International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2021, pp. 720~727

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v10i2.21010  720

Improvement of teacher’s professional competency in

strengthening learning methods to maximize curriculum
implementation

Hendro Prasetyono1, Agus Abdillah2, Tjipto Djuhartono3, Ira Pratiwi Ramdayana4, Laila Desnaranti5
1,2,3,5Departmentof Economics Education, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI, Indonesia
4Department of Indonesian Language Education, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI, Indonesia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The 2013 curriculum which has been implemented for more than six years in
Indonesia has many problems in its application. Therefore, we need to
Received Oct 14, 2020 conduct empirical research to determine the causes of the ineffective
Revised Mar 10, 2021 implementation of the 2013 curriculum in schools. This study involved 13
Accepted Apr 17, 2021 high schools and vocational high schools in the provinces of DKI Jakarta and
West Java with a total of 420 students, 26 teachers, and principals as
respondents. The research employed mixed parallel method and data analysis
Keywords: using combined analysis of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The
research found that there are still schools that use two different curricula,
High school 2013 curriculum and school-based curriculum. In implementing the 2013
Implementation curriculum curriculum, teachers are required to use various learning with a scientific
Learning methods approach that refers to student-centered concepts. There is a need for the
Mixed-method training program to improve teachers’ professional competence, especially in
Professional competency the terms of various learning methods mastery.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Hendro Prasetyono
Department of Economics Education
Universitas Indraprasta PGRI
Tengah Street, Number 80, Gedong, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Curriculum implementation has to be applied with communication and socialization which is
appropriate and well targeted. This is needed to achieve the educational purposes which are done while
learning is delivered to the students [1]. Seeing the students’ and teachers’ perceptions while learning is one
of the ways that can be used to know the success of a curriculum implementation [2]. However, nowadays
there are still many policymakers in a country seeing the success in curriculum implementation from
graduates' quality and learning achievement aspects without seeing the students’ and teachers’ perception in
the learning process [3], [4].
Currently, Indonesia is implementing the 2013 curriculum which has been used for seven years and
four-time revised because the learning purposes considered have not been successful. Based on a grand tour
result in October 2019 which is done by the researcher team to eight junior high schools, it was discovered
that many students complained about the learning process in class. The students who complained said only
students were asked to present but lack of explanation from the teachers. The discovery can be defined that
the teachers are not effective and have not mastered the variation of learning method [5]. The mastery of

