Jurnal Kurikulum BPK 2020

besar menunjukkan kadar penguasaan yang masih rendah dalam kalangan murid Orang Asli
bagi 3M - membaca, menulis dan mengira berbanding pencapaian peringkat kebangsaan.
Kajian oleh Hamzah et al. (2019) juga menunjukkan kompetensi amalan berbahasa
Melayu murid sekolah rendah berdasarkan Standard Kualiti Pendidikan Malaysia (SKPM)
adalah pada tahap harapan (65.3%). Oleh itu program sedia ada dan program baru perlu
sentiasa ditambahbaik demi memartabatkan Bahasa Melayu. Punca utama murid Orang Asli
tidak dapat menguasai Bahasa Melayu adalah kerana Bahasa Melayu adalah Bahasa kedua dan
mereka menggunakan Bahasa ibunda mereka sendiri (Shaari et al., 2016; Dali et al, 2013;
Mamat et al. 2018). Oleh yang demikian, dalam melaksanakan PIKAP, guru-guru digalakkan
mempelajari dan menggunakan istilah-istilah dalam Bahasa ibunda suku kaum tersebut bagi
membantu proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran agar lebih berkesan.
Dari segi pentaksiran, Persidangan Meja Bulat Pendidikan Murid Orang Asli yang
diadakan pada 29 September 2016 mendapati murid tidak dapat bersaing dalam pentaksiran
sedia ada. Sekolah juga berdepan dengan tekanan daripada KPM/JPN/PPD yang berfokus
kepada pencapaian LINUS dan UPSR. Makmal Hala Tuju Pendidikan Murid Orang Asli 21-
25 November 2016 telah memutuskan Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (BPK) mengadakan
penjenamaan semula KAP sebagai Modul Intervensi Pedagogi Peribumi. Maka BPK telah
membangunkan Panduan PdP Program Intervensi Khas Murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi
(PIKAP) yang dirangka khusus bagi menangani murid yang tidak menguasai kemahiran asas
membaca, menulis dan mengira (3M) dan masalah ketidakhadiran ke sekolah.

Panduan Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran (PdP) PIKAP

Program Intervensi Khas Murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi (PIKAP) merupakan salah satu
aktiviti dalam Inisiatif #57 Pelan Transformasi Pendidikan Murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi
yang terkandung dalam Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia (2013-2025). PIKAP
merupakan satu strategi yang dilaksanakan untuk meningkatkan kemahiran asas 3M,
menggalakkan dan mengekalkan minat Orang Asli dan Peribumi datang ke sekolah dan tidak
ketinggalan dalam arus transformasi pendidikan. Program ini juga dibangunkan untuk
merapatkan jurang pemahaman kurikulum arus perdana dan keupayaan murid. PIKAP
mempunyai tujuan serampang dua mata iaitu membantu murid-murid Orang Asli (OA) dan
Peribumi menguasai dan meningkatkan kemahiran membaca, menulis dan mengira (3M);
menggalakkan serta mengekalkan minat murid Orang Asli dan peribumi datang ke sekolah
agar tidak ketinggalan dalam arus transformasi pendidikan. Menurut Marzuki et al. (2014),
lokasi petempatan Orang Asli dan Peribumi yang berselerak dan kebanyakannya jauh di
pedalaman (Abdullah, 2014) menyebabkan darjah aksesibiliti mereka kepada kemudahan
pendidikan agak rendah dan faktor ini membawa kepada peratusan kehadiran ke sekolah yang
rendah. Sehubungan dengan itu, PIKAP juga dirangka untuk merapatkan jurang pemahaman
kurikulum arus perdana dan keupayaan murid Orang Asli. Sekolah-sekolah yang terpilih
dibekalkan dengan Panduan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran (PdP) PIKAP untuk tiga mata
pelajaran iaitu Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris dan Matematik untuk digunakan oleh guru
semasa proses PdP di dalam kelas.
Pembinaan Panduan PdP PIKAP mengambil kira faktor utama kejayaan sesuatu
program untuk murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi itu sendiri yang merangkumi keupayaan,
persekitaran, perbezaan latar belakang, penempatan, kecerdasan dan tahap kognitif serta
budaya (Shaari et al., 2016; Ruslan, 2018). Dalam hal ini, perbezaan antara pedagogi
pendidikan dan budaya masyarakat Orang Asli itu sendiri menyebabkan murid Orang Asli
tidak berminat untuk mengikuti proses pembelajaran di dalam bilik darjah (Said et al, 2017).
Maka Panduan ini dibina dengan mengambil kira faktor-faktor tersebut. Selain daripada itu,
faktor-faktor lain yang menyebabkan keciciran masyarakat ini ialah masyarakat Orang Asli
141

tidak berupaya untuk beradaptasi dengan kaum yang lain, kandungan kurikulum sekolah tidak
bersesuaian dengan budaya masyarakat Orang Asli, stereotype orang Melayu terhadap Orang
Asli dan sikap ibu bapa (Marzuki et al, 2014). Sehubungan itu, perlunya satu program seperti
PIKAP yang mengambil kira segala faktor termasuklah penyesuaian pendekatan kurikulum
yang amat diperlukan bagi membantu meningkatkan pencapaian pendidikan murid Orang Asli
dan Peribumi.
Panduan PdP PIKAP disediakan bagi mata pelajaran Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Inggeris
dan Matematik untuk murid-murid Tahun 1, Tahun 2 dan Tahun 3. Panduan PdP PIKAP
digubal dan dijajarkan dengan program LINUS, Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Bahasa
Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris dan Matematik (KPM, 2017b, c, d), Kurikulum Standard Sekolah
Rendah Murid Asli dan Penan bagi mata pelajaran Bahasa Melayu dan Matematik manakala
mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggeris pula dijajarkan dengan program LINUS KSSR (KPM, 2017e,
f, g) dan juga Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Penjajaran
ini dibuat untuk memastikan Panduan PdP PIKAP membekalkan modul pengajaran yang
relevan dengan kehendak semasa mahupun keperluan akan datang, seterusnya menjana satu
sistem pendidikan yang berkualiti bagi mencapai hasrat tersebut mengikut keupayaan dan
persekitaran mereka.
Strategi yang dicadangkan dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP ini adalah berdasarkan
keperluan murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi iaitu mengikut kesesuaian persekitaran, kemudahan
infrastruktur, keupayaan dan kecenderungan murid. Guru boleh mempelbagaikan strategi PdP
supaya menarik minat murid dan menggalakkan murid datang ke sekolah untuk menimba ilmu.
Pengajaran Berasaskan Pedagogi Peribumi yang merujuk kepada pengajaran yang
menggunakan latar belakang, cara hidup, budaya, dan persekitaran murid Orang Asli dan
Peribumi untuk diintegrasikan dalam aktiviti pengajaran dan pembelajaran kerana murid Orang
Asli Murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi amat menyukai pendidikan yang tidak formal serta bebas
melakukan aktiviti seperti menyanyi, bermain dan sebagainya (Haslinda et al. 2015; Wahab &
Bahiyah, 2015). Guru perlu membuat persediaan awal dengan mendapatkan maklumat yang
diperlukan daripada pelbagai sumber seperti rakan setugas, ibu bapa, tok batin/ketua
kampung/puak dan pihak-pihak tertentu bagi memantapkan lagi cadangan aktiviti
pembelajaran pedagogi peribumi yang terdapat dalam panduan ini. Pengintegrasian perspektif
peribumi dalam proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran akan memberi input kepada guru serta
menambahkan kemahiran pedagogi peribumi. Justeru, guru berperanan mengintegrasikan
pedagogi peribumi sebagaimana yang terdapat dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP dan dilakukan
secara berterusan agar pembelajaran menjadi bermakna. Penyediaan Panduan PdP PIKAP
menjadi rujukan guru untuk meningkatkan keberkesanan pengajaran dan pembelajaran di
dalam kelas.
Oleh itu, tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk meninjau persepsi guru-guru terhadap Panduan
PdP PIKAP yang telah dibina. Untuk itu, lima objektif dibentuk bagi mengenalpasti tahap
kebolehlaksanaan Panduan PdP PIKAP berdasarkan beberapa aspek iaitu:
1. Mengenal pasti tahap kefahaman guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP
2. Mengenal pasti tahap kesesuaian kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP
3. Mengenal pasti tahap penterjemahan guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP
dalam kelas
4. Mengenal pasti tahap kebolehlaksanaan pentaksiran guru terhadap kandungan Panduan
PdP PIKAP dalam kelas
5. Mengenal pasti tahap kesediaan prasarana terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP

Seterusnya, lima persoalan kajian dibentuk iaitu:

1. Apakah tahap kefahaman guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP?
142

2. Apakah tahap kesesuaian kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP?
3. Apakah tahap penterjemahan guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP?
4. Apakah tahap kebolehlaksanaan pentaksiran guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP
PIKAP?
5. Apakah tahap kesediaan prasarana guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP?


