Content uploaded by Manahel Alafaleq
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Manahel Alafaleq on Dec 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
58
UDC 373.311.2(594)
51(091)(594) Teaching Innovations, 2014, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp. 58–68
Mailizar Mailizar, Lecturer
Syiah Kuala University, Indonesia, PhD student University of
Southampton, Southampton Education School, Southampton, UK
Manahel Alafaleq, PhD student
University of Southampton, Southampton
Education School, Southampton, UK
Lianghuo Fan1, PhD
University of Southampton, Southampton
Education School, Southampton, UK
Original Paper
A historical overview of
mathematics curriculum reform and
development in modern Indonesia
Abstract: Indonesia has the fourth largest education system in the world in terms of student population;
yet due to a variety of reasons, internationally there is little literature available about Indonesian education,
particularly in its historical change and development. is paper focuses on Indonesian national school math-
ematics curriculum, and provides a historical overview and documentation of the reform and evolution of the
mathematics curriculum in modern Indonesia. Both external and internal factors in relation to Indonesian
education that have in uenced the mathematics curriculum reform and development in this period of time are
examined and their implications to general mathematics curriculum reform and development are discussed in
the paper.
Key Words: history of mathematics education, Indonesia mathematics education, mathematic curricu-
lum reform and development.
Introduction
Located in Southeast Asia, Indonesia has the
fourth largest education system in the world in terms
of student population. However, large-scale Inter-
national comparative studies such as the Trends in
Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) and the
Programme for International Student Assessment
1 L.Fan@southampton.ac.uk
(PISA) have consistently shown that the Indonesian
educational system does not work well in terms of
students acquiring a good quality of education at the
primary and secondary levels. For example, Indone-
sian 15-year-old students were placed 57th out of the
65 participating countries/territories in PISA 2009
in their average mathematics scores2. In PISA 2012,
they were ranked 64th out of the 65 participating
2 See http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46619703.pdf
Received: 3 October 2014
Accepted: 30 October 2014
59
A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia
countries/territories.3 ese indicators have been a
driving force for the Indonesian government to un-
dertake the latest national curriculum reform (Sury-
adarma & Jones, 2013).
To improve the quality of students’ learn-
ing in any education system, it is essential to look
at its curriculum, as curriculum is a prime part of
that system and plays a vital role in determining
why, what, and how students learn and are taught
in schools. According to Levin (2008), curriculum is
de ned as an o cial statement of what students are
expected to know and be able to do. Curriculum is
particularly important in countries like Indonesia,
which adopts a centralized education system.
In the history of modern Indonesia’s educa-
tion, the national curriculum has undergone many
changes in the years 1947, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1975,
1984, 1994, 1999, 2004, 2006 and the latest is 2013.
As to Indonesia’s national school mathematics cur-
riculum, Soedjadi (1992, as cited in Suryanto et al.,
2010) once classi ed this long reform into the fol-
lowing eras:
1. before 1975
2. Era of modern mathematics
3. Back to ‘tradition mathematics’
4. Integrated Era
However, literatures about Indonesian mathe-
matics education are overall very limited particular-
ly regarding the history of mathematics curriculum.
is is so even since the 1970s, the policies of ed-
ucation reform in Indonesia have proceeded in the
context of human resources expansion for the pur-
poses of national development (Yeom et al., 2002),
and moreover, there is a growing awareness among
scholars in Indonesia of the need to improve math-
ematics teaching in schools (Sembiring et al.,2008).
In this paper, we look back at the history of
mathematics curriculum reform and development
in modern Indonesia, mainly through the national
3 See http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-2012-partici-
pants.htm
curriculum materials, policy documents and avail-
able literature. By doing so, we intend to provide a
historical overview and documentation of the re-
form and evolution of mathematics curriculum in
Indonesia, examine external and internal factors
in relation to the curriculum reform and develop-
ment in the country, and discuss their implications
for further curriculum reform and development. We
therefore start with a brief introduction about Indo-
nesian mathematics curriculum before 1975, which
we termed pre-modern mathematics curriculum.
