lembar - repository.uinjkt.ac.idrepository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789...hasil penilaian...

LEMBAR

HASIL PENILAIAN SEJAWAT SEBIDANG ATAU PEER REVIEW

KARYA ILMIAH : JURNAL INTERNASIONAL BEREPUTASI

Judul Makalah : Exploring Materials Development of English Curriculum in Indonesia: A

Content Analysis Study

Penulis Makalah : Ratna Sari Dewi, Desi Nahartini, Dede Puji Setiono, Febria Afia Rahma,

Fahrurrozi, Apri Wahyudi

Status Pengusul : Penulis Pertama

Nama Pengusul : Ratna Sari Dewi

Identitas Jurnal : a. Nama Jurnal : International Journal of Advanced Science And

Technology

Volume 29, No.6, Tahun 2020

: b. Nomor ISSN : 2207-6360

: c. Penerbit : Science and Engineering Research Support Society

: d. Tahun Terbit : 2020

: e. Jumlah Halaman : 1475 - 1482 ( 8 Halaman)

Kategori Publikasi Ilmiah √ Jurnal Internasional Bereputasi

(beri pada kategori yang tepat) Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi

Hasil Penilaian Peer Review :

Komponen Yang Dinilai

Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi Nilai Akhir yang

Diperoleh (Reviewer) Nilai

Maksimal

Nilai Pengusul

(FITK)

a) Kelengkapan unsur isi jurnal (10%) 4 2.4

b) Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan

(30%)

12 7.2

c) Kecukupan dan kemutahiran data/informasi

dan metodologi (30%)

12 7.2

d) Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitas penerbit

(30%)

12 7.2

Total 40 24

Catatan Penilaian Jurnal oleh Reviewer:

Jakarta, 26 Mei 2020

Reviewer 2,

Prof. Dr. Ir. Arita Marini, M.E

NIDN : 0025026804

Unit kerja : Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Negeri Jakarta

International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology

Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1475

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC

Exploring Materials Development of English Curriculum in Indonesia: A

Content Analysis Study

Ratna Sari Dewi1, Desi Nahartini2, Dede Puji Setiono3, Febria Afia Rahmah4, Fahrurrozi5,

Apri Wahyudi6 1,2,3,4FITK, UIN Syarif Hidayatulah Jakarta, Indonesia.

5,6FIP, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia.

Abstract

This study aims to know: 1) how English materials development is constructed within the latest two

curriculums in Indonesia, 2) how materials of English subject in senior high school are developed in

2006 and K13 in senior high school are in the two recent curriculums. This research employed a

qualitative approach by using content analysis method. The data obtained through questionnaire,

document analysis, and observation. This research’s findings showed that the development of ELT

Material Development in Indonesia from School-based Curriculum and 2013 Curriculum is not

followed by the changing of approaches used by teacher in classroom. Teachers tend to teach more

grammar and structure separately and explicitly out of their communicative competence. Teachers’

habitual and their previous experiences influence the way of their teaching. Therefore, the

government’s policy to certify teacher is very crucial in developing ELT syllabus and further for

providing ‘effective teaching’ as part of curriculum development.

Keywords: Curriculum, Material Development, SBC, 2013 Curriculum.

I. INTRODUCTION

Previous studies concerning in Curriculum issue has come to an understanding that

curriculum is defined as an educational program which states (a) the educational purpose of the

program, (b) the content, the teaching procedures and the learning experiences which will be

necessary to achieve this purpose, and (c) some means for assessing whether or not the educational

ends have been achieved (Fieman et al, 1988). Curriculum serves as the substance that gives the soul

to learning process. Curriculum should be primarily based on the consideration of promoting learners’

interest in identifying and developing their full potential. The term curriculum is used here to refer to

the overall plan or design for a subject and how the content for a Subject is transformed into a

blueprint for teaching and learning which enables the desired learning outcomes to be achieved

(Richard, 2013).

The planning of the curriculum itself should be set based on the students’ need. It is a fact that

students’ needs from era to era are slightly different. Hence, the changing of the curriculum as

periodically is a must. Then, materials of the instruction should follow the curriculum as it is the most

easily noticed as the mark of the changing (Anderson et al, 2010)In ELT curriculum context, firstly, it

should be agreed that language is not static. Principle of curriculum design is classification consists of

three principles including coherence, permanent change and innovation, and different approaches

integration (Johnson 1989). In addition, there are some principles that cannot be neglected in

designing curriculum; According to Brown (1995) these principles are divided into three groups,

namely:Content and sequencing, Format and presentation, and Monitoring and assessment.

