Grup Task

Curriculum and Material Development

Definition of Curriculum and Curriculum Tradition

Presented by Group IV:

Nurhadi Ramadhan A1M216101 Suhartina A1M216057

Wa Era A1M216061 Zaitun Juliawati A1M216065
Hiqma Moneterisqi A1M216 Ima Rahmawati A1M216095
Nindiya Novita Sari A1M216075 Nurlaili A1M216
Hasra Rahmadana A1M216 Winda A1M216063
La Ode Abdul Kasmiraj A1M216 Yuyun Enggis A1M216
Muhammad Abdul Wahid A1M216 Intan A1M216
Haliasni A1M216

English Department

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Halu Oleo University

2019
 Definitions and Curriculum Traditions

A. Definitions of Curriculum According to Experts

The curriculum is so wide when it is viewed from the realm of education. Curriculum is
various based on the location, culture, social, needs, and implementation. It is the
arrangement of what countries and or institutions need to manage the education system
grounded on institution’s goal and objectives. Actually, the philosophy of the curriculum
tends to define achievement as the goal and it is more relevant to efforts as the
objectives. Therefore, some definitions arise to be the description of the curriculum itself
and they are not mistaken as long as the definition is not restrain from the fact that
curriculum is a provisional set of achievement.

Some definition of curriculum from experts

1. According to Nichols, Shidaker, Johnson, & Singer (2006) that Curriculum is an

area of education that is characterized by a lack of agreement about its definition
and nature.

2. According to Wortham (2006) that Curriculum is a planned set of course that is

presented to teachers to arrange teaching and learning in certain level of ages.

3. According to Nation & Macalister (2010) define Curriculum as a guidance in

designing courses that consist of outer circle namely Principles, Environment, and
needs that involve practical and theoretical considerations that will have a major
effect in guiding the actual process of course production. Inner circle that consists of
goals and its centre, contents and sequences, format and presentation, and
monitoring and assessment.

4. According to Cattington (2010), curriculum (or curriculum standards) to refer to the

standards, benchmarks, and outcomes that delineate the content to be taught and
learned in science classrooms.

5. According to Slattery (2006) Curriculum should be developed time by times to the

postmodern curriculum that is radically eclectic, determined in the context of
relatedness, recursive in its complexity, autobiographically intuitive, aesthetically
intersubjective, embodied, phenomenological, experiential, simultaneously quantum
and cosmic, hopeful in its constructive dimension, radical in its deconstructive
movement, liberating in its post structural intents, empowering in its spirituality,
ironic in its kaleidoscopic sensibilities, and ultimately, a hermeneutic search for
greater understanding that motivates and satisfies us on the journey.

6. According to Lake and Winterbottom (2010) in Kattington (2010), Curriculum is a

set of rules that benefits students by providing them with practice in both content and
 social curriculum through the use of active learning, exploration of interests, civic
responsibility, character building, and recognizing and helping the community.

7. According to Dat (no year) in Tomlinson (2008 Ed) implied that curriculum requires
too much to be accomplished within a unit and that their students want a more
manageable and realistic learning goal.

B. Curriculum Traditions

1. Systematic Curriculum

Some people argue that education is a business. They see schools as factories that
produce students (or student learning), teachers as workers who mold students into a
finished product, and school principals as managers whose job is to increase
efficiency by eliminating waste.

Systematic teachers are often highly structured in the way they discipline students.
they tend to use a variety of ways to count misbehaviors and then prescribe specific
consequences for a clearly identified number of wrong actions.

Systematic curriculum has a long history. Economics and educational reform have
gone hand in hand for decades, even centuries. Businessmen of course have a real
stake in education, so they have a role to play in educational policy making and in
deliberations about curriculum. Schools will always be closely tied to the economy.
As a result, building relationships between members of the business community and
educators is essential. The extent of this relationship, however, should be a constant
topic of conversation.

Many people believe that the application of business thinking to curriculum and
teaching is a new idea that appeared only in the last twenty or thirty years. the reality,
however, is that business thinking has had a tremendous influence on american
curriculum for at least 150 years.

Systematic Curriculum and the Commonplaces

1. Teachers

Teachers are essential to the systematic curriculum tradition. Regardless of

whether the system is bureaucracy driven or free-market driven, teachers have a
crucial role to play in producing learning. Teachers are viewed as frontline
workers who should follow the dictates of their superiors, but they are
nonetheless recognized as an irreplaceable link in the curriculum delivery
process. System builders recognize that proposals for improving the efficiency of
 curriculum, instruction, and schools must go through teachers, who ultimately
implement any new idea.

2. Learners

Free-market systematizers view learners, along with their parents, as customers.

Their role is to choose the curriculum they want based on the available options.
There is no set body of knowledge, or curriculum, that learners must acquire to
become citizens. As a group, learners possess the power either to keep schools in
business or destroy them based on their consumer choices. The individual
differences and interests of students are taken into account when they, as
customers, choose the school they want. The only part of the curriculum that
remains consistent regardless of what school is chosen is the point that learners
must become efficient producers for the economy.

3. Subject Matter

The subject matter commonplace is deemphasized compared to the

commonplaces of teachers and learners. The subject matter (or “content” as
systematizers put it) that is prized in the free-market system approach is subject
matter that, once again, is based on empirical research and that has been produced
using randomized trials. All curriculum must be proven to work based on
randomized studies that demonstrate conclusively that one subject matter
arrangement is more efficient than another.

