Materials Development in 2013 Curriculum & KTSP: Teachers

Understanding & Challenges

By Nurfitri Habibi
Abstract
The importance of materials to create an effective language instructional process requires
teachers to be capable of developing meaningful materials. However, in Indonesia context,
the ability of teachers in developing materials is still far beyond expectation. Therefore, the
study, involving four English secondary teachers in Bandung, aims to investigate English
teachers understanding in developing materials with respect to the 2013 Curriculum and
KTSP. The study also intends to find out the challenges encountered in the process of
materials development. A descriptive qualitative design was utilized in the study to get indepth description of the issues being investigated. All of the necessary data collected from a
focused interview, assigned as an instrument of the study, were categorized and analyzed
descriptively related to theories of materials development. The findings shows some of the
teachers investigated have sufficient knowledge in developing materials related to both
curriculums. The knowledge includes material development process, aspects to consider, and
strategies in developing materials. In addition, various challenges were faced by teachers
during materials development process. The study recommends teachers to understand
materials blueprint of curriculum to develop materials. In addition, it offers researchers to
investigate other subject and object of similar topic for the development of theory and
practice in materials development.
Key words: material development, materials blueprint, teachers understanding
A. INTRODUCTION
Materials and language teaching process are significant and inseparable issues in language
education. In language instructional process, materials are considered as a key component
(Richards, 2001). Teachers need materials as tools to facilitate the language instructional
process in the classroom (Tomlinson, 2001), so they can establish effective instructional
environment that support the achievement of learning objectives. Due to its importance in
language learning process, teachers ability in developing the materials is greatly demanded.
However, some of language teachers in Indonesia seem to take for granted in materials
development and implementation. They rely heavily on the textbook published or given by
the government to support language instructional process (Lengkanawati, Setyarini, Sari, &
Moecharam, 2015; Harsono, 2007). Although the use of textbook in the classroom is
considered easy and simple (Tomlinson, 2001), yet learning materials, which are really
suitable with the learners needs and objectives, are not always available (Harsono, 2007;
Brown, 1995). Therefore, this dependence sounds not very good. It shows that language
teachers skill in developing materials that are suitable with the information from need
analysis and curriculum objectives seem inadequate.
1

Moreover, this incapability of developing suitable materials indicates that teachers have
not yet complied with the rule stated in Permendikbud No. 16 (2007). In regards to this
policy, the ability to develop and to select learning materials is considered as one of
indicators in professional competence that should be possessed by Indonesian teachers. In
this case, teachers should be able to comprehend, interpret, and develop the materials in
respect to learning experience and to curriculum objective; hence, they can implement them
in the classroom successfully.
Since the development of materials is led, one of which, by the curriculum objective,
the process of designing and developing material might be changing due to the curriculum
changing in Indonesia. For example, the materials blueprint of KTSP will differ from the
one of 2013 curriculum. As Brown (1995) states the contents of an instructional blueprint
may vary across curriculum, depending on the relevancy of the needs and objectives of the
curriculum program. In other words, Brown further claims the description of the approach,
syllabus, teaching techniques, teaching exercise, needs, goals, materials, and program
evaluation of particular curriculum will be different.
Studies on designing materials have been conducted in Indonesia by Lengkanawati,
Setyarini, Sari, & Moecharam (2015); Harsono (2007); Sukarni, Winarni, & Nirmayanti,
(2009); and Mukundan (2005). Those studies, generally, focused on improving teachers
ability in devloping teaching materials. Specifically, those efforts were done by developing
models of in-house training (Lengkanawati, Setyarini, Sari, & Moecharam, 2015), by
conducting action resarch in order to change teachers mind set of a teachers
professionalism (Sukarni, Winarni, & Nirmayanti, 2009), by providing insight description in
designing English materials for specific purposes (Harsono, 2007), and by discussing the
importance of the curriculum developers, materials developers, and teachers awarenness in
percieving the connections between language and cross-cultural understanding in developing
materials (Mukundan, 2005).
Regarding the condition and the studies aformentioned, it seems that the importance of
knowing teachers understanding on developing materials which is cosistent with the
curriculum should be eloborated. This is due to the fact that the investigation of teachers
skills in developing materials with respect to comparing two recent curricula in indonesia
has not conducted yet. Therefore, the present study aims at (1) portraying to what extent the
teachers knowledge in terms of the process of developing materials in 2013 curriculum and
KTSP (School Based Curriculum) as well as (2) revealing the challenges faced by teachers
in developing materials in both 2013 curriculum and KTSP.
2

Research questions
In accordance with the background of the study, the study attempts to answer the following
research questions:
1.

