Post on 31-Jan-2023
ABSTRACT
Indonesia and Australia have a uniquerelationship in that each country treats each other’sfirst language as a foreign language taught in theireducation system. The education authority ofIndonesia stipulates English as a compulsory foreignlanguage subject taught since the level of juniorhigh school, while Australia offers Indonesian as oneof the languages that students can learn. This factleads to the question whether there are certainunique aspects of the teaching of Indonesians toAustralian students.This research-based paper willcompare the position of Indonesian in the curriculumof New South Wales, Australia as compared to theposition English in the Indonesian KTSP. The researchis basically a document analysis in that theresearcher acquires the related documents of the NewSouth Wales Board of Studies which are readilyavailable in its official website and compared it tothe KTSP in the researcher’s school. The result ofthe examination shows that there are some distinctdifferences reflected the syllabuses of the twocountries.
Key words: Indonesian, English, New South Wales
Curriculum, KTSP
0
THE POSITION OF INDONESIAN IN THE NEW SOUTH WALES
CURRICULUM AS COMPARED TO THE POSITION OF ENGLISH IN
AN INDONESIAN KTSP
A. INTRODUCTION
Australia and Indonesia have a unique
relationship in that the education authority of
Indonesia makes English, the national language of
Australia, as a compulsory subject to be learned in
the levels of junior high school and high school in
Indonesia. Meanwhile, the education authority of
Australia offers Indonesian as one of the languages
that students may choose as their subject in its
curriculum. The implementation of Australian
curriculum is the responsibility of states and
territories, in this case New South Wales (from now
on NSW) and the one responsible to develop it in NSW
is the NSW Board of Studies.
In terms of the syllabus, there is a difference
between Indonesia and NSW. The current curriculum in
Indonesia is KTSP in which a school designs its own
curriculum and syllabus to accommodate the local
specificities, while the NSW Board of Studies design
syllabuses for the schools in the state with the
approval of the NSW Minister of Education (NSW Board
2
of Studies, 2013). This difference is to be discussed
in this paper.
The similarities and differences of the relative
position of the two languages in the two curricula
will be worth noticing in that the teachers of
English in Indonesia need a comparative view of the
teaching of a foreign language. Most Indonesian
English teachers are familiar only with the teaching
of English as a foreign language and focus all the
attention on finding the best ways to teach the
students. This analysis will seek to give insights
into how a foreign language is taught.
The paper will compare the content of Indonesian
syllabus designed by the NSW Board of Studies and
that of English syllabus designed by a junior high
school teacher of the school’s KTSP. This inquiry
will seek to reveal the similarities and differences
possibly found in the way the syllabus is
implemented. The comparison merits attention because
Indonesian teachers may reflect on another practice
of foreign language teaching as compared to their own
practices in designing their English syllabus in the
KTSP.
The comparison of the two curricula regarding
the specific syllabuses will follow the framework of
3
curriculum analysis proposed by Posner (1992). Posner
offers a sequence of curriculum analysis which he
divides into four sets as follows: Set 1 (Curriculum
documentation and origins), Set 2 (Curriculum
proper), Set 3 (Curriculum in use) and Set 4
(Curriculum critique). This paper will focus on Set 2
that deals with the purposes and content of the
curriculum, especially in relation to Indonesian
syllabus and English syllabus.
Research on comparisons of two curricula has
been conducted by several researchers, such as
Kantrowitz (2001), Ruddock and Sainsbury (2008) and
Eid (2010). They conducted research on curricula with
different foci. Despite the differences, they shared
the view regarding the importance of curriculum
comparisons.
The focus on the Indonesian syllabus in a
country’s curriculum also functions to provide
another unique importance for Indonesian English
teachers because Indonesian is their national
language. Comparing the ways Indonesian is taught
abroad with the ways English is taught by them will
be beneficial in that the teachers may learn from it.
