Main Article Content

Abstract

The development and implementation of language teaching programs can be approached in several different ways, each of which has different implications for curriculum design. Indonesian schools have started modernizing their curricula by adopting a backward design that places an emphasis on students' learning outcomes in order to replace the outdated forward paradigm. They must, however, overcome a difficulty in order to achieve a beneficial alignment. This problem spurred a case study examination of the primary curriculum's objectives, syllabus, methodology, and evaluation. The results of the research indicate that the curriculum was created forward, despite claims that it was designed backward, with learning outcomes acting as program goals. In truth, the one that follows it promotes the exchange of knowledge above the development of skills. Since they still relied on information transmission, the program's learning goals were not linked with the three important components of syllabus, methodology, and assessment. The university's innovation of technique including a transfer in emphasis from the lecturer to the students was nonetheless rigidly and mechanically interpreted, and the assessment of student learning was said to be criterion-referenced without more explanation for each syllabus.

Keywords

Curriculum Approach Teaching English

Article Details

How to Cite
Selja Putri, E., & Kardena, A. (2022). Curriculum Approach used in Teaching English : A Case Study. JADEs Journal of Academia in English Education, 3(2), 236-251. https://doi.org/10.32505/jades.v3i2.4642

References

  1. Family, N., & Surveys, H. (1861). National Family Health Surveys; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; Panel Study of Income Dynamics; Surveys, Sample. 213–215.
  2. Green, A. (2014). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. London, UK: Routledge.
  3. Johnson, R. K. (1989). The second language curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Kemendikbud RI. Press workshop: Implementasi kurikulum 2013. , Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia (2014).
  5. Kardena, A. (2015). CHANGE OF CURRICULUM AND ITS IMPLICATION ON TEACHERS'PERFORMANCE IN EFL CLASSROOM. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 3, 46-51.
  6. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  8. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Prihantoro, C. R. (2014). The perspective of curriculum in Indonesia on environmental education. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2014.915
  10. Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., & Nugraha, A. C. (2016). Vocational high school teachers’ difficulties in implementing the assessment in curriculum 2013 in Yogyakarta Province of Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 33–48.
  11. Richards, J. C. (1985). Language curriculum development. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/38633/1/Richards%20(1985)_WP4(1).pdf
  12. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33. doi:10.1177/0033688212473293
  13. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. University of Bedfordshire. (n.d.). Syllabus of English syntax. LNG022-3, University of Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire, U.K.
  14. White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation and management. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
  15. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.