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  721

teachers’ professional competencies must be increased to achieve the learning target. Optimal learning
outcomes are the ideals or dreams to be achieved by stakeholders [6].
Learning targets in the 2013 curriculum is not only competence achievement but also students’
character building. The implementation of characters education in the 2013 curriculum can be done through
the process of integrating learning achievements, synergizing the role of educational institutions, teachers
manifesting themselves as competent and emulated teachers [7]. Teachers design curriculum materials and
how they engage with their material resourcing curriculum activities. It occurs that the 2013 curriculum is
impressive if it is implemented properly. Other causes that become obstacles in the implementation of the
2013 Curriculum come from the government, institutions, teachers, parents, and students [8]. The main factor
that played an important role in the successful implementation of the 2013 Curriculum was teacher readiness.
It needed an effort from the government to overcome this therefore the teachers are prepared better to carry
out the teaching and learning process following the curriculum.
Based on some survey results from previous research, it is known that quite a lot of elementary,
junior high, and high school teachers have difficulty using the 2013 curriculum in class because of their
limited ability to use learning methods [8], [9]. Obstacles faced by the teachers include the instructional
media creating, teachers’ understanding, subject content integration in thematic learning, and information
technology proficiency. Therefore, training as a teaching practice and learning media proficiency are needed
to understand the essence of the 2013 curriculum to overcome these obstacles. As part of the main
competencies, the teachers’ professional competence becomes an important focus especially for the teachers
as the person to implement the curriculum. This means that there is a need for developing teachers’
professional competence especially about the teaching and learning process in the classroom.
The Ministry of Education and Culture evaluated the 2013 Curriculum in mid-2019. This is due to
the 2013 Curriculum which includes character building, competence, and nationalism in its implementation,
also using contextualizing learning is still a challenge. There are still high school teachers in the DKI Jakarta
and West Java provinces who do not understand the learning process in the 2013 curriculum. Development of
the 2013 curriculum in education, especially in vocational education is carried out to be able to approach and
meet the needs of the business and industrial world. The government needs to make various efforts to
improve the teaching quality of the teachers to solve this problem [10].
Nowadays the most important indicator for teacher education quality is the teacher's professional
competence which is a demand within the era of postmodernism [11]. The government through school can
improve teachers’ competency through training about how to teach correct practices so that not only teaching
material quality developed but also the teaching methods quality for teaching practices. However, it is
necessary to be more specific on what training is appropriate to improve the quality of the 2013 Curriculum
implementation because the competencies that have to be owned by teachers are pedagogical, personal,
professional, and social competencies. We need an empirical study for the implementation of the 2013
Curriculum to find out the level of achievement and obstacles from the learning process experienced by the
teachers.
Curriculum of 2013 emphasizes authentic assessments which include performance, project,
portfolio, process, and self-assessment [8]. It can be concluded that learning using 2013 Curriculum focuses
on the level of material understanding, how to deliver the material, and student center. The research objective
of this article is to determine the curriculum implementation condition in senior high and vocational schools
in Indonesia. When it comes to schooling and the role of school teachers in bringing about change to the
curriculum, the question needs to be answered of what sort of knowledge and abilities teachers need to
acquire to become active change agents and what role teacher education can play in contributing to the
development of these competencies [12]. The teacher competency has moved from a narrow technical skills-
based focus to a broader and more holistic concept of building pedagogical knowledge about technology
including both instructional tools and cognitive tools to foster student learning [13].
The teacher's professional competence is the proficiency of extensive and in-depth learning material,
which includes the subject curriculum materials mastery in schools and the scientific substance that houses
the material, as well as the science structure and methodology mastery [12]. Teacher professional
competencies can be categorized as: 1) Understanding the competency standards and basic competencies in
their fields of expertise; 2) Able to choose and develop subject matter; 3) Understanding the material,
structure, and concept of scientific thought patterns that support the field of expertise; 4) Master the methods
for developing critical knowledge and studies related to the field of expertise; 5) Creative and innovative in
the application of scientific fields related to the field of expertise; 6) Able to develop curriculum and syllabus
related to the field of expertise; 7) Able to take reflective actions to improve the quality of learning; 8) Able
to communicate with the professional community itself and other professions verbally and written; 9) Able to
utilize information and learning technology; 10) Communicate and develop themselves as a teacher [14].

Improvement of teacher’s professional competency in strengthening learning … (Hendro Prasetyono)

722  ISSN: 2252-8822

Teachers’ professional competence help desk was available for the leaders to ask questions
regarding the curriculum and technology that supported implementation [15]. A professional teacher can
master learning material in a broad and in-depth field of study which includes the substance of curriculum
subject matter content proficiency in schools and the scientific substance that houses the curriculum material,
as well as adding scientific insights as a teacher [16]. Personal characteristics of the professional care groups
were the most important variables associated with the quality of the care. On the other hand, professional
standards and have adopted as a criterion the functions and roles of beginning teachers, the following general
professional competencies have been derived: cognitive and meta-cognitive, methodological, communicative
and relational, student evaluation, psychosocial, informational and technological, career management
competencies [17]. Currently, in the era of postmodernism, a professional teacher must be mastering a variety
of learning methods by involving digitalization in teaching [11]. Based on this, the purpose of the study is to
determine the cause of the ineffective 2013 curriculum implementation in schools as a recommendation for
the government to determine appropriate policies in increasing teacher competence.

