Title

INFLUENCE OF HILDA TABA MODEL

IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT OF 21st CENTURY IN INDONESIA

1) Anggia Ayu Sebrina, anggia.ayu@kemdikbud.go.id , Direktorat Pembinaan Pendidikan Khusus dan Layanan Khusus, Kementerian Pendidikan dan

Kebudayaan2) Richard Amri, richard . amri@ kemdikbud . go.id , Pusat Pengembangan

Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini dan Pendidikan Masyarakat Jawa Barat, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan

Abstract

The selection of a curriculum development model should be adjusted to the education system and the educational concept model used. One of the models in curriculum development is Hilda Taba Model, which is quite influential and inspiring in curriculum development in the world. The writing of this article aims to see the influence of the Hilda Taba model in the development of the curriculum in Indonesia to face the challenges of the 21st century. The Taba curriculum development model is also known as the grassroots model or inverted model. Taba also emphasized the role teachers play in the curriculum development. The model has 5 systematic stages as follows: 1) producing a pilot unit, at this stage the teacher performs (a) diagnosing needs, (b) formulating specific objectives, (c) selecting content, (d) organizing content, (e) selecting learning experience, (f) organizing learning experience, (g) evaluation, (h) checking the balance and sequence; 2) testing experimental unit; 3) revising and consolidating; 4) developing a framework; 5) installing and disseminating new units. This article is reviewed using the literature review method, using a qualitative descriptive approach. The authors review data from literature documents that discuss the Taba curriculum development model and policies related to the development, implementation and evaluation of the Curriculum in Indonesia as a review material. Findings from the results of the literature review and policy of the Curriculum in Indonesia, there is an example school as a pilot project aims to find out the weaknesses and limitations that need to be improved before being implemented on a national scale. The curriculum-making approach in Indonesia today is a centralized and decentralistic blend, with the dominant top-down approach element. The role of teachers is also very important in curriculum development within the scope of the unit level curriculum, but teachers have not been supported by the competence to develop a large-scale curriculum. Recommendations for government and educational personnel education institutions (LPTK institutions) to improve curriculum development competencies for teachers and provide greater opportunities for teachers to take part in developing national curricula.

Keyword: Curriculum, Development, Implementation, Evaluation, Taba’s Model, grass-roots approach.

Introduction

The curriculum was developed based on the main foundation and the principles of

curriculum development, thus the development of the curriculum is carried out

systematically and systemically so that the curriculum can be implemented and

managed to reach the goal education with the right process. Many curriculum

development model that can be used, therefore choosing a curriculum

development model must be adapted to the educational system and the educational

concept is used. As one known of the models in curriculum development is the

Taba’s model.

Hilda Taba as one active figure in the world of education, made its contribution

by introducing a curriculum development model called inverted model or

commonly referred to as grass root models, developed using an inductive

approach, in which the curriculum is developed on the lower level or the

education unit later developed into the national curriculum. Curriculum

development model is considered good because it has been tested and involve

teachers in development to make it more realistic and applicable.

Although the Taba’s model was developed in 1962, but the concept still influence

the curriculum development of the 21st century. In this era, curriculum that

emphasizes mastery of skills and competencies with a balanced attitude and

knowledge require active participation of teachers and external components in

developing the curriculum and learning in order to achieve its objective namely

education mastery of 21st century competencies.

Curriculum in Indonesia called Curriculum 2013, in which the curriculum is

designed to address the needs and challenges of the 21st century curriculum

development in Indonesia also utilize models existing curriculum development,

essentially in developing the curriculum does not use only one models, but also to

adapt some existing models with adjustment on each stage to match the conditions

in Indonesia. This article will discuss the steps of developing a curriculum on the

Taba’s model and also discusses some of the parts of the concept of the Taba’s

model affecting The Curriculum in Indonesia.

Literature Review

Taba’s Model of Curriculum Development

Curriculum development is a process for designing a curriculum and decision

making which is quite complex. The people who involve in curriculum

development made decision for the purpose, content, and determine the

appropriate learning experience and assessment for student learning (Zais, 1976;

Taba, 1962).