Learning from the comparison will widen the horizon
of the teachers because it seems that most teacher
trainings in Indonesia give examples of how English4
is taught in the local settings or the best practices
of English teaching. The practice of Indonesian
teaching in Australia may give the teachers in
Indonesia another point of view of how a language is
taught.
B. Literature Review
B.1. Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan and English
Syllabus
KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) or
School-Based Curriculum (SBC) is the curriculum which
is applied based on the Peraturan Pemerintah
(Government Regulation) No. 19 Year 2005. This
regulation allows a school to develop its own
curriculum. The diverse characteristics of each
school bring about so many variations in certain
parts of the curricula in Indonesia because a school
administrator can design a curriculum that
accommodates the uniqueness of the aspects related to
the school.
Despite the freedom attached to the KTSP, the
government sets some standards to be met by the
school. The standards are called Standar Isi (Content5
Standard) and Standar Kompetensi Lulusan (Graduate
Competence Standard). Those standards are guidelines
to follow while developing the appropriate syllabus
for the schools concerned.
Therefore, overall, any KTSP of junior high
schools will contain an English syllabus which sets
four main language competencies (listening, speaking,
reading, and writing). The efforts to make the
students acquire the competencies become the
responsibility of each individual English teacher in
the school. Thus, the KTSP to be compared in this
research may not be exactly the same as that of other
schools.
B.2. NSW Curriculum and Indonesian Syllabus
Starting from 2009, the Commonwealth, State and
Territory governments had agreed, based on the
National Education Agreement, to the implementation
of a national curriculum (Drabsch, 2013). The
development of the national curriculum becomes the
responsibility of ACARA and the Board of Studies NSW
is responsible for advising the NSW Minister for
Education on the appropriateness of the curriculum
for NSW schools and the structure and process of its
implementation
6
(http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au /australian-
curriculum/).
The history of the national curriculum in
Australia follows the phases below (cited from
Drabsch, 2013):
Period One: 1968-1988 – The period of indirect
influence. The approach to national curriculum
development during this 20 year period was one
that sought to influence the official curricula of
the States without challenging their curriculum
authority.
Period Two: 1988-1993 – The Dawkins era12, a time
of ‘full-on frontal assault’, saw 'the most ambitious
attempt at national curriculum collaboration in
Australia's history… foundered on the old rock of
State-Commonwealth suspicion'.
Period Three: 1993-2003 – This period saw a return
to more indirect strategies for national collaboration,
with some cooperation around the national
curriculum occurring.
In relation to the teaching of Indonesian to the
students in New South Wales, Indonesian is not
offered to the students until they are at grade 7
(http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/).
There are also other considerations before Indonesian7
is taught to them. The considerations will be
discussed in later sections of this paper.
B.3. Curriculum Analysis
Posner (1992, p. 24) states that a curriculum
analysis should go through a certain process. The
process is as follows.
1. Set 1 (curriculum documentation and origins)
This set is aimed at answering the following
questions:
a. How is the curriculum documented?
b. What situation resulted in the development
of the curriculum?
c. What perspectives does the curriculum
represent?
2. Set 2 (curriculum proper)
This set seeks to answer two questions as
follows:
a. What are the purposes and content of the
curriculum?
b. How is the curriculum organized?
3. Set 3 (curriculum in use)
The questions to answer in this set are:
a. How should the curriculum be implemented?
8
b. What can be learned from an evaluation of
the curriculum?
4. Set 4 (curriculum critique)
The question regarding the strengths and
limitations of the curriculum will be
answered in this set.
This research is aimed at answering the first
question of the second set of the process of
curriculum analysis. It limits the scope of the field
of interests to more specific contents of the
curricula, two language subjects in the curricula,
Indonesian in the NSW curricula and English in KTSP.
B.4. Research on Curriculum Comparisons
Curriculum comparisons have been conducted by
several researchers. Kantrowitz (2001) conducted a
research on the comparison of the two curricula on an
institute. One curriculum was applied between 1988
and 1989 and another was applied between 1998 and
1999. The focus of the comparison was the place of
dream in theoretical and clinical courses.