How do English teachers understand the process of developing materials in 2013

2.

curriculum and KTSP?

What are English teachers problems in developing materials in 2013 curriculum and
KTSP?

Significance of the study

This study hopefully will give some contributions to language practice and policy. In terms of
practice, this study will give illustration to English teachers the process of developing
teaching materials that is in line with the existing curriculum. By doing so, their awareness on
the important aspects that they have to consider and their skills in developing teaching
materials will improve. In terms of policy, by knowing the problems faced by teachers and
their understanding in developing materials, policy maker can establish a clear blueprint of
materials development and enhance the training in developing teaching materials, so teachers
will use it as reference in developing their teaching materials.
Definition of terms
There are some terms related to the study that should be defined, which are:
1.

Materials development, according to Harsono (2007,p. 173), includes three stages: the
design, implementation, and evaluation of teaching materials. However, in this study,

2.

the materials developement represents the idea of teaching materials design.

Materials blueprint, according to Brown (1995) is considered as a map of designing
teaching materials. It elaborates the information that should be considered and known
by teachers before they start developing materials; hence, they can produce effective
materials that fit to the programs or curriculums intention.

B. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section will discuss three aspectsrelated theory underpinning the study, related
previous research, and concluding remarks. Those will be elaborated as follow.
1. Related Theory
3

There are three main related theories shaping the study, which are materials development,
materials development in 2013 curriculum, and materials development in KTSP.
Materials Development
A material is one of language curriculum components. Teachers with reference to the
information gathered from three componentsneeds analysis, goals and objectives, and test,
design it (Brown, 1995). Furthermore, Brown (1995) adds designing materials is not only
considering the information collected from those curriculum elements, but also it should
consider the teaching activities components, such as approach, syllabus, techniques, and
exercises. Therefore, teachers are assisted to deal rationally with the process of how teaching
activities components work together with what has been learned in need analysis, goals, and
testing stages of curriculum development.
The consideration of those two components will coin a materials blueprint or show the
process of developing materials. The process of materials development are (1) knowing
background of the program, (2) understanding curriculum description, (3) doing needs
assessment, (4) determining goals and objectives, (5) selecting materials, (6) developing
activities, and (7) evaluating (Brown, 1995; Hedge, 2000; and Graves, 1996, in Faridi, 2008).
Moreover, in the process of developing good language materials, teachers should also
consider the following principles, which are proposed by Crowford (2002; in Lengkanawati,
Setyarini, Sari, & Moecharam, 2015, p. 37-38):
1) The language context in language materials,
2) Materials form and focus, in which it should be in a complex text and it is used directly
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

with a focus on meaning,

The utilization of authentic and realistic language in teaching materials,
The utilization of audio-visual in presenting teaching materials in class,
The assignment of proportional writing and oral activities,
The encouragement of learners autonomy in teaching materials,
The flexibility of teaching materials to accommodate individual and contextual

differences, and
8) Materials content, in which it should be content-wise that strengthen the involvement of
the learners to relate their personal experience and what they have learned.
Materials Development in 2013 Curriculum
The 2013 curriculum is a new curriculum, which is being implemented in Indonesia. As
stated in Pemendikbud no. 58 and 59 (2014), it is a continuation and development of KBK
(competence based curriculum). The purpose of developing the 2013 Curriculum is preparing
young learners to deal with any challenges and competences needs in 21st century
4