Pre-Modern Mathematics Curriculum
(before 1975)
Since Indonesia got its independence in 1945,
mathematics as a school subject has been a compul-
sory course throughout the whole school education,
that is, from primary school (Grades 1-6), to jun-
ior high school (Grades 7-9) and senior high school
(Grades 10-12). However, before 1975, the teach-
ing of mathematics was mostly in uenced by West-
ern mathematics education theories, and in particu-
lar, Skinner’s behaviourism of learning (Ruse endi,
1988). As Zulkardi (2002) noted, the lessons were
delivered through mechanistic pedagogy. Students
were trained to memorize mathematical concepts
without understanding them (Ruse endi, 1979). In
learning geometry, for instance, Ruse endi revealed
that it was focused on developing calculation skills,
and the students learned how to calculate area and
volume of a geometric object without understand-
ing the meaning of area and volume (Ruse endi,
1979).
It should be noted that Indonesia’s nation-
al mathematic curriculum before 1975 was imple-
mented based on the separate mathematics strands
such as algebra, geometry and trigonometry (Zulk-
ardi, 2002). Regarding the contents of the curricu-
lum, arithmetic was taught in the primary schools,
algebra and plane geometry were taught in the jun-
ior high schools (Grades 7-9), while in the senior
60
Mailizar Mailizar, Manahel Alafaleq, Lianghuo Fan
high schools students learned more advanced alge-
bra, three-dimensional geometry, and analytic ge-
ometry. e main criticism of this curriculum was
that it did not pay adequate attention to the relation-
ship between di erent areas and topics of mathe-
matics (Ruse endi, 1979).
Modern Mathematics Curriculum (1975)
In 1973, the Indonesian government trans-
lated “Entebbe Mathematics Series”, which was de-
veloped in mid 1960s mainly by US and UK math-
ematicians and mathematics educators, and aimed
mainly for the African countries (Williams, 1971).
e translated series were then used as main math-
ematics textbooks in Indonesia. is translation
project was the beginning of the implementation of
modern mathematics in Indonesia mathematics ed-
ucation.
In 1975 the Indonesian government o cial-
ly implemented a new curriculum which was deep-
ly in uenced by modern mathematics movement
or “new math” (Kilpatrick, 2012; Sembiring et al.,
2008). According to the Ministry of Education and
Culture, or Depdikbud in Indonesian, the mathe-
matics curriculum in this period was characterized
by the following criteria (Depdikbud, 1976):
1. New topics were introduced;
2. More focus was placed on developing un-
derstanding rather than memorization and
calculation skills;
3. Attention was paid to continuity among
the topics in primary and high schools;
4. Heterogeneous or di erent students’ needs
were accommodated;
5. Student-centred learning was emphasized.
e new topics included in the curriculum
were Set, Statistics, Probability, Relation and Func-
tion, and Non-Metric Geometry (Depdikbud, 1976).
Moreover, Plane Geometry and ree-Dimensional
Geometry which were taught at di erent levels in the
previous curriculum were taught at the same level,
at year 11, in this curriculum.
With regard to teaching approaches, deduc-
tive approaches were used not only in geometry but
also in algebra in high school. However, inductive
approaches were still used for primary school stu-
dents (Suherman & Winataputra, 1999). Moreo-
ver, according to Ruse endi (1988), this period was
strongly in uenced by behavioural psychology that
emphasizes the stimulus to response and training
(drill). In addition, Piaget and Bruner’s theories also
played an important role in shaping teaching ap-
proaches advocated in curriculum and classroom
practices in this period (Ruse endi, 1988).