In Indonesia, with reference to Act No. 20 of 2003 Article 19, verse 1, the curriculum means a

set of plans and settings about the objectives, contents and teaching materials, and methods used as

guidelines for organizing learning activities to achieve certain educational goals. Hence, the

curriculum can be interpreted as a document or a written plan regarding the quality of education that

must be possessed by the learners through a learning experience (Sugiharto, 2013). In the history of

Indonesia's education, national education curriculum has experienced many changes, namely in the

years 1947, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006 and the latest is 2013. In all of these

changing, Indonesian curriculum designed is based on the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.

In Indonesia context, the teaching of English is an interesting issue. Many changing of the

curriculum in Indonesia has been made. Several factors over the previous ten years triggered the

movement toward a decentralized and competency-based curriculum in Indonesia. The first factor was

related to the implementation of regional autonomy that took place at the end of the 1990s. It was


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1476



widely agreed that the curricula developed previously by the government were considered to have

many weaknesses as students were treated similarly across Indonesia despite the linguistic, cultural

and religious diversity and differing potential of individuals (Sanjaya, 2005; Suderadjat, 2004; Us &

Harmi, 2011; Utomo, 2005). The second factor driving this curriculum change was poor national and

international results in most curriculum areas. For example, the World Bank, cited in Sanjaya (2010),

reported that reading skills of year four students in Indonesia were the lowest of all the Asian

countries surveyed. The unsettled integrated curriculum in Indonesia also became the issues.

Considering the needs and the demands on the English material in every changing of the curriculum,

English material instruction logically also should be developed (Brown 1995). Unfortunately, the

changing of curriculum in Indonesia let say the two latest curriculums; school based curriculum 2006/

KTSP and curriculum 2013/ K13 didn’t clearly tell about the material development of English

Subject.

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The approach used in this study is a qualitative approach with the use of content analysis as

the method. The content is analyzed by using six principles of materials design specified by Nunan

and his theory about curriculum, the study intend to investigate each curriculum (KTSP and K13)

towards English Subject material. To support the theory of Nunan, the theory proposed by Tomlinson

also will be used. Tomlinson provides critical reviews of ELT materials currently being used around

the world and most of its chapters make reference to the principles and procedures of materials

development (Cunningswort, 1984). In addition, the data used in the study are the documents in

curriculums and some textbooks used for senior high school published by the Ministry of National

Education (MONE) of the Republic of Indonesia.

The instruments used in this study are documents analysis and interview sheets. The

document analysis sheet is made from Nunan and Jack C. Richard theory about Material Development

with some adaptations and modifications. Interview sheet will be constructed by considering

Tomlinson’s research findings about material development. The instruments will be previously

validated to check the construct validity and the reliability of the instruments.

The data is obtained by compiling the result of interview, and document analysis sheets. The

data is classified into several categories such as: Clarity of Materials, Group of Basic competency and

the context and relation among materials in specific language skill (Listening, reading, speaking and

writing) and the goals of competency.

The data is analyzed through coding process, clustering, specifying and interpreting of data

which have been collected. Each category is analyzed by the theory of material development specified

by Nunan and Jack C. Richard. It enables the researcher to identify the difficulty level of each

observed activity. This analysis is then be followed by cluster analysis in order to specify the material

development of English subject in each curriculum.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Basic distinctions between KTSP and K13

Before more detailed discussion on the material development of both curriculums, it would be

noteworthy to expose how teachers perceive the clear distinctions between both of them. According to

the results of the open questionnaire, the teachers generally point out same idea that the main

characteristic of School-based curriculum (KTSP) is the authority of the school to develop, design and

implement this curriculum based on the school’s contexts and potentials. Also, the aspects of

cognitive, psychomotoric and affective become the main focus in this curriculum. Nevertheless, only

is cognitive aspect clearly defined to be assessed in the curriculum.

