IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH THROUGH 5 Ms IN THE CURRICULUM OF 2013 IN INDONESIA
Slamet Suyanto
Biology Education Department, FMIPA, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia slamet_suyanto@uny.ac.id
Abstract
Indonesian government assigns a new curriculum namely Curriculum of 2013. One of the important changes in the new curriculum of 2013 is the application of a scientific approach which consists of 5Ms, extending for (1) Mengamati (observing), (2) Menanya (questioning), (3) Mencoba (experimenting), (4) Menalar (analyzing), and (5) Mengomunikasikan (communicating). The aims of this research is to know the ability of teachers in implementing the 5Ms. This research was a survey research. The research was conducted in the years of 2013-2015 in 33 junior high schools, involving 33 principals/vice principals, 200 teachers, and 200 students, from seven regencies in Indonesia. The data were taken by using questionnaires, interviews, and obsevation during monitoring and evaluation programs facilitated by the Directorate of Junior High School Development Management. The results indicates that the teachers are still facing difficulties in impelemting the scientific approach through 5Ms.The difficulty in a row is M2 (asking questions) (27.8%), M3 (collecting information) (24.9%), M1 (observing) (22.7%), M4 (reasoning) (16.7%), and M5 (communicating) (7.9%). Therefore, it is concluded that the teachers still need more training in conducting the scientific process through 5Ms in the implementation of the new curriculum.
Keyword: curriculum, curriculum implementation
Introduction Background
Starting in the year of 2013, Indonesian government implements new curriculum, namely Curriculum of 2013 (C13) in some assigned schools. There are about six assigned schools in every regency, for every level, for about 514 regencies in Indonesia. Prior to the implementation, there are some trainings for teachers and the principals of the schools. In the implementation of the curriculum, the teachers are also assissted and guided by a trained teacher. There are also monitoring and evaluation processes during the implementation. Therefore, the implementation should work well. In the year of 2014, the government urged that the curriculum should be implemented in all schools, in all regencies, in Indonesia ddespite of the results of the monitoring and evaluation process.All schools try to catch up with the new curriculum and to implement it.
and students that have been practicing the new curriculum of 2013 for about one year should return to the old syntax of learning of KTSP. Therefore, the government decision instopping the implementation of the new curriculum and setting back to the old curriculum is widely questionable. This research gives more information on the real condition of the school readiness to implement the new curriculum and hopefully functional to judge whether the decision is right or wrong.
In addition, the new curriculum of 2013 (C13) has many changes that are not easy for teachers to implement them. The C13 curricular goal is to develop productive, creative, innovative, and affective Indonesians through nurturing their attitudes, skills, and knowledge integratedly. The structure of the C13 consists of four major components (1) basic structure, (2) structure, (3) syllabi, and (4) subject guide. The basic structure of the curriculum states that there are two groups of subject, namely group A and B for primary and secondary junior high schools. Group A is designed to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes for living in the context of society, community, and country. There are seven subjects in group A: (1) Religion and manner, (2) Ideology and civic education, (3) Indonesian language, (4) Mathematics, (5) Natural science, (6) Social science, (7) English language.
Group B is to develop students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes for social interaction, culture, and arts. There three main subjects of group B, namely (1) Art and culture, (2) Sport, physic and health, and (3) Handcraft. For some schools, such as religious schools, may add some subjects related to their specific contents to the curriculum. In addition, there is Group C which also called preverence subjects choosen by students, consisting four groups: (1) mathematics and science, (2) social science, (3) language and culture.
The C13 brings fourcore standards, teaching and learning process, ICT, and assessment methods. There are four core standards of the C13 namely KI1, KI2, KI3, and KI4. KI1 is spiritual competences, promoting students to be religious people. KI2 is social competences, promoting good social attitudes such as discipline, respect, honor, etc., KI3 is promoting knowledge competences, and KI4 is skill competences (Depdikbud, 2014). The core competences, then are described more detail into some basic competences (KD).
The C13 promotes scientific approach in teaching and learning process trough 5 Ms. The teaching and learning process applies 5Ms, stand for (1) Mengamati (observing), (2) Menanya (asking questions), (3) Mengumpulkan informasi (information gathering), (4) Menalar (reasoning or data analyzing), and (5) Mengomunikasikan (Communicating). Some schools may add two more Ms, that are (6) Mencipta (creating), and (7) Membuat jejaring (networking) (Depdikbud, 2014). It is imperative that students actively try to get information by their own learning, including experimenting, reading books, interviewing people, or browsing internet. Students are also actively involved in the process of constructing meaning and communicating the results (Depdikbud, 2014). Teachers may use inquiry and discoveryLearning model, Problem-based Learning, or Project-Based Learning model in the teaching and learning process.