Based on that literature, we can be constructed the understanding that the

curriculum development model is a pattern or systematic measures and systemic

to make an appropriate decision regarding the purpose of learning, organizing

learning content, learning experiences and curriculum evaluation. Thus in the

curriculum is necessary to used curriculum development model as a reference and

guideline to made a right curriculum. One of curriculum development model is

introduced by Hilda Taba, the model has its own unique and distinctive

characteristics.

Taba’s model is still influenced by Tyler (1949), but there are fundamental

differences that characterize the particular model of Taba. Arifin (2014) states that

Taba curriculum development model known as curriculum development that starts

from specific things become general or commonly called inductive thinking.

Another distinctive feature Taba models is the model bottom-up or inverted

models. As argued by Ornstein (2013: 182) that the involvement of teachers in

curriculum development is a necessity for Taba argues that the curriculum should

be organized and planned by the user or people who implementing the curriculum

itself, so Taba initiated to developed curriculum begins from the bottom or

commonly called the grassroots approach.

Some points that need to be understood in curriculum development before

applying the step of curriculum development model, need to understood the

function of the curriculum itself. Taba and Seller & Miller (1985) catagorize the

curriculum into three functions:

1. Transmission Position

The orientation of the curriculum is to continue the transmission of

knowledge, values, culture, and skills from one generation to the next

generations. Thus, the curriculum as an agent or tool an instrumen to

facilitate student for brings heritage.

2. Transaction Position

The orientation of curriculum transaction viewed students as individual

who capable to construct knowledge and solve the problems by themself.

Education is interaction between the student with curriculum, so that

students learn through the interaction process. Taba (1962) mentions

transaction position as Education for Individual Development, both have

the same sense that the curriculum is the interaction of learners that

construct through good communication with teachers, friends,

environment and society.

3. Transformation Position

Curriculum have a role as a transformation agent is to develop the student

as a personal intact, to be able to adaptation with globalization,

humanitarian and answer the challenges of the future. The transformation

position focused on personal development and social change.

According Oliva, Taba’s model state that curriculum should be developed by

teachers and not by the manager or administrator because it must be preceded by

composing instructional units specifically, so they need teachers with sufficient

capacity. According Sukmadinata and also disclosed by Zainal Arifin, in applying

the Taba’s inverted model, required teachers who have matured, adequate

facilities and enough cost. To equip the teacher, it can be done through seminars,

training, workshop, etc.

Taba formulate the steps in developing the curriculum. These five stages on the

Taba’s model as described in the book are as follows:

1. Pilot Producing Unit

This stage is a liaison between theory and practice. There are 8 steps to be

taken by the teacher to produce units for tested before implemented:

a) Diagnosis of needs

Teacher as implementers curriculum had been direct contact with the

students and knowing the actual environment, so, before planning

units they begins with a needs analysis such as analysis problems,

conditions and general problems. The purpose of the analysis is to

generate new ideas suppression and views from the existing

conditions.

Needs analysis conducted by collecting data, the data obtained from

various sources, both from the neighborhood, students, parents and

teachers. Branch (2009) reinforce the concept of analysis regarding

the need to look at the gap or difference between the ideal conditions

with actual conditions so that the curriculum developer is able to

reducing gap in determine curriculum and learning strategies.

b) Formulation of objectives

After did need analisys, then user needs to develop goals or determine

which aspects will be emphasized. Objectives are formulated

comprehensively can help expand the contents and learning activities

that are organized. It also has been prepared clearly and without

ambiguous meaning, to be easy to understand and be understood.

Patrick Slattery (2006) in his book titled Curriculum Development in

the Postmodern Era of states that in determining goals, objectives,

lesson plans and educational outcomes must be measurable and

through observation of behavior to ensure the validity.

c) Selection of content

Its important to consider in selecting the content, determining the

main topic and dimension, focused ideas that will be developed, and

specific facts and details the material to be delivered.

d) Organization of the content

The content has been chosen must be continuous and logic, then the

next step is organizing the content. Topics, ideas and content needs to

be collated by the scope, sequence, continuity and balance consider

into the level of maturity, academic abilities, and interests of learners.

e) Selection of learning experiences

Teachers choose the learning activities that involve students with the

content. learning activities has been choosen also consider the logic of

the student and educational psychology.

f) Organization of Learning Activities

The learning activities need to be arranged in a sequence, which is

adapted and adjust to the content have been determined.

g) Evaluation and means of evaluation

The evaluation consists of determining the destination, diagnosis, or

the determination of the basis for learning and assessing progress. By

itself entirely will be more accurate and objective if evaluative

judgments based on the evidence available in the field.

h) Checking balance and sequence

Last part is to determine the suitability of balance and order and

measures have been implemented well in order to then be tested in the

next stage.

