12
Research Based Paper
The Comparison between Indonesian 2004 CBC and
Philippine 2011 SEC of English
Submitted as the assignment of "Curriculum Analysis"
By Asep Suarman
English Education Studies
School of Post Graduate
Indonesian University of Education
Bandung
2011
Research Based Paper
The Comparison of Indonesian 2004 English and Philippine 2011 Secondary English Curriculum
Content
Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Finding and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Research Based Paper
The Comparison of Indonesian 2004 English and Philippine 2011 Secondary English Curriculum
Abstract
For about 6 years, 2004 English Curriculum has been implemented in Indonesia. As the outcome and the implementation process are not satisfying yet, recently there spread out an issue to review the curriculum. Before reviewing, it is a good idea to see the surrounding countries to study what their English curriculum like. Philippine as the nation whose people master better English than Indonesia, though the position of English as second language instead of foreign language like in Indonesia, is the one where Indonesian need to learn from. This paper tries to compare the Indonesian 2004 competence-based curriculum (CBC) with Philippine 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC) to see similarities, differences, strength and weaknesses as well. The document analysis was employed to website and available related artifacts. The similarities were found on goal formulation, approaches, expected teaching process and evaluation. The differences were spotted on the great design, the organization of materials, teaching process and evaluation. In short, Philippine 2010 SEC is more complete and complicated than Indonesian 2004 CBC. Both curriculums have similar strength on their flexibility and weaknesses, possibly, in application because of inappropriate socialization. Finally, it is recommended that Indonesian need to review its curriculum to eliminate weaknesses but not to alter it drastically as it would cost a lot.
Keywords: curriculums, comparison, junior or secondary school
Introduction
Indonesia and Philippine are developing countries which have similar condition in the same region South East Asia. Both countries are alike in economy, culture, social life, human resources and others. Both are trying on and on to advance their development in every aspect of national life to gain success in this competitive global era. One of the efforts of the nations is developing their human resources through education.
Indonesia and Philippine mostly have identical policy about their education. They always review, revise or even reform their national curriculums in every eight or ten years. Indonesia changed 1994 thematic-based-curriculum into 2004 competence-based-curriculum (CBC), while Philippine altered 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (BEC) into 2010 Secondary Education Curriculum (SEC). The review or the alteration of the curriculum usually covers all subject matters including English.
English has different position Indonesia and Philippine. English is as foreign language (EFL) in Indonesia and mostly as second language (ESL) in Philippine. These EFL/ESL position might derive some differences or similarities in English curriculum development. To what extent is the English curriculum similar or different in both countries? What are the strength and the weaknesses of curriculum? This paper tries to answer these previous questions. To focus the analysis and the comparison, Indonesian 2004 Junior High School curriculum and 2010 Philippine Secondary Education Curriculum of English are selected. The selection is rather subjective, based on researcher's experience background in teaching Junior High School and curiosity to know the curriculum counterpart in other country.
To answer the questions, analyzing and comparing both English curriculums are done. Analyzing curriculum is an attempt to breakdown curriculum into its components. The analysis is intended to see how they fit together a whole; to identify the underlying belief and ideas and to examine the implication of the belief for the quality of educational experience and how it implies the educational process (Posner, 1992 p.20).
The process of analyzing curriculum can be considered as the reverse process of planning curriculum. In planning curriculum, curriculum developers can follow Tyler (1950) or Johnson (1977) models which have similar procedures: determining what purposes (goals) to attain, what educational experiences to provide (process), how to organize the them and how to evaluate the purpose (goal) attainment (Posner, 1992). Therefore, the analysis and comparison of the English curriculums below are based on the four elements of curriculum above as the framework and added by the underlying belief, approaches, expected teaching process in classrooms and the strength and weaknesses as well.