(Kemendikbud, 2012). In other words, it leads young learners to be productive, innovative,

creative, and affective individual by strengthen their affective, knowledge, and skill in an
integrated manner.
Due to the intention, the approach used in the 2013 Curriculum, especially English
subject, is competence-based, genre-based, and scientific approach (Pemendikbud No, 58 &
59, 2014). Competence-based deals with how an English instructional process includes three
competenciesaffective, knowledge, and skill. Genre-based approach will be a basis of
materials development, which aims at providing communicative, meaningful, and relevant
instructional process to the context of learners lives (Kemendikbud, 2014). In addition,
genre-based approach is realized by utilizing texts in instructional process to achieve some
purposes, i.e. communicating information, procedural information, and conceptual
information (deals with the understanding of social function, generic structure, and linguistic
features). Scientific approach will determine the process or stages of English instruction, in
which it has to include observing, questioning, exploring, associating, and communicating.
In regards to the approaches, the materials used in the classroom should be able to
accommodate the approaches and the aims of the programs. They should be able to activate
the learner-centered, not only focus on conceptual knowledge, not heavily rely on textbook,
and not only use written pattern (Permendikbud No. 58 & 59, 2014). Therefore, the teachers
have to develop the materials in the 2013 Curriculum with respect to the following
consideration (Kemendikbud, 2014; Permendikbud No. 58 & 59, 2014):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Learners potential
Relevancy to the local area characteristics
Meaningfulness for learners
The development of learners physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual,
Actuality, expandability, depth of materials
Relevancy to students needs and environmental needs,
The relevancy to situational and cultural context,
Allocated time

In addition, the materials should be developed in 2013 Curriculum by considering the

following principles (Palupi, 2016):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Contextual teaching materials

Integrated teaching materials
The importance of language in teaching materials
Development of Critical thinking in materials
Data-based teaching materials
Creative teaching materials
The organization of teaching materials
5

Those aspects and principles are taken into account during materials development
process. The detail process of developing materials in 2013 Curriculum is not explicitly
stated in any documents, yet teachers should develop the materials from the textbook
suggested by government. The textbook is developed by synchronizing the information
gathered from needs analysis and the information of syllabus analysis that reflects core
competence and basic competence (KI-KD), objectives of the program, language content,
learning activities, and evaluations.
Materials Development in KTSP
KTSP (School-based curriculum) is an operational curriculum that is designed and
implemented in each school. It is developed with respect to schools condition and situation.
As stated in UU No. 20 Year 2003, curriculum should be developed by considering some
principles, which are in line with school situation, regional potential, and learners
characteristics (Permendiknas No. 22, 2006). Although it is developed in regard to school
authority, KTSP development should also consider competence standard and basic
competence developed by government or BNSP (Badan Nasional Satuan Pendidikan). The
aim of KTSP implementation (BSNP, 2006) is to improve the quality of education through
the independency and initiation of school in developing curriculum, managing, and
empowering available sources. To achieve the aim of KTSP, teacher, one of which, is
expected to be capable of developing teaching materials (Permendiknas No. 41, 2007), by
considering curriculum demands, learners target characteristics, and problems in
understanding abstract concepts (Depdiknas, 2008).

Curriculum demands deal with the

approach applied in the curriculum and the general goals of the curriculum. In English
subject, the approach applied is communicative approach; therefore, students are expected to
be able to communicate in both oral and written form at functional and informational level
for secondary level.
There are several steps in developing materials in KTSP (Fadillah, 2012). The first step
is analyzing SK-KD. By analyzing SK-KD, teachers are able to formulate indicators or
objectives. Knowing the indicators and the objectives means teachers can identify what
learning materials that should be taught. The next step is deciding the learning experiences or
activities. By assigning the learning experience, teachers can determined what kind of
materials, e.g. textbook, module, worksheet, etc. that should be utilized in achieving the
objectives or the goals of the program. Those processes have already implicitly considered

the curriculum demands, learners target characteristics, and problems in understanding