4. Context

Context is reduced to a level even lower than the commonplace of subject matter.
Competition, choice, deregulation, and accountability are mechanisms that will
improve curriculum, teaching, and learning in any school. All schools, the free-
market systematizers assume, can (and should) benefit from the power that choice
and competition bring to the equation.

5. Curriculum Making

Curriculum making is viewed differently in the bureaucratic system approach

compared to the free-market system. Curriculum making is crucial to the former
but rejected by the latter. Bobbitt, Charters, and English make curriculum making
the centerpiece of their efforts. They define curriculum making as the task either
of engaging in task analysis to create curriculum or aligning already existing
curriculum to state or national standards. Curriculum making, to bureaucratic
systematizers, is about bringing expert, universal knowledge to bear on schools
and school systems regardless of context. Good curriculum makers provide
expert advice that helps curriculum systems run more smoothly.
2. Existentialist Curriculum

Some people view curriculum as a personal journey. They are not particularly
concerned about system and authority but prefer to concentrate on the unique
characteristics of individual students and the process of personal meaning making,
which they believe is the goal of curriculum. Greene stands as a contemporary
proponent of a long tradition of curriculum thinkers who make individual desire and
personal choice the end of education. Any curriculum, from this perspective, must
connect with students on a deeply personal level.

Existentialist thinkers like Greene assert that young people will never become fully
human unless they choose their studies for themselves. Personal choice is paramount.
Curriculum is an individual, not a communal creation. Existentialist reformers take
an opposite approach and propose that randomness, individuality, and personal
freedom are the most important characteristics in a curriculum. Individual needs, not
institutional responsibilities, take center stage.

Kohn argues that school reformers are obsessed with competition, productivity, and
measurement. Kohn professes the common position that teachers should be guides
who direct student learning, not lecturers who tell students what to know. A good
classroom, to Kohn, is one in which students are actively engaged in pursuing
projects that interest them. These classrooms can be loud, haphazard, and even
confusing, so long as students engage in creating something that interests them.

One of the hallmarks of existentialist teaching is that teachers must not have a
prescribed curriculum. They are to allow students to create their own answers,
regardless of whether these answers are correct. Existentialist teaching (or
constructivist teaching as some refer to it today) must begin by drawing upon the
immediate interests and instincts of children—not subject matter, future occupations,
or the needs of society.

Existentialist Curriculum and the Commonplaces

1. Teachers

The existentialist tradition severely alters traditional conceptions of teaching and

the role of teachers. Existentialists refer to teachers as guides who suggest what
students might want to learn, as opposed to subject matter specialists who
introduce learners to time-tested knowledge. An existentialist view diminishes the
teacher commonplace by placing teachers in a secondary role to learners. Every
member of a community or school becomes a teacher because each person is
responsible for teaching herself. One person cannot teach another in a traditional
sense. Teachers can only make suggestions that indirectly influence the people
 around them. If there is a stronger view of the teacher commonplace in the
existentialist tradition, it is found in those who emphasize curriculum
differentiation that is designed to meet learners’ developmental needs. Still,
however, this secondary aspect within existentialist thinking places the learner
commonplace ahead of teachers. The starting point for curriculum remains the
characteristics of the learners to be taught.

2. Learners

The learner commonplace is where existentialist curriculum places its emphasis.

The age-old declaration “I teach children, not subjects” is a common rhetorical
device used by existentialists (whether they recognize it or not). Learners become
the beginning, middle, and end of curriculum making. The idea of balancing the
five commonplaces is not in the language of this tradition. Existentialists assume
that if the learner commonplace is respected and given its appropriate (and
vaulted) place within the curriculum-making process, then the other
commonplaces will take care of themselves. A good curriculum is assumed to be
one that cleanses learners psychologically. There is no such thing as an objective
curriculum that exists outside of the subjective desires of individual learners.
Much like the dream of objectivity dominates in the systematic view, subjectivity
reigns supreme in the world of existentialists. Learners and learning are ends in
themselves, and there is no need to discuss goals or purposes beyond the
subjective choices that learners make.

3. Subject Matter

Like the teacher commonplace, subject matter takes a backseat when

existentialists control curriculum. Many battles have been waged during the last
century between advocates of the subject matter and learner commonplaces. The
two are set against one another so often that astute followers of educational
rhetoric can predict the points that advocates of the two sides will make.
Existentialists redefine the nature and purpose of subject matter. To them, subject
matter is no longer confined to the traditional academic subjects. From an
existentialist view, the proper subject matter for students to study is life. The
traditional disciplines are of course part of life, but they are only useful if they
help us to meet our daily problems. Teachers and learners must learn to transgress
the traditional subject matter boundaries by focusing on projects, activities,
problems, and forms of representation that serve as the focal point of curriculum.
Subject matter must not be seen as an end in itself but only as a source of
experiences that learners should draw upon as they construct their lives.
 4. Context

Because of its emphasis on individual learners, an existentialist view, at least at

first glance, appears to take into account context in a unique and powerful way.
Upon further reflection, however, just the opposite turns out to be the case. By
placing learners at the top of the curriculum hierarchy, existentialists assume
there will never be a school or community context in which one of the other
commonplaces should take priority. Regardless of the school or students
involved, existentialists assume that focusing on the needs of learners will make
for a good curriculum. The idea of individual needs is therefore abstracted to the
point that it becomes decontextualized— even deified—as the only commonplace
to be considered.

