國立東華大學教育與潛能開發學系

教育博士班 博士論文 計畫審查

Department of Education and
Human Potentials Development,
Doctor of Philosophy Program of Education
National Dong Hwa University
Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Proposal
指導教授: 陳慧華
Advisor: Hui-Hua Chen, Ed.D.

共同指導教授: 林俊瑩
Co-Advisor: Professor Chunn-Ying Lin, Ed.D
INDONESIAN'S DRIVING-TEACHER CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT POLICY: IMPLICATIONS FOR FREED
OF LEARNING, PEDAGOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, AN
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS

MUSTOFA
中華民國一一一年五月
May 2022

1
 ABSTRACT

The quality of education, rather than universal enrolment, has an outsized impact

on economic and social development. In time, all schools around the world have

been demanded to implement new curricula and modernized learning

environments. To increase the quality of education, in most countries, teachers

became the main issue. In 2019 the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC)

issued freedom of learning policy (merdeka belajar), with an accompanying

program namely 'driving teacher' (known as ‘guru penggerak’). Driving teacher

strategy is a program that accompanies freedom of learning policy to enhance the

competency of teachers. The primary purpose of this study is (1) to examine the

implications of driving teachers towards learning freedom; (2) to explore how

teachers apply freedom of learning once receiving mentoring and training from

the driving teacher strategy; (3) to explore the pedagogical development of

teachers and teacher beliefs, in their dual-role as educators and curriculum

implementers. This research will rely on the interpretive paradigm to uncover

elementary teachers' complex reality and meaning about curriculum experiences.

As such, the qualitative approach underlines this research, at the ontological,

epistemological, and methodological levels. These qualitative ontological

(multiple realities) and epistemological (interactions with rather than detachment

from the participants) standpoints insist an ‘idiographic’ methodology. An

idiographic method focuses on individual cases or events. There are 29 schools

and 38 teachers will become participants.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract........................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents............................................................................................ iii

List of Figures................................................................................................. v

List of Tables................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the Study .........................................................................1

1.2 Research Purpose .....................................................................................5

1.3 The Statement of Problem and Research Questions ............................ 6

1.4 Scope and Limitation ............................................................................... 7

1.5 Definition of Key Terms .......................................................................... 7

1.5.1. Driving Teacher .......................................................................... 7

1.5.2. Freedom of Learning.................................................................. 8

1.5.3. Pedagogical Development............................................................ 9

1.5.4. Teachers’ Beliefs.......................................................................... 10

1.6 Organization of the Study ....................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 12

2.1. Curriculum Reform in Indonesia: An Overview ................................. 12

2.2. Teacher Autonomy and Teaching Development................................... 17

2.3. Pedagogical Development and Learning Outcome............................... 21

2.4. Teachers’ Beliefs in Implementing Educational Reform..................... 26

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH .................................. 32

3.1. Research Design ................................................................................... 33

3
3.2. Research Participants .......................................................................... 35

3.3. Research Procedures ............................................................................ 37

3.4. Ethical Consideration........................................................................... 38

3.5. Data Collection ..................................................................................... 38

3.6. Data Analyzes ....................................................................................... 39

References .......................................................................................................41

Appendix .........................................................................................................50

4
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Student of Pancasila Profile..............................................................5

Figure 2. A model of pedagogical competence................................................23

Figure 3. Overall Assessment Model................................................................25

Figure 4. Teachers’ Beliefs Framework...........................................................28

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. School and Participant

vi
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The introduction discusses the topic, context, and rationale of this study. Herein

describes the teacher as the most important factor in successful reformation while

highlighting the urgency of implementing driving teachers as a program that accompanies

freedom of learning policy which can improve teachers’ competencies. These topics are

preludes for later discussion on information about practices in the field. This chapter will

elucidate and discuss the research question, purpose of study, scope and limitation, and define

keys term.

1.1. Background of the Study

The reform didn't start in a vacuum, Apple stated the reform has a certain history; and all

are driven not only by technical considerations but also in depth by cultural, political and

economic projects and by the specificity and essence of understanding the social realities of

schools (Apple, 2018). Education is a determining factor in changes in the nation's social

history (Apple, 2018). It is through education that civilization is formed and the quality of

education, rather than universal enrolment, has an outsized impact on economic and social

development. Over time, all schools around the world have been demanded to implement

new curricula and modernized learning environments (Gerrard & Farrell, 2014; Hargreaves &

Shirley, 2012; Hübner et al., 2020, 2021). In times of such global policy paradigm shifts,

knowledge of how to implement the desired changes successfully is of paramount importance

(Hübner et al., 2021).

To promote the quality of education, in most countries, teachers’ professionalism became

the main issue. Teachers are the key street-level bureaucrats of the education aspect (Hübner

et al., 2021; Lipsky, 1980, 2010) and the main actors of each alteration attempt (Banner et al.,

2012; Hübner et al., 2021; Porter et al., 2015). When implementing macro-level such entire

system changes at the micro-level of the multi-layered educational system. The role of

1
teachers makes an immediate impact on student learning (Brühwiler & Blatchford, 2011;

Hübner et al., 2021).

Prior to the current discourse of researchers discussing the importance of teacher

competence (Hübner, et al. 2021), in 1998, Linda Darling Hammond had stated that ‘teacher

quality is an essential factor for student learning’. Geringer (2003), reiterated this dictum, not

only asserting that good teachers are an important factor in student learning, yet stating that

teacher quality outweighs the importance of standards, funding, and class size (Colbert et al.,

2008). Prior studies indicated that teachers' buy-in towards reform can is a precursor to

successful reform implementation (Donnell & Gettinger, 2015; Fullan, 2015; Garvin &

Roberto, 2005; Gräsel, 2010; Hübner et al., 2021; Mayrowetz, 2009; Rogers, 2003). Further,

in the early stages of reform, reform ranking can be positioned as a proxy for success and

future effective implementation (Carter, 2008; Donnell & Gettinger, 2015).

As mentioned above, teachers are the most factor for successful reformation (Banner et

al., 2012; Lipsky, 1980, 2010), correlating to immediate student developments in the learning

process and classroom (Brühwiler & Blatchford, 2011). More specifically, previous studies

have affirmed how teachers perceive reform determines their involvement inappropriately

implementing the necessary changes (Desimone, 2002; Easton & Erchul, 2011; Mayrowetz,

2009; Rogers, 2003). Functionally, if teachers’ ratings relating to specific reforms are rather

negative, they will not aspire to alter (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Terhart, 2013). Thus,

teacher quality related to pedagogical ability and teacher beliefs about reform is pivotal.

One of the latest pieces of evidence that quality of education is paramount lies in

Finland’s education system. After Finland ranked top within PISA results, research identified

their success was the result of high-quality teachers. This results from the high entry

standards and university-level training that all educators must go through to receive their

qualifications (Malinen et al., 2012). Moreover, several Finnish researchers have emphasized

2
the quality of teachers and teacher education in ensuring good learning outcomes in their

comprehensive schools (Sahlberg, 2011; Valijarvi et al., 2002). Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of

over 800 meta-analyses relating to student achievement reinforce the notion that teacher

accounts for a massive proportion of the variance in student achievement.

Since 2005 the Indonesian government has started to seriously work to improve teacher

competence through the Teacher Certification Program (TCP) -known as Pendidikan Profesi

Guru/PPG in Indonesia-. Law No. 14 of 2005 concerning Teachers and Lecturers mandates

the teacher certification program in Indonesia. The law is the governments’ step to improve

the quality of education in Indonesia (Chang, et al., 2013; Kusumawardhani, 2017). Various

developing countries also exhibit this phenomenon, shifting concern from accessibility issues

to quality issues. Bluntly, this policy arises due to teachers failing to produce academically

capable students (Kusumawardhani, 2017).

However, the crucial issue remains and TCP has failed to bring significant changes to

teacher performance. Referring to Kusumawardhani, (2017) and Chang et. al., (2013), teacher

certification programs in Indonesia have succeeded in increasing teacher wages; however,

wage raises were not directly proportional to improved performance. There remains no

distinction in teaching and learning competence between certified and non-certified teachers.

according to Kusumawardhani one of the reasons is that the increase in salary is not based on

superior performance. Furthermore, teaching profession in Indonesia with a civil servant

status is a highly secured occupation, with almost zero probability of getting fired for non-

performance. Therefore, with a desire to improve the competency of teachers as well as

responding to the results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test –

which placed Indonesia in a very low position (Makarim, 2020) – the Ministry of Education

and Culture (MOEC) issued freedom of learning policy (merdeka belajar), with an

accompanying program namely 'driving teacher' (known as ‘guru penggerak’) in 2019.

3
Teacher driving is a policy that is manifested in a training and mentoring program of

approximately one year to prepare teachers to become learning leaders, to drive teachers

within their schools and even between schools and is then known as a 'driving teacher'

(Makarim, 2019).

In link with the policy of freedom of learning, which relies on the quality of teachers,

MOEC added the strategic ‘driving teacher’ policy to improve teacher competence. MOEC

intends the ‘driving teacher’ concept to advance teacher competence. The driving teachers

come from the best teachers who then mentor and supervise the teachers in training, thus

raising the quality of education in Indonesia (Makarim, 2019). Referring to some prior to

studies reported that the quality of teacher training affects the ability of teachers to implement

and develop curricula (Clemente et al., 2000; Craig, 2006; Shawer, 2013; Shulman, 1986).

