8 .
Journal of Curriculum Indonesia http://hipkinjateng.
org/jurnal/index.
php/jci Analysis Of The 1984 Curriculum and The 1976 Curriculum Adil Amrillah.
Dian Nurwati.
Hajar Ristiani.
Muksin .
Ngasbun Egar.
Keywords Abstract
____________________
________________________________________________________________
1984 Curriculum, 1976 Curriculum.
Active Student Learning Method (CBSA).
Specific Instructional Objectives (ICT).
Indonesian education This research aims to analyze the comparison between the 1984 Curriculum and the 1974 Curriculum in the context of education in Indonesia.
The 1974 curriculum emphasized a very structured Specific Instructional Objectives (ICT) approach, with an emphasis on the efficiency of the teaching and learning process and detailed mastery of the material.
In contrast, the 1984 Curriculum introduced the concept of Active Student Learning (CBSA) which focuses on students' active involvement in the learning process, as well as shifting the teacher's role from just being an instructor to being a facilitator.
This research uses qualitative methods descriptive through document analysis, literature review, and interviews with teachers and educational practitioners.
This research compares the two curricula in terms of objectives, structure, learning approaches, and implementation challenges in the field.
The results show that the 1976 Curriculum provides clarity in structure and learning objectives, but often limits student creativity and participation.
On the other hand, the 1984 Curriculum, although more innovative in encouraging student involvement, faced obstacles in implementation, especially related to teacher readiness and limited educational resources.
In conclusion, both curricula have their respective strengths and weaknesses.
The future curriculum needs to consider combining the best elements of the structured 1976 Curriculum and the interactive 1984 Curriculum, to create an education system that is more flexible and responsive to student needs.
e-ISSN 2549-0338 Journal of Curriculum Indonesia 8 .
INTRODUCTION Education is an important pillar in the development of a nation, and the curriculum plays a key role in shaping the quality of the education system.
The curriculum determines the direction, content and methods used in the learning process.
In Indonesia, various changes to the curriculum have been made to adapt to social, cultural and current needs.
Two curricula that stand out in the history of Indonesian education are Curriculum 1976 and Curriculum 1984, each of which has different characteristics and approaches in organizing the learning process.
Curriculum 1976 was introduced to respond to the educational needs of the time, with a focused approach Specific Instructional Objectives (ICT).
This curriculum emphasizes the delivery of material in a systematic and structured manner, with clear objectives at each learning level.
Teachers play a major role in the teaching process, with more conventional teaching methods.
This is expected to ensure that each student achieves the learning objectives that have been specifically determined.
On the contrary.
Curriculum 1984 introduces different concepts, viz Active Student Learning Method (CBSA).
This approach seeks to change the teacher-centered learning paradigm to studentcentered learning.
With CBSA, students are expected to be more active in the learning process, develop critical thinking skills, collaborate, and interact directly with lesson material.
The teacher, in this case, plays more of a role as a facilitator who guides students to discover knowledge independently.
This change is expected to increase student engagement and encourage more dynamic and creative learning.
Even though these two curricula were implemented in relatively close time spans, there are fundamental differences in the learning approaches applied.
These differences give rise to various challenges in terms of implementation in the field, especially regarding teacher readiness, available resources, and adaptation to different learning methods.
Therefore, this research aims to conduct a comparative analysis between Curriculum 1976 and Curriculum 1984, with a focus on differences in approaches, strengths, weaknesses, and challenges that arise in the implementation of the two curricula.
It is hoped that this research will provide deeper insight into how the two curricula play a role in learning in Indonesia, as well as how the best elements of the two curricula can be integrated in developing future curricula that are more adaptive and responsive to student needs.
METHODS
Research Approach This research uses the method descriptive qualitative to analyze and compare the 1984 Curriculum and the 1976 Curriculum.
The qualitative approach allows researchers to explore in-depth information regarding the characteristics, objectives and implementation of the two curricula.
This method was chosen because of its exploratory and interpretive nature, which aims to understand changes in curriculum design and their impact on the learning process in Indonesia.