METODOLOGI


Reka bentuk kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitaf dan pengumpulan data dijalankan
secara tinjauan dengan menggunakan soal selidik. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah
pensampelan bertujuan (purposive sampling) (Ghazali & Sufean, 2019) iaitu guru-guru yang
mengajar mata pelajaran Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Inggeris dan Matematik di Sekolah Orang
Asli dan Penan. Sampel terdiri daripada 3 orang guru iaitu guru Tahun 1 bagi setiap mata
pelajaran di setiap sekolah yang telah dipilih. Seramai 37 orang guru dari 11 buah sekolah
rendah Orang Asli dan Peribumi terlibat dalam kajian ini. Guru telah diberikan taklimat dan
dibekalkan dengan Panduan PdP PIKAP pada bulan April untuk dilaksanakan selama empat
bulan di sekolah masing-masing. Guru-guru menjawab soal selidik pada bulan Julai setelah
menggunakan Panduan PDP PIKAP selama empat bulan. Batasan kajian ini tertakluk kepada
respond sekolah-sekolah terpilih sahaja, maka dapatan kajian tidak dapat digeneralisasikan
kepada sekolah-sekolah lain. Data dianalisis secara deskriptif iaitu min dan sisihan piawai
menggunakan perisian MS EXCEL 2013 dan SPSS Versi 22. Instrumen menggunakan Borang
Soal Selidik menggunakan skala Likert (1=Sangat tidak setuju, 2=Tidak setuju, 3=Setuju dan
4=Sangat setuju).

DAPATAN


Persepsi guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP di nilai berdasarkan kepada
lima aspek iaitu kefahaman terhadap Panduan PdP PIKAP, kesesuaian kandungan,
penterjemahan kandungan, kebolehlaksanaan pentaksiran dan kesediaan prasarana dalam
pelaksanakan Panduan PdP PIKAP dalam kelas. Interpretasi min adalah berdasarkan kepada
skala pemeringkatan seperti di Jadual 1

Jadual 1
Intepretasi skor min

Min Interpretasi
1.00 hingga 2.33 Rendah
2.34 hingga 3.66 Sederhana
3.67 hingga 5.00 Tinggi
Sumber: Landell (1977), Ghazali & Sufean (2019)

Dapatan menunjukkan aspek kefahaman terhadap Panduan PdP PIKAP berada pada tahap
tinggi (m=4.08; sd=0.56) (Jadual 2).







143

Jadual 2
Kefahaman Kandungan PdP PIKAP

No Item Min Sisihan Interpretas
. piawai i skor min
1 Saya memahami pengenalan seperti yang 4.09 0.69 Tinggi
dinyatakan dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP
2 Saya memahami matlamat seperti yang 4.28 0.63 Tinggi
dinyatakan dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP
3 Saya memahami Objektif seperti yang dinyatakan 4.22 0.71 Tinggi
dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP.
4 Saya memahami Prinsip Pelaksanaan Program 4.03 0.54 Tinggi
seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Panduan PdP
PIKAP.
5 Saya memahami Carta Alir Pelaksanaan PIKAP 4.13 0.66 Tinggi
seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Panduan PdP
PIKAP
6 Saya memahami Kandungan Program 3.94 0.67 Tinggi
(Berdasarkan mata pelajaran) yang ditetapkan
dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP.
7 Saya memahami Strategi Pengajaran dan 4.00 0.63 Tinggi
Pembelajaran seperti yang dinyatakan dalam
Panduan PdP PIKAP
8 Saya memahami Pentaksiran yang dinyatakan 4.13 0.61 Tinggi
dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP
9 Saya memahami Standard kandungan dan 4.09 0.69 Tinggi
Standard Pembelajaran yang dinyatakan dalam
Panduan PdP PIKAP mengikut mata pelajaran

Jumlah keseluruhan 4.08 0.56 Tinggi

Jadual 2 menunjukkan semua item min yang tinggi dengan item 6 mempunyai min yang
paling rendah iaitu item “Saya memahami Kandungan Program (Berdasarkan mata pelajaran)
yang ditetapkan dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP” (m= 3.94; sd=0.669).

Jadual 3
Kesesuaian Kandungan PdP PIKAP

No Item Min Sisihan Interpretas
. piawai i skor min
1 Laras bahasa dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP mudah 4.28 0.52 Tinggi
difahami.
2 Istilah yang digunakan dalam Panduan PdP 4.19 0.59 Tinggi
PIKAP adalah tepat.
3 Pernyataan Standard Kandungan adalah jelas. 4.28 0.63 Tinggi
4 Pernyataan Standard Pembelajaran adalah jelas. 4.37 0.66 Tinggi

5 Urutan kandungan mata pelajaran dalam Panduan 4.19 0.64 Tinggi
PdP PIKAP adalah sesuai.

144

6 Keluasan (breadth) kandungan mata pelajaran 4.00 0.73 Tinggi
dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP sesuai.
7 Kedalaman (depth) kandungan mata pelajaran 4.00 0.73 Tinggi
dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP sesuai.
8 Kandungan mata pelajaran sesuai dengan tahap 4.16 0.72 Tinggi
murid.
9 Elemen KBAT dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam 3.93 0.68 Tinggi
Standard Pembelajaran.

Jumlah Keseluruhan 4.16 0.53 Tinggi

Jadual 3 menunjukkan persepsi guru dari aspek kesesuaian kandungan PdP PIKAP
berada berada pada tahap tinggi (m=4.16; sd=0.531). Semua item menunjukkan min yang
tinggi dengan item 9 mempunyai min yang paling rendah iaitu item “Elemen KBAT dinyatakan
dengan jelas dalam Standard Pembelajaran.” (m= 3.93; sd=0.531).

Jadual 4
Penterjemahan Kandungan PdP PIKAP

No. Item Min Sisihan Interpretas
piawai i skor min
1 Saya boleh menjalankan PdP mengikut Standard 4.09 0.73 Tinggi
Pembelajaran yang ditetapkan dalam Panduan
PdP PIKAP.
2 Saya boleh melaksanakan aktiviti berasaskan 4.06 0.72 Tinggi
PAK21 bagi mata pelajaran ini.
3 Saya boleh menerapkan KBAT dalam PdP. 3.91 0.73 Tinggi
4 Saya boleh meningkatkan kemahiran berfikir 3.97 0.70 Tinggi
murid dengan menggunakan Bahan Bantu
Belajar yang sesuai.
5 Saya boleh menerapkan Elemen Merentas 4.06 0.72 Tinggi
Kurikulum dalam PdP.
Jumlah Keseluruhan 4.02 0.63 Tinggi

Jadual 4 menunjukkan persepsi guru dari aspek penterjemahan kandungan PdP PIKAP
berada berada pada tahap tinggi (m=4.02; sd=0.633). Semua item menunjukkan min yang
tinggi dengan item 3 mempunyai min yang paling rendah iaitu item “Saya boleh menerapkan
KBAT dalam PdP.” (m= 3.91; sd=0.734).












145

Jadual 5
Kebolehlaksanaan Pentaksiran

No. Item Min Sisihan Interpretas
piawai i skor min
1 Saya boleh mengukur pencapaian murid dengan 3.88 0.66 Tinggi
menggunakan pelbagai kaedah pentaksiran.
2 Saya boleh melaksanakan pentaksiran 4.06 0.67 Tinggi
berdasarkan Panduan PdP PIKAP.
3 Saya boleh menentukan tahap penguasaan murid 3.93 0.81 Tinggi
mengikut pertimbangan profesional
(professional judgement).