They claim that the training that will be provided to teachers is distinct from previous training

in terms of quality and time duration.

This policy aims to boost the potential of teachers and enhance student independence in

learning. The driving teacher is part of the educational reform process towards a better

alteration and has a fundamental role in the implementation of freedom of learning.

Additionally, this policy identifies and trains future educational leaders. Driving teachers are

agents who in the future become candidates for principals, school supervisors and training

programs. This policy transfers autonomy and zones of change to the smallest component of

the education system, a teacher. The driving teacher program places teachers as agents of

reform who play an important role in transforming school culture to be superior and

innovative (Makarim, 2020).

The driving teacher as an instrument of the transformation of Indonesian education aims

to support holistic student growth and development towards the 'Pancasila Students Profile'

(see Figure 1). Pancasila is the values and way of life of Indonesia, containing five basic

4
principles; 1), believe in God, 2), humanism, 3), unity, 4), democracy, and 5), social justice.

The driving teacher policy also pushes teachers to become trainers or teacher mentors for

student-centered learning, and role models and transformation agents for the education

ecosystem as well as become curriculum co-creator or curriculum developers (Kholisdinuka,

2020). Therefore, teachers must have solid pedagogical abilities. As such, to what extent will

this strategy be able

Have faith, fear God

Almighty, and have a Global diversity
noble character

Student
Independent Mutual
Profile of
Pancasila cooperation

Creative
Critical reasoning

Figure 1.a. Pancasila Student Profile

to develop teacher pedagogy? Could teachers be curriculum developers or just merely

transmitters?

Driving teachers become agents of change who can transform the educational ecosystem,

with a range of other impacts on teachers and their educational institutions (Satriawan, 2021).

In addition, policy priorities and prepares driving teachers to become excellent school

principals so that in the future there will be a generation of ‘drivers’ who can lead the school

transformation process towards a more comprehensive scale of education quality

improvement. Trainers utilize an andragogy approach – experience-based teaching – to carry

out education and training (Satriawan, 2021). The procedure for implementing the driving

5
 teacher begins with the recruitment of teachers, then providing training and mentoring for

around a year, and then implement them as driving teachers.

During the training and education period, these driving teacher candidates receive training

on leadership, mentorship and their role as changemakers in schools; training which will

make the freedom of learning policy successful. However, all of these successful policies are

highly reliant on teacher beliefs. Therefore, the extent to which the driving teacher program is

able to encourage teacher beliefs is the extent to which it can be successful. Many research

indicated that teacher beliefs about reform are crucial in how to implement the curriculum

effectively according to the goals. Their knowledge, beliefs and perceptions play an

important role in the effective implementation of reforms (Fullan, 2007; Park & Sung, 2013).

Figure 1.b. illustrates the implementation of an education policy reform in education can be

characterized by a unique field-specific implementation process (e.g., through professional

development programs or teacher training) and the specific expected impact channels (e.g.,

on teacher attitudes, skills and knowledge, classroom practice and subsequent student

learning).

Impact

Implementation Change in
teachers’
Information and reform related Change in
External groups professional Change in
knowledge, students’
development instruction
competencies
processes attitudes
and beliefs
Evaluation
Agenda-setting Policy formulation Decision making

Government and Implementation

stakeholder
administration initiator

Figure 1. b. Adapting the education policy implementation model based on previous research; Jann and Wegrich (2007), Desimone (2009), and Hübner,
et al. 2021)

6
1.2. Research of Purpose

Since the main objective of the driving teacher strategy is to succeed in the freedom of

learning policy, the primary purpose of this study is to examine the implications of driving

teachers towards learning freedom. The research explores how teachers apply freedom of

learning upon receiving mentoring and training from the driving teacher strategy. In addition,

it also explores the pedagogical development of teachers and teacher beliefs, important

factors for teachers as educators and curriculum implementers. To what extent is the policy of

driving teachers able to succeed in the policy of freedom of learning? Can this policy develop

teacher pedagogy so they act as curriculum developers or just curriculum transmitter? Will it

strengthen teacher beliefs for successful implementation of this policy? Therefore, teachers

are the key to successful curriculum reform (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001; Little, 1993; Park &

Sung, 2013; Spillane, 1999).

1.3. The Statement of Problem and Research Questions

Based on previous research on educational reforms, which has underscored that teachers’

positive perceptions and acceptability of reforms are key for successful implementation,

researcher first will investigate the implications of driving teachers towards learning freedom.

To the researcher's searched, no study in Indonesia on this new policy has investigated this

topic empirically, and this study only analyzed a subset of the predictors from the theoretical

and conceptual literature. In line with available research, researcher assume that teachers who

report greater added value from reform and use more support structures should rate curricular

reform more positively. Regarding value added, previous research has highlighted that when

teachers' beliefs and reform goals are more aligned, they respond more positively to reform

(Donnell & Gettinger, 2015). Regarding support structures, participation in professional

development programs may be of great benefit. For example, as outlined by Desimone

7
(2009), successful professional development can help shape teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and

knowledge about certain content elements, all of which can help build capacity to

successfully implement reforms (Fusarelli, 2002).

On the other hand, assumed that variables indicating a higher demand for teachers to

implement reforms (eg, expected workload) were negatively associated with curricular

reform ratings. This assumption results from the literature on institutional capacity and

successful policy implementation in schools (eg, Fusarelli, 2002; Malen et al., 2015), which

has repeatedly described teachers' subjective demands as barriers to successful policy

implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Therefore, in response to the above-mentioned

conditions, this study aims to answer the following questions:

1. How does driving teacher policy affect the freedom of learning?

2. How do teachers implement freedom of learning in the classroom while creatively and

effectively contributing to the curriculum?

3. To what extent does driving teacher effect pedagogical development?

4. Do teachers become curriculum-developers or just curriculum-transmitters?

5. What is the teachers’ belief in implementing freedom of learning upon gaining training

and mentoring?

1.4. Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study focuses on elementary teachers who have completed mentoring

and training in the driving teacher program and implemented this program continuously

among teachers. The focus rests on exploring how teachers apply freedom of learning,

pedagogical development, and teacher beliefs following the aforementioned mentoring and

training. There are some limitations to this research; firstly, the sample size of elementary

teachers who have completed mentoring and training. Secondly, the research finding of this

8
study is based on the six teachers who became participants from 6 elementary schools in

Surabaya (city center, south, north, west and east), East Java, Indonesia.

1.5. Definition of Keys Term

1.5.1. Driving Teacher

According to MOEC Driving teachers are learning leaders who apply freedom of

learning and drive the entire educational ecosystem to realize student-centered education

(Kemendikbud, 2020). Driving teachers have several roles in the school community,

including: (1) Driving learning communities for fellow teachers at schools and in the regions;

(2) Become a practical teacher or partner for other fellow teachers related to academic

development or learning at school; (3) Driving improvement of student leadership in schools;

(4) Build an academic environment and collaboration space between teachers and

stakeholders at school and outside of school to enhance the learning quality; (5) Become a

learning driver who increases the welfare of the education ecosystem in schools.

Driving teacher programs encourage teachers to interact and cooperate with one another.

Hence, this strategy is in line with researchers who agree that teacher learning is social and

teacher training ought to involve teachers learning from one another (Fishman and Davis

2006; Grossman, et al. 2001; Meirink, et al. 2009).

1.5.2. Freedom of Learning

Freedom of learning is a policy that provides liberty to schools, teachers, and students to

teach and learn innovatively, independently and creatively (Satriawan et al., 2021). The

MOEC includes several reforms in the Freedom of learning policy. First, the Minimum

Competency Assessment and Character Survey replaces the National Examination. Referring

to MOEC the Minimum Competency Assessment and Character Survey consist of the ability

to reason using language (literacy), the ability to reason using mathematics (numbering), and

strengthening character education. Literacy is not just the ability to read, but also the ability

9
to analyze a reading and understand the concepts behind the writing. 'Numbering' is the

ability to analyze using numbers. Notably, 'literacy' and 'numbering' do not strictly involve

subjects of language or mathematics, yet rather the ability of students to use these concepts to

analyze material across disciplines.

Regarding the character survey, so far, the government only has cognitive data from

students yet does not know the condition of the ecosystem in the students' schools. The

results of the survey will be a guide for schools and the government. The character survey

will serve as a benchmark, providing feedback for school reforms. The survey will examine

students in the middle of learning (e.g., grades 4, 8, 11), so as to encourage teachers and

schools to improve the quality of learning. The results of this exam will not be the basis for

selecting students to the next level.

Secondly, the MOEC will submit the National Standard School Examination (USBN) to

schools, providing freedom in determining forms of assessment, such as portfolios, papers, or

other forms of activity determined by the Education Unit in accordance with the

competencies measured by the National Education Standards. The MOEC Also added to the

explanation of Article 6, paragraph 2, that; “the graduation of students is determined by the

education unit/education program that is concerned”. Thus, the MOEC reviewed the content

of the rules and identified that teachers and schools are more independent and better prepared

in assessing student learning outcomes.