2. Experimental Testing Units

After the pilot unit was developed by teachers for each class, then at this

stage is the stage of each unit tested in actual classroom to evaluate the

validity and teachability each unit and also to look at the needs of every

level of education. Is there a shortage, or something that has not been

accommodated.

3. Revising and Consolidating

Results of the test in real conditions will be known which part is already

good and which part needs to be improved. Taking into consideration the

needs of students, availability of resources, and a variety of teaching styles

as well as limitations experienced, must be adapted to all students so that

the curriculum appropriate to be widely applicable.

4. Developing A Framework

Theoretical framework developed by people and teams who are competent

in curriculum development to establish curriculum revision and

consolidation of the results that have been done and of theories right.

Basic considerations framework development viewed from the sequences

of ideas and concepts of the subject, the breadth and complexity.

Structured learning experience can make students increase their skills,

intellectual and emotional understanding.

5. Installing And Disseminating New Units

With the framework that has been developed systematically and thorough

for each unit, the curriculum developed deserves to be widely

implemented. To implement the curriculum each teacher must first

understand the curriculum, the teachers need to be prepared to do

workshops, seminars, trainin, et cetera.

As was mentioned earlier that Tyler’s and Taba’s model is a rational curriculum

development model, which is developed curriculum in a logical, sequential and

structured. The practical approach to designing the curriculum is the core of the

rational model. Murray Print In his book (1988: 67-69) states the strengths and

weaknesses of the rational model are:

➢ Stengths of rational models

1) Avoid confusion which educators and curriculum developers to provide

a road that is not convoluted and have a time-efficient approach that can

find or do a task properly curriculum.

2) With emphasis on the role and value of the goals, this model makes the

curriculum developers to think seriously about their duties.

3) The hierarchy of curriculum development of objectives, formulation of

contents, learning activities, and evaluate the objectives are achieved, is

the main attraction of this model.

➢ limitations of the rational model

1) Background of experience and lack of preparation an educator to think

and develop his thinking logically and systematically will have

difficulty in using this model.

2) Lack of clarity on the nature of learning, because learning is often

exactly happened beyond these goals.

3) Too much emphasis on the results of such formulas concerned with the

purpose of behavior objectives.

Method

The research method for this article used literature review with the study of

literature and policy studies in which data is acquired from books, journals,

regulatory / government policies, handbooks and guidelines related to the research

and internet media. The data has been obtained and analyzed by descriptive

analysis method.

Results and Discussion

The 21st century is characterized by the ease in obtaining information, computing

and automation of various aspects of life, as well as the era of massive

communication (Kemdikbud, 2014). To support the overall needs of the 21st

century, we need human resources who can answer the challenge. The role of

education in the 21st century produce human resources into the spotlight.

Expectations will be very high-quality education in line with the need for skilled

graduates who have mastered the ability and skills of the 21st century (Amadio, et

al. 2014).

Figure 1. Framework for 21st century learning (source: Partnership for 21st

Century Skills)

Learning Framework for the 21st century as illustrated by the Partnership for 21st

Century Skills. Shaped like a rainbow, Trilling and Fadel (2009) called The

Knowledge-and-Skills Rainbow. The rainbow reflect the will produce student-

outcomes are best suited for the 21st century through learning. The framework

adds the themes of traditional combined with the themes of the 21st century that

are relevant to several problems such major global awareness (understanding and

awareness of multicultural), environmental awareness (ecological awareness and

understanding of sustainability of resources and energy), financial awareness

(related to the economy, business and entrepreneurial knowledge), health

awareness (about healthy lifestyles, nutrition and the prevention of disease), and

awareness of community (community service, ethical issues, democracy and

social justice). Recently the themes of the core is surrounded by three skills that

are very attractive in the 21st century include:

1. skills in learning and innovating in it, including critical thinking,

communication skills, collaboration skills, and creative.