Another research was done by Ruddock and
Sainsbury (2008). They compared the core primary
curriculum of England to those of other high
achieving countries. The comprehensive research shows9
that there were similarities as well as differences
between the England core primary curriculum and other
curricula. For example, in Mathematics, the curricula
share more similarities than they differ because
“roughly two thirds of the elements of the Number
curriculum seem to be shared in common with most of
the other high performing countries” (p.11). Also,
there is only one topic which is covered in the
English curriculum that is apparently uncommon
elsewhere (p. 11). Altogether, they compared at least
three subjects and involved eight countries’
curricula.
A one-on-one comparison of two piano curricula
was conducted by Eid (2010). He compared the piano
curricula in Egypt and the USA. He focused on the
weaknesses of Egypt curricula leading to the poor
performance of the students and tried to find
solutions to mend the students’ performance. The
conclusion of his research is that firstly, a change
of the aptitude (admission) test is needed “so that
it genuinely checks each candidate’s ability to play
the piano” and recommend several further changes (p.
362).
A comparison of a country’s curriculum across
time was done by Wang and Lam (2009). They discussed
the development of English curriculum from 1949 until10
2003. The curriculum has gone through 12 changes (p.
79). They then compared the 1993 curriculum and the
2003. Their conclusion are that “the 2003 curriculum
recognizes the humanistic value of English as a
foreign language in fostering students’ cognitive and
personal growth beyond its traditional instrumental
value in providing access to scientific knowledge and
economic development” (p.65). They recommend a
concomitant fundamental change in teachers with its
associated difficulties for teachers in curricular
implementation (p. 65).
The studies reviewed above show that comparisons
of curricula are seen as important. The various
studies aim at the improvement of the curricula of
the parties concerned. They compared their curricula
to other more successful curricula to know the
strengths and weaknesses of their curricula and then
recommend ways to improve them.
C. Research Methodology
This research is a documentary research that
makes use of documents related to the issue being
discussed, the Indonesian syllabus in the New South
Wales curriculum and English syllabus in KTSP.
According to (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007), there
11
are several forms of documents that can be used in a
documentary research. For the purpose of this
research, the forms which were analyzed are reports,
archives and policy documents.
The data regarding the Australian curriculum are
available in the official site of the Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA) (www.acara.edu.au) and the Indonesian
syllabus is retrieved from the official site of the
NSW Board of Studies (www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au).
As for the data on Indonesian curriculum (KTSP) and
its English syllabus, the data from government
regulations and an example of a KTSP of a junior high
school in Majalengka were analyzed.
The methodology of this research will follow the
following steps.
1. The data collection in which the data of
Australian curriculum were browsed and
downloaded from the official sites, while the
data of Indonesian KTSP and English syllabus
were collected from the available documents
of a junior high school in Majalengka.
2. The data analysis in which the data were
compared to find out similarities and
12
differences in terms of their contents
(Posner, 1992).
3. The data interpretation in which the
similarities and differences were commented
and interpreted.
The validity and reliability of the documentary
research were achieved by conforming to four criteria
proposed by Scott (cited in Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007, p. 203). They are authenticity,
credibility, representativeness and meaning. All the
documents used in this research have been selected
carefully to conform to the criteria.
D. Findings and Discussion
This research aims at finding similarities and
differences in terms of the contents of the two
curricula. More particularly, the similarities and
differences are sought to answer the following
questions:
What are the purposes and content of the
curriculum?
D.1 Purposes of the curricula
Based on the examination of a KTSP in Indonesia
and NSW Curriculum, the curriculum defines its
purposes as follows (Posner, 1992):13
Societal goals
KTSP:
to lay foundation of intelectuality,
knowledge, attitude, good personality and
skills to live independently and pursue
higher education (meletakkan dasar kecerdasan,
pengetahuan, kepribadian, akhlak mulia, serta keterampilan
untuk hidup mandiri dan mengikuti pendidikan lebih lanjut)
Australian National Curriculum :
all Australian school students acquire the
knowledge and skills to participate
effectively in society and employment in a
globalized economy (Dabsch, 2013).