Method
Since the aim of this research was to describe the similarities and differences of Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine 2010 SEC, document analysis of the curriculums and literature research were employed, population and samples were not identified. The focuses were the ultimate orientation, the goals, the educational experiences (process), the organization of materials, the expected learning activities, and the evaluation. The documents consist of both curriculums with their enclosure and literature explaining how to analyze a curriculum.
Finding and Discussion
Great Design (Orientation)
In great design or basic orientation, Indonesian 2004 CBC of English is different from Philippine 2010 SEC. Indonesian CBC seems not to have a great design to which all stakeholders should orientate on. It just requires all learners to attain certain competence as the learning outcome. The required competence was listed on the national 'Content Standard'. The competence includes all language skills on each certain core materials. At the time the learners finish a period of education (learning), they are required to master certain competence. Since the competence is still general in term of capability, teachers are expected to formulate some indicators containing more specific competence to achieve. When learners have performed all the indicators, it signifies that they have accomplished the competence. All learners are required to master all prerequisite competence.
Unlike Indonesian, Philippine 2010 SEC of English has specific great design/orientation. It is anchored on 'Understanding by Design' or UbD. UbD is a framework that ensures deepening of student understanding by aligning standards, assessment, and instruction. In other words, UbD is a way of thinking about curricular planning and school reform, a set of helpful design tool and design standard. The end of UbD is understanding and the ability to transfer learning – to appropriately connect, make sense of and use a discrete knowledge in the context. The UbD of Philippine SEC is a modification done by Department of Education to the original UbD by Wiggins and McTighe (2005). Both of the UbD have three stages.
UbD based on Wiggins and McTighe (UbD WM) and Philippine Department of Education (UbD PDE) actually has similar stages but different terms. In UbD WM, stage 1 is 'identify desired results consisting of 'Established goals, Essential questions, Enduring understandings, Knowledge and skills' contrasted to 'Results and Outcome' comprising 'Content/Performance Standards, Essential Understandings, Objectives and Essential Questions' in UbD PDE. Stage 2 it is termed 'Determined acceptable evidence', in UbD WM, containing 'Performance tasks' and 'Other Evidence: tests, quizzes, prompts, work samples, observations, student self-assessment and reflection'. Meanwhile, in UbD PDE, it is called 'Assessment' consisting of Products/ Performances Assessment' with its criteria and tools. The last stage, 'Plan learning experience' which are learning activities in UbD in WM is named 'Learning plan' listing 'Instructional activities' and 'Resources Materials' in UbD PDE. (more explanation about these stages, see 'Materials').
UbD is expected to help Philippine to design instruction that promotes understanding and student engagements. It is a recursive process, not a perspective program or instructional model. It looks at instructional design from a "results" orientation and provides design standards. It also targets achievement through a "backward design" process that focuses on assessment first and relevant instructional activities last. However, it is not opposed to content standards or traditional testing and grading. It just expects teachers to establish spirals of learning where students use and reconsider ideas and skill – instead of linear scope and sequence.
The Goals
Comparing the goals of English curriculum, Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine 2010 SEC has similarities and slight difference. According to 'Content Standard' – the Rule of Education Ministry number 22 year 2006 - of 2004 CBC, English subject in Indonesia is directed to develop communicative and discourse competence in certain literacy level. Referring to Well's (1987), the literacy levels respectively consists of performative (able to read, write, listen and speak using certain symbols), functional (able to use language to fulfill daily needs), informational (able to access knowledge), and epistemic (able to convey knowledge through target language).
The aims of English subject in Secondary (Junior High) school (JHS) is to enable learners to develop communicative competence orally and written to achieve functional literacy level; to own awareness of the nature and the importance of English to improve national competitive competence in global society and to improve learners' understanding about the interconnection between language and culture. JHS learners are targeted to reach functional level at which they can communicate orally and written to fulfill daily needs.
