EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August 2017 23© 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare IKID AD NN E SP E JA AN R A AJ HR A INS DI OS NAI ES SO IAS A ENDANG KOMARA Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching in Indonesia ABSTRACT: The curriculum is a set of plans and arrangements concerning objectives, content and instructional materials, and ways used as guidelines for the implementation of learning activities to achieve certain educational goals. The purpose of Indonesian national education is to develop the potential of learners to become human beings, who believe and fear to Allah as One God, have a noble character, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become a democratic and responsible citizen. Indonesia has incorporated Civic Education programs in the school curriculum about a decade after the proclamation of independence in August 1945. This article, by using the qualitative method and descriptive approach, tries to explore the curriculum and Civic Education teaching in Indonesia. The findings show that more than half a century of educational education, even at all levels of education from elementary, secondary to higher education, still leaves the general and classical issues of low levels of political literate, moreover to achieve the goal of creating intelligent and skilled Indonesian citizens. Political literacy is not only political knowledge, but the ability of citizens who qualified both in aspects of knowledge, skills, and values and attitudes. In learning of Civic Education, teachers are required to develop an interesting learning process, fun, challenging, and forming learners to be able to think critically and constructively. Civics teachers should be able to present contextual learning materials, relate subject matter with real conditions in the field, set theory with practice, between expectations and reality, identify problems, and encourage learners to come up with alternative problem solving. KEY WORDS: Curriculum Development; Teaching-Learning Process; Social Life; Citizenship Education; Teachers of Civics Education. About the Author: Prof. Dr. Haji Endang Komara is a Full Professor in Sociology of Education and as Head of STKIP (College of Education and Teacher Training) Pasundan in Cimahi, West Java, Indonesia. For academic interests, the author is able to be contacted via his e-mail address at: endang_komara@yahoo.co.id How to cite this article? Komara, Endang. (2017). “Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching in Indonesia” in EDUCARE: Interna- tional Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August, pp.23-32. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press owned by ASPENSI, ISSN 1979-7877. Chronicle of the article: Accepted (May 20, 2017); Revised (July 3, 2017); and Published (August 30, 2017). objectives, as already formulated in Law Number 20 of 2003, is for the development of the potential of learners to be a human being who believes and cautious to God Almighty, have a noble character, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become a democratic and responsible citizen (cf Fadjar, 2003; and Iorio & Yeager, 2011). The 2013 Curriculum is designed with the INTRODUCTION According to the Law of National Education System Number 20 Year 2003, Article 1, Paragraph (19), curriculum is a set of plans and arrangements concerning objectives, content and instructional materials, and ways used as guidelines for the implementation of learning activities to achieve certain educational goals (Fadjar, 2003). Furthermore, the national education ENDANG KOMARA, Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching 24 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare objective of preparing the people of Indonesia to have the ability to live as individuals and citizens who are faithful, productive, creative, innovative, and affective; and able to contribute to the life of society, nation-state and civilized world (Azis, 2016). Curriculum is an educational instrument to be able to bring Indonesians who have the attitude, knowledge, and skills competencies, so that they can be productive, creative, innovative, and affective individuals and citizens (Azis, 2016; and Suyahman et al., 2017). One of the steps in the preparation of the 2013 Curriculum is the rearrangement of Citizenship Education or PKn (Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan) into Pancasila (Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia) and Citizenship Education or PPKn (Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan), which includes: Firstly, change the name of PKn (Civic Education) to PPKn (Pancasila and Citizenship Education). Secondly, placing PPKn subjects as an integral part of the subject group that has the mission of strengthening the nationality. Thirdly, organizing the National Competence Standards and Basic Competencies and Indicators of PPKn by strengthening Pancasila values and morals, the values and norms of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the values and spirit of Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity), and the insight and commitment of the NKRI (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia or Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia). Fourthly, consolidate the development of learners in dimensions: civic knowledge, civic attitudes, civic skills, civic constancy, civic commitment, and citizenship competence. Fifthly, develop and apply various models of learning in accordance with the characteristics of PPKn- oriented development of the character of learners as smart citizens and a good intact. Sixthly, develop and apply various models of learning process assessment and learning outcomes of PPKn (Nurdin, 2015; and Suyahman et al., 2017). This article, by using the qualitative method and descriptive study (Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Carter & Littler, 2007; and Williams, 2007), tries to analysis the curriculum and Civic Education teaching in Indonesia, especially by discussing two matters: (1) Civic Education Curriculum Structure; and (2) Civic Education Learning. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION First, Civic Education Curriculum Structure. In article 3 of Law Number 20 Year 2003, on SISDIKNAS (Sistem Pendidikan Nasional or National Education System) imperatively outlined that: National education functions to develop the ability and form the character and civilization of a dignified nation in order to educate the life of the nation, aims for the development of potential learners in order to become a human being who believes and cautious to God Almighty, have noble character, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become a democratic and responsible citizen (Fadjar, 2003). Therefore, the idealism of the formation of the character and civilization of dignified nation to educate the life of the nation, and make man/woman as a democratic and philosophically responsible citizenship, socio-political and psycho-pedagogical, is a sacred mission of civic education. As can be observed also in the Elucidation of Article 37, paragraph (1) that Civic Education is intended to form learners into human beings who have a sense of nationality and love of the homeland (Nurdin, 2015; and Suyahman et al., 2017). In that context, Civic Education is basically a nationality education or character education of the nation. All these imperatives or demands necessitate the need for our new appreciation of Civic Education as a scientific concept, instrumentation, and whole education praxis in turn can foster the “civic intelligence”, “civic participation”, and “civic responsibility” as children of the nation and citizens of Indonesia (Affandi, 2013). Historical-epistemologically and pedagogically, Civic Education as a curricular program in Indonesia began with the introduction of Civics subjects in the 1962 High School Curriculum containing material on Indonesian governance under EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August 2017 25© 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare the 1945 Constitution (Departemen P&K, 1962). At that time, Civic or Civics subjects consisted essentially of learning experiences excavated and selected from the disciplines of history, geography, economics, and politics, presidential speeches, human rights declarations, and knowledge of the United Nations (Somantri, 1967:7). The term of Civics was not formally found in the 1957 Curriculum as well as in the 1964 Curriculum. However, material in the 1957 junior and senior high school curriculum was the subject of constitutional order and law, and in the 1964 Curriculum, there was a subject of general knowledge which included the knowledge of government (Nurdin, 2015; and Suyahman et al., 2017). Later in the 1968 and 1969 Curriculum, the term of Civics and Citizenship Education are used interchangeably. For example, in the 1968 Curriculum for SD (Sekolah Dasar or Elementary School), the term “State Citizenship Education” is used as subjects, which include Indonesian History, Indonesian Geography, and Civics (translated as citizenship knowledge). In the Junior High School 1968 Curriculum used the term Citizenship Education, which contains the history of Indonesia and the Constitution, including the 1945 Constitution. While in the Senior High School 1968 Curriculum, there are subjects of State Citizenship Education which contains material, especially with respect to the 1945 Constitution. Meanwhile in the 1969 Curriculum for SPG (Sekolah Pendidikan Guru or School of Teacher Education), subjects Education Citizenship of the State whose content mainly concerns the history of Indonesia, the Constitution, the knowledge of society, and human rights (Departemen P&K, 1969; and Nurdin, 2015). In addition, in the Curriculum of PPSP (Proyek Perintis Sekolah Pembangunan or Pioneer Project of School Development) used several terms, namely Citizenship Education, Social Studies, and Civics and Law. For Elementary School or SD (Sekolah Dasar) 8 years in PPSP used the term of Citizenship Education, which is an integrated of IPS (Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial or Social Studies) subject and like integrated Social Studies in America. There, the term of Citizenship Education seems to mean the same as IPS Education. In the four-year high school, the term of Social Studies are used as an integrated IPS teaching for all classes and teaching Social Studies that are separate in the form of Geography, History, and Economics teaching as major programs in the IPS majors. There are also subjects of Citizenship Education as the core subjects that must be taken by all students. While Civics and Law subjects are given as major subjects in the IPS minors (PPSP IKIP Bandung, 1973). Furthermore, in the 1975 Curriculum, the term of Citizenship Education is changed to PMP (Pendidikan Moral Pancasila or Pancasila Moral Education), which contains Pancasila (Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia)’s