The two goals are different in that that of KTSP
seems to be more abstract as compared to that of the
Australian Curriculum. The scope of the KTSP goal is
general and not focused, whereas the Australian
Curriculum specifically mentions the ultimate target
which is to participate effectively in society and
employment. The more focused a goal, the easier for a
school administrator or a teacher to arrange his/her
plans to achieve the goal. This may be the key point
in deciding the success of a curriculum.
14
Administrative Goals
KTSP:
The goals are related to developing students’
potentials; developing flexible learning;
optimizing the resources surrounding the
school and society; administering teacher
trainings; conducting self-development
activities in agriculture; holding religious
and social activities; holding guidance and
counseling activities; doing school
environment management; administering
continuous learning planning, evaluating and
improvement; conducting ICT learning;
understanding and applying the spirit of
entrepreneurship.
Australian Curriculum:
Probably due to the national curriculum
application, administrative goals of the
curriculum are not found.
Administrative goals in KTSP are available because
each school has to have certain goals that
accommodate its unique characteristics. For example,
the KTSP of the school observed pays attention on
agriculture because the school is located in a rural
area and is surrounded by rice and vegetable fields.
Even the school itself develops a particular self-15
development class on agriculture. So, KTSP allows the
school administrators to emphasis on what it deems
relevant to the specificities of the school.
Educational Goal
KTSP:
a. Listening
Comprehending meanings in simple
interpersonal and transactional oral
discourses both formally and informally
in the forms of recount, narrative,procedure,
descriptive, dan report, in the context of
daily life.
b. Speaking
Expressing meanings in simple
interpersonal and transactional oral
discourses both formally and informally
in the forms of recount, narrative,procedure,
descriptive, dan report, in the context of
daily life.
c. Reading
Comprehending meanings in simple
interpersonal and transactional written
discourses both formally and informally
16
in the forms of recount, narrative,procedure,
descriptive, dan report, in the context of
daily life.
d. Writing
Expressing meanings in written form in
simple interpersonal and transactional
discourses both formally and informally
in the forms of recount, narrative,procedure,
descriptive, dan report, in the context of
daily life.
Australian Curriculum (Indonesian K-10
Syllabus (retrievable on
http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllab
us_sc/pdf_doc/ indonesian_k10_syl.pdf):
to enable students to develop communication
skills, focus on languages as systems and
gain insights into the relationship between
language and culture, leading to lifelong
personal, educational and vocational
benefits.
Again, the goal of the Australian Curriculum in the
Indonesian syllabus is focused on long-term benefits
and specifically on vocational/employment benefits.
On the other hand, the goals of learning English in
KTSP are still blurred and before watching the actual17
teaching learning activities, the objectives stated
in the syllabus and/or curriculum might not be
clearly conceived.
Learning Objectives
One example of learning objectives of English
in KTSP:
Responding the meanings in short and simple
transactional (to get things done) and
interpersonal conversations accurately,
fluently and meaningfully to interact in the
contexts of daily life that involve
utterances of asking and giving certainty and
expressing and responding to doubt.
Indonesian Syllabus:
A student organizes and responds to key ideas
from spoken texts in familiar contexts.
The lengthy statement of the example of learning
objectives of English in KTSP may be confusing for
those who are not familiar with the technical terms.
However, the statement of the example of learning
objectives in the Indonesian syllabus is clear enough
to understand.
D. 2. Contents of the Curricula
KTSP 18
Although KTSP allows the incorporation of
certain uniqueness, most of the subjects taught in
the junior high schools in Indonesia are basically
the same. There are ten subjects commonly taught in
all junior high schools in Indonesia, such as seen in
Table 1.
