Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Civic Education Curriculum in Indonesia: A Case Study of the KTSP Curriculum, the 2013 Curriculum, and the Independent Curriculum
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
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the civic education curriculum in Indonesia, including the Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (KTSP), the 2013 Curriculum (K13), and the Independent Curriculum. This study uses the concurrent triangulation method with quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires from citizenship teachers and principals in 85 schools in Tangerang City. The results of the study show that each curriculum has advantages and disadvantages. KTSP is considered flexible and adjusted to school conditions, but the learning method tends to be monotonous. K13 emphasizes character development and authentic assessment more but experiences obstacles in implementation with long lesson hours. The Independent Curriculum provides freedom of exploration and encourages student independence and creativity but requires more excellent resources and the potential for free time. Glickman's quadrant analysis and Bradley's evaluation model were used to measure curriculum effectiveness. The results show that the Independent Curriculum is considered the most effective in character development and active learning, followed by K13, which stands out in authentic assessment and social skills. This study suggests that the implementation of the curriculum be adjusted to local needs and student characteristics to increase the effectiveness of civic education in Indonesia.
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 | 0.040 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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