Data Source The data in this study was collected from various sources, including:
Curriculum Document: Official documents of the 1976 Curriculum and 1984 Curriculum published by the Ministry of Education.
Culture.
Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia.
This document includes general guidelines, implementation guides, and learning objectives for each curriculum.
Literature second: Review of relevant literature from academic journals, books, and research reports related to the implementation of the two curricula.
This study is used to enrich the analysis with a broader Semi-structured Interview: Interviews were conducted with teachers and educational practitioners who have experience in implementing both curricula.
This interview aims to gain direct insight into the challenges and advantages encountered in implementing the two curricula in the field.
Journal of Curriculum Indonesia 8 .
Data Collection Techniques Documentation: Document data was collected through archival searches and official sources from the relevant ministries.
The documents analyzed include curriculum, education policies, and implementation guides relevant to the 1976 and 1984 Curriculum periods.
Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to allow flexibility in exploring teachers' views regarding curriculum implementation.
Information from interviews was used to provide more detailed context regarding challenges in the field and practical insights into curriculum effectiveness.
Literature Review: The literature review was carried out by searching for scientific articles, research reports, and other sources related to the implementation and evaluation of the 1976 Curriculum and the 1984 Curriculum.
Data Analysis Technique content analysis used in this research to identify the main themes that emerged from document and interview data.
The analysis process is carried out in several stages:
Categorization: Data from documents and interviews were categorized based on main themes such as curriculum objectives, learning methods, teacher roles, and student engagement.
Comparison: A direct comparison is made between the two curricula to identify differences in structure, teaching approach, and expected outcomes.
Data Triangulation: Data from various sources .
ocuments, literature, interview.
are compared to ensure the validity of findings and enrich interpretations.
Validity and Reliability To ensure the validity of the data, this research applies source triangulation, where data from documents, interviews, and literature are compared and adjusted.
Besides that, peer debriefing conducted with academics to obtain feedback on the analysis carried out, as well as conducting member checking with informants to ensure that the results of the interview interpretation match their experiences.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Curriculum Goals and Structure Analysis of Curriculum 1976 and Curriculum 1984 show fundamental differences in their goals and Curriculum 1976 based on approach Specific Instructional Objectives (ICT), which establishes specific and measurable learning outcomes in each subject.
This curriculum is designed to provide basic knowledge to students systematically and in detail.
Each lesson is broken down into small units with clear objectives, making it easier for teachers to deliver the material.
On the contrary.
Curriculum 1984 introduces a more progressive approach to the concept Active Student Learning Method (CBSA).
This curriculum aims to increase student involvement in the learning process, shifting the teacher's role from main teacher to facilitator.
Students are encouraged to be more active in critical thinking, discussing and solving problems.
However, the structure of the 1984 Curriculum is not as strict as the 1976 Curriculum, which causes variations in implementation in the field.
Discussion: The main difference between these two curricula lies in the educational philosophy underlying their approach.
The 1976 Curriculum emphasized mastery of knowledge through teachercentered teaching, while the 1984 Curriculum tried to provide greater space for student participation.
This change reflects an effort to respond to criticism of the passive approach in the 1976 Curriculum, but also brings challenges in terms of consistency of implementation.
Teaching Methods and Student Involvement In Curriculum 1976, teachers play a central role in the learning process.
Students generally act as recipients of information, with little involvement in idea generation or problem solving.
This approach ensures mastery of the material, but tends to make students passive and less likely to develop critical thinking skills.
On the other hand.
Curriculum 1984 emphasizes the use of more interactive teaching methods, such as group discussions, project-based learning, and simulations.
Approach CBSA encouraging students to be Journal of Curriculum Indonesia 8 .
actively involved in learning, which is expected to improve analytical skills and creativity.
However, the implementation of this method is often hampered by the readiness of teachers, who are not yet fully accustomed to their new role as facilitators, as well as limited resources in some schools.
Discussion: Even though the teaching methods in the 1984 Curriculum are more progressive, their implementation often does not work optimally.
Many teachers still use traditional teaching methods because they have difficulty adapting to new approaches.