Similarly, the expected outcome of English in Philippine 2010 SEC is to develop a functionally literate Filipino who can effectively function in various communication situations. It more describes that a functionally literate individual demonstrates the following critical competencies: ability to express clearly one's ideas and feelings orally, in writing, and non-verbally; ability to learn on his own; ability to read, comprehend and respond in turn to ideas presented; ability to write clearly one's ideas and feelings, and the ability to access, process, and utilize available basic and multimedia information (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32920701/ENGLISH-I-Secondary-Education-Curriculum-2010).
In addition, referring to the scope of the English subject, both Indonesia's and Philippine's English curriculum have akin destination. Indonesian JHS 2004 CBC covers up discourse competence: the ability to comprehend and/or construct oral and/or written texts in the form of the four integrated language skills to attain functional level; the ability to comprehend and create various kind of short functional and monolog texts in the genre of procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative, and report; and supporting competence: linguistic competence, socio-cultural competence, strategic competence and rhetorical competence.
Equivalently, the Philippine's develops the communicative and the literary competence/appreciation. The former is to develop the four linguistic competencies (Hymes, 1971, Canale, 1983): linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic with emphasis on cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). The latter, literary competence/appreciation is concerned with general skills needed to meet the communicative and linguistic demands of the different types of literature.Values underscore the significant insights and universal truths presented in the varied literary texts.
While in Indonesian 2004 CBC involves only the four language skills: listening, speaking, reading and writing and sought information technology and multimedia only on the process standard at which teachers are required to use any methods and media including multimedia, Philippine's highlights the importance of viewing multimedia and internet sources of information as the means to develop creativity in transcoding concept from one medium to another. It means that the one who is required to get in touch with information technology is different, teachers in Indonesia and learners instead in Philippine.
Underlying Belief
Philosophically, Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine 2010 SEC of English have the same philosophical base. Both curriculums are philosophically based on constructivism which derives from progressivism philosophical strand. Constructivism emphasizes on future human civilization, individual differences and problem-solving, critical thinking skills.
As Indonesian 2004 CBC applies genre-based approach (Derewianka 2003), language is viewed in two strands: as the means of social communication (Fiske 1990 in Depdiknas, 2005) and as a set of rules available in human brain (Chomsky in Depdiknas 2005). The former refers to Fiske's opinion that in communication, a society usually uses some common semiotics: signs, codes and culture (Fiske 1990 in Depdiknas, 2005). The signs are sound and letters, the code is called grammar in linguistics which both agreed by the society in cultural context. Therefore, a language is a social semiotics, according Haliday (1978 in Depdiknas 2005 p. 4). The second one refers to Chomsky's theory (Depdiknas, 2005). When the language heard from surrounding, the device in our brain adapts or 'is printed' according to the language.
On the conceptual framework of 2010 Philippine SEC, the theory of learning is not explicitly stated. It merely proposes that the underlying theoretical bases of the curriculum include the theory of language, theory of learning and theory of language learning. Shown on its framework diagram, the theory of learning is concerned with the theory of linguistics, philosophy and psychology. The more specific explanation on which linguistics, philosophy and psychology the curriculum relies on is not mentioned on the website. It is possibly on other documents that the writer has not found yet.
In addition, Indonesian 2004 CBC is based on three main developmental psychologists: Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner. According to Piaget, children are active learners who always learn through interaction with their surrounding and overcome the problems. Vygotsky (1962) observed that the development and learning happen in social context, in the zone where many people interact since a child was born and the adult helps the child to learn, to do and understand more than if he learn himself. Additionally, Bruner (1983, 1990) claimed that adults use language to bridge the world around children and help them to solve problems with scaffolding talk. Here, a teacher should scaffold learning in such a way to help students using format and routines.
In contrast, Philippine 2010 SEC, as far as the writer's concern, does not base on specific theory. On the framework of the curriculum, it only suggests that the theory of language learning should be content-oriented and condition oriented. As long as the writer concern, the website does not explain further about. It merely indicates that SEC let its users – especially teachers - to apply any theories as long as the goals of instruction listed on the content standard could be attained. However, the theories of language and language learning that the teachers applied should be in line with the current pedagogical practice highlighting constructivism. The theories are expected to be oriented on learning by doing, reflective learning, social learning, learners' learning strategies and transformative learning.