Jumlah Keseluruhan 3.97 0.61 Tinggi

Jadual 5 menunjukkan persepsi guru dari aspek kebolehlaksanaan pentaksiran terhadap
kandungan PdP PIKAP berada berada pada tahap tinggi (m=3.97; sd=0.611). Semua item
menunjukkan min yang tinggi dengan item 1 mempunyai min yang paling rendah iaitu item
“Saya boleh mengukur pencapaian murid dengan menggunakan pelbagai kaedah pentaksiran.”
(m= 3.88; sd=0.660).

Jadual 6
Kesediaan Prasarana

No. Item Min Sisihan Interpretas
piawai i skor min
1 Sekolah mempunyai kemudahan prasarana yang 3.03 0.97 Sederhana
mencukupi untuk pelaksanaan Panduan PdP
PIKAP ini.
2 Sekolah mempunyai sumber bahan bantu belajar 3.17 1.09 Sederhana
yang mencukupi untuk pelaksanaan Panduan
PdP PIKAP.
3 Sekolah mempunyai kemudahan peralatan 2.83 1.34 Sederhana
Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi (TMK)
yang mencukupi untuk pelaksanaan mata
pelajaran ini.

Jumlah Keseluruhan 2.93 1.04 Sederhana


Jadual 6 menunjukkan persepsi guru dari aspek kesediaan prasarana berada pada tahap
sederhana (m=2.93; sd=1.039). Semua item menunjukkan min yang sederhana dengan item 3
mempunyai min yang paling rendah iaitu item “Sekolah mempunyai kemudahan peralatan
Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi (TMK) yang mencukupi untuk pelaksanaan mata
pelajaran ini” (m=2.83; sd=1.039).






146

PERBINCANGAN

Persepsi guru terhadap kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP dikenal pasti berdasarkan lima aspek
iaitu kefahaman terhadap panduan pdp pikap, kesesuaian kandungan, penterjemahan
kandungan PIKAP dalam kelas, kebolehlaksanaan pentaksiran dan kesediaan prasarana.
Walaupun secara keseluruhan, dapatan menunjukkan tahap yang tinggi kecuali aspek
kesediaan prasarana, terdapat item-item yang memperolehi min yang rendah yang perlu
dibincangkan dan dilaksanakan penambahbaikan. Dalam aspek kefahaman terhadap
kandungan PdP PIKAP, item ke-6 iaitu “Saya memahami Kandungan Program (Berdasarkan
mata pelajaran) yang ditetapkan dalam Panduan PdP PIKAP’’ mendapat min yang paling
rendah. Hal ini menunjukkan, guru-guru masih perlu diberikan kursus untuk memahami
sepenuhnya kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP mengikut mata pelajaran masing-masing.
Peringkat sekolah atau daerah boleh memperkasakan Proffesional Learning Community (PLC)
atau komuniti pembelajaran profesional dengan lebih berkesan untuk membincangkan dengan
lebih lanjut kandungan Panduan PdP PIKAP. Amalan di dalam komuniti pembelajaran
profesional didapati mampu membentuk budaya kolaboratif profesional di sekolah (Ismail et
al., 2019). Pada asasnya, pengetahuan guru merangkumi pengetahuan subjek, pedagogi subjek
dan pengetahuan berkaitan perkembangan murid (Stoll & Louis, 2007) namun untuk
menambah baik pengetahuan sedia ada, kolaboratif antara guru akan menghasilkan proses yang
sistematik untuk perkongsian amalan dan kepakaran masing-masing.
Seterusnya daripada aspek kesesuaian kandungan dan penterjemahan kandungan
Panduan PDP PIKAP, guru dapat menyatakan elemen KBAT dalam Standard Pembelajaran,
malahan guru juga dapat menerapkan KBAT dalam PdP. Namun begitu, guru-guru perlu
diberikan sokongan yang bagus dan bahan sumber yang bersesuaian untuk menerapkan KBAT
dalam PdP. Hal ini selaras dengan kajian Hassan et al., 2017 yang menyatakan bahawa bahan
sumber adalah antara kekangan utama untuk pengajaran KBAT di bilik darjah. Kekurangan
bahan sumber dan persekitaran yang memberangsangkan merupakan halangan kepada murid
untuk berfikir di bilik darjah. Penggunaan Panduan PdP PIKAP ini memberikan ruang kepada
guru untuk menggunakan kreativiti masing-masing dalam penyediaan ABM yang bersesuaian
dengan keperluan murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi. Murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi amat
menyukai pendidikan yang tidak formal dan konstruktif di mana mereka bebas melakukan
aktiviti seperti bermain, menyanyi dan sebagainya (Haslinda et al., 2015; Wahab & Bahiyah,
2015) maka ABM yang disediakan oleh guru seharusnya sesuai untuk menjadi bahan mainan.
Konsep bermain sambil belajar bagi murid Orang Asli ini dapat membangunkan keyakinan
diri, bertanggungjawab dan merasa dihargai. Selain daripada itu, ABM yang bersesuian juga
boleh dihasilkan daripada sumber yang sedia ada di persekitaran dan berkait rapat dengan
budaya mereka. Hal ini akan memudahkan mereka melalui proses pembelajaran dengan lebih
bermakna kerana budaya dan cara hidup Orang Asli dan Peribumi ini berbeza dengan komuniti
(Aminuddin et. al, 2019) dan secara tidak langsung, membantu guru menerapkan KBAT dalam
PdP masing-masing.
Panduan PdP PIKAP dilengkap dengan kaedah pentaksiran yang lengkap dan dapat
membantu guru melaksanakan pentaksiran, namun kaedah pentaksiran perlu dipelbagaikan
dengan strategi-strategi yang berbeza. Guru-guru juga perlu diberikan kesedaran untuk
mentafsir pembelajaran murid dalam pelbagai aspek seperti jasmani, emosi, kognitif, afektif,
dan sosial. Selain daripada itu, penggunaan pelbagai teknik pentaksiran perlu bertepatan
dengan kebolehan murid dan kesesuaian dengan objektif pembeljaran yang hendak dicapai
(Mutalib & Ahmad, 2016). Menurut Mutalib dan Ahmad (2016) juga, penggunaan pelbagai
teknik pentaksiran membolehkan penyertaan murid secara aktif dalam proses P&P serta
meningkatkan kemahiran komunikasi murid. Untuk itu, guru-guru perlu diberikan pendedahan
dan latihan secara hands on untuk meningkatkan kemahiran membuat pentafsiran dengan
147