abstract concepts.
2. Related Research
Research on materials development is not considered a new issue in education. It has been
conducted in either Indonesian context or overseas context. In Indonesian context, the studies
on materials development were conducted by Lengkanawati, Setyarini, Sari, & Moecharam
(2015); Harsono (2007); and Sukarni, Winarni, & Nirmayanti (2009). Meanwhile, in overseas
context, the studies were conducted by Holguin & Morales (2014), Beatty (2012), and Davis
& Krajcik (2005).
Lengkanawati, Setyarini, Sari, & Moecharam (2015) investigated the teachers
perception towards the importance of materials development and teachers materials
implementation in the classroom. It aimed at developing effective IHT (In house training) in
developing materials in Indonesia schools. It was found that teachers tended to use textbook
as the main sources of material selection, with some enrichment from the internet or other
sources. In other word, generally, teachers agreed that materials development is important,
however, they still found some difficulties in developing suitable materials. Therefore, an
IHT model served as an effective alternative program to improve the ability of teachers in
developing English teaching-learning materials.
Harsono (2007) expressed that designing English materials for meeting specific
purposes is very curcial. The significance is due to unavailabilty of suitable materials for
some areas of profession. Therefore, he suggested some principles, the procedure, and the
practical in developing learning materials for ESP.
Sukarni, Winarni, & Nirmayanti (2009) conducted action research to potray teachers
professionalism through materials development. In the research, teachers were asked to
develop materials for X grade by following curriculum pathways of the National Plus High
using the information technology facilities. Then, those materials were tried out in classroom
action research. The result shows that the materials created are understood by students. It
indicates that the teachers professionalism during classroom action research can be seen.
Holguin & Morales (2014) investiagted the reasons, benefits, and challenges for
teachers in developing materials in Columbia context. The findings show that the reasons
teachers develop materials are due to the necessity of engaging students in language learning,
the need for teachers to become agent of change, and the opportunity for teachers to work
towards inclusive education. In terms of benefits, teachers agree that the benefits are recieved
7

both by teacher and students. For teachers, it improves their understanding and skill, while
for students, their engagement in the classroom can easily be created. Regarding challenges,
it is found that teachers should overcome various needs of the students, be able to achieve
high quality of materials produced, find supportive environment, accomplish an effective
evaluation process of the materials, and become aware that designing materials is a scientific
discipline in language teaching.
Beatty (2012) outlined some consideration in designing textbook series for young
learners. Those considerations includes the views of language learning i.e., communicative
approach, a notional functional syllabus, comprehensible input and output, task chains,
learner-centeredness, the negotiated curriculum, and autonomy. Such aspect would be a basis
for creating material for young learners.
Davis & Krajcik (2005) explored how educative curriculum material be designed to
best promote teachers learning and what teachers might engage with the look of educative
curriculum material. It is shown that the educative curriculum design that best promote
teachers learning should be built and organized based on the ideas of teacher learning and the
heuristics around important parts of a teachers knowledge basesubject matter knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge for topics, and pedagogical content knowledge for
disciplinary practices. In addition, this educative curriculum design might play important
roles in some aspects. First, it helps teachers in interpreting and anticipating students
response in the instructional activity. Second, it could support teachers learning on subject
matters. Third, it helps teachers to consider some means to relate units during the years.
Fourth, it makes the developers pedagogical judgment visible. Fifth, it helps promote
teachers pedagogical design capacity or their ability to use personal resources or support
attached in the curriculum.
3. Concluding Remarks
This section has elaborated the theories underlying the study and some related previous
research on materials development. Since it focuses on materials development with respect to
two valid curricula, i.e. 2013 Curriculum and KTSP, in Indonesia, the possible theories
shaping the study are about materials development theory; how materials are developed in
2013 curriculum; and how materials are developed in KTSP. In addition, some related
previous studies on materials development found both in Indonesian context and overseas
context are considered appropriate in contributing the enrichment of the information.
Referring to those theories and previous studies, the questions about English teachers
8