The Approaches
Looking deeper into the curriculum, Indonesia CBC and Philippine SEC have quite different approaches applied since English has different function in both countries. English functions as a foreign language in Indonesia and second language in Philippine. This different function certainly derives different approaches in English Education. Indonesia applies genre-based approach (GBA) adapted from the idea of Derewianka (1990, 2003) and Butt et al, (2001) wherein the teaching material is determined by the central government through the rule of ministry of education, permendiknas was so-called, number 22 year 2006 containing content standard of national curriculum and number 23 at the same year about graduate competence standard. The role of teacher in GBA is mostly the facilitator of the learning. Students should be actively engage in learning.
Like Indonesia, based on its framework, Philippine 2010 Curriculum concerns with communicative competence. In the instruction process, the learning program focuses on content–based instruction (CBI) which integrates the learning of language and the learning of some other content such as Science and Mathematics where English is used as the medium of instruction. Teaching model underscores the use of cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA) which takes into consideration the various contexts in which language is used in the classroom and other academic settings. In addition, the curriculum employs the problem-based, task-based, and competency-based learning (PTCBL) approaches in which students collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. The teachers take on the role as facilitators of learning. The use PTCBL approaches to reading literature and literary appreciation ensures literary competence and appreciation.
The Materials (The Content of Curriculum).
The organization of Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine SEC quite differ. The content of Indonesian 2004 CBC of Junior High School is organized in three years consisting of six semesters (two semesters each year). Contrastively, Philippine SEC is in four years, 16 quarters (four quarters each year).
Furthermore, the content of Indonesian 2004 CBC is documented on 'The Content Standard'. It consists of a series of 'Standard Competence' which is sequentially described in some 'Basic Competence'. Competence, to be clear, is the implicit system of rules that constitutes a person's knowledge of a language. This includes a person's ability to create and understand sentences, including sentences they have never heard before, knowledge of what are and what are not sentences of a particular language, and the ability to recognize ambiguous and deviant sentences (Richard et. al., 1985). The standard competence is more general than the basic competence. The former is closely related the four language skills. The latter depicts the more practical concept to teach which is related to the core materials.
Basically, all competence contains the ability to respond and express various kinds of conversations and texts. The core materials, in other words, comprise transactional and interpersonal conversations, short functional texts and short monologs. The conversations only deal with listening and speaking skills containing a kind of functional syllabus gradually arranged per grade. Short functional texts e.g. instructions, shopping lists, greeting cards, announcement, advertisement etc., and monologs e.g. descriptive, procedure, recount, narrative and report texts deal with all language skills.
Similar to Indonesian CBC, the material in Philippine 2010 SEC, according to the website, consists of 'Program Standard' and 'General Standard'. The former is more general and a kind of goals of the English teaching which covers the expected outcomes of all years/levels. The latter includes the teaching aims of one level/grade. One general standard can be divided into several topics in which the instructional activities are organized. In a general standard, a teacher can have four topics of lesson planning. In narrative for example, the topics might be 1) basic features and element of narrative; 2) information gathering skills; 3) literary devices and techniques in narratives; and 4) techniques and guideposts for effective and meaningful storytelling.