material as described in the P4 (Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila or Guidance on Appreciation and Practice of Pancasila). This change is in line with the education mission mandated by MPR RI (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia or People Counsultative Council of the Republic of Indonesia)’s resolution II/MPR/1973. This PMP subject is a compulsory subject for Elementary School, Junior High School, Senior High School, School of Teacher Education, and Vocational School. This PMP subject must also be retained in both the term and its contents until the enactment of the 1984 Curriculum, which is basically a refinement of the 1975 Curriculum (Depdikbud RI, 1976). With the enactment of Law Number 2 of 1989 on the National Education System, which outlines the curriculum content of Pancasila Education and Citizenship Education, as a compulsory subject of curriculum of all pathways, types, and levels of education (Article 39), the 1994 Basic Education Curriculum and Secondary Education accommodates the mission new education by introducing the subjects of PPKn (Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education). Unlike the previous curriculum, the 1994 PPKn Curriculum organizes its learning materials not based on the P4 value point formula, but based on the concept of ENDANG KOMARA, Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching 26 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare the extracted values of P4 and other official sources laid out by the widespread spiral approach or spiral of concept development (cf Taba, 1967; Nurdin, 2015; and Suyahman et al., 2017). This approach articulates the principles of Pancasila with its value for each level of education and class and quarterly in each class (Nurdin, 2015). In accordance with MPR RI’s Decree No.II/MPR/1998 on the GBHN (Garis-garis Besar Haluan Negara or Broad Outline of the Nation’s Direction), Pancasila Education includes education of P4, Pancasila Moral Education, History Education of National Struggle, and elements that can continue and develop the soul, spirit, and values of the struggle, especially values 1945 to the younger generation. From there, Pancasila Education has the dimensions of ideological education, values and moral education, and education struggle (Nurdin, 2015; and Suyahman et al., 2017). When analyzed carefully, both the terms used and the mission formulation and organization of the content of Civics or State Knowledge, State Citizenship, Pancasila Moral Education, and Pancasila and Citizenship Education, in the world of schooling that grew for almost four decades (1960s to the early 2000s) demonstrated a fundamental inconsistency of thinking reflecting the occurrence of a conceptual crisis; and, in fact, it had an impact on the conceptual and operational pedagogical crises (Nurdin, 2015). According to Udin S. Winataputra & Dasim Budimansyah (2007), it should not be considered strange, because this situation is like the situation experienced in the United States of America, where Civics, Civic/Citizenship Education, and Social Studies/Social Science Education since its inception in the 1880s until the publication of NCSS (National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies) Academic Documents in 1994, namely: “Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: Expectation of Excellence” (Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007:158). Nevertheless, they have now managed to overcome the conceptual and curricular crises. At least, they have now reached an academic and programmatic consensus which will, in turn, guide the coherent curriculum (cf Andriot, 2007; Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; and Nurdin, 2015). For Indonesia, a similar consensus is very important and desirable to get a suitable paradigm of Social Education in schools. But, until now, it has not been achieved. Up to the enactment of the 1994 Curriculum, there are three types of Social Education, namely: Pancasila and Citizenship Education required for all types, pathways, and levels of education; IPS (Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial or Social Studies) as the flag of a group of subjects of earth science, national history, and general history at the elementary level of education; and stand-alone social subjects separately, such as Geography, History, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, and State Governance in secondary schools (Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; and Nurdin, 2015). The essence of PPKn is civic literacy, civic engagement, civic skills and participation, civic knowledge, and civic responsibility. The name of PPKn is not new to the national education curriculum. In the 1994 Curriculum, the name of PPKn also appeared; then, in the 2006 Curriculum was “lost”; and in 2013 Curriculum, Pancasila has been reappeared (Nurdin, 2015). In the 2006 Curriculum mentioned that the national education function is to develop the ability and shape the character and civilization of a dignified nation to educate the nation’s life; aims for the development of potential learners to be a human being who believes and cautious to God Almighty, noble, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become a democratic and responsible citizen. While in the 2013 Curriculum Citizenship Education, the aims are to develop learners into Indonesian people, who have a sense of nationality and love of the homeland, which is imbued by the values of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution (cf Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; and Nurdin, 2015). The scope of curriculum or key substance of Civic has changed into PPKn (Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education). The 2006 PPKn Curriculum includes: unity and national unity; norms, laws and regulations; human rights; needs of citizens; state constitution; EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August 2017 27© 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare power and politics; Pancasila; and globalization (Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007). While in the 2013 PPKn Curriculum includes: Pancasila as the foundation of the state and the nation’s life view; the 1945 Constitution as the basic law which becomes the constitutional basis of the life of society, nation, and state; Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) as a manifestation of the diversity of social life, nation, and state in a cohesive and whole diversity; and the NKRI (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia or Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) as a form of the state of Indonesia (Nurdin, 2015). Second, Civic Education Learning. According to J. Branson (1999), the purpose of Civic Education is quality and responsible participation in political and community life at local, state, and national levels (Branson, 1999:7). The goal of Civics learning, according to Ministry of National Education in 2006, is to provide the following competencies: (1) Critical, rational, and creative thinking in response to citizenship issues; (2) Participate intelligently and responsibly, and act consciously in the activities of society, nation, and state; (3) Growing positively and democratically to form self-form based character of society in Indonesia to live together with other nation; and (4) Interact with other nations in the rules of the world directly by utilizing information and communication technology (cf Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; Tovmasyan & Thoma, 2008; and Nurdin, 2015). The purpose of Civics, proposed by A. Kosasih Djahiri (1994/1995) is, firstly, in general the objective of Civics should be steady and support the achievement of national education, namely: Introduce the life of a nation that develops the Indonesian people completely. That is man who believe and pious to God Almighty and virtuous noble character, possess the ability of knowledge and skill, physical and spiritual health, personality steady and independent and sense of responsibility of society and society (Djahiri, 1994/1995:10). Secondly, moral that is expected to be realized in everyday life is a behavior that exudes faith and piety towards God Almighty in a society consisting of various religious groups, humanitarian behavior that is just and civilized, behavior that supports people who prioritize the interests of the common interest above individuals and groups, so that differences of opinion or interest are addressed through consensus, as well as behaviors that support efforts to realize social justice of all Indonesian people (Djahiri, 1994/1995; Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; and Nurdin, 2015). Meanwhile, according to Sapriya (2011), the purpose of Civic Education is the participation of full sense and responsibility in the political life of citizens who are obedient to the values and basic principles of constitutional democracy of Indonesia (Sapriya, 2011). Effective and responsible citizen participation requires the acquisition of a set of science and intellectual skills and the skills to participate. Such effective and responsible participation can be further enhanced through the development of certain dispositions or traits that enhance the ability of individuals to participate in the political process and support the functioning of a sound political system and the improvement of society (Sapriya, 2011; and Nurdin, 2015). The general goal of Civic learning is to educate citizens to be good citizens, depicted with patriotic, tolerant, loyal citizens of the nation and state, religious, democratic, and to be true Pancasilaist (Somantri, 2001:279). The function of Civics subject is as a vehicle to form intelligent, skillful, and faithful citizens who are loyal to the nation and state of Indonesia by reflecting on their thinking habits and acting in accordance with the Pancasila, or Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia, and 1945 Constitution (Somantri, 2001; Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; and Nurdin, 2015). Thus, it can be concluded that the purpose of the state to develop Citizenship Education so that every citizen becomes a good citizen, i.e. citizens with intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual intelligence, have a sense of pride and responsibility, and able to participate in community life. The idea of the need for citizens having political literate has existed and developed ENDANG KOMARA, Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching 28 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare since the founding of a state. This is very rational because every country has lofty ideals whose existence needs to be maintained and maintained. Efforts to maintain the existence of the state is done, among others, by building the citizen intelligence in the political field. This effort can be pursued through the form of learning, so that all ideals can be realized in a real way (Winataputra & Budimansyah, 2007; Tovmasyan & Thoma, 2008; and Nurdin, 2015). According to Ian Davies & Sylvia Hogarth (2004), there are two approaches that are no longer relevant until it needs to be rejected. Firstly, the so-called “Civics” model is narrowly interpreted. This model is regarded as a process of transmitting factual knowledge and learning methodology that emphasizes literate as a product. Whenever this approach is tested, it still does not inspire and does not guide learners to be good citizens. The secondly approach to be rejected is called the “big issues” model. This model characterizes the learner’s introduction of a debate on political issues that emphasize political freedom as a mere process (Davies & Hogarth, 2004). Why are not these two models getting recommendations? There are two things that are weaknesses: (1) the teacher only tries to raise controversial issues as a case in the hope that this effort is impacted and widely understood, it does not happen; and (2) learners who have in-depth knowledge of certain issues, then selected because they are deemed relevant to current issues, but those issues are raised by the media not by educational experts and do not occur in the learning process in the classroom, get decent political material (cf Stassen, Doherty & Poe, 2001; and Chicotas, 2009). The alternative model, recommended by Ian Davies & Sylvia Hogarth (2004), is the “public discourse” model. This model seeks to facilitate learners to master the language, concepts, arguments, and social skills as a condition of thinking and talking about life from a political point of view. This model emphasizes processes and products. Also in this model, actual knowledge is important, but it is utilized for other more important capabilities of political pluralism (Davies & Hogarth, 2004). This alternative model is supported by many experts, including P. Newton, R. Driver & J. Osborne (1999), who suggest that engaging learners in an active debate, it is considered very appropriate to develop the concept (Newton, Driver & Osborne, 1999). The UK (United Kingdom)’s Project of Civic Education also found that schools that have a democratic practice model are very effective in enhancing civic knowledge and engagement (Print & Lange eds., 2012). There are certainly many challenges in creating the right lesson for political upheaval. Such as the lack of professional experience, the low level of learners’ knowledge, the confusing nature of political science (which needs to be applied and which need to be ignored), the type of behavior expected of learners and innovative and progressive models that can be used, although often confusing. From this fact, it appears that to reach citizens who are politically literate much influenced by the ability of teachers and readiness of learners. Therefore, to build a political literate required appropriate learning strategies (Stassen, Doherty & Poe, 2001; and Leithwood et al., 2004). The alternative public discourse model, recommended by Ian Davies & Sylvia Hogarth (2004), can be applied to the variation of R.J. Marzano (1992)’s strategy or theory of learning called “Dimension of Learning” (Marzano, 1992; and Davies & Hogarth, 2004). According to this theory, the learning process will succeed if the teacher starts with giving perception and positive attitude (positive perception and attitudes) to the students. At this stage, the teacher gives motivation to the students about the importance of political literacy for the citizen (cf Marzano, 1992; Davies & Hogarth, 2004; and Print & Lange eds., 2012). With the implementation of this strategy, then the next stage will occur, i.e. students will naturally seek to gain knowledge and seek to integrate with the knowledge that already exist on him/her (acquiring and integrating knowledge). When this process has happened, the students no longer need to EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August 2017 29© 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare be encouraged to explore knowledge because by itself, and they will try to expand and improve the knowledge it has (extending and refining knowledge). He/she will, then, use the knowledge meaningfully, so that he/she will eventually use his/her knowledge as a productive habit of mind (Stassen, Doherty & Poe, 2001; and Leithwood et al., 2004). CONCLUSION Education is an effort to promote the growth of manners (inner strength, character), mind (intellect), and the body of children. They cannot be separated, so that we can advance the perfection of our children’s lives. National education functions to develop the ability and form the character and civilization of dignified nation in order to educate the life of the nation, aims to develop the potential of learners to become human beings who believe and piety to God Almighty, noble, healthy, knowledgeable, skilled, creative, independent, and become a democratic and responsible citizen. The teacher is a model for the learners, and the performance of teachers is very influential on the continuation of learning learners. Teacher can present an interesting learning process, motivating and inspiring, obtained from the knowledge and experience of teachers who always updated with a variety of positive inputs obtained from various learning resources. Knowledge and experience can be obtained from books, mass media, conference’s activities or through education training. In the learning process, teachers are required to produce works and innovations that can be enlightening to be applied in the learning process, so that it can