The success of a curriculum implementation according to Goldston, et al. (2013), it should be assessed and measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the curriculum is necessary to ensure that the new curriculum is well-implemented. Therefore, study of the new curriculum implementation is imperative to do (O'Donnell, Carol L, 2008). This research tries to assesse the implementation of the scientific approach consisting 5 Ms in junior high schools.
Formulation of the problem
The new curriculum with several changes is not easy for the teacher to understand it. Since the teacher plays the major roles in implementing the curriculum, the understanding of the teacher about the curriculum and its implementation becomes key success of the new curriculum. Therefore, in this research the teacher understanding on the C13 and its implementation in teaching and learning process will be the focus of the study. The main question is wether junior high schools teachers are able to implement the scientific approach inthe teaching and learning process. This general question is then described more detail into the following questions.
1. Are the teachers able to perform observing (M1) inthe teaching and learning process in the implementation of the C 13?
2. Are the teachers able to promote students asking questions (M2) inthe teaching and learning process in the implementation of the C 13?
3. Are the teachers able to guide students in collecting data (M3) inthe teaching and learning process in the implementation of the C 13?
4. Are the teachers able to guide students in analyzing data(M4) inthe teaching and learning process in the implementation of the C 13?
5. Are the teachers able to develop student ability in communicating the results of their learning(M5) inthe teaching and learning process in the implementation of the C 13?
6. What is the students opinions to their learning experience using 5 Ms? Do they feel that it is more difficult or enjoyable?
Goal and benefit of the research project
The main goal of this research is to know the school readiness to implement the C13. The specific objectives of the research are as follows.
1. To know the ability of the teachers to perform observing (M1) inthe teaching and learning process in science in the implementation of the C 13.
2. To know the ability of the teachers to promote students asking questions (M2) inthe teaching and learning process in science in the implementation of the C 13.
3. To know the ability of the teachers to guide students in collecting data (M3) inthe teaching and learning process in science in the implementation of the C 13.
4. To know the ability of the teachers to guide students in analyzing data (M4) inthe teaching and learning process in science in the implementation of the C 13.
5. To know the ability of the teachers to develop student ability in communicating the results of their learning (M5) inthe teaching and learning process in science in the implementation of the C 13.
Design
The design of the research was a survey, to depict the ability of the the teachers in performing scientific approach through 5Ms in the implementation of the C13. The research was conducted during monitoring and assisting the schools from 2013-2015. The data were taken on the first year of the school implementation of the C13 in 7 regencies, including Gunungkidul, Kulon Progo, Kota Yogyakarta, Cilacap, Pati, Bangka Belitung, and Hulu Sungai Tengah. There were 3-6 schools in each regencies. Subject of the research
The subjects of this research included (1) 33 school principals/vice principals for curriculum affairs, (3) 200 teachers, and (4) 200 students. The subjects come from 33 junior high schools, from the seven regencies in Indonesia. The teachers were 170 classroom teachers that implemented the curriculum and 30 mentors teachers that assisted the classroom teachers.
Procedure
The procedure of the research were including survey, FGD, interview, and observation. The survey usedquestionnaires with politomous options. The instrumentswere sent to the respondents a week prior to surveyor coming. The respondents fill the instrument and the surveyor then check the validity in term of the concordance of the respond to the real condition in schools by making discussion with the respondents. To get information about learning process, surveyor sits in the classroom for one period of lesson for each teacher and record the teaching-learning process. To get information about the existence of students and teacher books and also teacher training, the surveyor make an interview with school principals and vice principals for curriculum affair. To get information about the learning process, the surveyor also make an interview with students in groups. To study the lesson plans and instrument of assessment, the surveyor uses document study.
Instrument
The instrument of the research were questionaires, interview guideline, and observation checklists. The instruments were mostly developed by the Directorate of Junior High School Development Management for curriculum monitoring purposes. An interview guidance was used to get more information from the principles/vice principals, teachers and students related to the impelementation of the C13. A checkist with observation notes was used to observe the teaching and learning process in the classroom.
Data analysis technique
Data analyses were mainly using desciptive quantitative methods. Data from interviews with principals and vice principals were analyzed descriptively concerning the number of teachers that have training on the C13, the number of assistant teachers, the readiness of the books, etc. From this data the researcher try to give questionneirs to the teachers and assistant teachers and to sit in in their classroom who implement the C13. The data rom the questionneirs then were analyzed using desciptive statistics.