A certain topic consists of three stages of learning activities which become the elements of syllabus. The stages are results/outcomes, assessment and learning plan. Stage 1: The results/desired outcomes define what students should be able to know and do at the end of the program, course, or unit of study. They are generally expressed in terms of overall goals, and specifically defined in terms of content and performance standards. 'Content standards' specify the essential knowledge (includes the most important and enduring ideas, issues, principles and concepts from the disciplines), skills and habits of mind that should be taught and learned. Whereas 'performance standards' express the degree or quality of proficiency that students are expected to demonstrate in relation to the content standards. Another part of results/outcomes is 'essential understandings', which are the big and enduring ideas at the heart of the discipline and which we want the children to remember even long after they leave school. The next part of the results/outcomes is 'essential questions', which are open-ended, provocative questions that spark thinking and further inquiry into the essential meanings and understandings. The last one is 'curriculum objectives', which are expressed in terms of knowledge and skills that teachers can use as guide in formulating their own classroom objectives.
Stage 2: Assessment defines acceptable evidence of student's attainment of desired results; determines authentic performance tasks that the student is expected to do to demonstrate the desired understandings; and defines the criteria against which the student's performances or products shall be judged. In this case, 'products and performances', which are the evidence of students' learning and a demonstration of their conceptual understanding, and content and skill acquisition, must be assessed.
Stage 3: Learning Plan or Teaching Learning Sequence details the instructional activities that students will go through to attain the standards. It contains 'instructional activities', which are aligned with the standards and are designed to promote attainment of desired results.
Contrast to Indonesian, the content of Philippine 2010 SEC is organized in 'concept matrix' which is based on the literary works. All levels comprise four kinds of them: narrative, drama, poetry and essay which are taught each quarter consecutively. However, the sources of the literary works are different among the levels. On the first year, the literary works is taken from Philippine literature. On the second and third years, Altro Asian literature (including Philippine literature) and British American and Philippine literature are required. On the last year, the world literature (including Philippine's) is scheduled.
Teaching Process
Through the Process Standard, the rule of education ministry number 41 year 2007, the teaching process should nearly be conducted in contextual teaching. It is described that all teaching process (all subjects) in Indonesia should be carried out in interactive, inspiring, enjoyable, challenging and motivating students to actively participate and providing sufficient chance for being initiative, creative and independent in accordance with learners' talent, desire and development both physically and psychologically.
Teaching activities usually consists of three stages: pre, main and post-activities. Pre activities are aimed at arousing motivation and focusing learners' attention to actively participate in the learning process. Main activities ought to cover three main stages – exploration, elaboration and confirmation. In the meantime, the post activities are done to end the learning session through summarizing or concluding, evaluating, reflecting the lesson, giving feedback and follow-up.
To be clearer, the main activities are described further here. In exploration process, a teacher should involve learners to explore extensive and deep information about the following topic/theme, use various teaching approaches, media and resources; facilitate the process of interaction between learners with learners, teacher, environment and other learning resources; actively involve learners in learning process; and facilitate learners to do experiments in laboratory, studio or other fields. In elaboration process, a teacher should get learners to read and write various meaningful tasks; facilitate learners through assignments, discussion or else to arise new ideas either orally or written; give learners a chance to think, analyze, solve problems and behave fearlessly; facilitate learners to learn cooperatively and collaboratively; facilitate learners to compete fairly to enhance learning achievement; facilitate learners to make exploring report orally or written, individually and in groups as well; and others. Whereas in confirmation process, a teacher should give positive feedback and reinforcement orally, written, symbols or reward on students' achievement; provide confirmation on learners' exploration and elaboration to various resources; facilitate learners to do self-reflection to confirm previous learning experience; facilitate learners to obtain meaningful experience in achieving their learning basic competence through : acting as a resource and a facilitator in responding learners' questions about their difficulty with appropriate and proper language, solving their problems, giving learners a reference to do the recheck of their exploration result, providing some information to explore further and motivating the passive or less active learners.