2. Skills in the use of media, technology and information.

3. Skills that support career and life.

In harmony with this, the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of

Indonesia formulated a 21st century learning paradigm that emphasizes the ability

of learners to find out from a variety of sources, formulate problems, think

analytically and cooperation and collaborate in resolving the problem (R & D

Kemdikbud, 2013). Learning framework 21st century according to (BSNP 2010 in

Wijaya, Sudjimat and Nyoto, 2016) are as follows: (a) The ability of critical

thinking and problem solving (Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills),

lateral and systemic, especially in the context of problem solving; (b) Ability to

communicate and work together (Communication and Collaboration Skills), able

to communicate and collaborate effectively with various stakeholders; (c) Ability

to create and renew (Creativity and Innovation Skills), was able to develop its

creativity to produce a wide range of innovative breakthroughs; (d) Literacy ICT

(Information and Communications Technology Literacy), is able to utilize

information and communication technologies to improve the performance and

activities of daily living; (e) Ability to learn the contextual (Contextual Learning

Skills), able to lead learning activities independent of contextual as part of

personal development, and (f) The ability of information and media literacy, able

to understand and use a variety of communication media to convey a variety of

ideas and carry out activities of collaboration and interaction with various parties.

Learning paradigm change in facing the 21st century it should happen as revealed

by Bell Hooks, (1994 in Owen, 2011) that "when the classroom is truly engaged,

it's dynamic, fluid, and always changing". Changes always occur and education

should be dynamic in facing a civilization. William Pinar (2004, in Slattery 2006)

argues that:

the era of the traditional synoptic text must shift from an obsession with school-based policy and evaluation to a broader concern do understand the complicated conversations of curriculum in the context of schools, society, and autobiography.

The 21st century requires different competencies than the competence of the

previous century. The need for skilled workers (high-skilled) in various countries

is increasing. Knowledgeable vast and have strong characters was not good

enough but supported by the competence or skills make education graduates will

be able to contribute to the development of a country (Grimson, 2002). These

challenges must be answered by a quality education system and is responsible for

the competence of graduates. Therefore we need a curriculum system capable of

supporting a quality education.

There are two approaches in curriculum development that can be applied. The first

approach is top-down or administrative approach, the approach to the system of

command from top to bottom, can be interpreted of the highest in the government

system made framework curriculum standards which are then implemented by the

education unit; and the second is approach, grass-roots or curriculum development

initiated by the initiatives of the lower level in this regard and school teachers and

disseminated at a level or a broader scale, the short term is often called curriculum

development from the bottom up.

Curriculum development initiative on administrative approach derived from the

policy holder then down to his staff or from top to bottom. While in the model

grassroots, curriculum development initiatives starting from the field or from the

teachers as an implementer, and then spread to the wider environment, so this

approach is also called curriculum development from the bottom up. Therefore it

is so, then this approach is more widely used in the completion of the curriculum

(curriculum improvement), although on a limited scale may also be used in the

development of new curriculum (curriculum construction).

In reality, the teacher is a figure very close to the students' learning experience

and know the needs required in learning than the administrator (Campbell, 1969).

However, it does not make the teacher as the main actors in curriculum

development.

Grass-roots approach is only possible when teachers have high professional

attitude with sufficient capability. Professional attitude that is usually

characterized by a desire to try something new in an effort to improve its

performance. A professional will always try to add knowledge and insight to

explore the sources of knowledge. Not easily satisfied and always try to do better

with a renewed mindset about teaching methods in an attempt to achieve the

learning objectives with approach thus grass roots will likely to occur.

Successful implementation of the curriculum developed by experiences learned in

school takes the role of teachers as curriculum developers who use the matrix to

refer to the level of achievement of the required learning outcomes throughout the

year and can be a reference criterion to develop a curriculum (Briggs & Collis,

1989).

Teachers are expected to take the initiative to update or refine the curriculum with

this kind of approach. Terms that allow grass-roots approach can take place is

when the curriculum it really is flexible so as to give an opportunity to each

teacher more openly to update or refine the curriculum that is being enforced.

Curriculum is rigid, which only contains instructions and technical requirements

are very difficult to do development with this approach (Boradkar & Duening,

2009).