Like in many other countries, it was also ad-
mitted that unfortunately in Indonesia also, the
modern mathematics, which had been introduced
into the curriculum since the beginning of 1975, re-
sulted in a problematic situation in schools (Sembir-
ing et al., 2008; Cockcro , 1982). By 1983, this mod-
ern-mathematics-based curriculum was considered
no longer suitable in order to meet the communi-
ty’s needs and the demands of science and technol-
ogy. New calls for a new mathematics curriculum
ensued.
Technology-Integrated Curriculum (1984)
e Indonesian government decided to de-
velop and implement a new curriculum starting
from 1984. ere were actually no signi cant chang-
es in terms of the total coverage of mathematics top-
ics in the new curriculum, as compared to the pre-
vious one (Depdikbud, 1987). However, three new
features make this new mathematics curriculum
particularly noteworthy.
Firstly, this curriculum signalled the rst at-
tempt and policy directive to integrate modern tech-
nologies into the mathematics teaching and learning
in Indonesian classrooms. Most speci cally, calcula-
tors were introduced into the teaching of mathemat-
ics. It is in this sense we call this curriculum “tech-
61
A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia
nology-integrated curriculum”, though this was only
a starting point in this direction. According to Rus-
e endi (1988), this was one of important e orts in
strengthening mathematics education in Indonesia.
Secondly, there was an important change in
the sequence and structure of the mathematics con-
tents introduced in the curriculum. For examples,
some topics such as algorithms, trigonometry, and
transformation were moved from the senior high
school level to the junior high school level (Depdik-
bud, 1987).
irdly, a “spiral” approach as a pedagogy was
adopted in the new curriculum. Table 1 below shows
an example of how a concept of geometry (area) was
packed in the curriculum (Depdikbud, 1987).
Table 1: An Example of Spiral Approach in
Teaching Areas of Geometric Shapes
Grade
Level
Topics
Grade 3 e students were introduced the ratios
of area of a square and rectangle, and
then they learned the area of a square and
rectangle through counting square plot.
Grade 5 e students recalled what they already
learned at Grade 3. us, they learned
the area of a square and rectangle by
multiplying the square plots on rows and
columns; from this activity they learned
the formulas of square and rectangle.
Grade 5 e students learned the area of a triangle.
Grade 6 e students learned the area of a
parallelogram, then they were introduced
the area of a circle.
Grade 7 e student recalled the concepts of the
area of a square and a rectangle, and then
they learned the area of a cube and block.
Grade 8 e students learned the area of a
rhombus, trapezium and kite.
Grade 8 e student learned the area of a circle its
application.
e “spiral” approach was re ected in the
width and depth of learning materials, so that the
higher the school levels, the more width and depth
of the materials and lessons were provided on same
topics.
Regarding teaching approaches, the Minis-
try of Education and Culture (or Depdikbud) rec-
ommended that the Student Active Learning (Cara
Belajar Siswa Aktif or CBSA in Bahasa Indonesia)
approach be adopted for learning and teaching in
all schools (Depdikbud, 1987). CBSA is a teaching
approach that provides the opportunity for students
to be actively engaged in the learning process and
with the hope that students get the maximum learn-
ing experience, in cognitive, affective, and psycho-
motor aspects (Pardjono, 2000). Internationally, this
curriculum was mostly infl uenced by developmen-
tal psychology of Piaget (Flavell, 1967).
However, as Fauzan (2002) noted, the imple-
mentation of this new curriculum had also made
clear a number of problems and in particular, the
following:
1. An overload of subjects at the primary
school level, which had resulted in the fact
that the students o en did not have su -
cient time to master any given subject.
2. A lack of continuous assessment of the stu-
dents’ progress.
3. An unsatisfactory implementation of the
active learning principles.
erefore, all these problems had stirred up
strong criticism from the parents and society (Dep-
dikbud, 1997), a reason for the government to devel-
op another new mathematics curriculum.
Back-to-Basic Curriculum (1994)
In 1994, the curriculum reform in Indonesia
was signi ed by the change of curriculum content
and teaching approaches, especially at the primary
school level. In fact, as Armanto (2002) noted, the
reformed curriculum in 1994 had made signi cant
62
Mailizar Mailizar, Manahel Alafaleq, Lianghuo Fan
changes in many aspects compared with the previ-
ous curriculum launched in 1984.