2. RESEARCH METHOD
This research used mixed methods because to answer the problems in this study, triangulation is
needed. Triangulation in this study comes from interviews, study documents, questionnaires, and observation
data. The type of mixed methods chosen is parallel mixed methods which mean involve the collection,
analysis, and integration of quantitative and qualitative data in a single or multiphase study [18].
The study was conducted from October 2019 to January 2020 involving 13 high schools consist of
four public vocational high schools, six private vocational schools, two public senior high schools, and one
private high school. Research designs consist of the concurrent mixing of qualitative and quantitative
methods carried out as separate studies within the same research project, with the qualitative component
taking a more dominant role [18]. A quantitative approach is done at the very start of the research by
spreading questionnaires to the respondents [19]. A quantitative approach is used to determine conditions in
schools that implementing the 2013 Curriculum from the student's perspective from what they felt during the
learning process. The result of the questionnaire then expands by using the qualitative method which is
observation and interview to the respondents, teacher, and students [20].
The population which the researchers can reach in this study were students from four Public
Vocational High Schools, six Private Vocational Schools, two Public Senior High Schools, and one Private
Vocational High Schools that are in DKI Jakarta and West Java Province. The schools are 7 Bekasi, 62
Jakarta, 51 Jakarta, and 41 Jakarta Public Vocational High School. For the Private Vocational High School
are Mutiara Depok, 3 Cikini College Jakarta, Wijaya Kusuma Islamic Vocational High School Depok,
Islamic Malahayati Jakarta, PGRI 28 Jakarta, and Al-Basyariah Bogor. The public senior high schools are 13
Depok and 10 Depok, also Uswatun Hasanah Jakarta private high school. The sampling technique uses quota
sampling because each school has a sample size of 30 to 35 people depending on the number of all students
at the school [21].
The quantitative data was taken by using a closed questionnaire which has four or five choices [22].
The closed questionnaire for descriptive data was compiled based on the 2013 curriculum implementation
indicators taken from the Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia
No. 81A of 2013 [23]. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire used an expert test which meant that
after the questionnaire was compiled, it was consulted with experts [24]. The quantitative approach is used to
determine the student's perception of the learning implementation using the 2013 Curriculum by distributing
questionnaires. Item statement and choice of answers in the questionnaire can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Questionnaire statements for students

No Statement Answer choice
1 The level of understanding of the material (a) understand everything (100%); (b) Most (≥76%) understand; (c) Most
delivered by the teacher (≥76%) students do not understand; (d)I don't fully understand (100%)
2 The teacher method for presenting the material (a) Easy to understand, very interesting, and very fun; (b) Easy to
understand, but less interesting and less pleasant; (c) Difficult to
understand, but interesting and fun; (d) Difficult to understand, less
interesting and less pleasant
3 The teacher gives the opportunity to observe, ask (a) Always give a chance; (b) Often gives a chance; (c) Sometimes it
questions, collect data, reason, and communicate gives a chance; (d) Never give a chance
4 The way the teacher assigns the learning tasks (a) All of them are very easy to understand; (b) Most of them easy to
(such as project assignments, problem-solving, or understand; (c) Most of them difficult to understand; (d) All of them are
discovery) difficult to understand
5 The teacher explains using how many learning (a) 4 methods; (b) 3 methods; (c) 2 method; (d) 1 method
methods in each meeting

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2021: 720 - 727
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  723

A qualitative approach is used to dig deeper from the teacher's and principals' perspective regarding
the implementation of the 2013 curriculum by involving 26 key informants consisting of one principal and
one teacher each school from 13 schools in DKI Jakarta and West Java Provinces. A qualitative approach is
used to obtain more in-depth information in determining the conditions of implementation or events in the
environment [25]. Qualitative researchers focus on the study of social phenomena and on giving voice to the
feelings and perceptions of the participants under study [26]. Data collection techniques using interviews and
direct observation in schools. The questions in the interview include the curriculum used by the school,
curriculum development principles, curriculum drafting team, learning methods used at school, curriculum
content. the key information is the principal, teacher, vice-principal, curriculum team, students.
Processing data analysis used a combined analysis of qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Qualitative data analysis used data triangulation and quantitative data analysis using descriptive analysis.
Descriptive research is one form of research that aims to describe the event of the occurrence of the variable
in the study [27]. Quantitative data was obtained from spreading closed questionnaire to know the perception
which felt by the students in the learning process [28]. Quantitative data analysis by describing the result of
the choice from the respondents in percentage, highest, and lowest score. Qualitative data processing used
analysis of the reduction and selection stages then assemble blocks or groups of data and putting them
together to make a coherent whole [29]. Qualitative data gained from the interview result with the key
informant [30]. The selection of key informants has based on the researcher's consideration that the
respondents are individuals who are leaders or experts or have a direct relationship with the research topic
[31]. Every answer from the respondents processed in the form of coding then merged in one taxonomic or
part in answering the problem formulation [32].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The recapitulation of questionnaires from 420 students as respondents was analyzed with a
quantitative approach using descriptive methods. The results of the questionnaire recapitulation are:

a. The level of understanding of the material delivered by the teacher

The result that 344 students (81.9%) answered choice (B), most (≥76%) understood. There are 57
(13.57%) students choose (C) the majority (≥76%) did not understand. Choice (A) “I fully understand”
(100%) a total of 16 (3.81%) students. If examined partially it turns out that choice (B) is the most chosen
from respondents occurring in high schools and vocational schools both public and private.
b. The way the teacher presents the material
The result is 163 students (38.81%) choose (B) Easy to understand, but less interesting and less
enjoyable. Choices (A) an Easy to understand, very interesting, and very enjoyable only choose by 138
(32.86%) students. Choice (C) Difficult to understand, but interesting and enjoyable choose by 93 (22.14%)
students and choice (D) Difficult to understand, less interesting and less pleasant is 26 (6.19%) students. If
examined partially it turns out that choice (B) is the most chosen from respondents occurring in high schools
and vocational schools both public and private.
c. The teacher gives an opportunity to observe, ask questions, collect data, reason, and communicate
The result is 206 students (49.05%) choose (A) always giving opportunity. Option (B) often gives a
chance choose by 139 (33.1%) students. Option (C) sometimes gives a total of 74 (17.62%) students a
chance. If examined partially at each school the choice of answers from each student is relatively the same.
Most students choose the point (A) as the answer.
d. The way the teacher assigns learning tasks (such as project assignments, problem-solving, or discovery)
The result is 316 students (75.24%) choose (B) as a large easily understood. Choice (C) is most
difficult to understand that choose by 84 (20%) students. The choice (A) easily understood which choose by
19 (4.52%) students. If examined partially it turns out that choice B becomes the most chosen by respondents
occurring in high schools and vocational schools both public and private.
e. The teacher in explaining using how many learning methods in each meeting
The result is 191 students (45.48%) answered the choice of (C) two methods. Choice (B) three
methods choose by 164 (39.05%) students. Elective (A) four methods it chooses by 36 (8.57%) students. If
analyzed more deeply, private school students choose (C) as many as 108 students out of a total of 191
students compared to state schools totaling 83 students.
The results of interviews with 26 respondents consisting of teachers and representatives of the
curriculum were analyzed using a qualitative approach with the tabulation and reduction methods [29]. The
results of data reduction are:

Improvement of teacher’s professional competency in strengthening learning … (Hendro Prasetyono)