pelbagai teknik dan kaedah. Guru -guru perlu sentiasa merujuk kepada Buku Panduan
Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah yang dikeluarkan oleh BPK (KPM 2019g) dalam usaha untuk
menambahkan pengetahuan tentang pentaksiran bilik darjah termasuk tujuan, masa
pelaksanaan, teknik melaksanakan, membuat pemerhatian, mengumpul, merekod, mentafsir
dan menggunakan maklumat pentaksiran dalam bilik darjah untuk menilai P&P secara
berterusan.
Dapatan menunjukan aspek kesediaan prasarana perlu diberikan perhatian. Untuk
memastikan kejayaan pelaksanaan Panduan PdP PIKAP, aspek prasarana perlu dilihat dengan
lebih mendalam. Bantuan untuk penambahbaikan prasarana di semua sekolah terlibat perlu
diambil kira. Kemudahan infrastruktur dan prasarana asas ada disediakan perkampungan orang
asli ini namun, tidak dimanfaatkan sepenuhnya oleh masyarakat Orang Asli (Saleh & Ahmad,
2009). Hal ini disebabkan lokasi atau kedudukan penempatan yang jauh ke pendalaman.
Menurut Pelan Strategik Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli 2016-2020 peratus Orang Asli
yang tinggal di pinggir kampong adalah 63.2% manakala 36.1 % adalah di pendalaman.
Kedudukan yang jauh terpencil di pedalaman menyebabkan mereka jauh daripada menikmati
kemudahan awam seperti pengangkutan awam, perpustakaan, alat perhubungan, iaitu jalan
raya dan alat komunikasi (Mohamad Johdi & Abdul Razak, 2009). Walau bagaimana pun,
pengangkutan ke sekolah bagi anak-anak Orang Asli telah disediakan namun operasi
perkhidmatan pengangkutan yang disediakan masih kurang memuaskan dari segi kualiti,
bilangan dan perkhidmatan. Dari segi jarak, secara purata pelajar, Orang Asli terpaksa
melakukan perjalanan melebihi 15 km dengan trip yang mengambil masa melebihi 45 minit
(Marzuki et al., 2014). Untuk memastikan prasana dipertingkatkan, kekangan sebegini
memerlukan kerjasama semua pihak baik daripada kerajaan atau agensi-agensi swasta.
Masalah kesediaan prasarana terutamanya aksesibiliti perlu ditambah baik dan
diperbaiki bagi memastikan perjalanan murid Orang Asli ke sekolah lebih selesa. Kedudukan
geografi yang terletak jauh di pedalaman telah mengukuhkan pemikiran dalam kalangan ibu
bapa murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi ini bahawa tiada faedah untuk menghantar anak ke
sekolah (Abdul Razaq & Zalizan, 2009; Wahab et al., 2017). Perkhidmatan bas sekolah perlu
diperbanyakkan dan disesuaikan dengan bilangan murid dan jarak perjalanan ke sekolah.
Selain daripada itu, bagi lokasi di mana bilangan murid yang kurang, kemudahan trak yang
sedia ada perlu diperbaiki dan tidak digunakan untuk tujuan lain. Khaskan penggunaan trak
tersebut hanya untuk perjalanan pergi balik ke sekolah, ini akan mengurangkan kerosakan dan
kos membaiki.
Selain dari itu, masalah aksesibiliti dapat dikurangkan dengan penyediaan asrama di
sekolah atau berhampiran dengan sekolah. Walaupun asrama telah disediakan di sekolah
tertentu, namun bilangan perlu ditambah sejajar dengan peningkatan enrolmen dan permintaan
setempat. Namun begitu, ada sesetengah ibu bapa muri Orang Asli dan Peribumi yang tidak
mahu melepaskan anak mereka untuk tinggal di asrama (Marzuki et al., 2014). Hal ini
menyebabkan ramai yang masih berulang-alik pada setiap hari untuk ke sekolah. Pihak
pengurusan sekolah dan guru-guru perlu meningkatkan usaha menasihat dan berunding dengan
golongan ibubapa supaya dapat menerima perubahan demi masa hadapan anak-anak mereka.
Kesedaran, motivasi, ceramah dan taklimat tentang kebaikan menetap di asrama dalam usaha
untuk mengubah sikap dan minda masyarakat Orang Asli terhadap kepentingan pendidikan
perlu sentiasa dijalankan bagi membentuk kesedaran dalam kalangan ibu bapa seterusnya
mengubah persepsi untuk membenarkan anak mereka tinggal di asrama. Perkembangan dan
tabiat pembelajaran anak-anak adalah lebih baik apabila ibu bapa mereka terlibat secara aktif
dan berterusan dalam pendidikan mereka sejak awal lagi iaitu peringkat sekolah rendah
(Kanammah et al., 2015; Wahab et al., 2017).
Dalam usaha memastikan kelancaran penggunaan panduan PdP PIKAP, latihan dan
bimbingan berterusan sangat diperlukan berkaitan penerapan KBAT dan PAK 21 serta
148

pentaksiran bilik darjah. Pembelajaran Abad ke-21 yang disarankan dalam Panduan ini dapat
mengasah lagi kemahiran komunikasi murid dan murid seronok dalam sesi pembelajaran. Di
samping itu, dapat menggalakkan murid untuk berdaya saing, merangsang pemikiran dan
menggalakkan murid berkomunikasi dengan betul. Teknik penyoalan yang betul akan dapat
membantu menggalakkan murid menjawab dengan berani dan yakin. Pendekatan pdp guru
yang menggunakan pelbagai strategi dan teknik secara tidak langsung menggambarkan
kompetensi guru yang baik. Menurut Norwaliza dan Ramlee Mustapha (2015), guru perlu
mempelbagaikan strategi dan kaedah pengajaran dan pembelajaran bagi menarik minat belajar
dalam kalangan murid-murid Orang Asli. Panduan PdP PIKAP ini juga dilengkapi dengan
pelbagai strategi seperti Mastery Learning Strategy, dan strategi ini dapat membawa perubahan
kepada tahap kognitif murid Orang Asli seterusnya meningkatkan motivasi mereka (Amiruddin
& Zainudin, 2015, Chen & Osman, 2016)).

CADANGAN KAJIAN LANJUTAN

Kajian dijalankan berdasarkan persepsi guru-guru yang terlibat terhadap aspek yang
dikaji secara tinjauan (pendekatan kuantitatif), adalah dicadangkan kajian ini menggunakan
pendekatan mixed method iaitu gabungan pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif supaya data
yang lebih terperinci dan menyeluruh diperolehi. Kajian ini juga dijalankan ke atas sekolah-
sekolah terpilih sahaja, maka dapatan yang diperolehi tidak dapat digeneralisasikan kepada
semua sekolah Orang Asli dan Peribumi. Dicadangkan kajian diperluaskan lagi dengan
penambahan bilangan sampel sekolah mengikut lokasi yang boleh mewakili murid Orang Asli,
Peribumi Sabah dan Sarawak kerana murid-murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi mempunyai latar
belakang dan budaya yang amat berbeza. Selain daripada itu, kajian lanjutan dijalankan secara
eksperimental. Dengan adanya kumpulan kawalan dan rawatan, serta data pre dan post, akan
dapat mengambarkan dengan lebih jelas pencapaian murid-murid apabila diberikan intervensi
menggunakan Panduan PdP PIKAP dengan murid-murid yang tidak menggunakan Panduan
PdP PIKAP. Kajian eksperimental akan dapat melihat keberkesanan penggunaan panduan PdP
PIKAP.

KESIMPULAN

Kajian menunjukkan kebolehlaksanaan Panduan PdP PIKAP untuk diterjemahkan ke
dalam proses PdP. Strategi pengajaran dan pembelajaran berasaskan pedagogi peribumi yang
disarankan dalam Panduan adalah satu asas yang kukuh kerana ianya berkait dengan
persekitaran dan budaya murid Orang Asli. Secara tidak langsung, dapat membantu
meningkatkan minat dan motivasi murid untuk hadir ke sekolah. Guru-guru perlukan
bimbingan dan kursus yang berterusan dalam meningkatkan dan mendapatkan pengetahuan
baru dalam pedagogi peribumi. Guru-guru telah mencuba pelbagai kaedah pengajaran selaras
dengan kebolehan dan kecerdasan murid berdasarkan alam semula jadi dan persekitaran yang
dekat dengan murid-murid Orang Asli dan Peribumi ini. Kesediaan guru dan keupayaan guru
menterjemahkan kandungan PIKAP ke dalam PdP dapat memastikan murid menguasai sesuatu
kemahiran dan dapat mengenali murid yang benar-benar melepasi kemahiran asas. Selain itu,
murid yang belum menguasai tidak terabai kerana konsep pembelajaran yang berasaskan
pedagogi peribumi tersebut dapat membantu murid menguasai kandungan pembelajaran.
Panduan ini juga menyediakan aktiviti yang relevan dengan peribumi memandangkan
persekitaran, lokasi dan sosio budaya peribumi adalah sangat kompleks dan khusus untuk suku
kaum tertentu. Murid peribumi yang terlibat seperti Orang Asli di Semenanjung yang terdiri
daripada pelbagai suku kaum lain, Penan di Sarawak dan Dusun Bonggi di Sabah, mempunyai
sosio budaya tersendiri. Lokasi dan persekitaran juga perlu diambil kira dalam menentukan
149

aktiviti pembelajaran yang relevan dengan mereka.