Specifically, in Indonesian English subject, there is no rigidly compulsory requirement of teaching process. However, as genre-based approach (GBA) is applied, the four teaching stages are suggested (Derewianka 2003) - the building knowledge of field (BKoF), modeling of text (MoT), joint construction of text (JCoT) and independent construction of text (ICoT). Like in pre-listening or reading, in BKoF teachers prepare students with proper knowledge about the text to be taught. It might be about grammar, vocabularies, skills or knowledge about the topics. It is a kind of warming up to activation of mental schema, to help students to become aware of and understand the social purpose of the chosen genre. In MoT, teachers present the text to familiarize the learners with the target text-type or genre, and to draw attention to organizational and linguistic features commonly found in texts belonging to it. Then, in JCoT, referring to the model text or texts, and making use of the knowledge and awareness gained from MoT, the students work with the teacher and peers to construct their own texts (spoken or written) in the text-type or genre. In the last stage, ICoT, learners work individually and independently, to produce individual text through peer editing or teacher feedback until the learner attains a desired level of attainment.
Like Indonesian, in every topic, an English teacher is suggested to follow some teaching learning sequence: explore, firm-up, deepen and transfer. In 'explore' stage, a teacher should make the learners aware of the desired result that, for him/her to demonstrate understands of the appropriate information gathering skills to facilitate comprehension and appreciation of narratives; take up the essential question "why… important?" with the students; make them answer the question based on their experiences and cue them into the big ideas to explore;
At the second stage, the 'firm-up', a teacher should make the learners illustrate or crystallize their knowledge of the sources of information, book parts and the functions of each, ways to locate books in the library, making verbs agree with their subjects and using WH questions in asking for and giving information; engage them in meaningful and challenging activities that will enrich what they have learned; provide feedback.
At the third stage, 'deepen', a teacher should be able to provide the students with thought provoking questions that will make them reflect, rethink, and revise their assumptions about sources of information, book parts and the functions of each; address the learners' uniqueness, their strength and weaknesses by providing them with differentiated instruction as needed; engage them in meaningful, challenging and differentiated activities that will reinforce what they have learned about appropriate information gathering skills; engage them in meaningful self evaluation and provide feedback.
At the last stage, 'transfer', the teacher must be able to have the learners make independent applications of the various processes in locating and utilizing appropriate services of information, making verbs agree with their subjects and using appropriate Wh-questions; have learners create and present a comprehensive "I" search collection of folk narratives; have them see the connections between tasks and the world and provide feedback to check for understanding.
Additionally, in learning activities, as the teaching for understanding requires that students be given some careful-designed opportunities to draw inference and make conclusion, a teacher is suggested for considering and self-assessing key elements and logic of learning plans in form of "WHERE TO" as the abbreviation from Where, Hook, Equip & Experience, Rethink, Evaluate, Tailor and Organize. In 'Where', the teacher have students answer the 'Why questions' to ensure seeing the big picture and know the final demanded performance as soon as possible. In 'hook', the teacher get students interested immediately in the idea and issues of the unit, engage them thought-provoking experience or challenging questions at the heart of the unit. In 'equip and experience', a teacher provide tools, resources, skills and information needed to achieve the desired understanding. In 'rethink' a teacher take the unit deeper by shifting perspective, considering different theories, challenging prior assumptions etc. and provide opportunity to revise or to polish the prior work. In 'evaluate', a teacher ensure that students get diagnostic and formative feedback and opportunities to self-asses and self-adjust. In 'tailor', a teacher personalizes learning through differentiated assignments and assessment. At last, in 'organize', a teacher need to sequence the work to suit the understanding goals, questioning how the flow the learning activities is.
Assessment in Curriculum
The assessment functions to provide information for making decision about either individuals or the curriculum (Posner,1992). Posner clarifies that the decision about individuals are necessary for six purposes: diagnosis (to get information about strength, weaknesses and determination about area that need special instructional attention), instructional feedback, placement, promotion, credentialing and selection. While evaluation for the purpose of informing decision of curriculum is termed curriculum evaluation. The former function which is referred here is to measure the individuals, specifically, the classroom assessment of students' achievement.