Thirdly, In terms of the lesson plan, based on the Circular Letter of the MOEC No. 14 of

2019, regarding the Simplification of the Lesson Plan, the contents include: (1) the

preparation of the lesson plan is carried out with the principles of being efficient, effective,

and student-oriented; (2) Of the 13 lesson plan components contained in Circular Letter No.

22 of 2016 the core components have been revised; the core components are now learning

objectives, learning steps, and assessments that must be carried out by teachers, while the rest

10
are only complementary; and (3) Schools, Subject Teacher Groups in schools, and individual

teachers can freely choose, create, use, and develop lesson plans formats independently for

maximum learning success for students. That is, teachers are no longer administrators, yet

teachers are curriculum co-creator (Makarim, 2019).

1.5.3. Pedagogical Development

The national standard illustrates pedagogical development as the ability to organize

students' learning around (1) Understanding the learner; (2) Designing, and implementing,

learning outcomes; and (3) Evolving learners to actualize their potential (Novianti &

Laelawati, 2019). As mandated by Law No. 14 of 2005 Concerning Teachers and Lecturers,

pedagogic competency consists of the competency of teachers and the learning process for

students. Regulation of the Minister of National Education No. 17 of 2007 summarizes the 10

core potentials that must teachers must possess for the successful implementation of specific

lessons:

1) Understanding students’ physical, moral, spiritual, social, cultural, emotional,

and intellectual aspects;

2) Possessing a good command of learning theory and educational learning

principles;

3) Develop a curriculum related to the subjects taught;

4) Conducting didactic learning;

5) Utilizing information and communication technology for the advantage of

learning;

6) Facilitating the development of potential students to actualize their various

potentials;

7) Communicating effectively, empathically, and politely with students;

8) Assessing and studying the learning process and results;

11
 9) Utilizing results and evaluations for the advantage of learning; and

10) Utilizing reflective actions to enhance the quality of learning.

According to Olsson et al. (2010), there are four important characteristics forming

pedagogical competence, pedagogical practice, and actual teaching activities; (1), the teacher

makes learning observations to prepare teaching and student learning; (2), teachers have

theory and knowledge about teaching and learning of students; (3), teachers make teaching

plans to improve their pedagogical practice, and (4). Quality teaching and learning practice.

These four factors are interconnected with each other to produce quality learning.

1.5.4. Teachers’ beliefs

Heyder (2019), defines beliefs as ‘an individual's judgment about the truth or falsity of a

proposition. Teacher beliefs are closely related to the teacher's professional identity and

mission (Korthagen, 2004) and constitute an essential part of teacher professional

competence, affecting teacher behavior and success of teacher professional development

(Baumert & Kunter, 2013).

Whereas according to Ham & Dekkers (2019), the cornerstone of this research’s

framework, teacher belief is the integration of two conceptual frameworks, distinguishing the

identified contextual factors. Teachers must successfully carry out a two-part process

consisting of the framework of teachers' personal interpretations and their subjective

educational theory before new practices become regularly used in the classroom. There are

indirect factors positioned on the part that follows the teacher's interpretive framework. There

is a highly significant relationship between teacher beliefs and factors in a context that

teachers report as influencing the adoption of the introduced practice. Indirect contextual

factors identified by teachers include administrative support, political context, monitoring and

remuneration systems (Ham & Dekkers, 2019). Other factors include direct factors that

reflect teachers' consideration of contextual factors that influence the adoption of introduced

12
teaching practices but with little reference to beliefs held within their framework of

interpretation. Factors in this section are high-stakes exams, teacher training, curriculum and

limited resources.

1.6. Organization of the Study

There are five chapters in this study. The first chapter discussed the background of this

study, the statement of problem and research questions, the purpose of the study, the

significant of the study, scope and limitations, and defined keys term. The second chapter

present the related literature reviews as well as the theoretical frameworks. Chapter three

outlines the methodology of the study, participant, the data collection, and analyses of the

data. Chapter four consists of the findings and discussion, and chapter five, the last chapter is

conclusion; include summary of the study, implication of the study, and suggestions for

future study.

13
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEWS

The literature reviews feature four main theories, (a) an overview of curriculum

reform in Indonesia (b) teacher autonomy and teaching development (c) pedagogical

development and learning outcome, and (d) teacher beliefs in implementing educational

reform.

2.1. Curriculum Reform in Indonesia: An Overview

Terminologically there is a diversity of curriculum definitions proposed by experts

(Asher, 2009). The research shows that variations in curriculum meaning are rooted in the

different points of view used by experts. In general, there are two points of view on the

curriculum (Musanna, 2016). First, the view that places the curriculum as a substance,

namely that the curriculum is a plan for student learning activities in schools that includes the

formulation of objectives, teaching materials, learning activity processes, schedules and

evaluation activities. In this perspective, the curriculum is a concept compiled by experts,

approved by policymakers and the community as users. Second, the view that positions the

curriculum as a system. According to this view, the curriculum is a series of concepts about

various learning activities, each of which is related to all elements in the education system

Curriculum reforms design and determine the education therein to elevate the quality of

educational outcomes (Fahey, 2012).

Curriculum reform reflects the expectation that an alteration of goals, contents, strategy

and means will enhance teaching in a myriad of ways (Hopmann, 2003; Qoyyimah, 2018).

This premise widely considers curriculum reform to be a key instrument of educational

alteration (Qoyyimah, 2018). On the one hand, the introduction of a new curriculum can pose

new challenges in teachers' work-life, and teaching practice (Hopmann, 2003; Lai, 2010;

14
Qoyyimah, 2018). During the curriculum implementation process, the expectations and

challenges experienced by teachers can lead to enthusiasm or resistance in their professional

practice (Kim & Youngs, 2016; Maguire et al., 2010; Qoyyimah, 2018).

The government has delivered frequent curriculum reform in Indonesia. Since

independence on August 17, 1945, the curriculum has undergone 11 revisions; 1947, 1952,

1962, 1968, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2004, 2006, and 2013, 2019, (see figure 2.a.), (Mustofa, et al.

2021). An important symbol the of independence gained in 1945 is the establishment of

'Pancasila' as the foundation of the state; the philosophical values of the nation. That is, the

noble values of Pancasila become a reference and philosophy in education (Suratno, 2014).

Further, in the early 1960s the government sought to build character and access to education

that was just and equal. Therefore, the 1947 Curriculum was first titled the 'Learning Plan

Curriculum', conceptualized into three important factors: study hours, subjects, and character

education. Those three factors are then integrated into subjects, state, and community

awareness. (Mukminin et al., 2019).

Thereafter, in 1952, in an effort to produce citizens who were prudent, democratic and

responsible for defending the country, the government conducted the first revision in the form

of the ‘Unraveled Learning Plan’ (Rencana Pembelajaran Terurai) curriculum. Reforms

returned in 1962 by reorienting the values of nationality, patriotism, nationalism,

internationalism, religion to improve students' intelligence, emotions, and physical well-being

(Mukminin et al., 2019). Then, when the regime changed in 1967 from the ‘Old Order' into

the 'New Order', (known as the transition era) the government established a tagline that saw

‘education as a significant human capital investment’. Hence, the 1990s in ambitions to grow

the economy, the government made efforts to increase the access, quality, and significance of

education to achieve the best outcome (Suratno, 2014).

15
 The 1975 curriculum replaced the 1968 curriculum on January 15, 1975, with the Decree

of the Minister of Education No. 008d/U/1975 and 008e/U1975. This curriculum is distinct

from the previous curriculum developed on a theory-based curriculum process (Mukminin et

al., 2019). However, politics dominated the development of the 1975 curriculum, thus the the

government had the sole interpretation of education (Apple, 2004). About a decade later, in

1984, reforms reviewed 1975 although no significant alterations came about.

At the time, the regime attempted to reinforce their power so that education loaded by

doctrine, the 'History Subject', became compulsory and titled 'History of Education for the

Nation's Struggle' (Hasan, 2009). The significant alteration occurred in 2003 (Indonesian

National Education System Law) with a dramatic change from centralization to

decentralization with an autonomy policy (Raihani, 2007). The distribution of power among

various levels of government, makes decentralization a democratization agenda in the

political aspect (Dewi, 2021).

Like any other public sector, decentralization is multifaceted and has both political and

economic aspects (Dewi, 2021). Decentralization has different forms depending on the

national context of its implementation. The two forms of the process are the administrative

governance aspect and the fiscal instruments, which in turn results in a different evaluation

approach from the implementation (Dewi, 2021). Two forms of education decentralization

are distinguishable; namely the transfer of authority to local governments (Dewi, 2021), and

schools in terms of ‘school-based management’ such as professional, community,

administrative, and balanced controls. Irrespective of the devolving schemes, research

considers decentralizations to be a pivotal formula that could elevate the provision of

education services and in the end, enhance the quality of education (Channa, 2016; Jeong et

al., 2017).

16
 This reform occurred when the student movement of 1998 overthrew the New Order

regime, marking the birth of a truly democratic country, known as the ‘Reform Order’. As

noted, national education aims to instill the Pancansila virtues in students (Raihani, 2007).

The government changed the curriculum again, this time to the ‘Competence-Based

Curriculum’ after the 2004 decentralization policy (Bjork, 2005; Kristiansen & Pratikno,

2006).