Government reports (Depdikbud, 1994) indi-
cated that the main aims of teaching mathematics in
the 1994 curriculum were:
1. Students are able to e ectively and e -
ciently deal with the dynamic world based
on logical reasoning, rational and critical
thinking.
2. Students are able to use mathematics and
mathematical reasoning in studying other
subjects.
3. Students have critical attitude, persever-
ance, and appreciation of mathematics.
4. Students understand mathematics deduc-
tively.
From the aims of teaching mathematics men-
tioned above, we can see that since 1994 the Indone-
sian mathematic curriculum already paid much at-
tention to critical aspects of mathematics education
such as developing students’ reasoning and skills to
deal with real life problems, which was not clear-
ly stated in the previous curricula. ese goals are
similar to those stated by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) that math-
ematic curriculum should prepare students for solv-
ing problem in a variety of school, home and work
settings.
In order to achieve the main goals of teaching
mathematics, speci c instructional objectives were
provided by the government for the teachers in the
curriculum. e following is an example of specif-
ic instructional objectives as mentioned on GBPP,
which is an Indonesian abbreviation of Curriculum
Implementation Guide, published in 1994:
Table 2: An Example of Speci c Instructional
Objectives
General
instructional
objective
Speci c Instructional Objectives
Students
are able to
measure the
size of angles
and areas, and
to understand
measurement
units
1) Students are able to determine the
area of squares and rectangles by
counting the number of square
units and/or by counting the
number of square units in one row
then multiplying it by the number
of rows.
2) Students are able to recognise the
formulas for era of squares and
rectangles.
3) Students are able to recognise
standard measurement units for
area.
In practice, it is not always possible to pre-
cisely specify the instructional objectives for some
of the main aims of mathematic teaching in a given
topic, therefore the main aims could become blurred
(Fauzan, 2002). For instance, in teaching geometry
the speci c learning objectives in the 1994 curric-
ulum were focused on remembering de nition of
two and three dimensional geometric objects such
as square, cubes, prisms, and memorizing the char-
acteristics of these objects, but did not refer to more
broad aims of learning geometry such development
of logical reasoning ability (Suydam, 1983) or inter-
pretation of space and the environment (Moehar-
ty, 1993). It appears that the speci c leaning objec-
tives were not well aligned with the main aims of the
teaching and learning of mathematics as mentioned
earlier.
In terms of the mathematics contents, funda-
mental changes were observed for the new school
mathematics curriculum. e emphasis was placed
on students’ mastery of fundamental principles of
mathematics, particularly at the primary school lev-
el, in which the “traditional” mathematics with a
focus on calculation skills again received more at-
tention in this curriculum (Depdikbud, 1994), and
63
A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia
some “modern” topics, for instance, the Set eory,
were no longer a focus in the curriculum (Armanto,
2002). It is in this sense we call this reformed curric-
ulum “back-to-basic curriculum”. However, the idea
of going back to basic emphasized in the curriculum
seems contradicting or incoherent with one of the
main aims of the curriculum, that is, students were
expected to be able to use mathematics and math-
ematical reasoning in their daily life. Moreover, at
the senior high school level, the introduction to
graph theory was included in the curriculum while
integration was not. It would be interesting to see
the reason behind these changes. Unfortunately we
were not able to locate any literature regarding this
issue, nor could we reach the curriculum developers
to gather information and make clari cation due to
the scope of this study, a limitation warranting fur-
ther e ort in future study.