Components
TimeAllocation(Sessions)
A. Subjects
1. Pendidikan Agama (Islam Religion) 2
2. Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan (CivicEducation)
2
3. Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) 4
4. Bahasa Inggris (English) 4
5. Matematika (Mathematics) 4
6. Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (NaturalSciences)
4
7. Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (SocialSciences)
4
8. Seni Budaya (Arts and Culture) 2
9. Pendidikan Olah raga, jasmani danKesehatan (Sport and Health Education)
2
10. Keterampilan/Teknologi Informatika dan 219
Komunikasi (ICT)
B. Muatan Lokal (Local Content)
1. Bahasa Sunda (Sundanese) 2
2. Al-Qur’an and Al-Hadits 1
3. Agriculture 1
C. Self Development 2
Total36
Table 1. Contents of KTSP of a junior high
school
All of the subjects above (except Self
Development) are required to be attended by all the
students in the school. In the case of Self
Development, the students are offered to choose from
several fields of interests the one they like the
best. The offers may include agriculture, sports,
scouts, among others.
In New South Wales, there are eight key learning
areas for secondary education (from Year 7 to Year
10): English; Mathematics; Science; Human Society and
its Environment; Languages other than English;
Technological and Applied Studies; Creative Arts; and
Personal Development, Health and Physical Education
(Drabsch, 2013). The students learn less subjects
20
than their fellows in Indonesia. Moreover, Languages
other than English (LOTE) can be chosen based on the
students’ preferences.
In relation to Indonesian, the students may
choose it from several other languages such as
French, Japanese, Spanish, among others. However, to
choose a certain language, there are two factors that
must be taken into account. The first is the consent
of the parents or carers and the second is the
student’s competencies and learning needs. These
considerations are interesting in that parents and
teachers (who assess the students’ competencies) play
an important role in deciding whether Indonesian can
be taught to a student. Whether these considerations
play an important role in deciding the success of the
students’ learning is an interesting thing to
explore.
Another interesting to consider in relation to
the teaching of Indonesian, and other languages
besides English to the students of New South Wales is
that the languages are not offered until the students
are in the grade 7 (Drabsch, 2013). The languages are
offered on the stage 5 of the learning stages of the
students. No language other than English is taught
before stage 5 or year/grade 7. It seems that the
education authorities in Australia agree that English21
as the first language or mother tongue of most people
in Australia must be well acquired before learning
other foreign languages. This fact corresponds well
to the belief that mother tongue is the language of
thought so that the more fluently one speaks, the
more fluently he thinks (Suherdi, 2012).
Apart from the discussion above, in the syllabus
of Indonesian it is stated that “through the study of
Indonesian, students develop awareness, understanding
and acceptance of difference and diversity in their
personal lives, and within the local and global
community.” While KTSP and its English syllabus are
focused at introducing English in daily life uses,
Australian education authorities have sought to
introduce cultural understanding to the students.
The fact is interesting because, apart from the
level of difficulties in learning the two languages,
still Indonesian is taught as a foreign language in
Australia as is English in Indonesia. However, in
Australia, the culture that goes along with the
language concerned is also learned and the students
are encouraged to accept and respect differences.
D. 3 Conclusion
22
The findings and discussion about bring about
the following conclusions:
1. The purposes of KTSP are not specific if
compared to those of the Australian Curriculum
(and Indonesian Syllabus). The purposes and
goals in KTSP are too general, while those of
Australian Curriculum are clear and specific.
2. There are differences regarding the procedure of
making the students learn the languages. In
Indonesia, English is compulsory so all students
must learn it. On the contrary, in order a
student can learn Indonesian, parents or carers
must be sought for their consents and the
student must also be assessed as to his/her
competencies to learn Indonesian (or other
languages).
D.4. Recommendations
KTSP will soon be replaced by the 2013
curriculum. The relative freedom of the school
administrator to devise a school curriculum is
curtailed because the government will apply a
national curriculum and syllabuses. Nevertheless,
several recommendations may also apply for the coming
curriculum and syllabuses. They are:23
1. Clear and unambiguous purposes, goals and
learning objectives should be devised
carefully so that anyone who reads the
statements will understand easily what to
expect from the statements.
