Kurikulum Dan Buku Teks

Kurikulum dan Buku Teks
Standard dibangunkan oleh Achieve merangkumi idea kurikulum di negara-negara yang mengalahkan US
Curriculum and Textbooks

The standards developed by Achieve rest almost entirely on the notion that curricula in the countries
that are outperforming the US cover more complicated material earlier. In order to discuss this
orientation in an informed way, it is necessary to consider these curricula and associated textbooks. A
number of studies have specifically undertaken international comparisons of these items, while larger
comparisons have included curricula and textbooks as one aspect. It will be informative to look at what
these studies have found and, in particular, whether the top performing countries really follow the
challenging curriculum that Achieve claims they do.
One well known comparative study of curricula that came out of the TIMSS, and which has
already been mentioned here, is A Splintered Vision (Schmidt, W., C. McKnight, et al., 1997).
This study examined the data that was collected from textbooks and curriculum guides, focusing
on the US curriculum. Examining official curricula (state curricula in the US, often national
curricula in other countries), the authors report that on average US curricula included more
topics through middle school than 50-75 percent of the other countries. They found that topics
were added at a similar rate, but that no topics were dropped, making the length of time each
topic remains in the curriculum longer than in most other countries. The conclusion drawn, and
now often cited, is that the US curriculum is broad but shallow, that we touch on topics again and
again, but never deeply. Other countries, Germany and Japan being most often cited in this
study, are able to move to more complicated material earlier, because they approach the
curriculum in a narrower, but deeper way. The basic idea is that they are able to gain mastery by
concentrating on a smaller number of topics and then moving on. In addition, the performance
expectations implied in US curricula and textbooks centers on routine procedures and discrete
knowledge, which hampers conceptual understanding.
In The Learning Gap, Harold Stevenson and James Stigler (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992) make
some of the same observations made by Schmidt and his colleagues. While the study as a whole
reflects numerous aspects of Japanese and American education, their description of curricular
and text comparisons adds depth to this discussion. The authors note that there is little
agreement in the US on one national curriculum, which starkly contrasts with the highly
centralized curriculum of Japan. They note that, in Japan in any particular grade that the same
material is expected to be covered on roughly the same day throughout the country. The contrast
is obvious, when US teachers may not even be covering the same topic as the teacher in the next
room.
The authors also discuss the broad coverage in American textbooks (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992).
Japanese textbooks are a lot smaller than American books, with and quite a bit more plain. The
authors surmise that part of the reason for the difference in textbook coverage relates to the
curricular demands. Because the US curriculum is so broad, teachers cannot hope to cover all
the topics -- they have to make do, part of a practice Schmidt et al refer to as "satisficing"
(Schmidt, W., C. McKnight, et al., 1997, p. 78) . Because teacher's have ultimate control over
which topics are covered, there is no way to know what topics are being covered from year to
year. Thus, textbooks have no choice but to continue wide coverage, both to satisfy differing
curricula and possibly different teacher choices.
Another significant difference in texts is the detail offered. Japanese texts are less explicit and
carry fewer practice and review problems. The discussion and elaboration of the content is left
more to the teachers. The American textbooks tend to include more examples of logarithms and
present explicit explanations, or perhaps 'directions' is a better term, for topics covered.
Other studies that have looked at curricula in Japan and the United States add more to this
picture. Mayer, Sims, and Tajika (Mayer et al, 1995) articulate additional differences in
textbooks. Examining three Japanese texts and four American texts, the authors found that the
Japanese texts devoted more space to explanations, relevant illustrations, and worked-out
examples, while US texts devote more space to unsolved exercises and eye-cathing, but
irrelevant, illustrations. They also found that the Japanese texts were more likely to include
multiple representations and inductive reasoning. An examination of a Japanese teacher's guide,
by Gill and McPike (1995), resonates with all of these descriptions, pointing out that, in the US,
the topic of weight is taught in grades one through four, mixed in with length, volume, and other
types of measurement. The Japanese texts cover length and volume in depth in grades one and
two and then begin weight only in grade three, but devote a significant period of time to it to
cover it in depth.
While comparative studies of Korean and Singaporean curricula and textbooks appear to be less
common (likely because Japan participated and did well in all three International Mathematics
Studies). However, there are indications that they contrast with US curricula and textbooks in
some of the same ways as those of Japan. One comparative study by Hy Kim (1993) looked at
the topics of measurement and geometry in first through eighth grades in the US and South
Korea. As in the Japanese studies Kim notes the repetition of these topics throughout the
grades. In addition, he finds that the Korean texts integrate topics more and, significantly,
concepts and skills are more closely intertwined. In addition, the Korean texts include more
advanced topics than the American texts. The one study I was able to locate concerning
Singapore curriculum mentioned that teacher choice was fairly open and that the national
curriculum, as developed in 1992, focuses on problem solving skills through "meaningful
activities, competence in basic skills, mathematical communication through oral work, group
discussion and presentation, investigative work and mathematical thinking" (Seng 2000).
The curricula and textbooks of the three countries focused on here, as well as the many others
examined in the TIMSS study, clearly have differences between them. However, the
comparisons that have been done between them and the US point to some significant issues. The
theme of a repetitive American curriculum appears again and again. While such a spiral
curriculum does have advantages, theoretically reinforcing students' understanding and allowing
for connection of topics, it appears that the practice may not be living up to the theory. More
often, it seems, coverage may end up being simply shallow and repetitive because of the wide
range of topics to be addressed each year, and the need for teachers to "satisfice". Another
noticeable theme is the lack of deep explanation or inductive approaches in US texts, which
could help support deep understanding of the mathematical topics addressed. While not all the
studies specifically address a comparison between the complexity or level of material covered at
one level, there does appear to be an implication, in some cases a direct research finding, that the
curricula of countries examined are able to move to more difficult material more quickly. This
comes from both more focused curricula which allow for more in depth development of topics
and from an orientation towards conceptual understanding rather than procedural knowledge.

Perbezaan yang ada pada ketiga-tiga buah negara ini ialah cara pengajaran.
Pendekatan ini digunakan di kelas Jepun telah menjadi terkenal dalam perubahan
matematik di US. Pendekatan ini merangkumi soalan terbuka dan pemusatan kelas
terhadap masalah konkrit. Pelajar sering berbincang dalam kumpulan dan digalakkan
untuk mengembangkan strategi alternative. Guru Jepun lebih menjurus kepada
pemikiran kelas berbanding dengan pengumpulan individu dan pelajar digalakkan untuk
belajar sesame sendiri.
Di Korea Selatan, cara pengajarannya berbeza. Kajian menjelaskan bahawa

pemusatan guru dijalankan, pengajaran kelas dan menekankan penghafalan. Guru
khasnya menggunakan pengajaran, latihan dan penilaian dalam kelas, menggunakan
masalah sebenar dan mode yang banyak untuk pembentangan masalah . Guru
mengendalikan kelas dengan memberikan panduan dalam bentuk soalan secara sistematik
semasa peringkat penilaian yang menggalakkan pelajar untuk menilai hasil kerja sesame
sendiri.

Kurikulum Dan Buku Teks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurikulum Dan Buku Teks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurikulum Dan Buku Teks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kurikulum dan Buku Teks

Curriculum and Textbooks

Di Korea Selatan, cara pengajarannya berbeza. Kajian menjelaskan bahawa

You might also like