5. Curriculum Making

Existentialists want curriculum to be personal. They emphasize curriculum as

lived experience, not as objectified subject matter or as a framework for moral
virtue or as the occupational skills needed to perform a job. Existentialists who
take a psychoanalytic approach see life as one big process of curriculum making.
Each of us makes our own curriculum, they contend. Our choices determine who
we become and the possibilities we create. Good curriculum makers must
recognize this internal, personal side of curriculum. Curriculum making that does
not inquire into the internal desires of learners is not curriculum making at all.

Several representative questions arise when this perspective is used as the basis
for curriculum making. For instance, what novels should teachers choose if they
want to connect with this student who is confronting these personal challenges at
this time? How can teachers create a writing assignment that prompts students to
begin the process of personal reflection and exploration? How can curriculum
makers design a history curriculum that connects each student with his or her
family’s story of immigration? These types of questions, all of which emphasize
personal connections, are of utmost significance to existentialist curriculum
makers.

3. Radicals Curriculum

In sharp contrast to systematic and existential curriculists, radicals view their work as
inherently political. Radical curriculists, on the other hand, embrace the political
nature of curriculum work. They see politics and curriculum as inseparable. In the
words of one radical reformer, “Neutrality with respect to the great issues that agitate
society, while perhaps theoretically possible, is practically tantamount to giving
support to the forces of conservatism”. This rejection of neutrality and the acceptance
of political advocacy lead radical curriculists to take positions that differ markedly
from the other traditions. Radicals thrive on making an impact on the world
politically.

Radicals contend that changes in curriculum must keep the goal of equality in mind
at all times, even if achieving this goal means sweeping change or revolutionary
action. To these thinkers, almost every school’s curriculum is a source of cultural
oppression, one that serves to keep minority students in positions of inferiority while
at the same time providing a pathway for privileged students to gain a leg up in
society.

A radical view sees curriculum work from the perspective of race, class, and gender
analysis. Those who adopt this view seek to understand how curriculum, and the
work of curriculum developers, contributes to the reproduction of economic and
social inequalities. The most common modes of analysis used by radical curriculists
include sociology, economics, phenomenology, qualitative forms of research, and, in
almost all cases, a distinctively leftleaning approach to politics. The radical tradition
adheres most strictly to one political perspective. Radical curriculum typically gains
adherents during decades when the political left is in power, for example, during the
1930s and the 1960s.

Radical curriculists would analyze a school district’s curriculum to determine

whether it pays sufficient attention to women and minorities. if it does not, they
would likely offer practical steps that can be taken to rewrite the curriculum, or they
may pressure those in power to make the changes themselves. A radical view of
curriculum is attractive to some people because, unlike the systematic or the
existentialist view, it offers a social and moral vision of what society ought to look
like.

Radicals Curriculum and the Commonplaces

1. Teacher

The teacher as the commonplaces is the most powerful in the radical tradition.
Radical teachers will find assignments that challenge students to see how those
who are less fortunate in their community are forced to live. examples include
poverty simulations that are experience based, role-plays that focus on racial
prejudice, and history lessons that uncover race and gender discrimination.

2. Learner

The commonplace of learners takes a backseat in the radical approach. But, this
does not mean that the individual needs of learners are ignored. Learners can
choose to reject the radicals’ class-driven analysis and instead embrace free-
 market capitalism, but they will be seen as naive contributors to an oppressive
social order.

3. Subject Matter

In the radical tradition, subject matter is a means, not an end. Consequently,

subject matter is not on par with the other commonplaces. The traditional subjects
are at best a distant second to the commonplace of teachers. Even still, however,
not all subjects are created equal. The radical vision is inherently social, so
subjects broadly categorized as belonging to the “social studies” are of natural
consequence for this tradition. Sociology, politics, economics, and anthropology,
for example, take precedence over less socially oriented subjects like chemistry,
physics, and literature.

4. Context

Because of the somewhat complex nature of the relationship between theory and
practice within the radical tradition, the role of context is not altogether easy to
comprehend. On one hand, radicals place great emphasis on context when they
seek to understand how class relations are reproduced. When understanding is the
goal, context is crucial. To see how class relations are maintained, for example,
radicals scrupulously analyze factors such as the actions teachers take, the
textbooks students study, the history that has shaped a school or a school district,
and the overall environment in which a school exists.

5. Curriculum Making

Curriculum making is not highly emphasized in the radical view. We find

evidence of this point in the fact that many who write from this perspective avoid
the term curriculum, instead preferring to write on pedagogy, critical theory, or
critical pedagogy. Radicals believe that curriculum making should be done by the
people who have seized power. We can only assume further that this new
curriculum would then be disseminated to teachers whose job is to implement it
in a way that is consistent with the revolutionary movement that just seized
power. Radicals are seldom interested in discussing ultimate ends. They would
prefer to use broad terms like reform and transformation, thereby avoiding the
question of ultimate goals. To radicals, society is in a constant state of flux.

4. Pragmatics Curriculum

Some people view curriculum as a process of fixing problems. Those who do so tend
to be solution-oriented people who want a curriculum that helps students figure out
what works within a given context. Pragmatic curriculists are not the kind of people
who discuss ultimate goals or broad ideals. They prefer to focus on the immediate
needs of an individual or a community, toward the end of fixing problems through
empirical means. Pragmatic curriculists want ideas to produce results.