Therefore, most teachers characterize KTSP as an emphasis on students’ cognitive or

knowledge aspect. In terms of teaching method, interestingly teachers indicate KTSP as teacher-

centred learning despite of the point thatinstructional methods chosen by teachers in KTSP are

recommended to be student-centered and involve various active learning methods (BSNP, 2006). This

is also restated as another characteristic of KTSP by Idi (2013) that a variety of approaches and

methods could be used with teacher not as the only source of learning, and the use of other learning

resources is strongly encouraged. The perception KTSP as teacher-centered learning among the

teachers could be possibly caused by the methods offered in the curriculum (namely exploration,


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1477



elaboration and confirmation) to be implemented in classroom as mentioned by some teachers in the

interview.

Unlike KTSP, for teachers, K13 states straightforwardly to use scientific approach in teaching

by operating 5M (Menanya (questioning), Mengumpulkan data (collecting data), Mengasosiasi

(associating), Menyimpulkan (making conclusion)). Furthermore, three teaching modelsare offered to

be implemented by the teachers at their school despite of any diversity in students’ level competence

and background. Those three models arediscovery learning, problem based learning and project based

learning. Indeed, this well-defined teaching approach and model lead teachers to characterize this

curriculum as student-center. In this curriculum, the graduate competency standard is clearly defined

as the criteria to be used by all schools. Besides, character education and the use of technology in

class are otherpoints to bear in teachers’ mind in planning the lesson and developing the material.

Last, even though the aspect of affective was previously discussed in KTSP, this curriculum provides

more comprehensible indicators in assessing this aspect during the learning with so called authentic

assessment.

Materials in the reference textbook of KTSP and K13

In the given the situation of some changes from KTSP to K13 above, six teachers find the

materials in reference textbooks to be generally same or have no significant difference. However, one

teacher considers the material in K13 reference textbook as a perfection of the textbook in the

previous curriculum. Nevertheless, with generally same materials, five teachers note some differences

such as reduction in certain materials, teaching method to be implemented, the use of High Order of

Thinking Skills (HOTS), an emphasis on character education, and the structure or order of the

materials.

Different from teachers above who consider the materials to be generally same, noticeably

thirty two teachers state several clear distinctions in both reference textbooks. In fact, some of them

underline the ones previously mentioned. The first clear distinction is the reduction of materials.

According to two teachers, reducing materials in the reference textbook of K13 matters and is clearly

distinct since they regard the omitted ones to be essential in learning. This reduction is closely related

to some changes made in the newer curriculum such as less time allocated for English subject in a

week (two hours per week) and less number of basic competences to achieve. Speaking of reduced

materials, a teacher thinks that KTSP has more balanced materials. As said by this teacher, the

reduction of materials impacts on unbalanced portions of the materials. Unfortunately no specific

examples provided for this matter. However, it can be implied from the response below that K13

provides one material, either the material of reading or listening more than another.

Second, the scope, theme or topic of the material is different as pointed by four teachers. Even

though no specific example is mentioned, the responses show that this happens due to the

classification of English subject as a core subject and an elective subject in the current curriculum.

Consequently, different topics of the material to teach in both classes are by some means different

such as text genres, expressions and grammar. Before, KTSP stressed the materials on text genres but

K13 provides more materials for expression and texts, and particularly English grammar in English as

an elective subject. In addition, different system of students’ classification in K13 for taking English

as a core and elective subject causes some changing in the structure or order of the materials. In this

case, three teachers point out the different target class for teaching certain material early. Regarding to

the difference on topics of the material, K13 designs the material thematically by taking into account

of four aspects; namely knowledge, skill, attitude and behavior. Further, it is not only thematic but

also integrated in terms of language skills; writing, speaking, reading and writing.

Third, in accordance with the results, the teaching methodology has clearly become the

biggest difference in the materials with the emphasis of scientific approach in teaching. This teaching

method covers material delivery, procedure and technique in teaching in order to build students’

understanding on the materials. Eight teachers share the same opinion about this matter. In material

delivery, K13 encouraged the teacher to deliver the material step by step using 5M as means of

suggested approach. Last, the importance of character building in K13 contributes to the changing

materials. This point of view is stated by two teachers. Related to the findings in the previous

paragraphs that the teaching method has become the major difference, students’ character is likely to

be built by the use of 5M questions regardless of the similarity of the materials with that in KTSP

reference textbook.


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1478



The distinctions of materials in both curriculums

As previously discussed in this chapter that each curriculum has its own characteristics. KTSP

focuses on the assessments of affective, cognitive and psych motoric with the division of learning

activity in introduction, material and evaluation. Meanwhile, K13 concentrates on the character

building and national identity with the scientific approach implementation in teaching. By taking into

account of those differences, twenty one teachers view that the material is not different or generally

the same even though clear distinctions exist in terms of the teaching approach, method and

techniques in teaching, and an emphasis on students’ character building and21st century learning

skills (4C). In fact, regardless of the similarity of the materials, two teachers find the material of K13

more developed and completed by providing more examples than KTSP.