understanding in developing materials in 2013 curriculum and KTSP as well as the

challenges faced by English teachers in developing materials with respect to both curricula
can be revealed. Those theories and previous related research lead the study in answering the
research questions.
C. METHODOLOGY
This section will elaborate the methodology employed in the study. The explanation of the
section will comprise design of the study, participant assignment, instruments selection,
procedure of data collection, and data analysis procedure.
Design
This study employed descriptive qualitative study, in which it aims to describe teachers
understanding of materials development process that is in line with 2013 curriculum and
KTSP in depth. In addition, it describes the challenges faced by the teachers in developing
teaching materials consistent with 2013 curriculum and KTSP. In regards to those purpose,
the design used is perceived as an appropriate method, since it is clearly aimed at
understanding the meaning and significance of actions, which is, developing teaching
materials with reference to curriculum, from perspective of those involved in the actions,
which is teachers (Richards, 2003, p. 10), in depth (Yin, 2011).
Participant
The participants involved in the study were four English teachers in secondary school in
Bandung, in which those participants were chosen purposively (Sugiyono, 2013). These four
teachers were chosen due to their teaching experience and their training experience in
developing materials. In terms of teaching experience, they have taught English more than
7 years. It means they have taught under two curriculaKTSP and 2013 curriculum. In
terms of training experience, their involvement in some training regarding teaching materials
development varies, classified into two categoriesteachers who have never attended
training in materials development and teachers who have ever attended training in materials
development.

Instrumentation
As this study was under descriptive qualitative study, there are some instruments, which are
considered appropriate to collect the data. One of which is interview (Creswell, 2003). A
9

focused interview was used in the study to collect information concering intended topics
(1) teachers understanding on 2013 currciulum and KTSP and materials development
process in both curriculums; (2) aspects that should be considered in developing materials in
curriculum 2013 and KTSP; (3) strategies of developing materials employed by teachers in
curriculum 2013 and KTSP; and (4) some problems faced by teachers in developing
materials in 2013 curriculum and KTSP.
Data collection procedure
In collecting the necessary data, there were five steps conducted. First, formulating guided
questions for interviews, which utilized a set of open-ended question. Second, find the
appropriate participants that complied with the requirementshave experienced 2013
curriculum and KTSP and their various involvement frequency in materials development
training. Third, arrange the schedule and the setting to interview the selected participants.
Fourth, conduct interview which ranged from 10 to 15 minutes in length. Fifth, the answers
of participants were then recorded during the interview.
Data Analysis
After the data from the interview have been collected, those data were analyzed through
three stages described by Miles and Huberman (1994). The first step is data reduction, in
which it aims to edit, select, and summarize the information related to the purpose of the
study, i.e. provide the description of teachers knowledge and challenge in the process of
teaching material development with respect to 2013 curriculum and KTSP. The second step
is data display, in which the selected data were organized and compared based on the
curriculums. The third step is analyzing and drawing the conclusion by corresponding to
each elements found in the previous stages and related theory.
D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
There are two questions that are going to be addressed in the study. The presentation of the
findings and discussion will reflect to those two questions: teachers understanding in
developing materials and the problems in developing materials with respect to two curricula
in Indonesia, i.e., 2013 Curriculum and KTSP.

1.

Teachers Understanding in Developing Materials

10

The explanation of teachers understanding in developing materials will highlight some