The whole purpose of the pragmatic perspective is to avoid definite answers,

allowing solutions to remain workable regardless of how circumstances change.
Pragmatists create a curriculum that emphasizes a variety of subjects, is based on a
wide range of assumptions, and is used for a host of different ends.

Pragmatic curriculum looks different in just about every context in which it is found.
as a result, common elements within pragmatic curriculum are difficult to find.
nevertheless, pragmatists share a common method of solving problems using
empirical verification to determine effectiveness.

Pragmatics Curriculum and the Commonplaces

1. Teacher

Pragmatic teachers place students in circumstances that require them to solve

problems or figure out solutions on their own using trial and error.Teachers play a
significant role in pragmatic curriculum, but teachers are best if they are effective
at solving problems as they arise in experience. Teachers do not teach a subject
matter so much as problem-solving, skills, adaptability, and effective action. This
means that effective teachers have learned to manage—indeed control—their
classrooms to the point that they “give” learners highly individualized
experiences. The primary role of teachers is not to serve as a moral role model or
to impart knowledge but to develop skills so that learners can pursue whatever
ends they choose in life. Effective teachers give rise to effective learners.

For example, pragmatic teachers have students design their own board games,
operate a school bank, or take turns caring for a class pet. Any activity that places
responsibility on students to figure out their own solutions is attractive to
pragmatists.

2. Learners

Creating an effective curriculum means studying learners to ascertain what

unique experiences will release their innate power to solve problems and take
action in the world.

3. Subject Matter

Subject matter is only useful to the extent that it informs the solution of social,
political, and economic problems. To pragmatic curriculists, each discipline does
not represent a timeless body of knowledge or traditions but rather a cluster of
 information, skills, and experiences that has the potential for use in the solution
of problems.

4. Context

Context becomes emphasized to such an extent that it takes on a meaning similar

to “culture.” All of the other commonplaces can be (and in fact are) dismissed if
context demands it. For example, if a school context is such that annual teacher
turnover is 90 percent, then the teacher commonplace should be placed at the top
of the priority list, even to the detriment of the others. On the other hand, if a
school prizes its academic rigor to such an extent that 75 percent of the students
are failing, then the problem only can be solved if the learner commonplace takes
precedence. Unlike in deliberative curriculum, the task for pragmatic curriculists
is not so much to establish curricular balance among the commonplaces but to
find out what works to solve immediate problems. There is no ultimate goal to
pursue within the school context other than an environment in which problems
are solved effectively, decisions are based on “what works,” and survival is
achieved.

5. Curriculum Making

Curriculum making, given this second view, requires that curriculists study the
context of an individual school in order to discover what subjects, skills, and
experiences will transform that school into an effective tool for social change.
Because contexts change, the subjects, skills, and experiences must change as
well. As a result, curriculum making becomes a scrappy, uneven affair, the results
of which can only be determined after the fact by looking at the effect a
curriculum has had on learners.

5. Deliberative Curriculum

Deliberation is a term found most frequently in the field of law. People know that
juries deliberate, that deliberation is about choice, and that deliberation is a social
process. Curriculum deliberators also see a parallel between law and curriculum in
the sense that, similar to the problems that juries face, curriculum problems are
always moral, practical, and social in nature. In the words of William A. Reid, a
leading figure in the deliberative tradition of curriculum, “The deliberative model
considers curriculum problems to be moral practical problems, and proposes as the
means to their resolution the employment of the method of the practical”.
Deliberators recognize that some decisions require immediate action, whereas others
can wait until the time is right. Reid argues that “deliberation” as opposed to
“debate” is the activity that should guide curriculum making. The goal of deliberation
is to find a creative solution to a practical problem, whereas the goal of debate is to
win an argument and silence one’s adversaries. The latter destroys curriculum,
whereas the former gives it life. In the deliberative tradition, curriculum making is an
ongoing activity that cannot (and indeed should not) be “controlled” by any one
group of people, whether they are viewed as “experts” within a subject matter field or
elected officials charged with overseeing curriculum.

When planning a curriculum, deliberative teachers and curriculists bring together as

many stakeholders as possible when making decisions. those stakeholders could be
parents, business leaders, politicians, and even other teachers or administrators.
Deliberative curriculists believe that the best preparation for deliberative activity is a
wellrounded liberal arts curriculum.

Deliberators are similar to pragmatists in the sense that they want students to learn to
solve problems. the difference between the two in practice, however, is that
deliberators insist that students reflect on the moral framework that guides their
decisions. in this respect, deliberative curriculists are as much moral philosophers as
they are curriculum specialists.

Deliberative Curriculum and the Commonplaces

1. Teacher

The point of identifying curriculum commonplaces is so that the members of a

deliberative team can work to balance them in practice. A curriculum is most
successful when those who make it consider all five commonplaces in a thorough
way. Teachers must be consulted because they know the realities inside their
classrooms, they know the way their fellow teachers think, and they recognize
that no curriculum can succeed if they do not support it. Teachers are expected to
embody the arts of inquiry like all members of the deliberative team. They should
be liberally educated and professionally trained. They should balance the five
commonplaces not only as they create curriculum as part of the deliberative team,
but also as they practice their art in their classrooms. They are expected to model
the liberal arts ideal of a well-rounded citizen, but they also should be educated in
the professional—indeed scientific—aspects of curriculum and teaching.
Teaching is viewed as both an art and a science within a deliberative perspective,
and teachers are expected to appreciate—indeed practice—both.