Responding to the education decentralization policy, in 2006 the Ministry of National

Education promoted School-Based Management (SBM) for elementary and secondary

schools (Hamzah, 2013). This policy proposes to give more freedom to principals, teachers,

and school stakeholders to manage their schools. SBM is currently a common phenomenon,

and research believes SBM will be a mainstay instrument for the progress of the school as a

whole. Proponents of this approach argue that SBM schools promote a democratic

perspective and progress in all features of the school becomes more feasible and profitable

(Hamzah, 2013; Raihani, 2007). This is the forerunner of a policy that provides schools the

freedom to ‘manage’ their own school, although in practice it was not so.

The last revision – before the freedom of learning policy – was the ‘Curriculum-2013’.

This curriculum provides a discourse on character education as a struggle to intercept and

overcome social problems (Qoyyimah, 2018). Competency-based curriculum models with

graduate competency standards guided the 2013 reform. One education unit, education level

and education program exclusively contained their competency standards. In addition to

having the main principles, the 2013 curriculum defined three aspects of assessment, that is

aspects of knowledge, aspects of skills, and aspects of attitudes and behavior. In this sense,

that the desire ‘free to learn’ – which is currently the tagline of MOEC – existed before the

current freedom of learning reform emerged.

17
 Then the latest reform was in 2019, that is the ‘Freedom of Learning’ reform analyzed

here in with the accompanying policy ‘Driving Teacher’. In this policy, teachers not only

follow the predetermined curriculum but also try to develop creatively and co-create

curriculum. This curriculum creation shapes all learning activities to build a ‘Pancasila

student Profile’ as mentioned above. The driving teacher in freedom learning should be able

to adapt to the modern era in terms of character education. Students are to be wise in facing

the challenges of the developing era and have a critical attitude in responding to all available

information

1947
Rencana Pelajaran
Dirinci
2004 dalam Rencana
1975
Pelajaran Terurai
Rintisan Kurikulum
Kurikulum
BerbasisDasar
Sekolah kompetensi
(KBK)
1968
1994 2013
Kurikulum
Kurikulum
1994 2013
Sekolah
Dasar
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
1945
2019

2006
1984
1973
Kurikulum
1984 Perintis
Proyek
Tingkat Satuan
Sekolah
Pendidikan
Figure 2. a Curriculum Development in Indonesia
Pembangunan
(KTSP)
(PPSP)
1997
1964
Revisi Kurikulum
Rencana Pendidikan
1994
Sekolah Dasar

(Kemendikbud, 2020; Sibagariang, et al. 2021). The driving teacher is the teacher who

drives other teachers in freedom learning to develop the potential of students holistically. The

driving teacher cannot merely manage to effective learning but should be able to create

relationships with students in the school community by using existing technology which can

18
improve the quality of learning. The driving teachers must reflect and evaluate continuously

in improving learning practices (Kemendikbud, 2020; Sibagariang, et al. 2021).

The driving teacher in freedom of learning should be an example who has the ability and

fighting power to bring about positive change in the educational ecosystem in their school

unit and other school units. The driving teacher can synergize and collaborate to achieve

educational change towards a better direction in improving the quality and competitive

education. The driving teacher should drive fellow teachers to always innovate. A teacher in

freedom of learning should have mature personality competencies, both morally and

spiritually so that they become role models for students and all school members.

Dewi (2021) reported in her study that reform and alteration of policy have gaps between

intention and implementation. Some argue that policy initiatives rely on the policymaker’s

aims rather than serving the main purpose (Dewi, 2021; Suryadi, 2013). If the policymakers

politicize the policy, it will be unsustainable and the roots of low-quality education will

remain. Second, indeed curriculum reform may have a positive impact on student learning

outcomes (Dewi, 2021; Rahman, 2019; You & Morris, 2016). However, it depends on the

perception and quality of adequate teachers as the core resource. Trainers must improve the

teachers’ competencies to be pro-active towards reform, including socialization and school

support opportunities.

This is a challenge for teachers and schools to realize better education by responding to

various existing problems. Through this policy, the regime has expanded the role of teachers

not merely as curriculum transmitters but also as curriculum developers. Can teachers and

schools competently and successfully respond to these challenges?

2.2. Teacher Autonomy and Teaching Development

International trends in curriculum reform recognize the need for teachers to have greater

freedom and autonomy in determining how to present the curriculum (Hughes & Lewis,

19
2020; Priestley et al., 2014). Similarly, as elucidated by De Grauwe (2005) and supported by

Di Gropello and Marshall (2011), giving more autonomy to teachers allows them to be more

flexible and innovative so that teachers can teach based on local resources and student needs.

There is a correlation between learning outcomes and the suitability of teaching materials and

student interests, with the teacher’s new role as co-creator of the curriculum. Teachers can

review and choose the learning activities they do that are relevant to the classroom

environment.

Researchers interpreted teacher autonomy as the unimpeded initiative for teachers to

make key decisions that sway the essence and conditions of their work without contradicting

regulations and resources provided by the government (Frostenson, 2015; Lennert da Silva &

Mølstad, 2020; Mausethagen & Mølstad, 2015; Wermke et al., 2019). Teacher autonomy is a

complex phenomenon that has philosophical, psychological, sociological and historical–

political aspects (Erss et al., 2016; Parker, 2015). Pearson and Hall (1993) stated that teacher

autonomy is consist of two aspects: 1) general autonomy, concerns standards of classroom

behavior and discretion in the workplace; and 2) curriculum autonomy, how to opt activities

and materials, instructional designing and managing. Further Smith and Erdoğan (2008)

extend the scope by incorporating the self-direction of learning and the aspect of control,

(Wermke & Forsberg, 2017; Wermke et al., 2019). For instance: 1) the capability for self-

directed and professional action; 2) the capacity for self-directed and professional

development; and 3) freedom from others dictating the capability or capacity (Haapaniemi, et

al. 2020).

According to Manzano Vázquez (2017), there are three distinct constructs of teacher

autonomy: (1) teaching activities, (2) professional development activities, and (3) the

relationship of teacher’s autonomy to learner autonomy. However, due to contextual issues,

educators are not constantly able to become independent in the classroom, yet, individually,

20
most will be conscious to create ‘space for personal autonomy’ (Benson 2010; Dikilitas &

Mumford, 2018). Jiménez Raya and Vieira (2015) highlight that autonomy possess two

dimensions; willingness and ability. Hence, teachers and administrators perceive autonomy as

a complex concept, whereby separate affective and cognitive aspects complexly interact with

personal and social-interactive elements. Hence, the concept of teacher autonomy is more

than a personal attitude. Jiménez Raya and Vieira (2018), emphasize that the political aspect,

including the promotion of democratic ideals and a collective sense of progress among

teachers, are a vision, and a ‘autonomy pedagogy’. (Dikilitas & Mumford, 2018).

In the Indonesian context, according to the freedom of learning policy, autonomy is

teachers possessing the autonomy to interpret the curriculum and contribute to the

curriculum. Teachers are no longer administrators but curriculum co-creators (Makarim,

2019). In addition, freedom of learning is an effort by the government to streamline the

administrative burden that shackles the flexibility of schools and teachers in innovating. The

freedom of learning policy encourages teachers to have a ‘growth mindset’, accordingly they

are able to carry out various effective learning innovations for students. In addition, from the

perspective of students, freedom of learning creates ‘psychological safety’ in the learning

process so that students can cultivate the habit of asking many questions, trying different

methods, and exploring creative learning without having to worry about failure (Satriawan, et

al. 2021).

This study, therefore, highlights the broader need for teachers to be able to understand

their potential as controllers of their own development, and not simply as implementers of

others’ research and programs. As such, in addition to cognitive and motivational benefits,

teachers experience involvement in a more democratic and inclusive pedagogical

development process that promotes ‘interpersonal empowerment’ (Jiménez Raya and Vieira

2015).

21
 In most cases, curriculum implementation features a top-down approach which

disseminates notions through ‘experts’ and teacher trainers rather than allowing teachers to

take their own initiative to resolve problems at the classroom level. In fact, the study reported

that one way to enhance teaching and learning in schools is to involve teachers in researching

their own classrooms (Lieberman, 1995). In this sense, teachers do not simply apply or copy

others’ theories or experiences, but promote their initiative in rethinking their teaching, and

the values of their work. As Elliott (1991) indicated, curriculum development is teacher

development since teachers intrinsically factor into the success of curriculum reform.

This is challenging since teacher autonomy is a constantly evolving concept (Parker,

2015; Pearson and Moomaw, 2005), and has become a psychological need (Grenville-Cleave

and Boniwell, 2012). Notably, given the current relentless development of reform in

education (Grenville-Cleave and Boniwell, 2012). To some extent, autonomy is a crucial

element of teachers’ work as, by its very nature, evaluation calls occur in erratic situations

(Hoyle and Wallace, 2009) and thus must take into account specific contexts (Biesta, 2009).