Content-Reduced Curriculum (1999)
As it had too heavy content for teachers and
students to get through, the 1994 curriculum was lat-
er considered overloaded (Supriyoko, 1999). More-
over, as Supriyoko also pointed out, the 1994 cur-
riculum was not exible so the teachers were unable
to nd adequate room for developing students’ cre-
ativity in teaching and learning activities. In addi-
tion, Fauzan (2002) noted that teachers complained
about having too many topics, too limited time to
teach them, and the students complained about hav-
ing too many exercises and too much homework to
complete in a school year. erefore, the govern-
ment decided to make some adjustments in the na-
tional mathematics curriculum.
e new mathematics curriculum was re-
leased by the Indonesian government in 1999. It is
largely a simpli cation of the 1994 curriculum. One
of the most important features of this new curricu-
lum was reducing so-called irrelevant or unessential
topics such as sets and introduction to graph theo-
ry (Fauzan, 2002). Unfortunately, we could not nd
any literature concerning why these topics in partic-
ular were regarded irrelevant by the government re-
formers at that time.
In addition, for this curriculum, the govern-
ment only required all students to master core con-
tent. For those who were more interested in math-
ematics or mathematical gi ed students the new
curriculum o ered advanced mathematical con-
tents. is advanced content was managed and ad-
justed by teachers based on students’ needs. Some of
the advanced topics were, for example, Measures of
Skewness and Kurtosis, Inverse Function and Com-
position, the derivative and integral of the Exponen-
tial Function (Depdikbud, 1999). e new curricu-
lum advised that the content of mathematics taught
and the levels of di culty must be continuously
reviewed and updated when necessary in order to
meet students’ needs.
It should be noted that content reduction in
mathematics curriculum was also reported in many
other countries especially in Asian countries includ-
ing China, Japan, and Singapore around the same
time (Bjork & Tsuneyoshi, 2005; Wu & Zhang,
2006). For example, in Singapore, the government
announced in 1998 that there was a 10%-30% con-
tent deduction in most school subjects including
mathematics with the purpose of providing room for
teachers to implement the new initiatives in schools,
such as the development of thinking skills, integrat-
ing the use of Information Technology, and the de-
livery of the National Education (Singapore Minis-
try of Education, 1998) in school education. In that
sense, the reform in Indonesian mathematics cur-
riculum was consistent with many other countries.
Concluding Remarks
Since the 1970s a number of studies (Haji,
1999; Jailani, 1990) have shown the weaknesses of
mathematics teaching in Indonesia. Indonesian stu-
dents nd it di cult to comprehend mathematical
concepts, and the teaching approaches commonly
64
Mailizar Mailizar, Manahel Alafaleq, Lianghuo Fan
used in Indonesian classrooms make mathematics
more di cult to learn and to understand. Moreo-
ver, the results of the national examinations showed
that mathematics was continuously the lowest-scor-
ing subject (Depdikbud, 1997).
From our discussion above, we can see that
Indonesian mathematic curriculum reforms were to
a large extent in uenced by and consistent with the
trends in other countries. For instance, when “mod-
ern mathematics” became the dominant movement
around the world, the Indonesian government im-
plemented a new curriculum framed by this new
trend. Modern mathematics was rated highly and
expected to provide Indonesian students with a
good opportunity to learn mathematics more e ec-
tively (Sembiring et al., 2008). Unfortunately, and
in practice, many teachers reported many problems
with this approach as modern mathematics was too
di cult for their students to learn (Somerset, 1997).
As researchers have noted, even though the
curriculum reforms not only focused on mathemat-
ics contents but also on teaching approaches, the
teaching and learning of mathematics in Indone-
sian schools remained mechanistic, with teachers
tending to dictate formulas and procedures to their
students (Armanto, 2002; Fauzan, 2002). Hence, it
seems that the curriculum reforms over the last ve
or so decades failed to bring signi cant impact on
classroom teaching and students’ achievement in
learning mathematics, as mentioned at the begin-
ning of the paper. To us, this indicates the challenge
and complexity of curriculum reform and develop-
ment, and as a developing country with ambition to
improve the teaching and learning of mathematics
in schools, the case of Indonesia presents a mean-
ingful lesson and example for learning and study
that goes beyond its own geographical boundary.