724  ISSN: 2252-8822

a. Curriculum used by schools

There were 22 respondents answered using the 2013 curriculum and four respondents answered
coming from two state high schools still using the 2013 curriculum and School-based Curriculum. Class X
and XI have used the 2013 curriculum but class XII is still a School-based Curriculum. This is because class
XII has used the School-based Curriculum since the beginning of class X. Aside from this, the use of two
curriculums is caused by the teacher's inadequacy in using the 2013 curriculum and the limited facilities also
infrastructure. The 2013 curriculum was used in 12 different schools. There are eight schools used 2013
revised 2016 curriculum and four schools used the 2018 revised curriculum. The results of observations
showed that 10 schools implement the Zuhr prayer for Muslims, each Vocational School already has a
business unit, teachers are close to students and teachers are very disciplined in dress and attendance. The
remaining two schools have teachers with low on-time attendance rates and the other two teachers tend not to
be eager to teach.
b. Curriculum development principles
There are 24 respondents from 12 schools responded to the Ministry of Education and Culture or
followed the government through the Indonesian National Work Competency Standard. There are two
schools which are vocational schools answered following the development of the industrial world. The
obstacle that arises is that teachers do not understand how to develop a curriculum. The 2013 curriculum is
always being revised, and most teachers do not understand the curriculum development. Teachers only get
socialization from the government regarding the 2013 curriculum-based learning mechanism.
c. Curriculum drafting team
Senior high schools involve principals, curriculum staff, and representatives’ teachers in curriculum
preparation. Vocational high schools involve principals, curriculum staff, representatives’ teachers, heads of
departments, and supervisors in the preparation of the curriculum. The curriculum preparation team members
are the same for both public and private schools. The obstacles that arise in the team are the unpreparedness
of teachers in facing the 2013 curriculum which is always changing in Human Resources and Infrastructure.
The School-based Curriculum has not been completed yet by the government and it updated to the 2013
Curriculum. The 2013 curriculum has not yet been completed, the understanding in the implementation
process has been revised again to the 2013 revised Curriculum. While it constraints on facilities and
infrastructure for learning equipment such as projectors, classes, also labs which still need to be added and
equipped.
d. Learning methods used in school
The high school uses discussion learning methods, experiments, presentations, problem-based
learning, lecture methods, inquiry learning, discovery learning, and a scientific approach. Whereas vocational
schools using project-based learning methods, presentations, problem-based learning, lecture methods,
practice, inquiry learning, and discovery learning. Based on the results of the observation which it can be
noted that almost all high schools still use the lecture and discussion methods as the main method of learning
and infuse it with experimentation, presentation, or problem-based learning methods. The teacher who uses
the discussion method in teaching begins with the student's presentation then the student is left on a long
discussion without giving direction and explanation of the in-depth material. Consequently, it looks students
are still confused about understanding the material. Whereas vocational high schools have used more
problem-based learning and experiment methods.
e. Curriculum content
High schools have the following curriculum structure: general subjects, specialization subjects,
cross interests, and local content. The vocational high school has the following curriculum structure: national
subjects, regional subjects, productive subjects with the basic fields of expertise C1, C2, and C3. The analysis
started with the answer from question number one where the respondent showed that the students’ majority
(81.90%) understood the material which teaches by the teachers. In a glace, this situation looks good but the
learning purpose achievement can not only be seen from learning outcome [33]. The learning process is also
one of the important aspects of the achievement of education purposes [34]. One of the learning process
components which has to be paid attention to is the teachers’ teaching method in the class.
The answer from question number two that is respondents showed teachers’ methods in teaching
were not interesting. Based on the interview with the students, the researchers found out that in teaching
teachers only gave students tasks to draft paper in groups and then explained in front of the class. The
phenomenon that occurs while participant observation is that the teacher uses the student center approach
when the teacher leaves students free to discuss. In the learning process, especially in high school students
are allowed to engage in long discussions that do not end. When referring to the concept of the 2013
curriculum student center, the teacher as a facilitator must be creative in guiding students to be in the right
flow of the learning process. Many teachers are still afraid to be creative and innovative in teaching activities
and don't move out of the prescribed curricula. A curriculum is still seen as a subject matter to be completed

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2021: 720 - 727
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  725

