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

1

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

31