RUJUKAN

Abdul Razaq Ahmad, Zalizan Mohd Jelas. (2009). Masyarakat Orang Asli: Perspektif
pendidikan dan sosiobudaya. Selangor: UKM.
Aminuddin Mohamed, A., Sa’ari, H. & Zakaria, S.Z.S. (2019). Creativity and inovation as an
indigenous pedagogy method. Journal of Educational Research and Indigenous
Studies, 1 (1), 22-26.
Amiruddin, M. H., & Zainudin, F. L. (2015). The effects of a mastery learning strategy on
knowledge acquisition among aboriginal students: An experimental approach.
International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research, 1(2), 22-26.
Abdullah, R. (2014). Orang Asli: Pembangunan dan transformasi. Kuala Terengganu,
Malaysia: Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin.
hen, C. W. C., & Osman, K. (2016). The effect of kayeu learning outside the classroom primary
science module on intrinsic motivation of indigenous learners. Journal of Baltic
Science Education, 15(3), 360-370.
Dali, M. H., Shaari, A. S., Ghazali, M. I., & Yusoff, N. (2013). Instilling literacy through
developmental module approach (DMA) towards Orang Asli pupils in
Malaysia. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 4(1), 126-132.
Ghazali Darulsalam & Sufean Hussin. (2019). Metodologi penyelidikan dalam pendidikan:
Amalan dan analisis kajian. (Edisi ke-3). Penerbit Universiti Malaya
Haslinda Bt Tahir Shah, Lilia Halim, Zanaton Bt Iksan. (2015). Kaedah bermain dalam
meningkatkan minat murid Orang Asli terhadap Sains. Prosiding International
Conference on Language, Education, And Innovation. 71-81.
Hassan, M. N., Mustapha, R., Yusuff, N. A. N., & Mansor, R. (2017). Pembangunan modul
kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi di dalam mata pelajaran sains sekolah rendah: Analisis
keperluan guru. Sains Humanika, 9, 1-5.
Hamzah, M. S. G., Abdullah, M. Y., Hussin, A. R., Abdullah, S. K., Teck, W. K., & Ismail, S.
(2019). Analisis pelaksanaan program memartabatkan Bahasa Malaysia (MBM)
sekolah rendah dan menengah di Malaysia. Jurnal Kesidang, 3(1), 40-61.
Ismail, K., Ishak, R., Yuet, F. K. C., & Kamaruddin, S. H. (2019). Komuniti pembelajaran
profesional sebagai budaya kolaborasi profesional sekolah: Teori dan amalan
Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 15(4). 261-273.
Kanammah Manukaram, Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah, & Shahizan Hasan. (2013). Pengaruh
faktor keluarga terhadap pembelajaran regulasi kendiri murid sekolah rendah.
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 10, 179-201.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2019a). Laporan PPPM 2018. Dimuat turun pada 2
Februari 2020 dari http://www.padu.edu.my/
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017b). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Bahasa
Melayu SK, Dokumen Standard Kandungan dan Pentaksiran. Putrajaya: Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017c). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Bahasa
Inggeris, Dokumen Standard Kandungan dan Pentaksiran. Putrajaya: Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017d). Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah Matematik,
Dokumen Standard Kandungan dan Pentaksiran. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan
Kurikulum.


150

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017e). Literasi bahan linus book 1. Putrajaya: Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017f). Literasi bahan linus book 2. Putrajaya: Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2017g). Literasi bahan linus book 3. Putrajaya: Bahagian
Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2019a). Laporan PPPM 2018. Dimuat turun pada 2
Februari 2020 dari http://www.padu.edu.my/
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2019g). Buku panduan pentaksiran bilik darjah edisi ke-
2. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2013). Pelan pembangunan pendidikan Malaysia 2013-
2025.
Landell, K. (1997). Management by menu. (1997). London: Wiley and Sons Inc.
Mamat, N., Rami, A. M., & Abdullah, R. (2018). The educational drop out of Orang Asli in
Terengganu. National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, 1,
449-453.
Marzuki, M., Mapjabil, J., & Mohd Zainol, R. (2014). Mengupas keciciran pelajar Orang Asli
Malaysia: Suatu tinjauan ke dalam isu aksesibiliti sekolah. GEOGRAFIA Online
Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 10(2), 189-19.
Mohamad Johdi Salleh, Abdul Razak Ahmad. (2009). Kesedaran pendidikan dalam kalangan
masyarakat Orang Asli. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Mutalib, S. A., & Ahmad, J. (2016). Penggunaan teknik pentaksiran formatif dalam subjek
Bahasa Melayu darjah satu: Kajian kes. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu, 2(1), 17-
30.
Nordin, N. B. M. (2010). Tahap penguasaan penulisan Bahasa Melayu dalam kalangan murid
Orang Asli di Daerah Hulu Langat, Malaysia (Tesis PhD yang tidak diterbitkan).
Serdang: Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Norwaliza Abdul Wahab & Ramlee Mustapha. (2015). Reflections on pedagogical and
curriculum implementation at Orang Asli schools in Pahang. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 172, 442 - 448.
Rahman, R. A. (2008). Projek rintis kurikulum bersepadu sekolah murid Orang Asli dan Penan
(KAP). Dimuat turun pada 12 April 2020 dari
http://www.jpmipgmtaa.web.com/Aktiviti_Jabatan/Laporan KAP2009.pdf.
Ruslan, A. (2018). Penilaian pelaksanaan program Linus dalam kalangan murid Orang Asli
di Perak (Tesis PhD yang tidak diterbitkan). Sintok: Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Said, A. M., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2017). Keperluan model kurikulum berasaskan
intelektualisme perubatan herba masa depan. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran
Asia Pasifik, 3(1), 1-9.
Salleh, M. J., & Ahmad, A. R. (2009). Kesedaran pendidikan dalam kalangan masyarakat
Orang Asli. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Selvaratnam, D. P., Jaafar, A. H., Salleh, N., Othman, R., & Idris, S. H., (2012). Transformasi
modal insan melalui peningkatan pendidikan: Kajian kes komuniti Orang Asli di
Cameron Highlands, Pahang. Prosiding Perkem VII, 2, 1215-1224.
Shaari, A. S., Yusoff, N., Ghazali, M. I., & Dali, M. H. (2016). Kanak-kanak minoriti Orang
Asli di Malaysia: Menggapai literasi Bahasa Melayu. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa
Melayu, 1(2), 59-70.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.) (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth
and dilemmas. New York, NY: Open University Press/McGraw Hill.




151

Wahab, A., & Bahiyah, N. (2015). Pembangunan kit rimba berorientasikan elemen sekolah
rimba Malaysia bagi peningkatan kompetensi sains murid Orang Asli (Tesis Phd yang
tidak diterbitkan) Parit Raja: Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Wahab, N. A., Mustapha, R., & Talib, J. A. (2017). Membangun modal insan Orang Asli:
Kajian peranan dan penentuan matlamat pendidikan dalam kalangan ibu bapa
masyarakat Orang Asli di Kuantan, Pahang. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society
and Space, 12(3), 1-10.














































152

Teachers’ Perceptions on the Implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM: An
Online Survey

1
3
2
Ilhavenil Narinasamy, PhD , Logeswari Arumugam PhD , Siew Siew Kim, PhD ,
Sudiman Musa 4
Sektor Dasar dan Penyelidikan Kurikulum,
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum
1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
3
2
4 [email protected]


Abstract

Curriculum in Malaysia encapsulates content, pedagogy and assessment that form the ‘heart’
of the education system. In 2017, the KSSR (revised 2017) and KSSM were implemented to
develop students holistically in order to compete globally in the 21st century era. This paper
presents findings from a quantitative study, involving 61,642 teachers from primary and
secondary schools throughout the country. The focus of the study was on teachers’
understanding of the Standards-based Curriculum and Assessment Document (Dokumen
Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran) also known as the DSKP, teaching and learning
practices as well as classroom assessment. This study also focused on the students’ level of
learning based on teachers’ perspectives. Data gathered indicated that the level of teachers’
understanding of the DSKP, teaching and learning practices, classroom assessment and
students’ level of learning were moderately high. The results showed that the teachers
perceived the DSKP as comprehensible and implementable. The findings also implied potential
improvement in students’ learning.