2. Learners

A deliberative tradition views learners as another essential component of the

curriculum-making team. Deliberators acknowledge that learners pass through
developmental stages that strongly influence the subject matter they are prepared
to learn, the methods used to teach them, and the expectations teachers and
curriculists should have for different groups of learners. At the same time,
however, deliberators are not prepared to emphasize learners to such an extent
 that developmental stages completely overwhelm other aspects of curriculum.
Learning, moreover, is not viewed as an appropriate end for curriculum, but
rather as a means to a broader, deeper, and richer end like character, virtue, and
happiness. A good curriculum shapes learners toward these deeper ends and is
therefore not satisfied with making learning more efficient. Learners desire moral
and intellectual knowledge regardless of their age. Due to the complexity of
human nature, curriculum should impact learners in every aspect of their
character—including its moral, intellectual, physical, civic, and spiritual
dimensions. Any curriculum that fails to tap into each of these aspects of human
existence will ultimately fail to turn learners into free citizens who can build and
sustain community.

3. Subject Matter

Subject matter is an equal partner with the other commonplaces within a

deliberative perspective. Subject matter specialists have the tendency to assume
that their specialized knowledge is more significant than the other sources of
knowledge embodied by the other commonplaces. If the team is not careful, the
views of the subject specialist can overwhelm the group’s deliberations.

The process of translating subject matter into a usable curriculum is not

something that subject matter specialists are trained to do, but it is an art they can
learn to practice as they participate as equal members of a deliberative team.

4. Context

The context commonplace also plays a crucial role within a deliberative tradition.
Problems arise out of a unique context and can only be solved if the particulars of
that state of affairs are understood. The more deliberators know about the
specifics of a unique problem, the better they will be able to invent solutions and
take appropriate action. Experience within the environment where curriculum
problems exist is essential for all members of the deliberative team. The member
of the deliberative team who represents the context commonplace has the
responsibility to bring knowledge about the community to bear on the group’s
discussions. She may be someone who knows the history of an individual school
or community, or someone who is well connected to the political and economic
leadership within a town. This person should be able to imagine how changes in a
school or school district’s curriculum will be viewed by members of the general
public, as well as by business and political leaders who are directly influenced by
a school’s offerings.
 5. Curriculum Making

A deliberative tradition perhaps distinguishes itself most strongly in the way it

emphasizes the curriculum making commonplace. The deliberative tradition,
however, recognizes that curriculum making is about action, and somebody on
the deliberative team must represent and do something about this requirement of
action.

As the leader of the deliberative team, the curriculum maker must ensure sure that
all five commonplaces are represented, consulted, and considered as the team
searches for and invents solutions to curriculum problems

C. Kinds of Curriculum

1. Overt, Explicit, or Written Curriculum

It is simply that which is written as part of formal instruction of schooling

experiences. It may refer to a curriculum document, texts, films, and supportive
teaching materials that are overtly chosen to support the intentional instructional
agenda of a school. Thus, the overt curriculum is usually confined to those written
understandings and directions formally designated and reviewed by administrators,
curriculum directors and teachers, often collectively.

It appears in state and local documents like state standards, district curriculum
guides, course of study, scope and sequence charts and teachers’ planning documents
given to schools.

2. Subject Centered Curriculum

Subject matter is the most used and accepted curriculum Design, it is also the oldest
curriculum Design. We see the earliest example in the medieval era in the Middle
Ages the monastery and Cathedrals and the organizations of the seven liberal arts in
the schools of ancient Greece and Rome.

These subjects were broad. In the modern period the Trivium was further divided to
include literature and history and the quadrivium to include algebra, trigonometry,
geography, botany, zoology, physics and chemistry. In this manner subjects added
one after the other so much so that in 1930 there were over 300 different subjects.
In a subject base curriculum every subject is separate unit. In this kind of curriculum
four or five subject are placed in curriculum and each subject has a separate teacher.
Every teacher try to teach his own subject, no one intervene in the subject of other
teacher.
3. Learner-centred Curriculum

The supporters of learner-centred Curriculum give importance to individual

development and they wants to organize the curriculum according to the needs and
interest of learners, there are fundamental differences in this approach and the
subject-centred design. This movement from the traditional curriculum towards a
programme that stresses the interests and needs of students, This approach was used
by Rousseau in the education of Emile, then Dewy in his laboratory School in 1896-
1904.

It is a fundamental principle of education that the beginning of each instruction it

shall be connected with the previous experience of learners. The purpose is that the
experience and the capacities that have been developed in early lessons, it should
provide a starting point for further learning. The current importance given to student-
centred programmes may not always acknowledge the Dewey‟s philosophy and
influence on the movement to incorporate more student-serving learning
opportunities into the curriculum.

4. Community Centred Curriculum

The Community-Centred Curriculum is meant to reach out beyond the classroom and
into the community where the world can be changed by students and teachers. The
curriculum is based on societal issues, and the goal of the curriculum is to explore
and solve those issues. This is very much an activist model, where students are
encouraged to be leading activists in their community where life problems,
community affairs, and real-world problems exist. The foundation of the community
centred curriculum is built on real-world problems, and the content is various social
issues. In the community centred curriculum, students are agents of change seeking
to make a difference in their community.

5. Social Reconstructionist Curriculum

Social Reconstructionist are interested in the relationship between curriculum and the
social, political and economic development of society. Social Reconstructionist are
convinced that education can effect social change, citing, for example, literacy
campaigns that have contributed to successful political revolutions.