2. The diversity of students’ competencies
should be accommodated so that the learning
of a foreign language can be expected to
succeed. English has been seen as a very
important subject that it is compulsory.
However, the need of learning English may be
different from place to place. It might a
non-popular idea to dispose English as a
compulsory subject. However, it might be
valid in remote areas where adults cannot
even speak Indonesian as the national
language.
3. In the case of Australian practice, parents’
consents are needed regarding whether a
subject will be taught or not. This aspect
may also be applied in Indonesia. Parents
should also be involved in deciding the path
that their children take in education.
24
REFERENCES
Board of Studies NSW. (2013). Retrieved April 18, 2013,fromhttp://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/australian-curriculum/
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). ResearchMethods in Education, Sixth Edition. London: Routledge.
Drabsch, T. (2013). The Australian Curriculum. NSWPARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH SERVICE.
Eid, S. A. (2010). A comparative study of pianocurricula in Egypt and the USA (with specificreference to the School of Music at theUniversity of Illinois). International Journal of MusicEducation , 28 (4), 353–368.
Kantrowitz, J. L. (2001). Brief Communication: aComparison of the Place of Dreams in InstituteCurricula Between 1980-1981 and 1998-1999.Journal of the American Journal of the American , 985-997.
Krahnke, K. (1987). Approaches to Syllabus Design for ForeignLanguage Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kurikulum Satuan Pendidikan. 2012. SMPN 4 Maja.Majalengka.
Peraturan Pemerintah (Government Regulation) No. 19Year 2005
Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the Curriculum. New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc.
25
Richards, J. C. (2002). Curriculum Development in LanguageTeaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruddock, G., & Sainsbury, M. (2008). Comparison of theCore Primary Curriculum in England to those of Other HighPerforming Countries. National Foundation forEducational Research.
Suherdi, D. (2012). Rekonstruksi Pendidikan Bahasa: SebuahKeniscayaan bagi Keunggulan Bangsa. Bandung: CelticsPress.
Wang, W., & Lam, A. S. (2009). The English LanguageCurriculum for Senior Secondary School in China: Its Evolution from 1949. RELC Journal , 40 (1),65-82.
26
Reaserch-based Paper Scoring Rubric
Student’s Name : Ganjar Muttaqin
Student’s Number : 1204669
Topic : The Position of Indonesian in the
New South Wales Curriculum as
Compared to the Position of English
in an Indonesian KTSP
ASPECTS CONTENTS SCORE YOURS
Abstract Burning issues
Objectives
Methodology
Findings
Sub Total
1
2
2
2
7
Introduct
ion
Burning issues
Objectives of the research
A brief theoretical
foundation
Relevant previous research
Thesis statement
Statemment of the
problems/research
questions
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
Significance of the study
Sub Total
7
Literatur
e Review
Recent publication journal
and book
Theories relevant to the
objectives of the research
Related previous research
Synthesis
Sub Total
1
2
1
1
5
Research
Methodolo
gy
Design
Data collection (sample,
instrumentation,
procedure)
Data analysis
Sub Total
2
2
2
6
Findings
and
Discussio
n
Data presentation to
answer research questions
Interpretation to the
findings
Conclusion
Recommendation
2
2
1
1
6
28
Sub Total
Citation Appropriateness: How to
quote, how to write the
author in the quotation,
how to write Bibliography.
5
Language Grammar
Coherence
Sub Total
2
2
4
TOTAL SCORE 40
29
Research-based Paper Presentation
Student’s Name : Ganjar Muttaqin
Student’s Number : 1204669
Topic : The Position of Indonesian in the
New South Wales Curriculum as
Compared to the Position of English
in an Indonesian KTSP
The Grading Criteria
Knowledg
e about
the
topic of
the
research
Lang Use:
Pronuncia
tion
Lang
Use:
Grammar
Presentation:
The
Effectiveness
of using the
media and
Communicative
ness
Total
20 5 5 10
30