Curriculum development in Indonesia

In Indonesia, there has been 11 times change of curriculum until the present,

including the revision of curricula, 2013. One of the factors that influence the

development of curriculum is socio-cultural that includes the political conditions

also have an impact on education and curriculum. Curriculum 2013 is the national

curriculum in Indonesia today, to address the needs of the future, which estimated

in 2045 will be happened productive age demographic surge or referred to the

golden generation. Preparing the golden generation through education by creating

a whole person, has global competitiveness and quality, the current education

emphasis on the development domain of spiritual attitudes, social, knowledge, and

skills.

The development of curriculum in Indonesia, the government holds the authority

and responsibility to determine the direction of education held by a particular

curriculum. If the development of curriculum in 2004 and 2006 are also based on

competency have a convergent pattern, then Curriculum 2013 is more divergent in

its development. The direction of the curriculum development which diverges will

provide more flexibility and authority for education departments and schools to

develop educational unit level curriculum to local conditions and environment.

Latitude applicable to regions and schools still have a standard reference of the

center. So the current curriculum development is more of a mix of centralized and

decentralized.

The curriculum was developed by some aspect or dimensions. The four

dimensions intersect and are always there in curriculum development, although it

may be different portions. The fourth dimension is also the direction in curriculum

development are as follows (Kemdikbud, 2014):

1) The curriculum as a materials

2) Curriculum as a products

3) curriculum as a process

4) curriculum as a practical contextual

Curriculum 2013 is a competency-based curriculum (CBC), in which the

acquisition of knowledge should be accompanied by studying attitudes and skills.

According to Taba, in developing a curriculum required the pilot unit / pilot

project both before and after the curriculum desemination and applied on a

national scale. It is found in the development of curriculum in 2013, which in

essence has been initiated from the previous curriculum and had done piloting to

parse the limitations and amplifies the potential before the set into a curriculum.

Currently curriculum 2013 have been implemented and even has undergone

revision stage, and continue to be monitored and evaluated in order to meet an

ideal curriculum system in accordance with the needs and challenges of the 21st

century. Following the preparation of Curriculum 2013 plot by the government to

the level of educational units:

Chart 1. Curriculum Framework (source: Kemdikbud, 2014)

Preparation of the curriculum is a systemic process that is planned to achieve the

objectives (aims, goals, and objectives), with reference to well defined standards.

In addition to involving the underlying elements of the curriculum, development

process of curriculum too bureaucratic. The government plays a major role in it.

The nature of curriculum development in Indonesia today is a mix of centralized

and decentralized.

The existence of a centralized system in curriculum development is aimed to

obtain a core curriculum forms handling authority submitted to the Minister of

National Education (Idi, 2014). From the chart above, it is known that the role of

the central government centralized portrayed since a needs analysis, formulation

of objectives and foundations, selecting standards, develop syllabus, and making

of a book teachers and students. Later stages of decentralization is more often

referred to as Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP), starting from the preparation of

lesson plans, curriculum implementation, and assessment of learning processes

and outcomes, and support enrichment books and other learning resources.

The basic principle of decentralization is delegation of all authority and functions

of all hierarchical levels (Idi, 2014). In the implementation of Curriculum 2013,

more decentralized aimed at adjusting the conditions in the area and their

respective schools, as well as the development of local potential for enriching the

nation's resources. KTSP became operational reference for principals and teachers

in the development and management of the curriculum in schools. As well as

being an operational reference for the provincial education department / district /

city and province religious ministry offices / districts / cities in supervising the

curriculum in the local context. CBC functions are listed in Permendikbud No. 79

Tahun 2014 about Local-Based Curriculum Implementation

In the implementation, Curriculum 2013 (K-13) is designed to accommodate the

needs and challenges of the 21st Century Education. This can be seen in the

learning process that has been using the scientific approach and support the

creativity of learners. The learning process that emphasizes individual experience

through the process of observing, questioning, reasoning, and trying (observation

based learning).

Curriculum development model initiated by Taba has a concept that should the

proposal come from teacher curriculum content as part intersect very close to the

experience of learners. Teachers are required to have competence as curriculum

developers.

Teachers are those who are involved directly in the implementation of the

curriculum in schools. Therefore, the teacher plays a very important both in the

planning or curriculum implementation. Some of the teacher's role in efforts to

succeed the implementation of the curriculum is as follows:

a. As planners, implementers and developers of the curriculum for the class.

As a translator curriculum that comes from the top.

b. Processing, gathering back of the center's curriculum is presented in class.

