang lebih baik?

A11 Sama saja, tidak ada perbedaan kadang hanya dibolak-balik. Kalau saya lihat konsepnya juga sama saja. Mulai kurikulum 2004, 2006, dan 2013 itu perbedaanya tidak jauh. Kesulitannya juga sama saja, itu terletak pada guru, gurunya yang bingung. Kadang-kadang hanya ganti namanya saja kok kurikulum itu.

Q12 Apakah Anda juga termasuk guru yang ikut bingung? A12 Nggak, saya nggak mengikuti kurikulum. Ya saya cuma

mengikuti kontennya saja apa yang harus diberikan ke siswa. Soal cara memberikannya saya tidak mengikuti prosedur yang direkomendasikan kurikulum.

AD

Q13 Dulu di Seminari pernah ada pembelajaran PAKEM (Pembelajaran Aktif Kreatif Efektif Menyenangkan), apakah Anda juga mengikutinya?

A13 Itu sempat populer. PAKEM itu kan anjuran, mau pake atau tidak bebas. Yang saya tangkap itu kan PAKEM itu soal terciptanya pembelajaran yang menyenangkan. Tapi kemudian yang terjadi malah pembelajarannya cari yang menyenangkan saja. Menyenangkan yang seperti apa? Sambil main-main? Untuk saya tidak cocok, itu saya pendapat saya pribadi. Justru kalau siswa belajar keras dan kemudian berhasil lalu menjadi senang, itu interpretasi saya tentang PAKEM. Kalau saya,

NC


69

belajar itu harus sakit dan mati-matian, baru ketika berhasil menjadi senang dan terbiasa. Prosesnya tidak selalu harus menyenangkan.


70


Forum Group Discussion (Students)

Name : Surya; Tirta; Warta


Type of interview : Focus-group discussion

Time : 9 June 2017

Subject Transcript Code Q1 Bisa cerita dulu pengalaman kalian belajar Bahasa Inggris di

Seminari?

A1.1 Guru Bahasa Inggris saya dari tahun pertama itu sama, Pak Drona dan Bu Kunthi. Pak Drona itu ngajar grammar, kalau Bu Kunthi itu ngajar vocabulary dan speaking.

A1.2 Kalau saya biasa aja sih. Menurut saya sebenarnya yang lebih sreg untuk saya ya materi vocabulary yang diajarin sama Bu Kunthi waktu di MP. Kalau sekarang yang grammar memang mbulet dan mbingungi. Kalau pas belajar grammar ya mbosenin. Teman-teman yang lain juga kelihatan sama bingungnya sama saya. Tapi ya sebenarnya nilai saya lumayan. Sebenarnya ya gurunya bagus sih ngajarnya, detail gitu, buktinya saya kalau ulangan bisa ngerjain tapi kan emang beliau itu pas ngajarnya soal grammar jadi ya gitu. Lebih enaknya sih kalau gurunya mau cerita-cerita dan bimbing muridnya satu-satu, tapi ya nggak mungkin gitu kan muridnya banyak.

EL

A1.3 Kalau menurut saya sudah bagus. Tapi menurut saya lebih bagus kalau guru itu mau berdialog dengan murid, jadi nggak cuma guru memberi dan murid menerima.

EL

Q2 Apakah kalian merasa kompetensi Bahasa Inggris kalian meningkat selama belajar Bahasa Inggris di Seminari?

A2.1 Kalau soal materi sebenarnya saya lebih suka waktu di SMP, materinya lebih jelas. Waktu di Seminari, saya kurang bisa memahami materi yang diajarkan, tapi itu mungkin memang kekurangan saya. Kalau di sini terutama soal grammar kami lebih sering harus berusaha belajar sendiri, kalau nggak nanya ya nggak dijelasin. Dulu waktu masih di MP (tahun pertama)


71

kan ada materi vocabulary, nha yang kaya itu yang saya rasa membantu untuk saya.

A2.2 Ya meningkat, walaupun di sini lebih banyak kesulitan yang harus kami temui.