Unlike the teachers above, the other eight teachers are aware of the focus on 21st Century

Learning Skills and Scientific Approach in K13 as a clear difference in the material of both

curriculums. Thus, this is necessary for teachers to look for the material which is able to facilitate

students to be more creative and productive by providing factual material, practical examples, unlike

KTSP which provides more theories. Also, the material needs to be relevant with the teaching

procedures to be implemented with required certain quality of questions (HOTS). During the teaching,

teacher needs to make sure that the material makes possible to strengthen students’ character of

nationality, religiosity, mutual help (gotong-royong), caring, cooperation, confidence. Eventually, the

material should enable teachers to assess students’ behaviour and social skill, not only the knowledge

aspect.

Document Analysis Result

The discussion of documents analyses on the material development of both curricula was

referred to the six principles of material design by Nunan (2001). According to the data of the

document analyses gained by analyzing the lesson plans and the materials from both curricula (KTSP

and K13) given by the 20 selected teachers to their students, the results proved in the following:

a. Materials should be contextualized to the curriculum they serve.

The materials given by the teachers were contextualized to the curricula they are intended to

address. Since it is significant during the design stages that the goals of the curriculum, syllabus or

scheme within the designer’s institution are kept to the fore, all of the materials still followed the both

curricula. Evidently showed from the lesson plans and the materials, contextualizing materials to the

curriculum was assuredly among the initial considerations done by the teachers.

b. Materials should be authentic in terms of text and task.

Much space has been devoted in language teaching literature to debating the desirability of

using authentic materials in language teaching classrooms and indeed, to defining exactly what

constitutes genuine versus stimulated texts and tasks. It is such imperative for second language

learners to be regularly exposed in the classroom. In this case, the aim for authenticity in terms of

written and spoken texts and tasks presented to students was discussed.

A common tendency was to immediately think of written and oral materials such as

newspapers, magazines, video, newspaper, letter, or movie for the authentic materials. From the

documents analyses, it enlightened that 80% of the materials given by the teachers to the students in

terms of text were not authentic. The teachers developed the texts adapted from internet or English

textbook. The spoken and written texts were not the genuine ones either from newspapers or videos.

Meanwhile students need to hear, see and read the way native speakers communicate with each other

naturally.

Regarding to the authenticity in terms of the tasks which students are required to perform with

them, consideration of the types of real world tasks specific groups of learners commonly need to

perform will allow the teachers to generate materials where both the texts and the things learners are

required to do with them reflect the language and behaviors required of them in the world outside the

classroom. From the data, it proved that all tasks are not authentic. The teachers just developed the

tasks from the textbook and internet.


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1479



c. Material should stimulate interaction.

According to the data, the teachers provided the materials which highly likely stimulated

interactions. Although most of the materials were not authentic, however, they were considered as

important. Some materials are applied in special circumstances of daily activity such as

congratulating, complimenting, expressing if conditionals, etc., some other materials can encourage

students to ask, to answer and to write because they might have their own different cases such as

asking about plans, writing application letter and analytical exposition text.

d. Material should allow learners to focus on formal aspect of language. According to the lesson plan and materials added by observations, the result showed that 70%

of the teachers lead the students to focus on formal aspect of language, the rests just focused on the

topic and examples. As stated that language teaching materials can tend to focus on one particular

skill in a somewhat unnatural manner. The teachers inserted the formal aspect of language in the

process of teaching and learning in the classroom. When the teachers found mistakes of formal aspect

of language on students’ work, the teachers explained it. It was such integrated language teaching.

Meanwhile the other teachers who just focused on the topic and examples are considered as

ineffective language teaching materials.

e. Material should encourage learners to develop learning skill and skills in learning.

In terms of this principle, the result showed that 70% of the teachers encouraged students to

develop their learning skills and strategies in learning. They provide the students with the confidence

to persist in their attempts to find solutions when they have initial difficulties in communicating, for

example, in teaching writing application letter, the teacher asked students to make mind map of the

information needed for application letter, another, in teaching if conditionals, the teacher asked

students to use correctly the types of if conditionals by recognizing the time of the events happening.