Aspects of re-constructionism appeared in American curriculum thought in the 1920s

and 1930s. Harold Rugg was concerned about the values for which the school should
work.He tried to awaken his peers to the “lag” between the curriculum, a “ lazy
giant” and the culture, with its fast-paced change and resultant staggering social
dislocations. Rugg‟s textbooks, teaching and professional leadership had one
overriding quality- the spirit of social criticism. He wanted learners to use newly
 emerging concepts from social sciences and aesthetics to identify and solve current
problems.

There are many premises of social reconstruction and the different directions taken
by different social re-constructionist such as revolution, critical inquiry, and futurism.
A distinction is also made between a curriculum of reconstruction, which attempts to
change the social order, and a curriculum of social adaptation, which helps students
fit into a world they never made.

6. Hidden Curriculum

Hidden curriculum refers to the unwritten, unofficial, and often unintended lessons,
values, and perspectives that students learn in school. While the “formal” curriculum
consists of the courses, lessons, and learning activities students participate in, as well
as the knowledge and skills educators intentionally teach to students, the hidden
curriculum consists of the unspoken or implicit academic, social, and cultural
messages that are communicated to students while they are in school. It is an
unintended curriculum which is not planned but may modify behaviour or influence
learning outcomes that transpire in school.

The hidden curriculum begins early in a child's education. Students learn to form
opinions and ideas about their environment and their classmates. For example,
children learn 'appropriate' ways to act at school, meaning what's going to make them
popular with teachers and students. They also learn what is expected of them; for
example, many students pick up on the fact that year-end test scores are what really
matter.

7. Null Curriculum

That which we do not teach, thus giving students the message that these elements are
not important in their educational experiences or in our society. Eisner offers some
major points as he concludes his discussion of the null curriculum. The major point I
have been trying to make thus far is that schools have consequences not only by
virtue of what they do teach, but also by virtue of what they neglect to teach. What
students cannot consider, what they don’t processes they are unable to use, have
consequences for the kinds of lives they lead.

From Eisner’s perspective the null curriculum is simply that which is not taught in
schools. Somehow, somewhere, some people are empowered to make conscious
decisions as to what is to be included and what is to be excluded from the overt
(written) curriculum. Since it is physically impossible to teach everything in schools,
many topics and subject areas must be intentionally excluded from the written
curriculum.
 Null curriculum refers to what is not taught but actually should be taught in school
according to the needs of society. For example, environmental education, gender or
sex education, life education, career planning education, local culture and history
education courses are still empty in some schools.

8. The Electronic Curriculum

Those lessons learned through searching the Internet for information, or through
using e-forms of communication. (Wilson, 2004) This type of curriculum may be
either formal or informal, and inherent lessons may be overt or covert, good or bad,
correct or incorrect depending on ones’ views. Students who use the Internet on a
regular basis, both for recreational purposes (as in blogs, wikis, chatrooms, through
instant messenger, on-line conversations, or through personal e-mails and sites like
Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube) and for personal online research and information
gathering are bombarded with all types of media and messages. Much of this
information may be factually correct, informative, or even entertaining or
inspirational. But there is also a great deal of other e-information that may be very
incorrect, dated, passé, biased, perverse, or even manipulative.

9. Assessed Curriculum

A tested or evaluated curriculum where teachers use paper-and-pencil tests, practical

exams, and/or portfolios to assess the student's progress and for them to determine
the extent of their teaching during and after each topic they teach.
The Assessed curriculum seems to have the strongest influence on the curriculum
actually taught. In an era of accountability, teachers are understandably concerned
about how their students perform on tests. Much classroom time is spent on
developing test-wiseness and on practicing questions similar to those that will appear
on district, state, and national tests. And in almost every class, students ask the
perennial question: "Will this be on the test?" There is a positive side to this emphasis
on tests, when they take the form of performance assessments.

D. Components of Curriculum

The nature of the elements and the manner in which they are organized may comprise
which we call a curriculum design. There are four components of curriculum

1. Curriculum Aims, Goals and Objectives

Aims of Curriculum derived from Elementary Education, Secondary Education, and

Tertiary Education.
a. Elementary Education

Aims of elementary educational usually include:

1. Provide knowledge and develop skills, attitudes, values essential to personal
development and necessary for living in and contributing to a developing and
changing society.
2. Provide learning experiences which increase the child’s awareness of and
responsiveness to the changes in the society;
3. Promote and intensify knowledge, identification with and love for the nation and
the people to which he belongs; and
4. Promote work experiences which develop orientation to the world of work and
prepare the learner to honest and gainful work.

b. Secondary Education

Aims of secondary educational usually include:

1. Continue to promote the objectives of elementary education and
2. Discover and enhance the different aptitudes and interests of students in order to
equip them with skills for productive endeavor and or to prepare them for tertiary
schooling.

c. Tertiary Education

Aims of tertiary education usually include:

1. Provide general education programs which will promote national identity, cultural
consciousness, moral integrity and spiritual vigor;
2. Train the nation’s manpower in the skills required for national development;
3. Develop the professions that will provide leadership for the nation; and
4. Advance knowledge through research and apply new knowledge for improving
the quality of human life and respond effectively to changing society.

While the goals of the curriculum can be found in the vision and mision of school.
And the objective of curriculum refers to the educational objective every country. In
Indonesia, the educational objective of Indonesia derived in the opening of
constitution in paragraph 4.

