30
related to seeking and valuing the learners’ points of view, the teacher
provides an activity that helps value the students’ points of view e.g.,
asking the students to work in groups to discusscompare their own texts
and that of the teacher. The assumption taken in the guidelines is that if the activities and material are constructivist, a self-actualization learning
nuances are potentially there. In planning the evaluation part of a lesson, using the traditional test
types that emphasize knowledge reproduction and that have one answer to each item is discouraged. Since the learning process is considered as
important as the learning outcome as suggested in constructivist pedagogy, the use of portfolios is recommended. This is also in line with
the assessment suggested in the new curriculum Kurikulum 2013, which uses test and non-
test types for the evaluation of each learner’s progress. What is new, then, in the practice of the self-actualization language
learning model then? As stated in the conceptual stage previously part I.C the most important point is that the teacherdesigner can still use familiar
communicative and perhaps traditional techniques and activities, but, while planning, heshe is
aware of utilizing the major self-actualization principles outlined in part I.B and the self-actualization objectives in part II
A of these guidelines. The teacherdesigner can try to apply them either directly or indirectly. In conclusion, in the practice of the self-actualization
learning, being aware of making use of these principles and objectives may be considered as
“new”.
C. Procedure for Writing a Self-Actualization Learning Design Product
ELESP students who are developing a design product related to self- actualization principles of education need to have a standard procedure in
planning the study. They may just follow a procedure developed by language learning design writers, such as Dick, Carey, and Carey 2005. In
general, they may follow the following stages and steps adapted from
31
several sources: Borg Gall, Dick, Carey, Carey, Dubin Olshtain, and Thiagarajan, et al.:
● Defining Stage: 1.
Find essential principles of a learning design model. 2.
Decide an educational-cultural, language, and language learning viewpoints.
3. Define English language learning in the local context.
● Designing Stage: 4.
Write self-actualization learning objectives. 5.
Design self-actualization lesson units and syllabus. ● Developing Stage:
6. Design and conduct formative evaluation of learning materials
7. Revise the model.
● Disseminating Stage: 8.
Disseminate the revised model.
The procedure above is divided into four stages following Thiagarajan, et al. as quoted by Barus, 2008, pp. 47-48: Defining,
designing, developing, and disseminating – essential stages which can be
considered as a simplification of the standard models. Step 1 of Defining Stage offers a major instructional design framework, such as what is found
in Borg Gall and Thiagarajan, et al., to give an overview of what ELESP students as language learning designers are going to develop. Next, a
language learning designer needs to decide the language, language learning and educational-cultural viewpoints at the initial stage of the
development of a learning design, as stated by Dubin and Olshtain 1986, p. 34. These viewpoints become the major goals defined in step 2. Step 3
indicates that a language learning designer needs to contextualize English lesson units by defining contextual goals, topics, activities, and
assessment types that are needed by the English learners. This step is
32
parallel to an analysis of the learners’ needs. A survey or content analysis is
done here. At the second stage Designing Stage the language learning
designer needs to start to write more specific learning objectives and develop self-actualization lesson units. The objectives that are written are
derived from the major goals step 2 that contain an educational-cultural viewpoint
self-actualization, language
viewpoint communicative
competence, and language learning viewpoint learner-centered learning and are based on the previous context analysis. Next, in step 5, the
designer writes the syllabus and lesson units that are compatible with self- actualization learning. Here the designer needs to apply directly and
indirectly principles of self-actualization education and communicative language teaching when writing indicators, techniques, activities, material,
and assessment types. Self-actualization language learning nuances should be felt.
At Developing Stage the designer conducts formative evaluation and revises the syllabus and lesson units that have been written. The
designer may obtain feedback from English language education practitioners by using a survey, or, depending on the available time,
heshe conducts a field-trial evaluation step 6. After receiving feedback, the syllabus and lesson units are revised. It is possible that what has been
written at the previous stages may also be revised e.g., steps 3 and 4. This is what is recommended in Dick, Carey, Carey 2005. The final
stage is the dissemination of the revised model. Here the revised lesson units can be implemented by an English teacher or another ELT
practitioner and further improvement can still be obtained.
CONCLUSION
Developing a model of self-actualization learning requires flexibility because one of its basic principles is that there is no absolute truth in a
scientific endeavor. It is wise to state that a model developed by a designer
33
using self-actualization learning is better or stronger only in certain areas than some design models that have been previously developed by others.