Finally, regarding the Indonesian mathemat-
ics curriculum reforms, we think the following two
issues are noteworthy as a conclusion to our paper.
First, we did not nd that in the period of re-
forms examined in our study there was a mathemat-
ics curriculum framework at the national level that
could guide the country’s mathematics education
community in reforming or changing the mathe-
matics curriculum. Hence, with respect to the con-
tents of mathematics in the curriculum, it seems
that the change was to some extent not well planned
and articulated during the period of the reforms. We
also looked at other countries, and found that, for
instance, Singapore has a well-established and ar-
ticulated mathematics curriculum framework that
was published in 1990, which has been used as a ba-
sic guidance in framing curriculum reforms in the
country ever since.
Second, another important issue in reforming
curriculum is about conducting a curriculum needs
assessment. As Oliva (1991) noted, a curriculum
needs assessment is a process that identi es pro-
grammatic needs that must be addressed by curric-
ulum planners. However, concerning this issue, and
as Sudiarta (2003) revealed, the Indonesian govern-
ment had very weak needs assessments in reforming
the curriculum. More generally, how governments
can conduct a curriculum needs assessment in cer-
tain educational, economic and social context is an
issue that merits further attention from mathemat-
ics curriculum reformers and developers in Indone-
sia and other countries especially developing ones
like Indonesia with a centralized education system.
References
Armanto, D. (2002). Teaching multiplication and division realistically in Indonesian primary schools: A pro-
totype of local instructional theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, e
Netherlands.
Bjork, C., & Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Education reform in Japan: Competing visions for the future. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(8), 619-623.
65
A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia
Cockcro , W. H. (1982). Mathematics Counts. London: HMSO.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1976). Kurikulum sekolah menengah 1975: GBPP bidang
studi Matematika [Secondary School Curriculum 1975: Mathematics Subject]. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1987). Kurikulum dan GBPP bidang studi Matematika SD,
SMP, dan SMA [Curriculum and curriculum implementation guide: Mathematics for primary, junior high,
and senior high school]. Jakarta: Author.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1994). Kurikulum Pendidikan Dasar 1994 [Basic Educa-
tion Curriculum 1994]. Jakarta: CV. Aneka Ilmu.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1994). Curriculum implementation guide. Jakarta: MOEC.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1999). Kurikulum pendidikan dasar [Basic education cur-
riculum]. Jakarta: Dirjen Didasmen, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Depdikbud [Ministry of Education and Culture]. (1997). Statistik persekolahan 1995/1996 [School Statistics].
Jakarta: Author.
Fauzan, A. (2002). Applying realistic mathematics education in teaching geometry in Indonesian primary
schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, e Netherlands.
Flavell, J. (1967). e developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Haji, S. (1994). Diagnosis kesulitan siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal cerita di kelas V SD Negeri Percobaan
Surabaya (tesis) [Diagnosis of student di culties in solving word problems in class V SD Negeri Surabaya
Experiment (thesis)]. Malang, Indonesia: IKIP Malang.
Jailani, J. (1990). Suatu studi pengadaan terapan matematika pada siswa SMP Negeri di Kodya Yogyakarta
(tesis) [A study of the use of applied mathematics at the Junior High School students in the District of Yog-
yakarta (thesis)]. Malang, Indonesia: IKIP Malang.
Kilpatrick, J. (2012). e new math as an international phenomenon. ZDM- e International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 44, 563–571.
Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in school (in) Handbook of
Curriculum and Instruction. London: SAGE.
Moeharty. M. (1993, June). School geometry, which has been almost neglected? Paper presented at South
Asian Conference for Mathematics Education, Surabaya, Indonesia.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Res-
ton, VA: Author.
Oliva, P. F. (1991). Developing curriculum, a guide to principles and process. New York: Harper.
Pardjono, P. (2000). e implementation of student active Learning in primary Mathematics in Indonesia. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia.