To evaluate and improvements to the curriculum.

c. Assessing the behavior and student achievement of the class.

d. Assess the implementation of the curriculum in a broader scope.

e. As a communicator, driving learning, learning tools developers, testers,

preparation of the organization, manager of the teaching system.

f. Supervisor at school or in society in relation to the conduct of lifelong

education.

g. As a learner in the community.

h. Creating learning activities, active learning situations that excites the

earnest and to encourage the creativity of children.

Teachers conditions in Indonesia has not been able to meet these requirements.

Teachers are still preoccupied with non-technical terms. Rigidity in administrative

terms make new teacher as merely an absence of the curriculum that enhance

touch (Zinser, 2012). Training of Teachers and Education Personnel (PTK) by the

Ministry of Education and Culture is still limited to the ability to implement the

curriculum, not to develop the curriculum (Kemdikbud, 2014b).

Conclusions

Curriculum development model initiated by Taba require optimization of the role

of teacher as a unit closest to the experience of learners. It is difficult to do

because of the rigid education system, teacher should be more active in its efforts

to develop learning. Teachers should be able to change the traditional learning

concepts and start switching to other modes of learning that leads the 21st century

learning patterns. Curriculum 2013 in Indonesia has opened the opportunity for

teachers to participate in developing the curriculum and learning. A mix of

centralized and decentralized pattern make the curriculum more dynamic.

Curriculum 2013, which is based on the needs and challenges of the 21st century,

namely the strengthening of the mastery of competencies and skills knowledge

and attitude wrapped requires creativity of teachers in designing learning that

support the achievement.

Recommendations for curriculum developers should actively involve teachers in

the process of curriculum development. Enforcement of the new curriculum is

also expected to have a positive impact on teachers who must always be learners

are eager to improve the quality and teaching methods as well as increase the

knowledge that is always up-to-date to enrich learning.

Bibliography

Amadio, M., Opertti, R. and Tedesco, J. C. (2014). Curriculum in the Twenty-frst Century: Challenges, tensions and open questions. UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working PapersSeries, No. 9].

Arifin, Z. (2014). Konsep dan Model Pengembangan Kurikulum. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K.F. (1989). Towards a model of School-based Curriculum Development and Assessment Using the SOLO Taxonomy. Australian Journal of Education, vol. 33, 2: pp. 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/168781408903300205

Boradkar, P., & Duening, T.N. (2009) Integrated Innovation: A Model for A New New Product Development Curriculum, International Journal of Innovation Science, vol. 1, 2, pp. 61-71 https://doi.org/10.1260/175722209788913405

Cambell, N., H. (1969). Conceptual Models of The Curriculum. Australian Journal of Education, vol. 13, 1: pp. 47-62. , First Published Mar 1, 1969. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494416901300106

Grimson, J. (2002). Re-engineering the curriculum for The 21st century. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27:1, 31-37.

Idi, A. (2014). Pengembangan Kurikulum - Teori dan Praktik. Jakarta: Raja

Grafindo Persada.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2014a). Konsep dan Implementasi

Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Kemdikbud.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2014b). Peta Jalan Kurikulum 2013.

Jakarta: Pusat Informasi dan Hubungan Masyarakat (PIH) Kemdikbud.

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

Oliva, P., & Gordon, W. (2013). Developing the Curriculum:Eight Edition. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2013). Curriculum Foundations, Principles, and Issues: Sixth Edition. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Owen, D., P., Jr. (2011). The Need Revision: Curriculum, Literature, and the 21st Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Print, M. (1993). Curriculum Development and Design. Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.

Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era- 2nd ed. New York: Routledge

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. USA: Jossey-Bass.

Wijaya, E., Y., Sudjimat, D., A., & Nyoto Amat. (2016). Transformasi Pendidikan Abad 21 Sebagai Tuntutan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Di Era Global. Volume 1 Tahun 2016 – Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika 2016 ~ Universitas Kanjuruhan Malang.

Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and Foundations. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, Inc.

Zinser, R. (2012). A curriculum model of a foundation for educating the global citizens of the future, On the Horizon, vol. 20, 1, pp.64-73, https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121211202080

21st Century Curriculum and Instruction from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills website St http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/21st_century_skills_curriculum_and_instruction.pdf.