A2.3 Sepertinya sih meningkat, terutama soal vocabulary, kan kalau itu mau ndak mau kami harus menghafal, kalau ndak ya nanti ndak naik kelas.

Q3 Pernah tidak kalian mengungkapkan ke guru bahwa kalian kurang setuju dengan materi yang diajarkan?

A3.1 Belum pernah sih, kan kami belum berani. Q4 Kalau di forum lesehan (forles) apa yang biasanya dibahas dan

siapa yang biasanya dapat banyak keluhan dari para seminaris?

Q4.1 Yang dibahas biasanya ya cara guru mengajar. Yang terakhir kemarin salah satu guru matematika yang diprotes ketika forles. Mungkin karena menurut teman-teman dia kalau mengajar terburu-buru.

Q4.3 Sebenarnya memberi masukan guru itu bisa juga lewat OSIS. Tapi kan itu nggak efektif. Jadi ya yang populer emang lewat forles, karena kan waktu forles Romo Direktur juga datang, jadi ya kami berani ngomong mas.

Q5 Pernah atau tidak guru Bahasa Inggris diprotes ketika forles? A5.1 Nggak pernah. Ya mungkin karena Bahasa Inggris emang

susah, bukan cuma gara-gara gurunya. Dua tahun lagi mungkin saya akan bisa, kalau sekarang ya belum.

A5.2 Kalau beliau (guru Bahasa Inggris) selalu beres. Beliau itu kan senior.

A5.3 Itu kan soalnya per-angkatan mas. Kalau di angkatan kami ya Bahasa Inggris itu emang susah tapi kan yang bikin susah materinya. Jadi walaupun susah ya kita nrimo aja, siapa tahu beberapa taun lagi kami pintar ngomong Bahasa Inggris.

Q6 Apakah kalian punya keinginan belajar Bahasa Inggris? A6.1 Ya punya, tapi tu kan Bahasa Inggris memang susah. Yang

kedua, waktunya kurang. Udah susah, seminggu masa cuma dua kali, empat jam tok. Cuma dikit kesempatan saya untuk belajar ngomong, biasanya ya cuma belajar tenses. Sebenarnya ya tiap hari Senin di sini ada English Day, tapi kan tetep aja kitanya bisik-bisik pake Bahasa Indonesia. Ada juga Sidang Akademi, tapi kan ya itu cuma satu minggu sekali.

EL

A6.2 Materi yang diajarkan itu baru bagi kami, jadi ya kadang-kadang nggak dong. Tapi ya balik lagi moga-moga lama-


72

kelamaan kami jadi dong. Malah kalau belum dong kaya gini jadi penasaran mas caranya dong itu lho, pengen kaya teman saya sing kok yo isa-isane dong ki lho padhal yo mbulet.

A6.3 Kalau saya sih pengennya cuma ngerti soal grammar. Udah, itu aja sih kalau saya pribadi.

Q7 Kalian sendiri itu tipe siswa yang model belajarnya seperti apa?

A7.1 Menulis, baca terus dicatat. Makanya itu saya kesulitan kalau soal Bahasa Inggris, kan di Bahasa Inggris ada pelajaran ngomongnya juga, harusnya itu yang dibanyakin biar saya bisa.

A7.2 Kalau saya, harus diajarin pelan-pelan mas. Tapi ya itu kalau di sekolah kan ya nggak mungkin gurunya gitu. Paling-paling kalau pas jam studi malam aja saya minta diajarin teman.

A7.3 Saya belum begitu yakin sih, tapi mungkin ya dengan mencatat juga. Selama ini kan saya ya biasa aja sih gak begitu sulit ngikutin pelajaran. Kalau Bahasa Inggris itu kan memang harusnya dilatih tiap hari, jadi itu sulitnya.


73

Appendix 6

Permission Letter


Documents

NEGOTIATING THE CURRICULUM: A CASE STUDY OF … · Sekolah tersebut pernah menerapkan Kurikulum 2013 selama satu semester, lalu ... Seminari Mertoyudan overcomes challenges in implementing