KEY WORDS: KSSR (Revised 2017), KSSM, Standards-based Curriculum and Assessment
Document, classroom assessment, students’ learning


INTRODUCTION


Content, pedagogy and assesment, the essence of curriculum forms an integral part in any
education system throughout the world (Black & Wiliam, 2018; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2014).
In fact, Isaacs (2014) emphasised that curriculum with its associations with assessment ‘are the
heart of educational systems worldwide’ (p.130). In recent years, many countries have
embarked on curriculum reforms in order to keep up with world trends and rectify any
shortcomings that halt developments among children (Barghi, Zakaria, Hamzah & Hashim,
2017; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2014).
Malaysia too is of no exception in this reform, resulting in development and formation
of new curricula for primary school since 2011. The Ministry of Education launched a
comprehensive review of the education system in Malaysia in 2011 which resulted in the
formation of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Ministry of Education, 2013). The
main aim of the curriculum review is to ensure students are developed holistically with sound
knowledge, skills and values, grounded with strong national identity in order to be globally
competitive in the 21st century (Barghi, Zakaria, Hamzah & Hashim, 2017). Every student is
required to acquire six key attributes aligned with the National Education Philosophy namely
knowledge, thinking skills, leaderships skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and spirituality as
well as national identity.

153

In relation to the reformation in 2011 the Curriculum Development Division (CDD)
embarked on an enormous task to implement a new curriculum called the Primary School
Standards-based Curriculum (KSSR) with the key attributes in mind. In 2017, the Primary
School Standards-based Curriculum was revised and known as KSSR (Revised 2017). At the
same time, the Secondary School Standards-based Curriculum (KSSM) was also implemented.
These new curriculum documents for primary schools and secondary schools were developed
and named Primary School Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document and
Secondary School Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document respectively.
Assessment forms part of curriculum in both these documents, refered to as the DSKP. In 2019,
the KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM foregrounded their third year of implementation. This
mid review research was carried out to investigate the level of understanding of teachers based
on the DSKP, their perceived level of teaching and learning based on the DSKP and classroom
assessment implementation based on DSKP. This research also aimed to investigate the
teachers’ perception pertaining to the level of students’ learning in relation to the
implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM.
Therefore, with relevance to the purpose of this research, this quantitative study aimed to
answer the following questions:
a. What is the level of teachers’ understanding of the Standards-based Curriculum and
Assessment Document?
b. What is the level of implementation on teaching and learning based on the Standards-
based Curriculum and Assessment Document?
c. What is the level of classroom assessment based on the Standards-based Curriculum
and Assessment Document?
d. What is the level of students’ learning on KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM?

The research output is hoped to inform CDD on whether the dissemmination of the new
curriculum has been effective and also to improve the contents of the DSKPs as well as the
methods of present techniques of dissemmination.

KSSR (REVISED 2017) AND KSSM

In 2011, the Ministry of Education (MOE) made a comprehensive review of the education
system in this country, and as a result the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB) was put in
place to prepare the future generation for the needs and aspirations of the 21st century (Minstry
of Education, 2013). The blueprint outlines the performance of the current education system
and offers its vision of the education system and student aspirations as well as suggests eleven
strategic and operational shifts required to transform the national education system to be
equivalent to that of developed nations. Concurrently, the KSSR was implemented in 2011.
Based on findings from various sources such as the MEB, UNESCO and World Bank the KSSR
was revised and the KSSM was developed (Ng, 2019). Both the revised KSSR and KSSM were
implemented in 2017, in stages. The revised KSSR for Year One and KSSM for Form One
were rolled out in 2017 and the subsequent year for Year Two and Form Two. This also paved
way for the development of the DSKP for every subject. The document states that “the
curriculum standard is written in the form of Content Standard, Learning Standard and
Assessment Standard” (Ng, 2019, p. 131).
In every DSKP produced, the National Principles (Rukun Negara), the National
Education Philosophy and the national curriculum definition are explained as a preamble to
enable the readers to comprehend the desired outcome of the curriculum and to transform it
through classroom experiences. This is followed by aims, objectives, and the curriculum
framework that identify six pillars across knowledge, skills and value domains that encompass
154

‘Science and Technology’, ‘Personal Competence’, ‘Humanities’, ‘Physical Development and
Aesthetics’, ‘Spirituality, Attitude and Values’ and ‘Communication’.
The DSKP also included the 21st century skills where the focus is on the students’
profiles and higher order thinking skills (HOTS). The HOTS element was introduced to inform
teachers of various methods and activities they could adopt to enable students to discuss and
think of issues critically, as well as to solve problems in creative and innovative ways (Abdul
Halim, Mahani, Noor Dayana, Dayana, Lokman, & Umar Haiyat (2017). Besides, various
teaching and learning strategies, cross-curricular elements which included language,
environment sustainability, values, patriotism and citizenship, creativity and innovation, global
sustainability and financial education are also included in the document.
In addition to this, the inclusion of classroom assessment in the DSKP indicates to the
teachers the effectiveness of the T&L carried out in classrooms. Classroom assessment through
various continuous formative and summative assessment approaches are used to gather
information on the progress of a child in a formal or non-formal approach to enable the teacher
to gauge the child’s level of mastery (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2018). The
principles applied in classroom assessment in this country is similar to Wiliam’s (2018) model
of formative assessment which includes principles of inclusive, authentic and localized.
Information gathered from classroom assessment will be used by administrators, teachers,
parents and pupils to plan out further action to upgrade or to improve the development stage of
the child (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2018; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015).

METHODOLOGY


This research employed the quantitative framework; thus, survey design was carried
out to obtain data from respondents in cross-sectional manner. The numerical data collected
would explain the phenomena of interest (Creswell, 2012; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Mills
& Gay, 2016).

Sample

This study conformed to a targeted population of teachers who taught Year 1 to Year 3
in primary schools and Form 1 to Form 3 in secondary schools. The total number of teachers
in primary schools and secondary schools in June 2019 were 166,761 and 117, 210
respectively. However, only 91,964 teachers responded to the survey which was uploaded
online and made accesible to teachers via a link provided. Table 1 presents the number of
respondents from each of the 16 states and type of curriculum used. The demographic section
of the questionnaire did not intend to disclose the identity of the teachers and the schools they
taught in and hence participation was voluntary and all the details provided were kept
anonymous.











155

Table 1
No. of Respondents According to State and Curriculum Implemented

States KSSR (Revised 2017) KSSM
Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
Selangor 4639 12.9 2537 9.9
Kedah 2141 6.0 1393 5.4
Perlis 465 1.3 435 1.7
Pulau 2125 5.9 1500 5.8
Pinang
Melaka 1965 5.5 1116 4.3
Kelantan 300 0.8 136 0.5
Terengganu 1154 3.2 2988 11.6
Pahang 3038 8.4 1998 7.8
Johor 4059 11.3 3280 12.8
Negeri 1605 4.5 1411 5.5
Sembilan
Perak 5235 14.6 3967 15.5
Sabah 1353 3.8 732 2.9
Sarawak 6515 18.1 2537 9.9
W.P. Kuala 1115 3.1 1406 5.5
Lumpur
W.P. 216 0.6 210 0.8
Putrajaya
W.P. 57 0.2 15 0.1
Labuan
Total 35982 100 25660 100


Instrumentation

The questionnaire was adopted and adapted based on the earlier instrument developed
by the CDD (BPK, 2017) on a five-point Likert scale. The reliability reading of the then
instrument was 0.93, 0.95, 0.90, 0.88 and 0.91 based on variables such as understanding of the
DSKP, content suitability in the DSKP, implementation on teaching and learning based on
DSKP, classroom assessment and facility readiness (BPK, 2017). The revised and current
instrument had three sections. The first section on school profile comprised details such as year
taught, school location, type of school and state. The second section on teacher’s profile
comprised details such as gender, teacher’s position, years of teaching experiences, teacher’s
field of specialization and exposure to KSSR (Revised 2017)/KSSM. This was followed by the
third section, which employed the five-point Likert’s scale to measure 21 items belonging to
five constructs, namely Understanding of the DSKP, Content Suitability of DSKP,
Implementation on Teaching and Learning Based On DSKP, Classroom Assessment and
Students’ Learning. For the construct of ‘Understanding of the DSKP’ items such as ‘I
understand the six core (Tunjang) of KSSR/KSSM stated in the DSKP’ and ‘I understand the
teaching strategies stated in the DSKP’ were set whereas under ‘Content Suitability of DSKP’
items such as ‘(Laras) Language in the DSKP easily understood’ and ‘the content breadth of
the subject in DSKP is suitable’ were set. On the ‘Implementation on Teaching and Learning
Based On DSKP’, items set were ‘I carried out students’ based activity’, ‘I instilled Higher