in each academic session [35]. Mastery of diverse learning methods in addition to increasing the
effectiveness of teaching can also eliminate the boredom experienced by students during learning.
The answer to question number three showed that teachers have given their students opportunities to
question, observe, and give an opinion. It means that teachers in teaching have shown innovative behavior to
increase the students’ creativity and self-confidence [36]. Teachers’ innovative behavior in teaching, one of it
often shares their knowledge with their fellow teachers, even though the interview result with the school
principals and teachers also participants observation narrowed that most of the teachers are not able to move
from the conventional method when using the previous curriculum (school-based curriculum and
competency-based curriculum). This learning method is called the discussion learning method. The success
of this method must be accompanied by the teacher's role as a facilitator in the class [37]. The teacher must
be active as a “referee” in the learning process if the discussion is out of direction. The interview results
showed that the teachers already knew if they taught with the 2013 curriculum, they must use these
approaches and methods. However, they were lacking or not mastering the methods so they still used the
lecture and presentation methods. Besides, there are still two schools using two curricula, but their teaching
style is still referred to in the previous curriculum. This was supported by the results from the fifth statement
questionnaire summary which contained the majority of respondents choose the teachers’ using only two
learning methods and the teacher using four learning methods is the smallest amount. This is of course very
different from the purpose of the 2013 curriculum which emphasized creativity and innovation. Creativity
and innovation are needed to achieve the learning purposes in this era. [38].
The answers in question number 4 are the way teachers give tasks to their students is easy to
understand. This means that teachers quite a success in communicating the learning material, tasks, and
encourage the students to be active in the learning process. The majority of the respondents said that teachers
in teaching used the student center approach because it is not easy [39]. One of the factors causing this to
happen is that teachers are not able to create a student-centered environment [40]. In the student-centered
environment, teachers provide the learning opportunity (e.g. issues, cases, or problems), and then facilitate
learning, while students determine the engagement and production nature of learning outcomes, after that,
they formulate plans and carry out those plans in developing products and outputs [41]. However, the need
also exists to enhance teachers' abilities to implement learner-centered education philosophy in the
classroom.
The answers in question number 5 from the majority of the respondents are even though all schools
have used the 2013 Curriculum, the implementation needs to be analyzed in schools. The curriculum
implementation form in schools is the teaching and learning process in the class [42]. Teachers who use the
curriculum as a guide will produce good students’ understanding levels. The teaching style factor and the
instructional media choice become one of the influential factors in the level of students' understanding of
learning [43]. The curriculum is seen with great significance by teachers in any education system as it often
serves as a rule book for teachers [35]. Even though there is a learning method that appropriates with 2013
curriculum such as Jigsaw, project-based learning methods, presentations, problem-based learning, lecture
methods, practice, inquiry learning, and discovery learning [44]–[46].
Another more specific finding is that there are quite a several teachers who have not mastered
learning methods which use computers and the internet, like using videos or making vlogs that are very
popular with young people today. Teachers’ demographic factors, such as level educations and age, have
been discussed in the research literature concerning whether and to what extent they influence the use of ICT
in the class [47]. Research has shown that nowadays students are technophile. They love video games and
can't put down their smartphones, iPods, or social networks. Consequently, it is necessary to improve the
teacher’s professional competence in using learning resources and learning methods to improve the
implementation quality of the 2013 curriculum.

4. CONCLUSION
The findings of this study are the curriculum implementation in Indonesia is still not maximal and
there is a curriculum dualism in schools. There are still schools that use a competency-based curriculum,
even though the 2013 curriculum has been legalized for a long time to be used in schools. The cause of the
2013 curriculum's ineffective implementation at the senior and vocational high schools in Indonesia is the
teachers' professional competency which must be improved. These findings occur to the teachers in senior
and vocational high schools who were taken as a sample from the research location.
Teachers must master the project-based learning method, problem-based learning, lecture methods,
practice, inquiry learning, discovery learning with a scientific approach that refers to the student center. It is
necessary to support the successful implementation of the 2013 curriculum that aims to create human beings
with character. Various learning methods mastery needs to be strengthened by the teacher's ability to utilize

Improvement of teacher’s professional competency in strengthening learning … (Hendro Prasetyono)

726  ISSN: 2252-8822

learning resources that come from the internet. Also, for suggestions, there needs to be an education and
training management that facilitates the needs of teachers in mastering diverse learning methods. It can be
included in Teacher Professional Education (TPE) or related private institutions that can carry out the
training. The limitation of this study is the research only covers schools of three provinces in Indonesia. Also,
it has not yet reached a recommendation for an appropriate training model to be used as a guide to improving
teachers’ professional competence.

