The Curriculum Change in Indonesian Junior High Schools: The ‘Copy Paste’ Phenomenon
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Indonesian government defines the curriculum as a set of plans, programs, and rules that outline the objectives, contents, methods, and materials in teaching and learning. These serve as guidelines for conducting instructional activities, with the aim of achieving the national education standards. Along with the spirit of decentralization that began in the early 2000s through the implementation of school-based management, schools now control the school-based curriculum, which should be tailored to the unique characteristics of both the school and the student. This research evaluates the teaching of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in Indonesian junior high schools, using various instruments across 12 case study schools. Most schools experienced a "copy and paste" effect in their curriculum. One could perceive this as mere decoration instead of actively engaging with the pedagogical and structured content. The actual implementation in class was mostly different from the school documentation. In other words, what teachers do and what they write in the lesson plans are different. Despite the document's effectiveness, schools rarely implement it. To make matters worse, principals appeared to accept school documentation without a critical review of practice. One could perceive this as an endorsement of the document.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it