156

Order Thinking Skills in Teaching and Learning’ and ‘I instilled Elements Across Curriculum
in Teaching and Learning’. On the ‘Implementation of Classroom Assessment’, items set were
‘I assess through various teaching and learning activities’, ‘I measure students’ achievements
through various assessment methods’ and ‘I determine the students’ mastery level based on
professional judgement’ whereas on ‘Students’ Learning’, items set were ‘Implementation of
KSSR/KSSM increases the level of students’ knowledge’, ‘Implementation of KSSR/KSSM
increases the level of students’ skills’ and ‘Implementation of KSSR/KSSM brings positive
effect in students’ behaviour.’
In order to validate the revised instrument, pre-testing and pilot testing were done. Four
teachers (2 primary schools and 2 secondary schools) were conferred with to identify whether
the items had clarity, complied to the needs of each construct, proposed a sufficient number of
items to explain each of the construct and displayed instructions that were comprehensible.
Words and sentences considered to be complex were replaced with straightforward and
uncomplicated ones. So as to obtain face validity, three university lecturers who are experts in
the development of instruments were consulted to refine the instrument in terms of item clarity
and suitability as well as scale suitability. Comments and suggestions by the experts were taken
into consideration and items were refined for the pilot testing stage.
The instrument was administered in 3 primary schools and 3 secondary schools. After
data screening, a total of 231 respondents from the primary and secondary schools who
participated in the survey were accepted as samples for the pilot study. The respondents took
approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey. The data gathered was analysed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 to obtain descriptive results and
internal consistency.
The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify and verify the items
in the instrument. The potential factorability of the 21 items was examined through several
criteria. All scores were correlated at 0.4 with one another score. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy was 0.91, above the recommended 0.6, and the Bartlett’s test
of sphericity was significant (X ² = 2801.36, p < .000).
Principal axis factoring was applied to determine underlying factors. The first four
factors explained 43%, 8%, 7% and 6% of the variance respectively. All the four factors had
Eigenvalues over one. The four-factor solution, which accounted for 63% of the total variance,
was ultimately retained because it had the highest loading and the number of Eigenvalues over
one. The four-factor solution indicated that the initial 5 constructs be reduced to 4 constructs.
Furthermore, three items were deleted namely 2.1 ‘Language in DSKP easily understood’, 3.1
‘I conducted teaching and learning based on Learning Standards in DSKP, and 4.6 ‘I used the
template to record students’ achievements’ as items 2.1 and 3.1 showed reduncy with items
from other variables although the readings were not weakly cross-loaded. Item 4.6 was deleted
as the item did not reflect the mastery of assessment skills but only a tool to record students’
achievement.
After deletion of the three items, the principal axis factoring of the remaining 18 items
using varimax rotation produced four factors explaining 65% of the variance. The factor-
loading matrix is presented in Table 2. Constructs 1 and 2 were then combined as one construct
and known as ‘Understanding of the DSKP’. The other three constructs were ‘Implementation
of Teaching and Learning Based On DSKP’, ‘Implementation of Classroom Assessment based
on DSKP’ and ‘Student Learning’. The refined instrument was used to conduct the pilot testing.
Data analyses resulted in the internal consistencies as shown in Table 3.




157

Table 2
Rotated Component Matrix

Component
Items 1 2 3 4
C3.1 .757
C3.2 .757
C3.5 .721
C3.4 .707
C3.3 .574
C2.3 .778
C2.4 .708
C2.5 .685
C2.2 .684
C2.1 .428 .584
C1.2 .780
C1.1 .736
C1.4 .617
C1.3 .594
C1.5 .464
C4.2 .873
C4.1 .830
C4.3 .746


Table 3
Internal Consistencies of the Constructs

Construct No. of Items Cronbach Alpha
Understanding of DSKP 5 0.78
Implementation On Teaching And Learning 5 0.85
Based On DSKP
Implementation of Classroom Assessment 5 0.85
based on DSKP
Students’ Learning 4 0.88


Limitations

The sampling used in this study was the targetted population, and hence no
generalisation of the findings can be applied. Furthermore, teachers from the Special Education
schools were excluded in this study. Although the inclusivity of Special Education into the
main stream has been echoed by policy makers and practitioners, the DSKP produced for
Special Education were to some extent different, and hence a different instrumentation would
be required.


ANALYSIS

The data gathered was analysed using the SPSS version 23. Data screening was carried
out to ensure responses were correctly input followed by count blank and straight lining (Hair,
158

Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). This resulted in 61,642 respondents acceptable as data (Table
1). A descriptive analysis was reported through the mean, min, max and standard deviation.
The mean intepretation was also reported. Table 4 presents the mean interpretation for this
study. An internal reliability testing using Cronbach Alpha was conducted to ensure consistent
measurement across the various items in the instrument and the items are ‘hang together as a
set’ (Segaran & Bougie, 2016).

Table 4
Mean Intepretation

Mean Value Interpretation
1.00 – 2.00 Low
2.01 – 3.00 Moderately Low
3.01 – 4.00 Moderately High
4.01 – 5.00 High
Nunnally, J.C. (1978)


RESULTS

Coefficient reliability showed acceptable Cronbach alpha value of above 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babi
& Anderson, 2010). The coefficient reliability (Cronbach alpha) reading for understanding on
the DSKP, Implementation on Teaching and Learning Based On DSKP, Classroom
Assessment and Students’ Learning variables were .94, .84, .88, and .91 for KSSR (Revised
2017) and .93, .84, .87 and .91 for KSSM. All 18 items in the third part of the questionnaire
were acceptable and the 4 variables were maintained. Table 5 and Table 6 provide the means
and standard deviations of all variables in KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM.

Table 5
Mean and Standard Deviation of Constructs (KSSR (Revised 2017))

Constructs No. of Mean SD Mean Interpretation
Items
Understanding of DSKP 5 4.03 0.52 High

Implementation of T&L 5 3.89 0.48 Moderately High
Based on DSKP
Classroom Assessment 5 3.99 0.48 Moderately High
Based on DSKP
Student Learning 3 3.74 0.61 Moderately High

Table 6
Mean and Standard Deviation of Constructs (KSSM)

Variables No. of Items Mean SD Mean Interpretation
Understanding of DSKP 5 3.96 0.56 Moderately High

Implementation of T&L 5 3.86 0.50 Moderately High
Based on DSKP


159

Classroom Assessment 5 3.91 0.49 Moderately High
Based on DSKP
Student Learning 3 3.63 0.66 Moderately High


In KSSR (Revised 2017), under the construct ‘Understanding of the DSKP’, the highest
mean was ‘I understand the Learning Standards that were set in the DSKP’ (4.07) and the
lowest mean was ‘I understand the six frameworks stated in the DSKP’ (3.99). The highest
mean and lowest mean under the construct ‘Implementation On Teaching and Learning Based
on the DSKP’ was ‘I implement student-based activities’ (4.03) and ‘I instill global
sustainability in T&L’ (3.60). Under the construct ‘Classroom Assessment’, the highest mean
was ‘I am able to carry out assessments through T&L activities’ (4.07) and the lowest mean
was ‘I can determine the student’s mastery level after completing a set of Learning Standards’
(3.91) whereas under the construct ‘Students’ Learning’, the highest mean was
‘Implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) increases the level of students’ knowledge’ (3.78) and
the lowest mean was ‘Implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) brings positive effect in
students’ behaviour’ (3.70).
In KSSM, under the construct ‘Understanding of the DSKP’, the highest mean was ‘I
understand the Content Standard stated in the DSKP’ as well as ‘I understand the Learning
Standard stated in DSKP’ (4.00) and the lowest mean was ‘I understand the six frameworks
stated in DSKP’ (3.92). The highest mean and the lowest mean under the construct
‘Implementation On Teaching and Learning Based On the DSKP’ was ‘I use suitable study
aids to improve students’ thinking skills’ (3.93) and ‘I instill global sustainability in T&L’
(3.66). Under the construct ‘Classroom Assessment’, the highest mean was ‘I am able to carry
out assessments through T&L activities’ (3.97) and the lowest mean was ‘I can determine the
student’s mastery level after completing a set of Learning Standards’ (3.82) whereas under the
construct ‘Students’ Learning’, the highest mean was ‘Implementation of KSSM increases the
level of students’ knowledge’ (3.68) and the lowest mean was ‘Implementation of KSSM brings
positive effect in students’ behaviour’ (3.57).