Because teacher autonomy is the subject of much discourse, perhaps work autonomy is the

most commonly used definition, whereby teachers manage control over theoretical

knowledge and activities (MacBeath, 2012)

Autonomy plays a key role in teacher motivation (Khmelkov, 2000; Losos, 2000) and

occupation satisfaction (Hoyle and John, 1995). MacBeath (2012) also argued that reform

must be in line with the professional perspective of teachers since it can affect their sense of

autonomy; if reform is too critical of teachers or negatively affects their reviews, job

satisfaction consequentially falls. This is important since uninvolved and demotivated

teachers have a costly negative impact; first, in terms of absence and second in terms of being

an unmotivated role model (Boniwell, 2012; Parker, 2015). Teacher autonomy creates a great

responsibility for teachers in their teaching activities and teaching development. However,

22
the odds of successful educational policy increase when key stakeholders drive the

implementation process (Parker, 2015). Subsequently, research has identified correlations

between student achievement and teacher curriculum and assessment autonomy (Machin and

Vernoit, 2011). Teachers are in charge of student assessment without standardized census-

based tests or statistical indicators can freely employ various methods when planning their

teaching activities (Sahlberg, 2015). Hence, teachers should possess the freedom to manage

students, planning, and development. Teachers who have autonomy will encourage to be

creative and innovative in developing teaching in the classroom as long as they have adequate

capacity, thus provide teachers autonomy must simultaneously improve their professionalism.

The development of teaching carried out by teachers is closely related to teacher

knowledge. Research on teacher knowledge has identified distinctions between more

‘narrow’ approaches that focus on teachers’ theoretical or propositional knowledge (Biesta, et

al., 2017). Currently often linked to scientifically validated ‘what works’ evidence (Biesta,

2007), and a more ‘inclusive approach where teacher knowledge is not merely knowledge for

teachers generated elsewhere, but also teacher knowledge drawn from a variety of sources

and experiences, including the teacher’s ongoing engagement with teaching practice itself

(Ben-Peretz, 2011). That is, teachers do not merely transfer other people’s ideas in the

curriculum to students, however they must be involved in reflection and curriculum

development (Carr & Kemmis, 2004). If applied into the term of the MOEC, the teacher is a

curriculum co-creator (Makarim, 2019).

Dewi’s (2021) study argues that decentralization and reducing the burden of teachers –

that is, giving autonomy to teachers – should be a priority. However, development and

professional support including accountability measurement must accompany this

decentralization. However, increasing teacher autonomy is not a simple and easy solution

(Parker, 2015). For instance, Pitt (2010) argued that, for some, autonomy becomes equivalent

23
to standing alone in the classroom without adequate assistance. For Brighouse (2011), the

‘mantra’ of government ‘White Papers’ since the 1980s on autonomy, options and diversity,

will create an over-focus on these elements and equality of chance will diminish. Brighouse

(2011), also warns that the ‘alienated and underachieving tail’ is a potential outcome of the

unified pursuit of institutional autonomy.

2.3. Pedagogical Development and Learning outcome

The national standard defines pedagogical competence as the ability to manage students’

learning. This includes understanding the learner, the process of designing, and

implementing, learning outcomes, and developing learners to actualize their potential

(Novianti & Laelawati, 2019). As mandated by Law No. 14 of 2005 Concerning Teachers

and Lecturers, pedagogic competency entails the ability of teachers and the learning process

for students. Regulation of the Minister of National Education No. 17 of 2007 summarizes

the 10 core potentials that lecturers must possess and teachers must embody:

1) Understanding students’ physical, moral, spiritual, social, cultural, emotional, and

intellectual aspects;

2) Possessing a good command of learning theory and educational learning principles;

3) Developing in a curriculum related to the subjects taught;

4) Conducting didactic learning;

5) Utilizing information and communication technology for the advantage of learning;

6) Facilitating the development of potential students to actualize their various potentials;

7) Communicating effectively, empathically, and politely with students;

8) Assessing and studying the learning process and results;

9) Utilizing results and evaluations for the advantage of learning;

10) Reflective actions to enhance the quality of learning.

24
 Pedagogy (including teaching/instruction) pursues cognitive, affective or psychomotor

alteration. In pedagogy, the teacher or educator in a certain time and place designs to make

cognitive, affective and psychomotor changes in students. While in learning, that alteration

occurs in students as an effect of formal instruction or independent activities (Shawer, 2017).

Four essential characteristics make up proper pedagogical competence, pedagogical practice,

and actual teaching activities; that is (1), teaching and student learning observation; (2),

theory or theoretical knowledge of teaching and student learning; (3), planning as to elevate

the pedagogical practice, and (4) practice (Olsson et al., 2010).

Practice
teaching (skill)

Observation
Planning
teaching &
teaching
learning

Theory
knowledge
about teaching
& learning

Figure 2.b. Model of Pedagogical competence, (Olsson et al. 2010)

Pedagogical practice is necessary and entangles all sorts of teaching activities, for

example, lecturing, experimental work, visitation, practice, supervision and assessment.

Through this pedagogical practice teachers actively bolster student learning. This study

herein will identify qualitative levels of pedagogical practice as teaching skills once teachers

complete the driving teacher’s program. Teachers’ observations of their teaching and

25
students’ learning are important to improve the quality of teaching practice (Olsson & Roxa,

2013). What a teacher observes and how a teacher construes those observations link to

students' conceptions of teaching, learning and emerging learning perspectives (Olsson &

Roxa, 2013). The driving teachers carry out the mentoring and evaluation in the context of

the driving teacher program.

Theoretical and personal knowledge of student teaching and learning is an essential

piece of a teacher’s expertise. Teachers reach this knowledge via formal training and informal

pedagogical discussions among colleagues, which significantly impact teachers’ knowledge.

According to Shulman (1986), a theoretical area of particular significance is ‘pedagogical

content knowledge, which concerns the theory of teaching a particular subject or subject area.

Planning for higher-quality teaching practice and implementation of new notions is the stage

in which new or developed understanding demands practice. Framework factors, however,

may restrict this such as, economics or program design. Yet, effective observations and

theoretically supported reflections reveal new possibilities not considered a priori (Olsson &

Roxa, 2013).

Olsson et al. (2013), mentioned that the capability to move thru the complete circular

model practice, observation, theory, and planning pedagogical competence. Such competence

presupposes that the teachers have a wide, in-depth, high-quality insight and knowledge into

the teaching subject and the capability to employ this knowledge in research-related,

practical, pedagogical behavior. As illustrated graphically, pedagogical competence is a vast

and deeper concept opposed to teaching skills (Figure 2.b.). Teaching skills, an essential part

of pedagogical competence, materialize through teaching practices that proactively endorse

student learning. Knowledge of subject matter content, knowledge of pedagogical content,

and curricular knowledge are extremely important to teaching practices (Shulman, 1986).

26
Nurturing to flourish over time is pivotal; accordingly, a superior teacher constantly observes

and reflects on teaching practice and those practices’ effect on student learning.

Via theoretical knowledge and observations, the teacher analyses their teaching

practice, making rational conclusions and creating plans for further development. The teacher

demonstrates the pedagogic competence through this process and reflective activity (Olsson

& Roxa, 2013). These criteria and indicators compose the basis for a qualitative assessment

of pedagogic competence. From theory (theoretical knowledge of student teaching and

learning) and from pedagogical practice i.e., ‘the ability to reflect scientifically on teaching

and learning, with the aid of theoretical knowledge’, these perspectives integrate with one

another (Biggs and Collis 1982; Kreber, 2002). Figure 3 illustrates a model for assessing the

pedagogic competence. A research framework integrated three ontological aspects to develop

this assessment model: pedagogical academy, pedagogical practice, and theoretical

knowledge of teaching and learning.

Theory
The complexity of pedagogical reasoning
Integrated
understanding

Structure
Knowledge

Pedagogical practice
Reflection on teaching
Fragmented and student learning
knowledge

Unreflective and intuitive Informed and partially Advance reflective practice-

practice reflective practice- with public exchange of
yet mainly knowledge and experience
without knowledge with others
and exchange
of experience with others

Figure 2.c. Overall assessment model, (Olsson & Roxa, 2013)

27
 The model has two dimensions; fragmented knowledge developed through theoretical

knowledge which is increasingly structured into an integrated holistic understanding. The

very essential and irreplaceable aspect of pedagogical competence is pedagogical practice.

Pedagogical practice develops from unreflective or intuitive practices to reflective and

scientific practices (Olsson & Roxa, 2013). This is pivotal since it relates to the ability to

reflect on teaching and learning. Learning mainly depends on the interaction of teachers and

students 'as subjects' with the assumption that all teaching must support student learning.

Teaching is thus fundamentally an offer of support to the learner (Olsson & Roxa, 2013).

Teachers who demonstrate competence by approaching their role as teachers in this

way are more likely to succeed in the process. Teaching or learning definitely seeks to

achieve Learning Outcomes (LO), which consists of goals and objectives (Shawer, 2017). LO

might have a similar meaning as a goal if it refers to what the student desires to achieve in

terminate of the lesson. Nevertheless, LO may also mean a goal if it indicates measurable

learning or what students can commit to at the terminate of the lesson. This is thus is closely

related to the pedagogical competencies described above. Hence, LO provides two points of

view. LO as a vast statement which by describes what students should know or be able to

undertake, and Los as a measurable behavior that students can undertake at the terminate of

the lesson (Shawer, 2012).