2. Curriculum Content or Subject Matter

Information to be learned in school. In here means the knowledge which the teacher
want to share to their students.
 1. Subject-centered view of curriculum
The fund of human knowledge represents the repository of accumulated
discoveries and inventions of man down the centuries, due to man’s exploration of
the world.

2. Learner-centered view of curriculum

Relates knowledge to the individual’s personal and social world and how he or
she defines reality. Gerome Bruner: “Knowledge is a model we construct to give
meaning and structure to regularities in experience.”

Criteria used in selection of subject matter for the curriculum:

1. Self-sufficiency – Scheffler (1970) said that “less teaching effort and educational
resources, less learner’s effort but more results and effective learning outcomes –
most economical manner”
2. Significance – contribute to basic ideas to achieve overall aim of curriculum, develop
learning skills.
3. Validity – meaningful to the learner based on maturity, prior experience, educational
and social value.
4. Utility – usefulness of the content either for the present or the future.
5. Learnability – within the range of the experience of the learners
6. Feasibility – can be learned within the time allowed, resources available, expertise of
the teacher, nature of learner

They are the criteria when the teacher want to choose the subject matter which want to
deliver for their students. Besides, Palma (1992) said teacher also must look at
principles to follow in organizing the learning contents, they are:

1. Balance – Content curriculum should be fairly distributed in depth and breadth of the
particular learning or discipline. This will ensure that the level or area will not be
overcrowded or less crowded.
2. Articulation – Each level of subject matter should be smoothly connected to the next,
glaring gaps or wasteful overlaps in the subject matter will be avoided.
3. Sequence – This is the logical arrangement of the subject matter. It refers to the
deepening and broadening of content as it is taken up in the higher level.
4. Integration - the horizontal connections are needed in subject areas that are similar so
that learning will be related to one another.
5. Continuity - Learning requires a continuing application of the new knowledge, skills,
attitudes or values so that theses will be used in daily living. The constant repetition,
review and reinforcement of learning.
3. Curriculum Experience

Instructional strategies and methods will link to curriculum experiences, the core and
heart of the curriculum. The instructional strategies and methods will put into action
the goals and use of the content in order to produce an outcome.

Teaching strategies convert the written curriculum to instruction. Among these are
time tested methods, inquiry approaches, constructivist and other emerging strategies
that complement new theories in teaching and learning. Educational activities like
field trips, conducting experiments, interacting with computer programs and other
experiential learning will also form par of the repertoire of teaching.

Whatever methods the teacher utilizes to implement the curriculum, there will be
some guide for the selection and use. Here are some of them:

1. Teaching methods are means to achieve the end

2. There is no single best teaching method
3. Teaching methods should stimulate the learner’s desire to develop the
cognitive, affective, psychomotor, social and spiritual domain of the
individual.
4. In the choice of teaching methods, learning styles of the students should be
considered.
5. Every method should lead to the development of the learning outcome in three
domains
6. Flexibility should be a consideration in the use of teaching methods

4. Curriculum Evaluation

To be effective, all curricula must have an element of evaluation. Curriculum

evaluation refer to the formal determination of the quality, effectiveness or value of
the program, process and product of the curriculum. Several methods of evaluation
came up. The most widely used is Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. The process in CIPP
model is continuous and very important to curriculum managers.

CIPP Model will include context which refers to the environment of curriculum, input
which refers to the ingredients of curriculum, process which refers to the ways and
means of implementation, and product which refers to the accomplishment of goals.
Regardless of the methods and materials evaluation will utilize, a suggested plan of
action for the process of curriculum evaluation is introduced. Theses are the steps:

1. Focus on one particular component of the curriculum. Will it be subject are,

the grade level, the course, or the degree program? Specify objectives of
evaluation.
 2. Collect or gather the information. Information is made up of data needed
regarding the object of evaluation.
3. Organize the information. This step will require coding, organizing, storing
and retrieving data for interpretation.
4. Analyze information. An appropriate way of analyzing will be utilized.
5. Report the information. The report of evaluation should be reported to specific
audiences. It can be done formally in conferences with stakeholders, or
informally through round table discussion and conversations.
6. Recycle the information for continuous feedback, modifications and
adjustments to be made.

E. The Evolution of Foreign Language Curriculum in Indonesia

Since its independence in 1945, Indonesia has changed its English curriculum six times
using three different approaches:

Starting
Name of Curriculum Approach
Year
1945 Unknown Grammar Translation
1968 Oral Approach Audio Lingual
1975 Oral Approach Audio Lingual
1984 Communicative Approach Communicative
Meaning-Based
1994 Communicative
Curriculum
Competency-Based
2004 Communicative
Curriculum

In the beginning, the government used the grammar-translation method left by the Dutch.
Textbooks such as Abdurachman’s English Grammar, Tobing’s Practical Exercises, and
de Maar and Pino’s English Passages for Translation were widely used at the senior high
school level (Dardjowidjojo, 2000). In general, people preferred the British English and
looked down on the American variety. Political economic shift, however, has changed
this attitude.