In Indonesian 2004 CBC, the classroom assessment copes with knowledge, affective and psychomotor. The assessment applies criterion-reference which means that the result of the assessment depends on how well the learners achieve or master the predetermined criteria. The criteria are determined based on the standard competence. Thus, the assessment orientation is not on the students' discrimination but on how far the students master the competence.
The classroom assessment should be authentic and continuous. 'Authentic' means that it is integrated in learning process and employ any methods and technique suit the teaching objectives and students' learning experience. 'Continuous' refers to the assessing activities can be done right after students learn to master certain competence. The competences should be assessed in contextual way in communication activities. The tests should be integrated with assessing language skills instead of in discrete ways. Its forms can be written, oral, products, portfolios, performance and behaviors. To get more objective assessment, a teacher should use any students' works to assess, make a just decision and mark the students' achievement of the competence on certain period of time.
In contrast, in Philippine 2010 SEC, the assessment is based on product and performance task, evidence at all level of understanding and evidence at all level of performance. The product and performance task consists of some skills to be performed by students. In grade one, for example, students are expected to show an ability to creatively and proficiently tell story, present an excerpt of a drama, read poetry chorally, and write vivid, personal and reflective essay.
At all level of understanding, students are targeted to exhibit five level or faucets of understanding which might be achieved through different activities on the stage of learning certain topics. The faucets of understanding are explanation, interpretation, application, empathy and self-knowledge respectively. Faucet I: explanation involves the kind of understanding that emerges from a well developed and supported theory, to makes sense of puzzling or opaque phenomena, data feelings or ideas. This understanding is revealed through performance and product. Faucet II: interpretation of narratives/stories and translation should provide meaning. The interpretation could be relative. The understanding occurs when students organize essentially contestable but 'incompletely verifiable proposition in a disciplined ways' (Bruner, 1996 in http://www.scribd.com/doc/42455339/UBD-Revised-52610). The meaning to all events transforms the understanding and perception of particular facts. Explanation and interpretation are thus related but different. Therefore, students need to work through the problem to where they can see their explanation and interpretation as valid one. Faucet III, application, refers to the ability to use knowledge effectively in a new situation which means matching the understood idea or action to context. Faucet IV, perspective, refers to critical and rightful point of view. It is the indication of the emerged understanding reflected in the capacity to represent problem in various way and to approach solution from various point of views. Faucet V, empathy, is the ability to get inside another person's feeling and worldview. It is the ability to walk in another's shoes, to escape one's emotional reactions to grasp another's. When somebody is trying to understand another person, people or culture, he/she strives for empathy. The last faucet VI, self-knowledge, refers to the wisdom to know one's pattern of thought and action. In daily life, the capacity to accurately self-asses and self-regulate reflects understanding.
Meanwhile, the at all level of performance, the criteria of performance assessment are presented. For storytelling, for instance, the assessment criteria are directed to focus theme, audience contact, sequence/the development of actions, dialogs, language, delivery and voice. For drama presentation, the criteria are subjected to voice, acting skill, facial expression, stage presence, stage production and conventions.
The strength and weaknesses
After analyzing and comparing the curriculums, the curriculum strength and weakness, as far as the researcher concerned, are found. As the research employed document analysis, the strength and the weaknesses will only deal with the one written on the document and the possible strength or weaknesses of curriculum implementation.
In the goal setting, Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine 2010 SEC have identical strength as both utilize standards in setting goals, aims and objectives. The curriculum developers merely list the more general aims of teaching to be further explained in more specific objective by the curriculum users. Both curriculums provide freedom for the users to elaborate more about the objective. The users have a free chance to choose which standard to emphasize, how to organize (structure) them, how deep and how wide the scope of the material, and how the evaluation to be performed as far as the predetermined standards are met.
However, such kind of freedom might lead the users to confused or out of controlled situation. The curriculum users – teachers-, who have poor knowledge and skills about constructing the objective or structuring the learning experience (materials) might feel puzzled to formulate their own teaching objectives which are appropriate in mastering the standards. Or, the users might be able to formulate their objectives but they are not in line with the listed standard. They might implement the curriculum standard in their own favorite way which is not included in the curriculum.