Ruse endi, E. T. (1985). Pengajaran Matematika moderen untuk orang tua murid, guru dan SPG, buku 6
[Modern Mathematics for parents, teachers and SPG, book 6]. Bandung, Indonesia: Tarsito.
Ruse endi, E. T. (1979). Pengajaran matematika moderen untuk orang tua murid, guru, dan SPG, buku
1[Modern mathematics teaching for parents, teachers, and SPG, book 1]. Bandung, Indonesia: Tarsito.
66
Mailizar Mailizar, Manahel Alafaleq, Lianghuo Fan
Ruse endi, E. T. (1988). Pengantar kepada membantu guru mengembangkan kompetensinya dalam pengaja-
ran matematika untuk meningkatkan CBSA [Introduction to help teachers develop competence in teaching
mathematics to improve the student active learning]. Bandung, Indonesia: Tarsito.
Sembiring, R. K. (2010). Pendidikan matematika realistik Indonesia (PMRI): perkembangan dan tantangan
[Indonesian realistic mathematics education (PMRI): progress and challenges]. Indo-MS-JME, 1(1), 11-16.
Singapore Ministry of Education (1998). Content reduction in the curriculum. Press release, 16 July. Refer-
ence No: EDUN N25-02-004. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/1998/980716.htm
Soedjadi, S. (1992). Meningkatkan Minat Siswa Terhadap Matematika. Media Pendiddikan dan Ilmu Penge-
tahuan [Enhancing Student Interest in Math. Media Pendiddikan and Science]. Surabya, Indonesia: UNESA.
Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian classroom
through RME. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 40, 927-938.
Somerset, A. (1997). Strengthening quality in Indonesia’s junior secondary schools: An overview of issues and
initiatives. Jakarta: MOEC.
Sudiarta, P. (2003). Mencermati kurikulum berbasis kompetensi: sebuah kajian epistemologis dan praktis
[Observing the competency-based curriculum: An epistemological and practical study]. Jurnal Pendidikan
dan Pengajaran IKIP Negeri Singaraja. 36, 32-51.
Suherman, E., & Winataputra, U. (1999). Strategi belajar mengajar matematika [Mathematics teaching and
learning strategies]. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
Supriyoko, K. (1999, Sept.). Beberapa catatan pelaksanaan kurikulum 1999 [Some notes on implementation
of curriculum]. Pusara, 1-6.
Suryadarma, D., & Jones G. (2013). Education in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Suryanto, et al. (2010). Sejarah PMRI [A History of PMRI]. Jakarta: Ditjen Dikti Kemendiknas.
Suydam, M. N. (1983). Classroom ideas from research secondary school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Williams, G. A. (1971). Report: e entebbe mathematics project. International Review of Education, 17(2),
210-214.
Wu, M., & Zhang, D. (2006). An overview of the mathematics curricula in the West and East- Discussions
on the ndings of the Chongqing paper. In F. K. S. Leung, K.-D. Graf, & F. J. Lopez-Real (Eds.), Mathematics
education in di erent cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 181-193). New
York: Springer.
Yeom, M., Acedo, C., & Utomo, E. (2002). e reform of secondary education in Indonesia during the 1990s:
Basic education expansion and quality improvement through curriculum decentralization. Asia Paci
c Edu-
cation Review, 3(1), 56-68.
Zulkardi, Z. (2002). Developing a learning environment on realistic mathematics education for Indonesian stu-
dent teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, e Netherlands.