REFERENCES
[1] S. L. Zorluoğlu, T. Ergazi, and Ş. Eser, “Learning Probability of 4th Grade Science Curriculum Learning
Outcomes Among Visually Impaired Students,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. (IJERE), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 417–424, 2019.
[2] M. S. Chiu and D. Whitebread, “Taiwanese Teachers’ Implementation of A New ‘Constructivist Mathematics
Curriculum’: How Cognitive and Affective Issues are Addressed,” Int. J. Educ. Dev., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 196–206,
2011.
[3] Y. Kirkgöz, “A Case Study of Teachers’ Implementation of Curriculum Innovation in English Language Teaching
in Turkish Primary Education,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1859–1875, 2008.
[4] N. D. Usta, Z. Ceng, F. Kasli, and A. Ayas, “Evaluation of Implementation of Compounds Unit at 9th Grade in The
New Chemistry Curriculum,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2359–2362, 2009.
[5] L. D. V. Rubenstein, L. M. Ridgley, G. L. Callan, S. Karami, and J. Ehlinger, “How Teachers Perceive Factors that
Influence Creativity Development: Applying a Social Cognitive Theory Perspective,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 70,
pp. 100–110, 2018.
[6] H. Prasetyono, A. Abdillah, T. Anita, A. Nurfarkhana, and A. Sefudin, “Identification of the Decline in Learning
Outcomes in Statistics Courses Using the Chi-Squared Automatic Interaction Detection Method,” J. Phys. Conf.
Ser., vol. 1490, pp. 1–9, 2020.
[7] A. D. S. Krissandi and Rusmawan, “Constraints for Primary School Teachers in Implementing The 2013
Curriculum,” Cakrawala Pendidik., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 457–467, 2015.
[8] Y. Natsir, Y. Q. Yusuf, and U. F. Nasution, “The Rise and Fall of Curriculum 2013: Insights on the Attitude
Assessment from Practicing Teachers,” SHS Web Conf., vol. 42, p. 00010, 2018.
[9] W. Maba and I. B. N. Mantra, “The Primary School Teachers’ Competence in Implementing The 2013
Curriculum,” SHS Web Conf., vol. 42, no. 35, pp. 1–7, 2018.
[10] Y. Nora, “Learning of Social Studies in Elementary School as a Medium to Strengthen Multicultural Education in
The Curriculum Era 2013,” SHS Web Conf., vol. 42, no. 94, pp. 1–7, 2018.
[11] I. S. Naydenova and N. N. Naydenova, “Teacher’s Electronic Portfolio in Professional Standard of Teacher,” SHS
Web Conf., vol. 29, no. 01052, pp. 1–5, 2016.
[12] L. Bürgener and M. Barth, “Sustainability Competencies in Teacher Education: Making Teacher Education Count
in Everyday School Practice,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 174, pp. 821–826, 2018.
[13] J. Tondeur, K. Aesaert, S. Prestridge, and E. Consuegra, “A Multilevel Analysis of What Matters in The Training
of Pre-Service Teacher’s ICT Competencies,” Comput. Educ., vol. 122, pp. 32–42, 2018.
[14] M. Sirotová, “Pedagogical Praxis as A Process Of Developing Professional Competencies In University Education
Of Future Teachers,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 228, pp. 529–534, Jun. 2016.
[15] L. Franzen-Castle, et al., “Development of the iCook 4-H Curriculum for Youth and Adults: Cooking, Eating, and
Playing Together for Childhood Obesity Prevention,” J. Nutr. Educ. Behav., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. S60–S68, 2019.
[16] S. Syahrial, et al., “The impact of etnocontructivism in social affairs on pedagogic competencies,” Int. J. Eval. Res.
Educ. (IJERE), vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 409–416, 2019.
[17] E. Ciucci, A. Baroncelli, M. Toselli, and S. A. Denham, “Personal and Professional Emotional Characteristics of
Early Childhood Teachers and Their Proneness to Communicate With Parents and Colleagues About Children’s
Emotions,” Child Youth Care Forum, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 303–316, 2018.
[18] S. H.-B. Nagy, Mixed Methods Research. New York: The Guilford Press, 2010.
[19] C. R. Ember and M. Ember, Cross-cultural Research Methods, 2nd ed. New York: Altamira, 2009.
[20] D. Scott and M. Morrison, Key Ideas in Educational Research. New York: Continuum International, 2005.
[21] P. Dattalo, Determining sample size. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[22] S. Presser, et al., “Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questions,” Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 68,
no. 1, pp. 109-130, 2004.
[23] M. Nuh, Implementation of Curriculum in Indonesia. Indonesia, 2013.
[24] W. A. Fuller, Sampling statistics. New Jersey: A John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2009.
[25] H. Prasetyono, “Graduate Program Evaluation in the Area Leading Educational, Outlying and Backward,” J. Educ.
Pract., vol. 7, no. 36, pp. 109–116, 2016.
[26] M. G. Lodico, D. T. Spaulding, and K. H. Voegtle, Methods in Educational Research : From Theory to Practice.
Jossey-Bass, 2006.
[27] H. Prasetyono, A. Abdillah, T. Widiarto, and H. Sriyono, “Character-based Economic Learning Implementation
and Teacher’s Reinforcement on Student’s Affective Competence in Minimizing Hoax,” Cakrawala Pendidik.,
vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 426–435, 2018.
[28] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education, 6th Ed. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2021: 720 - 727
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  727