In addition, this can provide valuable opportunities for self-evaluation by providing the necessary

language and incorporating activities which encourage learners to assess their own learning and

language development.

f. Material should encourage learners to apply their developing language skills to the world

beyond the classroom.

Since the students would have different cases of each material, the materials given by the

teachers were considered that the materials encouraged students to apply their developing language

skills to the world beyond the classroom. The students would experience certain situations in different

cases in their daily activities and in the future. The materials prepare them to develop their skills.

The Result Analysis for Student Activity

Activeness Attention Team Work Responsibility Mean

Total 75 77 61 75 72

Mean 3,00 3,08 2,44 3,00 2,88

Result Good Good Enough Good Good

Based on the observation, it was good students’ activity, because of the total of the score

from all of the students was seventy five (75), with mean was three point zero (3.00) and it was

categorized as good students’ activity in the activeness aspect. From the twenty five students only

seven students who got score two and eleven students got score three, while in seven students got

high score in the active aspect. The descriptions were; being active giving the opinion, questioning,

doing the task well, and answering the question.

In the attention aspect, the researcher stated that it was categorized good students’ activity

because of the total of the score all of the students was seventy seven (77), with mean was three

point zero eight (3.08). Five students gave full the attention, seventeen students got score three and

two students who got score two because they did not pay attention clearly. As the consideration

were: paying attention the teacher’s explanation, showing the enthusiasm, interesting, and

happiness in the teaching learning process. Meanwhile in the team work it was categorized enough

because of the total of the score all the students was sixty one (61), with mean was two point forty

four (2.44). The description in the team work were; helping the other friends, appreciating the other

friends, having solidarity, and being active in group was the criteria for team work aspect. There

were twelve students who got score three and thirteen students got score two, there were no


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1480



students who got for both high and poor score.

The last was responsibility, the researcher stated that it was categorized as good because

the total of the score from all of the students was seventy five (75), with mean was three points

zero (3. 00). The student’s activity was important, there were four students who got high score

(four), eighteen students got score three and only three students who got score two because of their

lack of the responsibility. Based on the research students’ activity, the researcher observed the

students’ activity by seeing the activeness, the attention, team work and responsibility of the

students through visual, oral, listening activities was all the activities in the process of teaching

learning, students’ activity always related to the problem of learning; writing, making a note,

reading, remembering, exercising. In line with Hamalik (2001:172) classifies learning activity

were: visual activity, oral, listening, writing, drawing, motor, mental and emotional activity. It

could be proved by seeing that every groups, observed their picture given by teacher and they took

a note for the important thing from the picture. To increase their understanding, the teacher gave

them the exercises. They discussed very clearly and tried to associate all of their tasks.

The Result for Teacher Activity

According to the observation, the researcher stated that the teachers’ activity was

categorized good activity. In the pre-activity the teacher prepared clearly, so the researcher gave

high score (four) because she explained the basic competence to the students and motivate them,

related to the material with the previous material, she also tried to invite them to explain how to

learn with the picture, how to analyze and explain how to make a summary from the picture.

In the while-activity she taught them very good and clear by asking them to make a group

work, she had enthusiasm to guide them to solve what was in the picture. She gave motivation to

the students to learn in group work, to be active, pay attention, and be responsible in the group

work. In the post-activity, the teacher guided the students in order to make them can communicate

with their friends in the group work and she invited them to solve the problem (picture) together.

But in the time allocation she did not divide it clearly, in the teaching learning process they needed

more time to associate and to network their lesson clearly. She was successful to invite the students

to have enthusiasm in the teaching learning process.

The Result for Teaching Learning Process Analysis

Based on the observation, the researcher took notes in the teaching learning process, and it

was categorized very good teaching learning process. Because before the teacher came to the class,

she prepared the lesson plan very well but she did not create the objective soft he learning in her

less on plan although she delivered it orally and implemented in her teaching learning by

connecting the material to the previous material. She prepared the students physically and

psychologically before starting the teaching learning process in the class and also she prepared the

media to support the activity in the class such as hand book, picture, in focus, white board etc. But

she did not prepare the setting of the learning.