67
A historical overview of mathematics curriculum reform and development in modern Indonesia
Маилизар Маилизар
предавач, Универзитет Сија Куала, Индонезија,
докторанд, Педагошки факултет, Универзитет у Саутемптону, Велика Британија
Манахел Алафелек
докторанд, Педагошки факултет, Универзитет у Саутемптону, Велика Британија
др Лиангуо Фан
Педагошки факултет, Универзитет у Саутемптону, Велика Британија
Историјски осврт на математичку курикуларну реформу и развој у модерној Индонезији
Индонезија је четврта земља у свету из области образовног система и популације ученика, мада у
свет у постоји врло мало литературе о индонежанском образовању, нарочито оне која се тиче историјских
промена и развоја од њене независности 1945. године. У овом раду се осврћемо на историју математичке
курикуларне реформе и развоја у модерној Индонезији, пре свега кроз националне курикуларне
материјале, документа у вези са националном политиком и доступном литературом, и даље − до
историјског осврта и документације реформе и еволуције математичког курикулума у индонежанским
школама. Заснован на нашем осврту и анализи, ова модерна историја индонежанског математичког
курикулума може да се подели у пет фаза: 1) Предмодерни математички курикулум (пре 1975), који
је превасходно био базиран на засебним математичким стандардима, као што је алгебра, геометрија
и тригонометрија. У овом курикулуму није обраћано довољно пажње на односе између различитих
математичких тема; 2) Модерни математички курикулум (1975), на који је много утицала модерна
математика или „нова математика“ наглашавајући структуралистички приступ. Као и у многим другим
земљама, и у Индонезији је прихваћено да модерна математика, која је заснована 1975. године, доводи
до проблематичних ситуација у школама; 3) Технолошки интегрисан курикулум (1984), који заправо
нема битних промена у смислу опште покривености математичких тема у поређењу са претходним
курикулумом. Мада су нове карактеристике овог курикулума следеће: прво, увођење калкулатора у
курикулум је сигнал првог покушаја интеграције модерне технологије у математичко поучавање и учење
у индонежанским школама. У овом случају, то називамо „технолошки интегрисаним курикулумом“.
Друго, постоји знатна разлика у следу и ст руктури математичког садржаја у курикулум у. Треће, спирални
приступ је педагошки приступ који је био усвојен у новом курукулуму; 4) Курикулум који се заснива
на повратку на основе (1994). Курикуларна реформа у Индонезији 1994. године означена је променом
у курикуларном садржају и наставним принципима, нарочито на основношколском нивоу. Од циљева
учења математике, у овом курикулуму је већ обраћано много пажње на критичке аспекте математичког
образовања, као што је развијање вештина ре зоновања и оних који се тичу ств арних животних проблема,
у поређењу са претходним курикулумом. У математичком садржају основне промене су начињене и
нагласак је на усавршавању елементарне математике, нарочито на основношколском нивоу, на коме
се више пажње посветило „традиционалној математици“, са нагласком на вештине рачунања, а неке
„модерне“ теме, као што је, на пример, теорија скупова, нису више биле у фокусу курикулума. Зато га
68
Mailizar Mailizar, Manahel Alafaleq, Lianghuo Fan
називамо „курикулумом који се заснива на повратку на основе“; 5) Курикулум редукованог садржаја
(1999) јесте ревизија претходног курикулума и настао је, пре свега, смањивањем броја математичких
тема, јер је курикулум из 1994. године сматран претрпаним и недовољно флексибилним и наставници
нису могли да пронађу довољно простора за развијање ученичке креативности у активностима учења и
поучавања. То је поједностављење курикулума из 1994. године, и једна од најважнијих карактеристика
новог курикулума је редукција такозваних тема које нису битне и основне. Можемо да закључимо да су
индонежанске математичке курикуларне реформе умногоме биле под утицајем и у складу са трендовима
других земаља, и следећа два става су нарочито битна. Прво, није постојао оквир националног
математичког курикулума који је водио земљу у реформисање курикулума. Друго, постојала је врло
слаба процена потреба у реформисању курикулума у прошлости, и наше мишљење је да начин којим
се води процена потреба у одређеном образовном, економском и друштвеном контексту питање које
треба да буде врло битно за математичке курикуларне реформе и развој, како у Индонезији, тако и у
другим земљама.
Кључне речи: историја математичког образовања, индонежанско математичко образовање,
математичка курикуларна реформа и развој.