In fact, the pedagogic abilities of teachers in Indonesia have not met these

expectations; that's why freedom of learning and driving teacher policies have been

established to improve teacher pedagogy. However, this is an immense challenge not only for

teachers but also for the government to what extent the effectiveness of the policy is able to

encourage teachers to have pedagogical abilities according to ideals, and whether teachers are

able to respond to this policy precisely. These are the things that need to be probed and

investigated in this research.

28
2.4. Teachers’ Beliefs in Implementing Educational Reform

All teachers possess beliefs about how the school curriculum ought to be implemented.

Curriculum orientation and direction are crucial concepts in understanding teachers’ thinking

about curriculum matters and classroom practices. Curriculum orientation is defined as a

collective set of beliefs about curriculum elements such as curriculum intent (purpose,

direction, and objectives), content, teaching strategies and instructional assessment. Pajares

(1992), and later affirmed by Heyder (2019), defines beliefs as ‘an individual’s judgment

about the truth or falsity of a proposition. Teacher beliefs relate closely to the teachers’

professional identity and mission (Korthagen, 2004), constitute an essential part of teacher

professional competence and affect teacher behavior and success of a teacher’s profession

(Baumert & Kunter, 2013). In most cases, implementation curriculum reform has obtained

unexpected results due to well-intentioned curricular reforms ineffectively translated into

class realities (Park & Sung, 2013).

Several studies have focused on failures to successfully implement and achieve goals set

forth in curriculum reform initiatives (Cohen, 1990; Feldman, 2000; Fullan & Miles, 1992;

Klein, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987; Park & Sung, 2013). Studies highlighted that teacher have a

significant role in implementing a successful curriculum (Kirk & MacDonald, 2001; Little,

1993; Park & Sung, 2013; Spillane, 1999). Understanding teachers regarding curriculum

reform and teachers’ beliefs is crucial in effective implementation of reform objectives. Their

knowledge, beliefs and perceptions play an important role in the effective implementation of

reforms (Park & Sung, 2013). As Fullan (2007) showed that reform is a subjective process in

whereby teachers individually construct personal meanings from the alteration they

experience.

Figure 4, below is adapted from Ham & Dekkers (2019) and presents the ‘teacher beliefs

framework’ which represents the integration of the two conceptual frameworks; the identified

29
contextual factors distinguished from the literature elaborated above and the two-part process

of Kelchtermans’ (2009) theory. Alteration in teacher practice must successfully undertake a

two-part process consistent with framework of teachers’ personal interpretations and their

subjective educational theory before new practice is habitually used in the classroom.

Subjective educational
theory

Educational direct
reform Personal Process of evaluation of introduced practice
indirect
interpretive
framework

Interplay
between Factor
factors independent
of beliefs

Figure 2.d. Teacher beliefs framework (Ham & Dekkers, 2019)

Reading the figure from left to the right, the alteration process begins with the

introducing reform practices into context. The very beginning of the evaluation process for

teachers is their own personal interpretation framework in which they evaluate teaching

practice according to their beliefs. When the new practice is appropriate with the teacher’s

beliefs, they shall test it in their context. Kelchtermans’ (2009) theory, contains only a two-

part process, yet the introduction of differentiated factors has divided the subjective

educational theory into the indirect and direct.

Figure 4 shows that the indirect factors follow the teacher’s interpretive framework.

This positioning describes an intermediate ‘grey space’ to demonstrate the continued

interaction between teachers’ beliefs and factors in the context. This ‘grey space’ continues

affecting the adoption of the introduced practice. On the other hand, indirect contextual

factors identified by teachers include administrative support, political context, monitoring

30
systems and remuneration (Ham & Dekkers, 2019). The last part represents the third part of

the process, including direct factors that reflect the teacher’s consideration of contextual

factors which affect the adoption of the introduced teaching practice. The third part, however,

makes little reference to espoused beliefs within the framework of their interpretation. The

factors in this section are high-risk examinations, teacher training, curriculum and finite

resources.

Richardson et al. (1991), documented the tight correlation between students’ learning

objectives and the teachers’ behavior and beliefs. Contextual variables affect and mediate

teachers’ beliefs which device their actions. Their instructional decision is not based solely on

their curriculum orientation (Clark and Peterson, 1986), and other teacher belief systems

(Shen, 1997). For instance, Bennis et al., (1985) identified three alteration strategies: power-

coercive, normative-re-educative, and empirical-rational. These strategies impact how a

teacher implement beliefs in schools. However, implementation will also be based on

teachers’ beliefs; if teachers do not believe that a certain curriculum direction or orientation is

beneficial, they will not desire to implement a curriculum reform based on that orientation

(Cheung and Wong, 2002). Teachers may even change the submitted curriculum to ensure its

symmetry with the classroom context and curriculum orientation (Olson, 1981). Moreover,

due to teachers’ beliefs prompting class action, pre-service or in-service activities that only

focus on teaching practice would not be effective unless that training takes into account the

orientation of the teachers’ curriculum (Cheung and Wong, 2002).

The teacher's beliefs reflect the substance of the teacher’s understanding and

assessment of students, their professional responsibilities as educators, the essence of

learning, and the success and meaning of education. Teachers’ personal experiences when

interacting with their social and natural environment accumulatively shape teachers’ beliefs.

Through the lens of their beliefs, teachers interpret various learning phenomena and

31
educational activities. The complexity of teacher beliefs demands proportional attention from

policy makers in accelerating the implementation of educational innovations, including

curriculum implementation (Musanna, 2016). According to Musanna (2016), teacher’s beliefs

is a prerequisite for the success in implementing successful curriculum. The teachers’ beliefs

frame and color their perspective when implementing the curriculum. Positive belief in the

curriculum can minimize internal barriers to curriculum implementation. On the other hand,

negative or apathetic beliefs about the new curriculum will only prolong the list of failures of

educational innovation.

Musanna (2016) emphasized reformulating teacher beliefs so that they are more

positive is a necessity for the successful curriculum implementation. However, the very

personal characteristics of teacher beliefs make form reformulation of teacher beliefs

difficult. The characteristics of teachers’ personal, emotional and subjective beliefs require a

model or approach that is not only rational and objective, but include social, emotional, and

contextual based approaches. However, teachers’ beliefs and knowledge are distinct. Turner,

et al. (2009), distinguished between teacher belief – an individual’s subjective knowledge of

something – and knowledge – knowledge based on objective criteria. Meanwhile, knowledge

further divides into two types; objective knowledge accepted by a community (e.g., official

subject matter knowledge) and subjective knowledge. Further, knowledge refers to factual

propositions and is subject to a standard of truth, whereas belief is a presupposition, not

subject to external evaluation. Knowledge is consensual, as opposed to belief, which relates

to individual ideologies and commitments. In addition, knowledge has no valence, while

beliefs vary from strong to weak. For example, a belief system contains strongly held central

beliefs and less strongly held peripheral beliefs. Beliefs often affirm the presence or absence

of certain entities, such as the stability or flexibility of motivational intelligence. Hence,

beliefs are episodic, affective, and evaluative.

32
 The process of carrying out teaching practices and curriculum reform confronts with

dilemmas. Four types of dilemmas can affect teachers’ beliefs and practices: (a), conceptual

dilemmas, related to how to understand the epistemological basis how do teachers understand

the basics of policy and understand policy background well so that teachers do not merely

carry out reforms yet understand the benevolent goals of reform; (b), the pedagogical

dilemma, which is related to designing the curriculum and placing it into practice. It is not

straightforward for teachers to translate policies in schools and classrooms that designed by

other people, let alone try to line with learning methods; (c), cultural dilemmas, reorientation

of roles between teachers and students.

Freedom of learning that gives autonomy to teachers and provides free space for

students will confront a reorientation of the relationship that has been built by both. How the

relationship between the two can be ideal and how the teacher changes the old paradigm to be

more democratic in the classroom; (d), political dilemma, a structural problem often found

related to policy (Windshitl, 2002). Balancing the wishes of policymakers with the beliefs of

teachers so that there is a meeting point between the two, is also a challenge in itself there

will be dialectic and negotiation. However, if that thing goes well, then the policy will be

easy to succeed, yet on the other hand, if there is a stalemate then this will be an immense

challenge. As such, when the curriculum is reformed teachers will face complex challenges

predominantly linked with their beliefs. This freedom of learning policy is the first policy that

provides autonomy to teachers and as far as sources are sought, there is no empirical research

related to teachers' perceptions and beliefs about curriculum reform in Indonesia. Hence, it is

crucial to explore teachers’ beliefs following the curriculum reform in Indonesia.

33
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH

A special feature of qualitative inquiry is that the researcher’s role as the primary data

collection instrument requires the identification of personal values, assumptions and biases at

the outset of the study (Creswell, 2009). The researcher’s perception of the driving teacher

program is quite positive, since the program is practically distinct from the prior program. In

the driving teacher program, a teacher who has passed from this program then becomes a

driver for other teachers. They will be a sort of driver for the progressive advancement of

education. From various sources that the researcher has read, the policy or curriculum reform

relies heavily on the role of the teacher. This means that curriculum reform can be successful

if teachers are proactive in the reform (see figure 3.a).