points, which are aspects that should be considered in developing materials in 2013
Curriculum and KTSP, the materials development stages in both curriculums, and the
strategies that they use in developing material. Those aspects describe teachers
understanding in developing material with regard to both curricula.
Respondent 1 is a teacher who is not certified yet, never attends materials development
training, and has taught for 10 years in a state school. He reported that there is no difference
in developing materials both in 2013 curriculum and in KTSP. He said that the stages of
developing materials in both curriculums are creating, teaching, and evaluating. In addition,
he stated that goals, objectives, learners characteristics, and practicality for the students
become the aspects for his consideration in developing materials in both curriculums. Due to
the stages and important aspects that he believes in, he argued that developing authentic
materials is very important for both curriculums in order to clearer students understanding
from the materials taken from textbook. It means, he basically still adopts the materials from
the textbook, yet for enhancing students understanding, he uses authentic materials.
Based on the answers of Respondent 1, it indicates that Respondent 1 has limited
knowledge on how to develop materials in both 2013 Curriculum and KTSP. He knows main
aspects, such as goals, objectives, learners characteristics, and practicality, that should be
considered in developing materials in general in both curriculums. However, he does not
express that the materials should be developed from the interaction between the need
analysis, objectives of the program, approach, syllabus, techniques, and exercises (Brown,
1995). The inadequacy of Respondent in developing materials might be due to his lack
understanding in differentiating the aims, ideology, and rationale underpinning 2013
Curriculum and KTSP.
Respondent 2 is a teacher who has been teaching for 13 years in a private school, is
certified, yet never attends any training in materials development. He admitted that he does
not know the process of developing material step-by-step in both curriculums. However, he
thinks that basically, there is no significance difference between the stages of developing
materials in 2013 Curriculum and KTSP. The process of materials development should begin
from understanding the message of the curriculum (the document such as rationale, core
competence, basic competence, syllabus, learning process, assessment etc.), analyzing
students needs, determining goals and objectives, determining different kinds of techniques,
tasks, or exercises that are in line with the curriculum and students needs, and evaluating the
lesson objectives. He stated that the item differs 2013 Curriculum from KTSP is an
11

understanding of curriculum information in terms of competencies. He said In 2013

curriculum, competencies that should be understood are core competence and basic
competence, while in KTSP, competencies that should be understood are standard
competence and basic competence. Moreover, due to his understanding of materials
development stages in both curriculums, he claimed that aspects that should be taken into
account in developing materials in 2013 Curriculum and KTSP are the information of
curriculum, goals and objectives, students needs, methods, evaluation. In addition, he uttered
that the strategy that he used in developing materials is adopting a textbook. He believes that
the textbook represents the implemented curriculum. Therefore, he only takes additional
materials from other sources if the content of the textbook cannot be explained clearly. As he
said It depends on whether the content of the textbook I used can be understood by students
or not. If not, I usually find some materials from other sources.
Respondent 2 articulates his understanding in developing materials in a good manner.
He knows precisely in what aspects both curriculums differ in terms of materials
development process. He can deal rationally with the process of how teaching activities
components work together with what has been learned in need analysis, goals, and testing
stages of curriculum development (Brown, 1995). This adequate understanding in developing
materials is reflected from aspects that he considers in developing materials.
Respondent 3 is a teacher who has been teaching in a state school for 7 years, is
certified, and ever attends training in materials development for more than two times. She
explained that in developing materials in 2013 curriculum, she knows that it should be based
on the curriculum information, syllabus, and textbook that have been developed by
government. In this case, teachers only teach what have been stated in the syllabus by
utilizing the textbook given. Meanwhile, in KTSP, materials are developed with reference to
the syllabus that is developed by teachers and the approach used by teachers in teaching. In
regards to her understanding in developing materials in 2013 curriculum and KTSP, she
stated that the aspects that should be considered in developing materials are objectives that is
going to be achieved, the dominant approach used, and students proficiency background. To
comply with the considerable aspects in developing materials, she added that strategies used
in developing materials are adapting and developing. It is because she argued that in
adopting materials, there are some aspects that are not related to students need and
condition. Therefore, she prefers to adapt some materials or develop materials (if she found
difficult concept) instead of adopting.