In 1953 the Ford Foundation provided a grant to reform the teaching of English and
helped set up two-year English teachers training institutes known as B1 Course to meet
the growing demand for more teachers of English within a relatively short time.
Acceptance into the training institutes was highly selective with only about 50 new
students every year. The training institutes then launched the Oral Approach and sent
their best students to study for the MA and Ph.D. degrees in the U.S.A. English for
SLTP (written between 1958 and 1962) was the name of the three series of course books
written for junior high schools while English for SLTA (written between 1968 and 1972)
for the senior high schools (Nababan 1982; Nababan, 1988 as quoted in Dardjowidjojo,
2000). These two series of course books can be considered as the embryo for what was
then known as the 1975 Curriculum. The four targeted skills were in the order of
priority--listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Dardjowidjojo, 2000). Apparently, the
English curriculum at that time was heavily influenced by the audio-lingual method and
behaviorism.

Then the shift of philosophical paradigm from empiricism to nativism in the late 1950s
and the sociological trends in the 1960s brought about changes in the English curriculum.
As language acquisition was viewed as an individual’s interaction in his/her
environment, language teaching focused more on language use than language usage
(Widdowson, 1978). Hyme’s concept of competence replaced Chomsky’s LAD theory
and the Communicative Approach (CA) began to affect the English curriculum. Thus
the 1975 Curriculum was changed to the 1984 Communicative Curriculum. It is
interesting to note, though, that the 1984 Curriculum contained a number of ambiguities.
The first ambiguity is the mismatch between the claim of the curriculum and the type of
syllabi. Although the curriculum was labeled communicative, the syllabi in the
guidelines were still very structural. Textbooks developed from this curriculum reflected
this structural orientation. Many of the textbooks were misguided and treated pragmatics
as a separate topic in the form of chapters rather than incorporated them in the four skills
(Purwo, 1990). The argument that the curriculum relied on the teachers to deliver the
communicative approach was simply an unrealistic expectation. Many teachers of
English in Indonesia have not themselves mastered the language they are teaching.
Research indicates that many teachers of English are poor users of the language (Ridwan,
Renandya, and Lie, 1996; Hamied, 1997). Thus, it is very hard to expect them to
facilitate the transfer of learning in their English classrooms. Another study (Supriadi,
2000) reveals that the majority of teachers use the textbooks heavily and thus the
teaching and learning process is very much text book driven. As the textbooks were still
structurally-oriented, the communicative approach remained a slogan.

The second ambiguity is the mismatch between the claim of the curriculum and the
organization of the skills. The order of the priority for the four skills was changed to
reading, listening, speaking and writing. Apparently, the curriculum developers realized
that for the majority of Indonesians, English was not a language for active
communication. This, of course, contradicted the claim that the 1984 Curriculum used
the Communicative Approach. In terms of the classroom methodology, there was not
any significant change from that used in the two previous curricula—the grammar-
translation and audio-lingual approaches. Teachers taught students discreet skills of the
language and geared them toward the test.

The 1984 Curriculum was revised and replaced by the 1994 Curriculum. The official
term for the curriculum guideline was the Meaning-Based Curriculum. The orientation
was also the communicative approach. The curriculum is not only national but also
compulsory. To produce textbooks to be adopted by the schools in the country, a
textbook writer and publisher have to include all materials stated in the curriculum
including the themes, the grammar, the functions and the vocabulary items to be learned.
My research on the senior high schools textbooks resulting from the 1994 English
Curriculum (Lie, 2001) put into question the claim for relevance and meaning-based
approach. The study yields some points for thought regarding the multicultural
perspectives in relation to the diversity of the students. A content analysis of reading
passages in English textbooks was conducted to look into four representative categories
(gender, socioeconomic classes, local cultures/ethnicity, and geography). The inclusion
of inter-cultural understanding in the English textbooks still leaves some room for
improvement across all four categories. The finding sindicate that the textbooks do not
provide equal inclusion, in terms of gender representation and bias, socioeconomic
classes, ethnicity, and geography. Using this kind of textbooks, students would find it
very hard to find their learning process relevant and meaningful.

The 2004 Curriculum states the objectives of English instruction in junior and senior
high schools are as follows (translated from Indonesian in Depdiknas, 2004):

- Developing communicative competence in spoken and written English which

comprises listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
- Raising awareness regarding the nature and importance of English as a foreign
language and as a major means for learning.
- Developing understanding of the interrelation of language and culture as well as
cross-cultural understanding.

In the pursuit of communicative competence and intercultural understanding as stated in

the 2004 Curriculum objectives, practices in the English classes do not seem to differ
significantly from those in the previous periods. Cahyono and Widiati (2006) point out
the extensive number of issues covered in research studies on EFL reading conducted by
Indonesian researchers and academicians as compared to EFL practices which are still
lacking of insights from the theoretical developments of ESL/EFL pedagogy and
research.
 References

1. Rajawat, P. Mte-c-302: Curriculum Studies Unit iii- Types of Curriculum. Retrieved

May 17, 2019 from https://curriculumcentral.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/types-of-
curriculum.

2. Arung, F. (2013). The Definition of Curriculum. Retrieved May 17, 2019 from
https://usnpendbing.files.wordpress.com.

3. Elements/Components of Curriculum. Retrieved May 17, 2019 from

http://www.khayma.com/muhannad/Dr%2520Amer%2520Lectures.

4. Lie, A. (2009). Education Policy and EFL Curriculum in Indonesia: Between the
Commitment to Competence and the Questfor Higher Test Scores. Retrieved May
17, 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46141871.

5. Null, W. (2011). Curriculum: from Theory to Practice. Rowman and Littlefield

Publishers, Inc; New York.