3.1. Research Design

Surabaya is the second-largest city with an area of 326.8 km² and has around 879 public

and private elementary schools. Therefore, Surabaya is a diverse place to conduct research as

a portrait to see this new policy. The researcher will choose all schools to become participants

in this research, based on a letter issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture

(No:1372/B. B2/GT.03.15/2021). There are 29 schools and 38 elementary school teachers

who participate in the driving teacher program who will become driving teachers, where

some schools have more than one teacher becoming a driving teacher. The MOEC selected

the teachers to become driving teachers.

34
 This research relied on the interpretive paradigm to uncover elementary teachers’

complex reality and meaning regarding curriculum experiences. As such, the qualitative

approach underlines this research at the ontological, epistemological, and methodological

levels (Shawer, 2017). These qualitative ontological (multiple realities) and epistemological

(interactions with rather than detachment from the participants) standpoints demand an

‘idiographic’ methodology. An idiographic method focuses on individual cases or events.

Researcher have probe and explore the teachers’ experience with the curriculum in detail to

construct an overall portrait. Such a methodology entails affluent study of participants

individually thru one-on-one instead of group/standard data collection to seize individual

understanding rather than collective understanding. (Shawer, 2017), about the experiences of

teachers once gained mentoring and training of driving teachers’ program. Hence, the

researcher employed an idiographic research strategy; following Cohen et al. (2018), namely

a data-based case study method, qualitative data consist of observations, semi-structured in-

deep interviews, and documents (Lofthouse & Thomas, 2017; Pantic & Wubbels, 2012) The

researcher have employed the constant comparative method for the data analysis (Cohen, et

al. 2011; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In order to understand the data or parts of it, it is necessary

to compare it to something else. Comparing interviews across participants, between groups of

respondents, or even between coded sections of data or theme will offer insightful data

points.

The researcher employed qualitative case studies to understand and maintain the holistic

nature of the research phenomenon in its natural context. The aim is to deeply research the

teacher’s understanding about freedom of learning, teachers’ beliefs, and to probe

pedagogical development of teachers. To understand how teachers implement freedom of

learning the researcher refer to the concept of MOEC about freedom of learning policy. Ham

and Dekkers’ theory (2019) have guided the research towards teachers’ beliefs, whereas

35
exploring pedagogical development have refer to the theory from Olsson et al. (2010). The

researcher employed a multiple or comparative case design of several cases to serve solid

proof for obtaining trustworthy, dependable and generalizable results (Shawer, 2017).

To serve descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory purposes prompted by the research

question and theoretical sampling procedure so these multiple designs were based on

categories of teachers that have been selected (Yin, 1994). The typical cases have studied by

a researcher to dig and understand as well as obtain insights into similar cases of teachers

(Denscombe, 1998). To explore the idiosyncratic contexts of individual experience of

teachers, to search for patterns across case contexts.

The main strength of the case study method involves the use of various sources and

techniques in the data collection process (Grauer, 2012). The researcher has spent about six

months researching and writing the results of this study and has investigated holistic

phenomena and experiences related to how to implement freedom of learning, belief, and

teacher pedagogical development. The research was conducted after the teachers received

training and assistance in the driving teacher program and then implemented it in schools.

Therefore, the researcher has employed source triangulation technique using observations,

interviews, and documentation. Researchers have undertaken observations naturally when

teachers teach in class using video recorders and field notes and check list. Furthermore, the

researcher has conducted in-depth interviews using a tape recorder, and discussions with

teachers. In addition, have investigate and analyzed related documents. Documents during the

training carried out, the lesson plan (RPP), lesson modules, developed by the teachers, and

other related documents. Previously, the researcher has coordinated with each principal and

teacher regarding the research design and research scope. Not only that, the researcher has

established relations with participants so that they were open to participating and were

36
willing to respond to entire research interests to obtain valid and comprehensive data (Lodico,

et al. 2010).

3.2. Role of the Research

Creswell (2014) highlights the significant responsibility in the role of qualitative

researchers. This role was not limited to the planning stage or the data collection process but

involves every step of the research. The researcher was aware of the different subjective

realities handled by the participants and how the researcher's own background can affect the

interpretation of the data (Creswell 2014). In this study, the researcher was responsible for all

planning, implementation and evaluation processes as well as recording and transcribing

every observation, interview and document analyzed.

The relationship between the researcher and the participants was an important

consideration that needs to be clarified during the study; it was a significant asset for

obtaining rich data but was also an aspect of ethical concern (Guillemin and Heggen 2009).

Qualitative research mainly relies on good relationships between researchers and participants

to develop and maintain a sense of trust and a safe zone for participants to express their

opinions and thoughts (Yin 2011, Guillemin and Heggen 2009, Gill et al 2008). Some argue

that interviewing people they do not know is easier because participants express feelings,

experiences, and emotions more freely (Braun and Clarke 2013). However, Braun and Clarke

(2013) also suggest that it is easier to build relationships with familiar people with whom the

researcher is familiar (Braun and Clarke 2013).

In the current study, the researcher first coordinated with the principal then to all

participants and conveyed the scope of the research and informed them that this research was

subject to research ethics and used a pseudonym. For several days before starting the research

the researcher shared and discussed with the participants to create a comfortable relationship

and the participants felt safe. Therefore, this study has taken anticipatory steps so that the

37
data obtained are credible and valid. In addition, the researcher asked persuasively all

participants to convey according to what they feel, know, understand and practice at school

and they agree convincingly that they will convey everything according to the actual

situation. In this regard, the researcher has also passed the educational research ethics exam

and obtained a certificate from the Taiwan Academic Research Ethics Education.

Since 2018, before continuing the doctoral program studies, the researcher has been

on a committee of the elementary school teacher certification program. The researcher

understands and has experienced the role of the teacher and the implementation of the

previous program. The problem that always occurs inasmuch is related to the seriousness of

implementation in schools. Plenty of programs are well-initiated but there are distortions in

implementation. In 2020, the researcher along with his two advisors researched the beliefs of

six elementary school teachers on the policy of freedom learning in Indonesia. The researcher

found that teachers are not ready to implement the new policy, which requires clear

socialization. They require mentoring and equal perceptions about the policy. This means that

the ideal notions of policy are not necessarily symmetrical with the perceptions,

understandings, and beliefs of teachers. In addition, the researcher is a columnist in various

mass media in Indonesia dealing with issues of education, policy and teacher competence.

In the researcher’s assumption this new policy (driving teacher program) is crucial and

interesting to study to identify distinctions compared to the previous policies. How the

implications for teachers’ ability to apply freedom of learning in the classroom, explore

teacher beliefs and explore teacher pedagogy development follow participated this program.

The researcher hypothesis that the policy will have a different impact on teachers than

previous policies due to it is sustainable or constantly. Teachers who have finish the driving

teacher program should be a driver in schools such as drivers for other teachers. Accordingly,

there will be collaboration and interaction among teachers to continuously realize a better

38
education system. Researchers argue that constantly improving teaching through

collaborative analysis defines the success of school systems and schools (Barber and

Mourshed, 2007; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Stigler and Hiebert, 2009).

3.3. Research Participant

Participants were the teachers who have completed training and mentoring in the driving

teacher program. The total participants consist of 6 teachers from 6 schools in Surabaya

(Table 3.a.). The determination of participants is purposive and heterogeneous (Thomas,

2006; Schreier, 2018), since the teachers in the teacher program are diverse in terms of

gender, age, years of work experience, background, public and private schools, and subject

expertise. The researcher employed this approach to provided rich data and multifaceted

complexity of the topic being examined to provide a complete and comprehensive picture

(Given, 2008.

Table 3.a. School and participant

No. School Participant Gender School
Background
1 SDKR CH Hendy Male High
2 SDN JJT Anne Female High
9 SD TQ Lily Female Middle
10 SDN LK Lies Female Middle
11 SD KHSY Andy Male Low
12 SD KH Sofi Female Low

3.4. Research Procedure

This research aims to identify how the driving teacher program prepares teachers to

implement freedom of learning, teacher beliefs, and pedagogical development. The first stage

was to coordinated with all of the principals of the schools as well as establishing relations

with all of the participants. This purpose strives to made participants feel safe, confident, and

open to participating as subjects of this research. This circumstances psychology was crucial

since it will affect the validity and trustworthiness of the data (Lodico, et al. 2010).

39
 Secondly, once coordinated with the participants and upon gaining an appointment, the

researcher has prepared equipment for observation such as a video recorder and field notes to

observe teachers practices in the classroom. Previously, the researcher has made concepts and

frameworks to conduct observations. Expert researchers have validated these concepts and

frameworks, making them functional tools to monitor how teachers apply freedom of

learning in the classroom related to their beliefs and pedagogical development.

Thirdly, the researcher has undertaken semi-structured interviews to obtain an in-depth

understanding, of how teachers apply freedom of learning, their beliefs, how they develop

curriculum, and the possibilities and obstacles to achieving autonomy (Kvale & Brinkmann,

2015). Topics covered by the interview guide are teachers’ beliefs in implementing these new

reforms, teachers’ perceived autonomy, their teaching practices, teaching assessment then

teaching feedback, self-efficacy, work climate and how they participate in professional

development activities (Lennert da Silva & Mølstad, 2020). The researcher has undertaken a

deep interview to explore participants beliefs. Expert peers and the researcher have validated

the interview guides and provide peer debriefing. Fourthly, the researcher has collected

lesson plans, learning media, development learning plan, lesson modules, and so forth that

relate to what teachers have developed. These documents are crucial to the research process

and developing a full portrait of the researcher.