grow all potential learners and they are not just bias reach, but bias beyond its ideals. Teacher is not only a teacher, but more than that the teacher is an educator. As an educator, teachers must have various capabilities as a competence that must be owned as a professional educator. Good pedagogics competence, personality, social, and professional manners. The development of Civics and Civic Education in Indonesia occurred in the first year, when Citizenship in 1957 had discussed how to obtain and lose citizenship. Civics in 1962 appeared in the form of political indoctrination. Citizenship Education in 1968 was as an element of the nation’s citizenship education with nuanced Education of Social Studies. Citizenship Education in 1969 appeared in the form of constitutional teaching and MPRS RI (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara Republik Indonesia or Provisional People Counsultative Council of the Republic of Indonesia) decisions. Citizenship Education in 1973 identified with teaching Social Studies. The Moral Education of Pancasila (Five Basic Principles of the Republic of Indonesia) in 1975 and 1984 appeared to replace PKN (Pendidikan Kewargaan Negara or Citizenship Education) with the content of the P4 (Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila or Guidance on Appreciation and Practice of Pancasila)’s discussion. Pancasila and Citizenship Education in 1994, as a merger of Pancasila and Citizenship Education materials, appeared in the form of teaching the concept of value that was extracted from Pancasila and P4. Civics in 2006 included the unity and unity of the nation; norms, laws, and regulations; human rights; needs of citizens; state constitution; power and politics; Pancasila; and globalization. PPKn (Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan or Pancasila and Citizenship Education) in 2013 was covering Pancasila as the country’s foundation and the nation’s life view; the 1945 Constitution as the basic law which becomes the constitutional basis of the life of society, nation, and state; Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) as a manifestation of diversity of society, nation, and state in a cohesive and intact diversity; and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia or NKRI (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia) as a form of the state of Indonesia. The scope of Civic Education covers all the programs of the school; Civic Education includes a range of teaching and learning activities that can foster better life and behavior in a democratic society; and in Civic Education includes matters concerning the experience, the public interest, the personal, ENDANG KOMARA, Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching 30 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare and the objective requirements of living the state. Through Civics learning, students are expected, firstly, to understand and master the logic of Pancasila concept and norm as the philosophy, ideological basis, and life view of the Republic of Indonesia. Secondly, the constitutional literacy, namely UUD (Undang- Undang Dasar or Constitution) of 1945, and the law in force in the Republic of Indonesia. Thirdly, live and believe in the moral order contained in the above. Fourthly, practice and standardize the things above as a self-behavior attitude and life with full confidence and reason.1 References Affandi, Idrus. (2013). “Kurikulum PPKn 2013”. Available online at: http://www.lpmpjabar.go.id [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Andriot, Angie L. (2007). “A Comparative Analysis of Existing Standards for High School Sociology Curricula” in Teaching Sociology, Vol.35 [January], pp.17-30. Available online also at: http://citeseerx.ist. psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.962.1812&re p [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: March 2, 2017]. Azis, Rosmiaty. (2016). “Kerangka Dasar dalam Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013”. Available online at: file:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/3483-7437-1-SM. pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: March 2, 2017]. Branson, J. (1999). Belajar Civic Education. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, Translation. Carter, S.M. & M. Littler. (2007). “Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Methods, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research” in Qualitative Health Research, Volume 17, pp.1316-1328. Chicotas, N.E. (2009). “Problem-Based Learning and Clinical Practice: The Nurse Practitioners’ Perspective” in Nurse Educational Practice, Volume 9(6), pp.393-397. Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2nd edition. Davies, Ian & Sylvia Hogarth. (2004). “Political Literacy: Issues for Teachers and Learners” in Jack Demaine [ed]. Citizenship and Political Education Today. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. Departemen P&K [Pendidikan dan Kebudajaan]. (1962). Kurikulum Sekolah Dasar. Djakarta: Departemen P&K. 1Statement: I have, herewith, declared that this paper is my original work; so, it is not product of plagiarism and not yet also be reviewed as well as published by other scholarly journals. Departemen P&K [Pendidikan dan Kebudajaan]. (1969). Pedoman Kerdja Sekolah Pendidikan Guru. Dakarta: Departemen P&K. Depdikbud RI [Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia]. (1976). Kurikulum Sekolah Menengah Atas 1975: Buku I Ketentuan Pokok. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Djahiri, A. Kosasih. (1994/1995). Dasar Umum Metodologi Pengajaran Pendidikan Nilai, Moral. Bandung: LAB PPKn IKIP [Laboratorium Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan, Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan] Bandung. Fadjar, A. Malik. (2003). “Act of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 20, Year 2003, on National Education System”. Available online at: http://www. flevin.com/id/lgso/translations/Laws/Law%20 [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Iorio, S.H. & M.E. Yeager. (2011). “School Reform: Past, Present and Future”. Available online at: http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/ depttoolsmemberfiles [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Johnson, R.B. & A.J. Onwuegbuzie. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come” in Educational Researcher, Volume 33(7), pp.14-26. Leithwood, Kenneth et al. (2004). Review of Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. USA [United States of America]: The Wallace Foundation. Available online also at: http:// www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/ Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student- Learning.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Marzano, R.J. (1992). A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Available online also at: https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350086.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Newton, P., R. Driver & J. Osborne. (1999). “The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science” in International Journal of Science Education, Volume 21. Nurdin, Encep Syarief. (2015). “The Policies on Civic Education in Developing National Character in Indonesia” in International Education Studies, Vol.8, No.8. Available online also at: file:///C:/Users/ acer/Downloads/51660-177750-3-PB.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. PPSP IKIP [Proyek Perintis Sekolah Pembangunan, Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan] Bandung. (1973). Program Kurikulum Studi Sosial Sekolah Dasar Pembangunan. Bandung: Penerbit PPSP IKIP Bandung. Print, M. & D. Lange [eds]. (2012). Schools, Curriculum, and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipe: Sense Publishers. Available online also at: https:// www.sensepublishers.com/media/1470-schools- curriculum-and-civic-education-for-building.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(1), August 2017 31© 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Sapriya. (2011). “Ontologi Pendidikan Keawarganegaraan dan Perannya dalam Pembangunan Karakter Pribadi dan Kebangsaan Indonesia” in D. Budimansyah & K. Komalasari [eds]. Pendidikan Karakter, Nilai Inti bagi Upaya Pembinaan Kepribadian Bangsa: Penghargaan dan Kehormatan 70 Tahun Prof. Dr. H. Endang Somantri, M.Ed. Bandung: Widya Aksara Press, pp.136-150. Somantri, N. (1967). Peladjaran Kewargaan Negara di Sekolah. Bandung: IKIP [Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan] Bandung Press. Somantri, N. (2001). Community Civic Education: Basic Concept and Esensial Elements. Bandung: CICED [Center for Indonesian Civic Education]. Stassen, M.L.A., K. Doherty & M. Poe. (2001). Course- Based Review and Assessment: Methods for Understanding Student Learning. Amherst, USA [United States of America]: Office of Academic Planning & Assessment, University of Massachusetts. Available online also at: https://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/ publications/online_handbooks/course_based.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: June 10, 2016]. Suyahman et al. (2017). “Descriptive Study Implementation of Learning Pancasila Education and Civics (PPKN) with Character Education Ubtegrations for Students Junior High School (SMP) 1 in Regency of Boyolali” in Journal of Education and Social Sciences, Vol.7, Iss.1 [June]. Available online also at: http://jesoc.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/08/JESOC-7_36.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: July 3, 2017]. Taba, H. (1967). Teacher Handbook for Elementary Social Studies. Palo Alto, CA: Addison-Wesley. Tovmasyan, T. & M.T. Thoma. (2008). “The Impact of Civic Education on Schools, Students, and Communities”. Available online at: http://www.crrc. am/hosting/file/_static_content/fellows/fellowship07 [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: July 3, 2017]. Williams, Carrie. (2007). “Research Methods” in Journal of Business & Economic Research, Volume 5, Number 3 [March]. Available online also at: file:///C:/Users/ acer/Downloads/2532-Article%20Text-10126-1-10- 20110207.pdf [accessed in Cimahi, Indonesia: July 3, 2017]. Winataputra, Udin S. & Dasim Budimansyah. (2007). Civic Education: Konteks, Landasan, Bahan Ajar, dan Kultur Kelas. Bandung: Program Studi Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan SPs UPI [Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia]. ENDANG KOMARA, Curriculum and Civic Education Teaching 32 © 2017 by Minda Masagi Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Teaching and Learning of Civic Education in Indonesia (Source: https://www.educatemagis.org, 28/10/2016) The scope of Civic Education covers all the programs of the school; Civic Education includes a range of teaching and learning activities that can foster better life and behavior in a democratic society; and in Civic Education includes matters concerning the experience, the public interest, the personal, and the objective requirements of living the state.