DEVELOPING ENGLISH SYLLABUS AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BASED ON SWOT ANALYSIS
Abstract
Although the Indonesian government did not require elementary students to learn English, many schools, both state and private, still provided English in their curriculum. The absence of government’s roles had led freedom for the schools to designthe English curriculum. This study aims to evaluate the syllabus and the learning process at an elementary level using SWOT analysis and to develop the syllabus based on the results of the investigation. Research and development methods simplified into five steps, which are evaluation, syllabus development,validation, field testing, and production were employed. The results show positive feedback from the school in improving the quality of learning English.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Borg, W& Gall, J. (1983). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York and London: Longman Inc.
Bourke, J. (2006). Designing a topic-based syllabus for young learners.ELT Journal, 60 (3), 279-286.
Cameron, Lynne. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (2014).From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.In Language and communication (pp. 14-40). Routledge.
Celce, Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign language, 2, 3-10.
Djamarah S.B danZain, A. (2002).Strategi BelajarMengajar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivation strategies in the language classroom. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
German, E. (2013). Redesigning English Syllabus of the Fourth Grade Based on Strengths, Weaknesses, Oppourtunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature.Vol 8,45-53
Espinosa, L. M. (2007). Second language acquisition in early childhood. In Rebecca Staples, New; Cochran, Moncrieff. Early Childhood Education: An International Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Hunger and Wheelen .(1996). Manajemen Strategis. Yogyakarta: Andi.
Hurford, J. R. (1991). The evolution of critical period for language acquisition. Cognition. Vol 40 (3), 159–201.
Komarova, N. L.and Nowak, M. A. (2001). Natural selection of the critical period for language acquisition. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. Vol 268 (1472), 1189–1196.
Krogh, S. L. (1997). How children develop and why it matters. Integrated curriculum and developmentally appropriate practice, 29-48.
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language.Wiley.
Lewis, G. (2008). Games for Children:Resource Books for Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (2000). Autonomy in language learning. Plenary presentation given at the ASOCOPI 2000 conference, Cartengena, Columbia.
Nunan, D. and Lamb, C. (1996). The Self-Directed Teacher: Managing the Learning Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel M.F. 2008. English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools & Techniques). Jaipur: Sunrise Publishers & Distributors E-566, VaishaliNagar.
Pinter, A. (2011). Children Learning Second Languages. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.
Richards & Schmidt. (2002). Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Pearson Education.
Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L.H. (2001). Teaching English to Children (14th Ed.). New York: Longman.
Suyanto, Kasihani K.E. (2009). English for Young Learners. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika Offset.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 5291, 157.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52657/js.v6i1.985
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.