However, a learning model should not appear weak because of its high flexibility; there must be certain educational principles that have to be
followed. One of the flexible features that appear in the guidelines is that the language viewpoint adopts and adapts current communicative
principles of Communicative Language Teaching. Another is that the language learning viewpoint adopts and adapts both communicative and
constructivist learning principles. Nevertheless, all of these principles should be in line with the major principles of education. In these guidelines
the major principles that are expected to be followed in developing and elaborating the core and basic competences of, for example, Kurikulum
2013 , are the self-actualization educational principles, which reflect post-
modern education. Since the designer has flexibility in adopting these guidelines, heshe
may use whatever curriculum the Ministry of Education and Culture recommends. In fact, the competence-based curriculum and the new
version of the curriculum being tried out – Kurikulum 2013 – share many of
the educational principles that the guidelines recommend, e.g., learner- centeredness, creativity, tolerance, and locality. Therefore, the designer
should not think that these guidelines offer a new approach that has not been developed before. Heshe is offered a relatively new, wider
perspective that may inspire himher to write a better learning instructional design.
34
REFERENCES
Barus, G. 2008. Model prosedur pengembangan dan implementasi program bimbingan dan konseling di sekolah dasar.
Widya Dharma, 19, 1, 37-61.
Bismoko, J. 2011. Postmodern English education system: Making it work. Proceedings of 2011 ESEA conference. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata
Dharma. Borg, W. R., Gall, M. D. 1983.
Educational research: An introduction. New York London: Longman.
Brooks, J. G. Brooks, M. G. 1993. In search of understanding: The case
for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to
language pedagogy 2
nd
edn.. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Cobussen, M. 2011. Education: From modernism to postmodernism.
Retrieved September 20, 2011, from http:www.cobussen.com...education...education...postmodernism
education_
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. 2003. Kurikulum 2004: Standar
kompetensi mata pelajaran bahasa Inggris SMA dan MA. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum, Balitbang Depdiknas.
Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, J.O. 2005. The systematic design of
instruction 6th ed.. New York: Allyn Bacon. Ditjen Dikti. 2011.
Kebijakan Ditjen Pendidikan Tinggi tentang KKNI dan Arah Kurikulum LPTK. Retrieved October 13, 2012, from
staff.uny.ac.id…Dirjen20Dikti_... Dubin, F., Olshtain, E. 1986.
Course design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fahim, M. Pishghadam, R. 2009. Postmodernism and English language teaching
. Electronic version. IJALS, 12, pp. 27-54. Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
http:www.sid.irenViewPaper.asp?ID=191448vDate=FALL2020 08-WINTER202009vEnd=54vJournal...
35
Finch, A. E. 2010. The postmodern language teacher: The future of task-
based teaching. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http:www.tblt.orgdownloadfinch_handout.doc.
Glossary Definition: Postmodernism – PBS . Retrieved August 1, 2013, from
http:www.pbs.orgfaithandreasongenglosspostm-body.html Hasan, H.S. Hamid. 2013.
Informasi Kurikulum 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from http:www.scribd.comdoc125100322Informasi-
Kurikulum-2013-Prof-Dr-H-S-Hamid-Hasan-MA Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional. 2010.
Panduan: Pendidikan karakter di Sekolah Menengah Pertama. Retrieved July 21, 2012, from
goeroendeso.files.wordpress.com201109panduan-pendidikan- karakter-di-smp.pdf
Ramadhan, A. Tarmizi. 2008, November. Pembelajaran aktif, inovatif,
kreatif, efektif dan menyenangkan. Retrieved July 2, 2013, from http:tarmizi.wordpress.com20081111pembelajaran-aktif-inovatif-
kreatif-efektif-dan-menyenangkan
Richards, J. C., Rodgers, T. S. 2001. Approaches and methods in
language teaching 2
nd
edn.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Setyawan, E.A.E. 2010.
English Writing Instructional Materials Using the Process-Based Approach for the Grade VIII Students of SMP Institut
Indonesia Yogyakarta. Unpublished Thesis, Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta.
Silabus Kurikulum 2013 SMA 2013. Retrieved August 1, 2013, from http:awan965.wordpress.com20130630silabus-kurikulum-2013-
untuk-sma
36
APPENDICES
A. Some Examples of Constructivist Learning Principles