Results
The implementation fo scientific approach of 5Ms
Using Natural phenomena Problematic Realistic
12.5 9
51.5
53 42.5
32
34.5 48.5
16.5
[image:5.595.125.447.89.245.2]M1 Good M1 Moderate M1 Bad
Figure 1. The percentage of teachers and their ability implementing M1.
Figure 1 shows that most teachers are able to use natural a phenomenon (12,5% good, 53% moderate, and 34,5% bad). For example, the teacher ask students to present body movements, then they ask students to observe what joints that work in that movements. The phenomena the teachers present mostly realistic, they exist in real life contexs (51,5 good, 32% moderate, and 16,5% bad). However, the phenomena the teachers present are not problemeatic (48,5% bad, 42,5% moderate, and 9% good).
The M2 is questioning, where students ask questions to know more about the phenomenon they observe. Students may ask W questions, such as what, where, and when. They may also ask WH questions, such as why and how. The best question is hypothetic question such as an if.... then... formula. The results of the asking question is presented bellow (Figure 2).
Promoting W questions Asking WH Questions Asking hipotetic questions
53.5 9
4
31.5 43
43.5
15 48 52.5
[image:5.595.132.483.479.635.2]M2 Good M2 Moderate M2 Bad
Figure 2. The percentage of teachers that promote students to ask questions.
The M3 is an activity to collect information. In science class students may do an experiment or do a field exploration to get data. The M3consists of three levels: Measuring/colecting data, Recording in table form, and Using simple statistics. The result is shown in Figure 3.
Measuring/Collect data Recording in table forms Using simple statistics
34 28 4
42.5 43 42.5
23.5 29 53.5
[image:6.595.128.480.151.305.2]M3 Good M3 Moderate M3 Bad
Figure 3. The percentage of teachers that promote students in doing M3.
Figure 3 shows that the ability of the teacher to promote students activity in collecting data (M3) is moderate (42,5% moderate). However, the data mostly are not organized in a table form (43% moderate, and 29% bad), and it is not analyzed using a simple statistic (53,5%). In this case, it is concluded that most students collect data but the data are not well organized.
The M4 is an activity to analyse data. This activity include three activities: read data, relate variables, and contruct conclussions. Most teachers do not able to promote students in reading data (43% moderate, 29% bad), do not relate variables (43% moderate, 47% bad), but they ask students to draw conclussions (52% good, and 42,5% moderate). It means that students draw conclusion mostly from inferring not from analyzing data (Figure 4)
Read dat
a
Rela te v
aria bles
Cons truct
conc lusio
ns
28 10 52
43
43
42.5
29 47 5.5
[image:6.595.191.471.512.678.2]M4 Good M4 Moderate M4 Bad
Figure 4.Percentage of teachersthat promotes students in analyzing data.
Presenting orally Writing a report Making a product 54.5
5.5 1
42
43
22.5 3.5
51.5
76.5
[image:7.595.130.478.108.290.2]Good Moderate Bad
Figure 5. the ability of teachers to promote students ability in communicating the results of their learning.
Scientific Approach Difficulty
The difficuty of the teachers in implementing the scientific approach in the teaching and learning process is as follow.
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
22.7
27.8
24.9
16.7
[image:7.595.72.441.438.594.2]7.9
Figure 6. Teachers’ overall constrains in implementing scientific method through 5 Ms(%)
Figure 6 shows that the biggest constrains of the teachers in implementing the scientific approach is the M2 (asking questions) (27.8%), followed by M3(collecting data or experimenting) (24.9%), M1 (observing) (22.7%), M4(analyzing data) (16.7%), and M5(communicating) (7.9%).
The use of ICT
access, 60.5% is moderate, and 13.5% is bad. Thus, the ICT condition is not appropriately supported the implementation of the C13. In the millenium education goals, IT will helps teachers bring the worlds, even “underworld”, to the students (Hannafin, 1999). The use of computer as multi media or computer-based simulations is needed to make students see the world or microorganism and processes. The use of multimedia in particular have been seen as being able to provide for authenticity and for "hands-on" experiences even in areas where schools cannot be expected to provide the respective "real" environment for learning (Alessi &Trollip, 2001).
Discussion
The implementation of the C13, specifically in the implementation of scientific method with 5 Ms still faces many problems. The teacher may not have sufficient knowledge on the basic concepts of the curriculum. This finding is resemble with the chinese teachers when implementing the new curriculum (Zhang, L., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, Y., 2014). They state that teachers don’t understand well of the connotation, denotation, and relevant theories of curriculum network resources in the class.