As their underlying assumption is based on the constructivism theory, both curriculums require and can lead to be creative, innovative, knowledgeable and skillful users. The proper implementation of them can yield independent, creative and skillful generation. The product of the curriculum (the students) will be able to understand and perform what the standard required. But, to accomplish such users and product needs a high cost and time. It needs long time and thorough socialization, monitoring and follow up activities. It will be quite challenging because changing curriculum is related to changing the mind-set, belief, habits, culture, understanding and skills of many people. Incomprehensive socialization will bring imperfect results and, in turn, there might be social movement blaming the curriculum and posing to revise it again before appropriate implementation.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the document analysis of Indonesian 2004 CBC and Philippine 2010 SEC, it might be concluded that both English curriculum have some similarities and differences. The similarities lie on the formulating goals which are based on standards, the evaluation which is mostly based on authentic assessment, the expected teaching process - though Philippine's is more complex - which suggests following some similar stages: exploring, elaborating, confirming, transferring knowledge, skills or affective.
The differences lie on the great design of curriculum, the suggested approach, the organization of experience. On the great design, Philippine SEC is anchored on Understanding by design (UbD) as modification of UbD by Wiggins and McTighe (2005), while Indonesian CBC is not alike. Indonesian CBC mainly applies genre-based approach (GBA), meanwhile Philippine SEC employs text analysis, text-based, context–based and genre-based approaches to ensure literary competence and appreciation. The organization of both curriculums differs in time allocation. Indonesian's structures senior high school curriculum in six terms, three years. Philippine's arranges it in sixteen quarters, four years. More specifically, Philippine's topics are mostly literary works and Indonesia's are any kind of functional texts and essay.
Based on the comparison above, it is recommended that before revising or even altering a curriculum in Indonesia, it is necessary to review it to eliminate weaknesses and to ensure that its implementation has met the predetermined concept.
Bibliography
Depdiknas. 2005. 'Landasan Filosofis Teoritis Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris' dalam 'Materi Pelatihan Terintegrasi Bahasa Inggris, Buku I. Jakarta: Dirjen Dikdasmen – Direktorat PLP.
Depdiknas. 2007.Permendiknas No. 41 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32920701/ENGLISH-I-Secondary-Education-Curriculum-2010 accessed on 18 March 2011.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42455339/UBD-Revised-52610 accessed on 21 March 2011
http://www.bse.ph/index.php/2010-sec-second-year.html accessed on April 20, 2011.
Lin, Benedict. 2006. Genre-based Teaching and Vygotskian Principles in EFL:
The Case of a University Writing Course. Asian EFL Journal, volume 8 issue 3 article 11 available on http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_bl.php
Plata , Sterling M.2010. Standards and Assessment in the 2010 English Curriculum for High School: A Philippine Case Study. Philippine ESL Journal, Vol. 5, July 2010 © 2010 Time Taylor International ISSN 1718-2298
Posner, George J. 1992. Analyzing The Curriculum. United States: McGraw-Hill.
Richards, Jack C. Schmidt, Richard. Kendricks, Heidi. Kim, Youngkyu.1985. Longman dictionary of Language teaching. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH BASED PAPER
No
Criteria
%
My Score
1
Abstract – the burning issues which answer the questions related to why the topic was chosen (academic rationale), the objective, finding, and conclusion & recommendation/suggestion
20 %
2
Introduction – academic rationale, aspects your comparing
15%
3
Content – description and analysis of both curriculum analyzed, differences, similarities, strength, weaknesses of each curriculums.
35%
4
Referencing (the appropriateness of quotation used in the paper)
5 %
5
Mechanic and language use
15 %
6
Organization of the paper (paragraphing, cohesiveness of paragraph)
10%
TOTAL SCORE
100 %