12

The answer of Respondent 3 also shows that she has enough understanding how
materials are developed in both curriculums. She knows that government has provided
syllabus and textbook based on the purposes of 2013 curriculum; while in KTSP, she knows
that the materials is developed from the interpretation of syllabus created in each institution.
In addition, she knows that in 2013 curriculum, teachers are not allowed to heavily rely on
textbook (Permendikbud No. 58 & 59, 2014), so she is rather adapt or develop materials than
adopt materials.
Respondent 4 is a teacher who is not certified, yet has been teaching for 7 years in two
private schools and has attended training in developing materials for three times. He stated
that in 2013 curriculum, materials are developed by (1) identifying students characteristic,
(2) choosing basic competence which is derived from core competence, (3) selecting the
method and techniques, and (4) choose appropriate materials. Meanwhile, he argued that
materials development process in KTSP is quite different. In KTSP, it is eliminating the
identification of students characteristic and choosing standard competence and basic
competence. Regarding the process that he believes as the process of developing materials,
some aspect that should be considered in developing materials in 2013 curriculum is students
characteristics, students need, approach of the program, and goals of the program. On the
other side, in KTSP, materials are developed by considering only the syllabus made by
institution. Moreover, in developing materials, he prefers to adapt the materials from some
sources, especially the source that provides authentic materials in developing materials in
2013 curriculum and KTSP. He only uses textbook as a supplement material, not as primary
source of material selection. As he said, I only use 30 % materials from the textbook to
additional exercise and 70% from authentic materials to deal with providing meaningful
instructional process.
Regarding Respondent 4 understanding in developing materials, in my opinion, there is
misunderstanding in terms of identification of learners characteristics in KTSP. He said that
in KTSP, teachers do not identify students characteristic during the materials development
process. In fact, KTSP should be developed by considering some principles, which are in line
with school situation, regional potential, and learners characteristics (Permendiknas No. 22,
2006); hence, the identification of learners characteristic is pivotal point. However, overall
understanding of Respondent 4 is more adequate than Respondent 1 and 3. He also
understand that in 2013 Curriculum, teachers should develop materials that serve
meaningfulness for the learners (Palupi, 2016). Therefore, he is not depended on textbook.

13

2.

Problems in Developing materials

There are some problems that are faced by all of respondents in developing materials in 2013
Curriculum and KTSP. Those problems are the lack of knowledge, the lack of references, the
lack of training involvement, the difficulty in accomplishing an effective evaluation process
of the materials produced in materials development, the students refusal in buying some
textbooks, and the difficulty in complying with various needs of the students.
Respondent 1 stated that the problems in developing materials with respect to both
curriculum are inadequacy of his knowledge and reference. As he stated I have limited
knowledge and access of references in developing materials, since I never come to materials
development trainings. These problems clearly reflect the reasons behind his inadequate
understanding of developing materials. Although He claimed that he always shares with his
colleagues in overcoming the problems, it does not mean he really solves his problems.
Respondent 2 declared that although he is a certified teacher, he never comes to any
training relating to materials development. He said, Although I am a certified and
experienced teacher, I have never had training in materials development. Therefore, to
overcome his problem, he continues his study to post-graduated study. It indicates that his
well understanding of materials development in both curriculums is due to educational factor
that he experiences.
Respondent 3 admitted that in 2013 curriculum, she has difficulty in accomplishing an
effective evaluation process of the materials produced. She claimed that it is difficult to
evaluate to what extend the materials developed have already facilitated language learning ;
hence, the real outcomes can be percieved. This problem is in line with one of the challenge
found by Holguin & Morales (2014) in Columbia context. Meanwhile, in KTSP, she claimed
that sometimes she needs various textbook to be used in the classroom as a means for
complying with students need. However, the students do not want to buy the textbooks
suggested by her. Therefore, to deal with problem found in KTSP, she created a module
which consists of a compilation material needed for instructional process. On the other hand,
she has not found alternative yet to overcome challenge in developing materials in 2013
curriculum.
Respondent 4 articulated that the challenge in developing materials in 2013 curriculum
is find the suitable materials for students who have different needs as well as for the purpose
of the curriculum. The challenge in overcoming various needs of the students is also
experienced by teachers in Columbia teachers (Holguin & Morales, 2014). Meanwhile, he
claimed there is no problem that he found in developing materials in KTSP.
14

E. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

The study is designed to portray teachers understanding in developing materials with respect
to 2013 Curriculum and KTSP as well as the challenges faced by teachers in developing
materials. It is conducted due to situation of teachers incapability in developing suitable
materials with materials blueprint. It is reflected from their high dependence on the textbooks
in Indonesia context. The findings reveal that three out of respondents understanding and
knowledge in developing materials in 2013 both curriculum and KTSP are sufficient enough.
They know how the process of developing materials in both curriculums, the aspects that
should be considered in the developing materials, as well as dominant strategy in developing
materials with respect to both curriculums. Another interesting point from the data is their
understanding might be due to neither their involvement in training of materials nor their
professional statues. Moreover, the challenges faced by respondents in developing materials
in both curriculums vary. They have their own problem in developing materials as well as
have tried some efforts to overcome the problems. However, not all of the efforts serve as
solution for the problems encountered. Some of the effort made does not always contribute
to the improvement of their understanding in developing materials regarding curriculum 2013
and KTSP.
In addition, this study provides some recommendations both for the teacher and for the
one who will conduct study with similar topic. For teachers, they are suggested to understand
the concept, ideology, or the framework of the validated curriculum since it will shape
teachers understanding and idea on how the materials should be developed and implemented
as intended. For other researchers who have similar interest on the topic of the present study,
they are advised to investigate another subject and object of the study that will give some
enrichment of either concept or practice, e.g. analyzing to what extend the textbooks provided
by government are in line with the materials blueprint of 2013 curriculum.
F. REFERENCE
Beatty, K. (2012). From theory to textbook: Constructing language materials for young
learners. LACLIL, 13-27; 5(2).
BNSP. (2006). Panduan penyusunan kurikulum tingkat satuan pendidikan jenjang
pendidikan dasar dan menengah. Jakarta: BNSP.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to
program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle publisher.
15

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. (Vol. 2). United States of America: Sage Publication.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research 4th edition. United States of America: Pearson.
Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote
teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 3-14; 34(3).
Depdiknas. (2008). Panduan pengembangan bahan ajar. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan
Sekolah Menengah Atas.
Fadillah, Saeful. (2012). Pengembangan bahan ajar [PDF]. Retrieved from slideshare.net
Faridi, A. (2008). Pengembangan model materi ajar muatan lokal bahasa inggris di sekolah
dasar jawa tengah yang berwawasan sosiokultural. Semarang: Disertation.
Unpublished.
Harsono, Y. M. (2007). Developing learning materials for specific purposes. TEFLIN, 169179, 18(2).
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Holguin, B. R., & Morales, J. A. (2014). Materials development in the columbian context:
some considerations about its benefits and challenges. HOW, 134-150, 21(2).
Kemendikbud. (2012). Pengembangan kurikulum 2013 [PowerPoint]. Retrieved from lecture
note.
Kemendikbud. (2014). Pedoman mata pelajaran sekolah menengah pertama/madrasah
tsanawiyah: Bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Lengkanawati, N. S., Setyarini, S., Sari, R. D., & Moecharam, N. Y. (2015). In house training
(IHT) model to improve the abilities of english teachers in developing teaching
materials. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37-43, 5(1).
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
Mukundan, J. (2005). English language teaching materials and cross-cultural understanding:
Are there bridges or devides. TEFLIN, 42-53, xvi(1).

16

Palupi, D. T. (2016). Cara mudah memahami kurikulum. Surabaya: Jaring pena.

Permendikbud No. 58. (2014). Kurikulum 2013 sekolah menengah pertama/madrasah
tsanawiyah. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Permendikbud No.59. (2014). Kurikulum 2013 sekolah menengah atas/madrasah aliyah.
Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
Permendiknas No. 22. (2006). Standar isi untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan menengah.
Jakarta: Kemendiknas.
Permendikbud. (2007). Standar kualifikasi akademik dan kompetensi guru. Jakarta:
Kemendikbud.
Permendiknas No. 41. (2007). Standar proses untuk satuan pendidikan dasar dan menengah.
Jakarta: Kemendiknas.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan
R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sukarni, E. I., Winarni, D., & Nirmayanti, Y. T. (2009). Improving teachers' professionalism
through material development, information technology and classroom action research.
TEFLIN, 212-231, 20(2).
Tomlinson, B. 2001. Materials development. In Carter, R. and Nunan, D. (Eds.), The
cambridge guide to teaching english to speakers of other languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. United States of America: The
Guilford Press.

17