In addition, limited resources, such as a lack of teaching materials that support CBSA, also hinder the success of this curriculum.
Meanwhile, the 1976 Curriculum approach is easier to implement but fails to build students' critical thinking skills.
Challenges in Implementation One of the main challenges in implementation Curriculum 1984 is the lack of training for teachers in running CBSA.
Many teachers are not yet accustomed to the role of facilitator, so they still apply a teachercentered approach, as was done in the 1976 Curriculum.
In addition, the availability of resources, such as teaching materials that support active learning methods, is very limited, especially in regional areas.
On the contrary.
Curriculum 1976 easier to implement because of its detailed and clear structure.
However, a limitation of this curriculum is its tendency to make students passive, with few opportunities to engage in activities that stimulate critical and creative thinking.
Discussion: The challenges of implementing these two curricula show the importance of teacher readiness and availability of resources in the success of a curriculum.
While the 1976 Curriculum presented challenges in developing critical thinking skills, the 1984 Curriculum required greater support in terms of teacher training and provision of resources so that it could be implemented well.
Influence on Learning Outcomes The results of the implementation of the two curricula show differences in student learning Curriculum 1976 more effective in providing strong and deep conceptual understanding to students, especially in terms of academic knowledge.
However, students often have difficulty dealing with situations that require problem solving and innovation skills.
On the contrary.
Curriculum 1984 succeeded in improving students' critical thinking skills and active participation, especially in an environment that supports the CBSA method.
However, without adequate teacher training and resource support, these results vary, with many students not achieving the expected learning outcomes.
Discussion: In terms of learning outcomes, the 1976 Curriculum was successful in providing a strong foundation for mastery of the material, but the 1984 Curriculum was superior in facilitating 21st century skills such as critical thinking and collaboration.
However, inconsistent implementation of the 1984 Curriculum hampered its overall success.
CONCLUSION
This research discusses the comparison between Curriculum 1984 and Curriculum 1976, with a focus on objectives, structure, teaching methods, as well as the challenges of implementing both.
Based on the analysis carried out, it can be concluded that these two curricula have their own strengths and weaknesses which influence the quality of learning in Indonesia.
Curriculum 1976 with approach Specific Instructional Objectives (ICT) offers a structured and systematic learning framework, which ensures students master basic knowledge well.
However, this curriculum tends to produce passive learning, where students do not have many opportunities to be actively involved in the learning process.
On the other hand.
Curriculum 1984 introduce the approach Active Student Learning Method (CBSA) which is more progressive, with the aim of encouraging students to participate more and think However, the implementation of this curriculum faces various challenges, especially in terms of teacher readiness and limited educational resources, which causes variations in its success in the field.
Journal of Curriculum Indonesia 8 .
Overall.
Curriculum 1976 provide a strong foundation in terms of mastery of subject matter, while Curriculum 1984 focuses more on developing 21st century skills such as collaboration, problem solving, and creativity.
For future curriculum development, there needs to be an integration of the strengths of these two curricula: the structured and clear approach of the 1976 Curriculum, and the interactive and participatory aspects of the 1984 Curriculum.
Future curriculum development needs to consider the importance of teacher training and more adequate resource support to ensure successful implementation across all schools.
In this way, the Indonesian education system can be more responsive to global demands and student needs in the modern
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank all parties who have provided support and contributions in preparing this journal.
Profuse thanks are expressed to educators and educational practitioners who have participated in interviews and provided valuable insights regarding the implementation of the 1976 Curriculum and 1984 Curriculum.
Thanks are also expressed to the Ministry of Education.
Culture.
Research and Technology for providing access to the documents official curriculum, which is very helpful in this analysis In addition, the author appreciates the support from the academic team and research colleagues who have provided valuable suggestions and input during the research and writing process.
This research also would not have been completed without the assistance of librarians who assisted in collecting the necessary literature and reference materials.
Finally, the author would like to thank his family and friends for their invaluable moral support, who continued to provide encouragement during the research and writing process of this journal.
REFERENCES