DISCUSSIONS
In general, teachers implementing KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM perceived themselves to
be able to understand the DSKP produced by CDD. This is based on moderately high to high
mean scores obtained. Every year beginning 2016, the delivery of the curriculum or DSKP
content has been cascaded through three tiers from central (CDD) to master trainers (officers
recomended by the respective state departments), master trainers to state trainers and state
trainers to selected teachers in every school. The selected teachers were then required to
conduct in-house training sessions once their training at the district level was completed.
Efforts to enhance the teachers’ understanding of the DSKP is still on-going. This could
indicate that the present way of disseminating the curriculum is effective.
In terms of teaching and learning practices, the moderately high mean revealed that
teachers in both KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM generally are able to conduct their teaching
and learning based on the document according to the subjects taught. They perceived that they
are able to conduct student-based activities and are able to instill higher order thinking skills
(HOTS) in the teaching and learning process during their lessons. In instilling HOTS, teachers
themselves need to have acquired the competencies and appropriate pedagogical knowledge in
teaching the creative and critical thinking skills. In contrast to this, a study done in 2003 showed
that teachers perceived themselves as not being competent to teach critical thinking skills based
on the mean score of 3.07 (Hashim, 2003). Perhaps, a number of courses and workshops were
160

carried out regularly to improve teachers’ efficacy in thinking skills instructions and this study
showed that teachers perceived that they were confident in teaching HOTS. However, a recent
study states that concerns regarding the teaching and learning of HOTS still post pertinent
issues such as teachers’ lack of pedagogical knowledge, insufficient materials and resources as
well as inadequate teaching approaches and strategies (Arumugam M. Pillay, Kaur Swaran
Singh, Safinas Raja Harun, & Masa Singh, 2018). The lowest mean on ‘global sustainability’
reflected that not all documents had a write-up on ‘global sustainability’ in their content and
learning standards except for a few subjects such as Geography, Moral Education and Science.
On classroom assessment, results specified that the mean interpretation for classroom
assessment for both KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM are moderately high, indicating teachers
considered themselves to be able to assess students through various teaching and learning
activities and also measure students’ achievements using various assessment methods. These
results differed with the study done by Norazilawati, Noozeliana, Mohd Sahandri and Saniah
(2015) where the implementation of classroom assessment was only at a moderate level (3.51).
On the other hand, teachers were skillfull at the planning stage where instruments were
developed prior to instructions. However, in this study, items on whether teachers are skillful
in planning their classroom assessment was not measured through the questionnaire. The mean
score was lowest for ‘I can determine students’ mastery level after completing a set of Learning
Standards’ which indicated teachers may need more assistance in using their professional
judgement to decide students’ mastery level. In deciding students’ mastery level which comes
with professional judgement, assessment literacy has become a fundamental competency for
educators in the 21st century in materialising learning goals of students (DeLuca & Johnson,
2017). Assessment literacy involves clear goals, achievement expectations, appropriate
assessment methods, quality exercises, effective communication and instructional
improvement (Pastore & Andrade, 2019; Willis, Adie & Klenowski, 2013)
The overall mean for the construct of ‘Students’ Learning’, when compared to other
constructs was the lowest, reflecting that more efforts need to be carried out to ensure the
success of the implementation of KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM in coming years. At the
same time, strategies for teaching and learning need to be strengthened. It is hoped that by
2025, students are equipped with the required knowledge, skills and values to face the
challenges and opportunities in a dynamic world (Ministry of Education, 2013). Furthermore,
cultural values and attitudes play pertinent roles in enhancing learning outcomes of students
(Perera & Asadullah, 2019). It is also a challenge for the Ministry of Education when students
need to sit for PISA in the coming years as in 2018, the PISA results revealed that the students
had improved in reading, Mathematics and Science (OECD, 2019), bearing in mind the
students were from the previous curriculum, KBSM (Revised 2013).
In order for the KSSR (Revised 2017) and KSSM to be successfully implemented,
various stakeholders should play pertinent roles to support CDD’s central role in developing
the curriculum. Support from other divisions such as Daily School Management Division is
needed to ensure teachers read, comprehend and digest the contents of DSKP, with the
cooperation of State Education Departments and District Education Offices. The curriculum
can be successfully implemented when educators understand the aims, goals and objectives of
the curriculum content to enable students to attain knowledge, skills and values (Ornstein &
Hunkins, 2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the teachers in this study are able to comprehend the Standards-based Curriculum and
Assessment Document and put the curriculum into practice. These results show a promising
implementation of the new curriculum that could enhance students’ learning. However,
161

continuous efforts need to be carried out especially in teacher education to upskill teachers’
pedagogical knowledge, soft skills and teaching styles (Shawer, 2017). Only then, any planned
curriculum can materialise as intended. Besides the above, although the teachers in this study
perceived that they are able to implement HOTS in their teaching and learning sessions in the
classrooms, a recent research based on a good number of previous studies in recent years on
classroom observations and interviews have highlighted various crucial concerns on the
implementation of HOTS for teaching and learning. These can be the grounds for further
research and recommendations on how these concerns on the implementation of HOTS can be
resolved (Arumugam M. Pillay et al., 2018).


REFERENCES

Abdul Halim Abdullah, Mahani Mohktar, Noor Dayana Abdul Hallim, Dayana Farzeeha Ali,
Lokman Mohd Tahir, & Umar Hayat Abdul Kohar. (2017). Mathematics teacher’s
level of knowledge and practice on the implementation of higher order thinking skills.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 3-17.
Arumugam M. Pillay, L., Kaur Swaran Singh, C., Safinas Raja Harun, R. N., & Masa Singh,
T. S. (2018). The implementation of higher order thinking skills for teaching and
learning. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Special Issue 5, 668–675.
https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.spi5.668.675
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (2017). Laporan Kajian Pelaksanaan Kurikulum
Standard (KSPK) (Semakan 2017), Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR)
(Semakan 2017) dan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah (KSSM). Putrajaya:
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (2018). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran:
Bahasa Inggeris. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Barghi, R., Zakaria, Z., Hamzah, A., & Hashim, N. H. (2017). Heritage education in the
Primary School Standard Curriculum in Malaysia. Teaching and Teacher Education,
61, 124-131.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in
education: Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating
th
quantitative and qualitative research. (4 ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private
Limited.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and
th
mixed method approaches. (5 ed.). SAGE. Thousand Oaks. California.
DeLuca, C. & Johnson, S. (2017). Developing assessment capable teachers in this age of
accountability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(2), 121-
126.
Hair, J. F., Black, W.C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A
th
global perspective. (7 ed.). Pearson.
Hashim, R. (2003). Malaysian teachers’ attitudes, competency and practices in the teaching
of thinking. Intellectual Discourse, 11(1), 27-50.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Isaacs, T. (2014). Curriculum and assessment reform gone wrong: the perfect storm of GCSE
English. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 130-147.



162

Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2016). Educational research. Competencies for analysis and
th
applications. (11 ed.). Pearson.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025. Preschool to post-
secondary education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Ministry of Education.
Ng Soo Boon. (2019). Reminiscing the transformation of curriculum design in the Malaysia
national school curriculum from 1980s to 2010s. Jurnal Kurikulum, 4, 127-150.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2019). Programme for international student assessment (PISA): Results from PISA
2018. Country note (Volume I-III). Paris: OECD Publishing.
th
Ornstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F. P. (2014). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues. (6 .
ed.). Pearson Education. Limited. United Kingdom.
Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional
model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138.
Perera, L. D. H., & Asadullah, M. N. (2019). Mind the gap: What explains Malaysia’s
underperformance in PISA? International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 254-
263.
Segaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach.
th
(7 ed.). Wiley. New York.
Shawer, S. F. (2017). Teacher-driven curriculum development at the classroom level:
Implications for curriculum, pedagogy and teacher training. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 63, 296-313.
Willis, J., Adie, L., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualizing teachers’ assessment literacies
in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. Australian Educational Researcher,
40(2), 241-256.


























163

164

165

166