The material of the learning was suitable with the objectives of the learning, but in the

lesson plan the teacher did not deliver the objectives of the learning. During the teaching learning,

she walked around the students to check their understanding, asking them every group and she

gave the concentration to the students who got the difficulties. The teacher gave them the strength

and gave them the example clearly. The media was used very well and effective. The teacher

guided students during the teaching learning process. The teacher had the task to provide

knowledge, attitude, value and skills to the student during the teaching learning process. It could be

said that teacher was able to influence the teaching learning.

In the teaching learning process, the teacher motivated students in order to make them

interested in learning in the class. She explained the material of the learning by the group

discussion and based on the scientific approach systematically. The teacher suggested them to

observe the picture and encourage them to ask the question, and do the experiments. She invited

them to make conclusions and ask them to communicate in front of class, all the activities were

clearly.

The researcher found the teacher’s activity in teaching learning was categorized very good

teacher’ activity. In the teaching learning process there was an interaction between teacher and

student were; pre-teaching, while teaching and post teaching by following the observation

checklist from Depdikbud. It was supported by Sadiman (2000:98) divides into three stages; Pre


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1481



teaching, while- teaching and post-teaching. Based on this research the researcher found that, the

teacher implemented the all aspects of the teaching were; the teacher gave the motivations to the

students, explained the way to learn through the picture, guided students to learn and discuss with

their friends, gave exercises to the students in their group, evaluated the result of the group work,

guided students to present the group discussion and guided them to make a summary.

In line with Rusman (2012: 59) some teachers’ activities in the teaching learning process

are;, set the time allocation with respect to the learning process, give the motivations for the

students to grow a passion in learning, implement the discussion in the class, discussion is an

appropriate thing to create the students’ creative and productive, observe the students: teachers can

know the student who needs more exercise, provide oral and written information with a simple and

easy to understand by the students, give the problem, so that the students can solve the problem,

ask the questions and provide the responses and use the media/ property.

IV. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Based on the results of this research we concluded that: the first, the management process

applied learning is the learning of planning activities, implementation of learning activities, and

evaluation of learning activities.

The second, the constraints faced by the teachers' lesson plans are still not referring to the

Curriculum 2013; application of learning with a scientific approach by the teacher is not optimal;

teachers less than optimal in applying the learning model; and teachers are not optimal assess student

learning outcomes that cover three domains of learning, namely the attitude, knowledge and skills.

And the third, alternative solutions to resolve the problems faced is the need to make

mentoring to teachers on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 (which deals with lesson plans,

scientific approach, models of learning, and assessment of student learning outcomes) and conducting

lesson study club.

REFERENCES

1. Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. 1988. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4): Using textbooks and

teachers’ guides: A dilemma forbeginning teachers and teacher educators.

2. Browns, J. D. (1995): The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program

development. Massachusets: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

3. Cohen, Louis, Laurence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2005. Research Methods in Education

(Fifth edition). USA: The Taylor Francis E-Library.

4. Cooker, L. 2008. Self-access materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), English language learning

materials: A critical review. London, UK: Continuum.

5. Cunnings Worth, A. 1984. Evaluating and selecting EFL teaching material. London, UK:

Heinemann

6. Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among the Five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

7. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Anderson, N. J. 2010. A principled approach to content-based

materials development for reading. In N. Harwood (ed.). English language teaching materials:

Theory and practice ,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

8. Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold

9. Hartoyo. 2011. The Indonesian Quarterly 21(1) : Curriculum Inquiry English Language

Education in Indonesia

10. Johnson, R. K. 1989. The Second language curriculum, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Nastaran Chegeni & Nasrin Chegeni, ELT Voices – India (Vol. 3 Issue 4) August 2013 Language

Curriculum Development and Importance of Needs Analysis

12. Nunan, D. 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson

& P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. London, UK: Longman

13. Peacock, M. (1997) The Effect of Authentic Materials on the Motivation of EFL Learners in

English Language Teaching Journal 51, pp 2

14. Richard J C, 2013, RLEC Journal 44 (1): Curriculum Approach in Language Teaching-Forward,

Central and Backward Design.


Vol. 29, No. 6, (2020), pp. 1475-1482

1482



15. Sugiharto, S. 2013. The Indonesian Quarterly 41(3): Rethinking Globalization, Reclaiming the

Local: A Post-Colonial Perspective of English Language Education in Indonesia.,

16. Wiggins G, Mc Tighe J, 2006, Understanding by Design: A Framework for Effecting Curricular

Development and Assessment. Alexandria: VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

lembar - repository.uinjkt.ac.idrepository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789...hasil penilaian...

Documents