[29] A. Matthew B. Miles and M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd Ed. California:
SAGE Publications, Inc, 1994.
[30] K. Singh, Quantitative Social Research Methods. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2007.
[31] G. Lancaster, Research Methods in Management. Amsterdam: Elsivier, 2005.
[32] R. E. Stake, Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: The Guilford Press, 2010.
[33] R. Seebruck, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Multilevel Analysis of Teacher Credentialization and
Student Test Scores in California High Schools,” Mcgill Sociol. Rev., vol. 5, no. July, pp. 1–18, 2015.
[34] X. Xuan, et al., “Relationship Among School Socioeconomic Status, Teacher-Student Relationship, and Middle
School Students’ Academic Achievement in China: Using The Multilevel Mediation Model,” Plos One J.,
pp. 1–17, 2019.
[35] I. Umami, “Moderating Influence of Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Assessment Practices on Learning Outcomes in
Indonesian Secondary Education,” J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 60–75, 2018.
[36] J. Nasongkhla and S. Sujiva, “Teacher Competency Development: Teaching with Tablet Technology through
Classroom Innovative Action Research (CIAR) Coaching Process,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
vol. 174, pp. 992–999, 2015.
[37] M. A. Andrusyszyn, “The Effect of the Lecture Discussion Teaching Method With and Without Audio-Visual
Augmentation On Immediate and Retention Learning,” Nurse Educ. Today, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 172–180, 1990.
[38] J. Gralewski, “Teachers’ beliefs about creative students’ characteristics: A qualitative study,” Think. Ski. Creat.,
vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 138–155, 2019.
[39] J. Lasauskiene and A. Rauduvaite, “Expression of Pre-Service Teachers’ Emotional Competency in Their
Educational Practice,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 205, pp. 103–109, 2015.
[40] K. Jauregi, R. De Graaff, and H. van den Bergh, “Learning by doing: Promoting language teacher competencies for
networked teaching and learning,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 116–121, 2012.
[41] N. Zabeli, J. A. Anderson, and B. Saqipi, “Towards Development and Implementation of Learner-Centred
Education in Kosovo,” J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 49–64, 2018.
[42] A. Capelo, I. Cabrita, and M. Lucas, “Crossing Boundaries: Teacher Trainers and Science Curriculum
Implementation in East Timor,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 186, pp. 238–247, 2015.
[43] J. A. Wilson, A. H. Pegram, D. M. Battise, and A. M. Robinson, “Traditional Lecture Versus Jigsaw Learning
Method For Teaching Medication Therapy Management (MTM) Core Elements,” Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn.,
vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1151–1159, 2017.
[44] N. Sanaie, P. Vasli, L. Sedighi, and B. Sadeghi, “Comparing The Effect of Lecture and Jigsaw Teaching Strategies
on The Nursing Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental Study,”
Nurse Educ. Today, vol. 79, pp. 35–40, Mar. 2019.
[45] R. Amran, F. Yokoyama, and K. Nishino, “Development of Active Learning Methods Of English in Japanese High
Schools to Support Student Activities in Group Discussions,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 96, pp. 1471–1478, Sep.
2016.
[46] S. Şengül and Y. Katranci, “Effects of Jigsaw Technique on Mathematics Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Seventh
Grade Primary School Students,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 116, no. 2006, pp. 333–338, 2014.
[47] S. Papadakis, “Evaluating pre-service teachers’ acceptance of mobile devices with regards to their age and gender:
A case study in Greece,” Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 336–352, 2018.

Improvement of teacher’s professional competency in strengthening learning … (Hendro Prasetyono)