3.5. Data Collection

To investigate further responses from participants the researcher has employed semi-

structured interviews, to follow up on responses, clarify and explore meaning (Blaikie, 2000).

Interviews done be one-to-one and the made discussion with teachers. Further, the researcher

conducted a general interview with each teacher before starting the class observation. At the

end of each observation, the researcher has conducted a followed-up interview and also

40
posted-observation with each teacher. General interviews have identified teachers’ character

as well as establish an initial understanding of the motives behind their curriculum approach.

Posted-observation interviews used to provide teachers opportunities to justify to their

behavior why they make alterations and followed the official curriculum material ‘freedom of

learning’ in each lesson or perhaps they resist following this policy (Shawer, 2017). In

addition, the data collection process obtained related documents, for instance; lesson plans,

lesson modules, student learning development plans, and student evaluations.

3.6. Data Analyzes

Qualitative research analyzed begins to analyzed the data before the entire collection

process has concluded. In qualitative research, data analyzes occurs during the study and

guides the ongoing data collection process. That there might be some back-and-forth

movement among steps. One might need to review the data before determining how to

organized it. However, the steps tend to flow in a general direction. That was, that many

small pieces of data gradually combine or linked to form broader and more general

descriptions and conclusions (Lodico, et al. 2010).

The researcher used the constant comparative method as a procedure for evaluating

qualitative data. This process codes and compares data across categories, identifies patterns,

and refines patterns as new data arrives to not merely used systematic and unsystematic

procedures but also verified the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Analyzed techniques that

employed in this study were open, axial and selective coding. Open coding involves analyzed

line by line, entire paragraphs, and entire documents, generating naming concepts,

establishing categories, and evolving the properties of each category. Through abstraction,

the research names data based on the developed understanding, e.g., unpredictable content

41
styles. Naming conventions may borrow from the references as long as the data matches the

concepts and appropriate literature, e.g., learner-centered teaching style, for example (Strauss

& Corbin, 1998).

The researcher has organized, reviewed and explored the obtained data. After that, the

researcher did code the data into categories and made descriptions of important things such as

people, places, and activities, and build themes, test hypotheses and interpret data (Lodico, et

al. 2010). The researcher began to wrote down words and phrases that capture important

aspects of the data in the initial review. Indeed, qualitative research often makes its own notes

about the data when collecting it; this means that the researcher has started the data review

process before starting the formal analyzes.

Through the initial review, the researcher sough to understand the scope of the data

before starting to divide it into more manageable chunks organized through code. The first

step was a preliminary review to understand the overall flow and structure of the data.

Additionally, the data from interviews or conversations may specifically show the way each

individual used language, notes words or phrases (Lodico, et al. 2010). Further, the researcher

has highlighted the part of the data (for example, a segment of text or an image) related to

this idea and created a codeword or phrase, and wrote the code in the margin, further, code

for the entire interview or field notes and list all the codes generated.

3.7. Trustworthiness of the Research

To maintain credibility and trustworthiness, several methods have been carried out,

namely verifying the trustworthiness and dependability of qualitative data. First, transcription

occurs for all audio recording data and the researcher has verified the reliability of the

transcription i.e., the data has been checked and confirmed with the theory. Content validity

has verified the results of the interviews. Selected teachers will review the contents of the

interview and provide comments, and opinions, and even modify the interview questions in

42
wording and numbers. After that, pilot interviews took place to identify necessary

modifications in the wording, number and length of questions (Bloom, Fischer, & Orme,

2009). To provide a natural picture of the context in which the teacher teaches the curriculum

and validates meaning and captures interaction, there is a role in which the researcher acts as

a participant which is called participant observation (Shawer, 2017). This process includes

narrative recording (Stake, 1995). The triangulation method has ensured the reliability and

reliability of the observational data. Triangulation has occurred around the context of

observations, interviews, and documents (Cohen et al., 2011; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2006)

3.8. Ethical Consideration

Prior to conducting this research, the researcher has acquiree informed consent from

participants. The researcher obtained consent from the local government, from principals in

each school and the participant’s consent for the entire series of research. This includes

acquiring permission to record interviews, take videos, and request documents related to

research. In addition, the researcher used a pseudonym and convey the description and scope

of my research as well.

Curriculum Reform -Freedom of Learning

Teachers' Autonomy

Equal Perception/beliefs
Qualified Teachers Pedagogical development

Driving Teacher Policy

Unqualified Teachers

Training & Mentoring

A driving teacher

43
 Problems:
-Readiness
A teacher -Misconception
-Lack competency/pedagogical

Theory Pedagogical Practice

Teachers’ Beliefs
Teachers’ Belefs
Figure 3. a. Conceptual framwork

44
 Appendix

Observation Guidance
Below is a guide to conduct observation on teachers implementing freedom of learning
(teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical development) as driving teachers in classroom. The
indicator guidance refers to MOEC policy regarding freedom of learning (2019), teachers’
beliefs by Ham and Dekkers (2019), and pedagogical development by Olsson et al. (2010).
The guide utilizes a 5-Likert scale.

Instruction: 5= excellent (e); 4= above average (aa), 3= average (a); 2= below average
(ba) 1= very poor (vp)
A. Classroom Observation and Analysis

45
1. The teacher masters the subject matter and makes connection with students before
teaching and learning
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

2. The teacher creates lesson plan according to freedom of learning before teaching and
learning
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

3. The teacher develops lesson plans independently (i.e., curriculum developer not
curriculum transmitter)
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

4. The teacher employs a student-centered approach and provide ample chances for
students to develop their knowledge
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

5. The teacher employs HOTS skills in teaching and learning to develop the synthesis
ability of students (literacy and numeracy)
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

6. The teacher integrates character education in the framework of lesson plans and the
teaching and learning process
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

7. The teacher develops class instruction according to the diversity of students (tendency
and characteristic)
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

46
 8. The teacher arranges class democratically while involving and engaging students
regarding teaching material, evaluation, and assessment
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

9. The teacher does not use standardized assessment, and opts to use portfolios, papers,
or other form activities creatively
very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

10. The teacher establish teaching and learning democratically

very poor (vp) excellent (e)

1 2 3 4 5

Semi-structure Interview Guidance

Below is a guide to conduct semi-structured interviews regarding how teachers implement
freedom of learning, the teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical development as driving teachers in
classroom. The indicator guidance refers to MOEC policy regarding freedom of learning
(2019), teachers’ beliefs by Ham and Dekkers (2019), pedagogical development by Olsson et
al. (2010).

Question1:

1. How does driving teacher policy affect the freedom of learning?

1) What is your opinion about this reform?

2) Could you explain the driving teacher program?

47
 3) Does the driving teacher program affect freedom of learning?

4) Could you explain the distinction between the freedom of learning policy and

the previous policy?

5) What is your opinion about teaching and learning before and after practicing

the driving teacher program?

6) Is this program effective in improving the quality of teachers?

Question2:

2. How do teachers implement freedom of learning in the classroom and creative

contribute to the curriculum effectively?

1) How do you prepare before the learning process?

2) Could you tell us what is necessary to prepare?

3) Could you tell us your difficulties in preparing teaching materials?

4) How do you make lesson plan according to freedom of learning?

5) How do you develop teaching and learning?

6) Do you feel that you have been implementing freedom of learning properly?

7) How do you contribute to the curriculum?

Question3:

3. To what extend driving teacher have effects on pedagogical development?

1) How do you conduct observations regarding teaching and student learning?

2) What do you think about effective learning regarding implementing the

freedom of learning?

3) How do you plan teaching and learning in order to reach the goal of teaching?

4) How to practice it? Could you tell me in detail?

5) How to establish teaching and learning effectively in the classroom?

6) How to establish HOT skills in the classroom?

48
 7) What do you think about student-centered learning?

8) How to involve and engage students effectively?

9) How to establish teaching and learning in classroom democratically?

10) Could you tell us how to evaluate it effectively?

11) What is the distinction between before and after driving teacher policy?

Questions4:

4. Do teachers able to become curriculum-developers or just curriculum-

transmitters?

1) How do you think you become a curriculum developer?

2) How to develop curriculum creatively? Could you explain in detail?

3) What do you include in the curriculum in doing learning in classroom?

4) What makes the curriculum you developed distinct from previous

curriculums?

5) Have you really become curriculum developer?

Question5:

5. What is the teachers’ belief in implementing freedom of learning once gained

training and mentoring?

1) Do you believe this reform is better than previous one?

2) How have your beliefs changed regarding the current curriculum reform

before and after practicing the driving teacher program?

3) How do you believe the school facilities will support the implementation of

the freedom of learning policy?

4) How do you believe the human resources, in this case the school principal,

supervisors, colleagues, and school committee, support this reform?

5) Do you believe teacher autonomy contributes to the curriculum?

49
6) In your opinion, what are the advantages of the freedom of learning policy?

7) In your opinion, what are the weaknesses of the freedom of learning?

8) What are the obstacles and challenges in implementing freedom of learning?

50