In implementing M1, the teacher mostly ask students to read or to watch pictures in the book. Some teachers bring objects and ask students to observe. However, they mostly do not able to present a problematic phenomenon that stimulate students to ask questions. For example, the teacher shows a pictures of people suffering from a drugg abuse. Indeed the pictures are very good and relevant to the topic of addictive and aditive substances, but the teachers do not pose a problem to study. The teachers should guide students to observe some important problem to study. In this case the teacher may say “Let focus on the characteristics of the people that abuse druggs”, “Can you notice, the effects of druggs abused?”, etc. In addition, some teachers are confused between observing in the M1 and in the M3. The observing in the M1 is to pose a problematic phenomenon that stimulates students to ask questions as it is in the scientific method (Chiappeta & Koballa, 2010). It is different from observing in the M3 which is proposed to get data from an experiment or an exploration. It means that most of the teachers fail to highlight the main problems that will be solved by students in the learning process. This condition lead to the next problem, that is less students to ask a question.
The implementation of M2 (Asking questions) is still dominated by the teacher in asking question, not students asking questions. The teacher mostly asks questions because students face difficulties in asking questions. The teachers give opportunities to the students to ask a question. However, only very little do students ask a question. In average the number of students who ask a questions is less than 3%. This because they are not accustomed to ask questions nor because the teachers do not present a problematic phenomenon that rise student motivation to ask questions. The data also shows that the students mostly asking W questions, such as what, where, and when; but less question on why and how. It means that the stuents still have difficulties in performing higher order thinking skills (HOTS). It needs some trining for the teachers to promote student ability in performing higher order thinking.
The implementation of M3 (Collecting data) is moderate (42,5%). The teachers mostly use tablea or forms of data that already available in the students’ book (43% moderate). However, the teachers are very rare to organize data using a simple statistic model such as total, mean, minimum, maximum, and mode in order to ease students in analyzing the data (53.5%). The students also try to get information from internet by using computers. However, the number of students who access internet is still low because the limitation of internet access in schools and the limitation in the number of students who have laptop computers.
Conclusion
From the results and discussion, there are several conclusions inffered from this research, including:
1.
Implication
The implementation of the C13 will succeed if the following aspects are respectively taken into account. 1.
References
Alessi, S. M., &Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn &Bacon. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Castaneda, S.F., Holscher, J., Mumman, M.K., Salgado, H., Keir, K.B., Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Talavera, G.A. (2011). Dimensions of Community and Organizational Readiness for Change. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. Vol. 6 (2), pp: 219-226
Cavdar, G., & Doe, S. (2012). Learning through Writing: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Writing Assignments. The Teacher. Pp: 298-306
Chandler, L.J. (2001). Implementing Readiness Control Measurements: Defining the Change Challenge Within a MEF. Marine Corps Gazett. Vol. 85, No. 9, pp: 65-66
Chan, Jacqueline Kin-Sang (2010). Teachers’ responses to curriculum policy implementation: colonial constraints for curriculum reform. Educ Research Policy Practice (2010) 9:93–106
Cheung, A.C.K., & Wong P.M. (2011). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Curriculum Reform in Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Management. Vol. 26, No. 1, pp: 39-54. February.
Chiappeta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2010). Science Instruction in The Middle & Secondary Schools. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Craft, Heddi & Bland, Paul D. 2004. Ensuring Lessons Teach the Curriculum with a Lesson Plan Resource. The Clearing House; Nov/Dec 2004; 78, 2; ProQuest. p. 88
Depdikbud, 2014. Peratuan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 58 Tahun 2014 Tentang Kurikulum 2013 Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Ediger, Marlow. 2004. Psychology Of Lesson Plans And Unit Development. ProQuest Education JournalsofReading Improvement; Winter 2004; 41, 4;. pg. 197
Jacobs, Christina L., Martin, Sonya N., & Otieno, Tracey C. 2007. “A Science Lesson Plan Analysis Instrument for Formative and Summative Program Evaluation of a Teacher Education Program.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, April 15-18, 2007, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Haskins, P. J., S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 475-499.
Hannafin, M. (1999). Learning in open-ended environments: Tools and technologies for the next millennium.
O'Donnell, Carol L .2008. Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Fidelity of Implementation and Its Relationship to Outcomes in K-12 Curriculum Intervention. Review of Educational Research; Mar 2008; 78, p.33.
Zhang, L., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2014). A Study on Problems and Strategies of
