




































English Language Teaching Educational Journal (ELTEJ) 
Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018, pp. 65-75 
E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

  
 

The Implementation of 2013 Curriculum in English 

Teaching: Stories from Rural Areas 

 
1Heri Gunawan, 2Afrianto Daud 

1,2Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Universitas Riau 
1heri.gunawan4688@student.unri.ac.id 

2afrianto.a@lecturer.unri.ac.id 

Principal Contact: 0822 6828 4347 

 
Abstract 

This study aims to document how 2103 curriculum has been implemented by English 

teachers in a high school located in a rural area in Riau province. This research in particular 

investigates the implementation of Scientific Approach by English teachers in Bunga Raya 

Siak regency. The study is specifically aimed at investigating two research questions: (1) 

how the scientific approach has been implemented in the classroom, and (2) what problems 

the teachers face during the implementation. Three English teachers participated in this 

small scale qualitatitive study. The data were obtained through semi-structured interviews. 

The findings revealed that the teachers have implemented the scientific approach relatively 

well. However, the data show that all teachers experienced some problems in implementing 

the curriculum. In general, the problems can be classified into: (a) insufficient English 

teaching hour; (b) the students’ high diversity in terms of ability; (c) discrepancy between 

curriculum and national examination contents; and (d) lack of facilities. 

Keywords: English teaching, implementation, Scientific Approach, Siak Regency 

 

 

How to Cite: Gunawan, H. and Daud, A. (2018). The implementation of 2013 curriculum in 

English teaching: Stories from Rural Areas. English Language Teaching Educational 

Journal, 1(2), 65-75.  

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

The Indonesian government has been formulating some significant 

changes and adjustments on the national education system to improve the 

quality of education. Indonesia has undergone at least ten times curriculum 

revisions since the Day of Independence. In 2013, the Ministry of Education 

and Culture or Kemendikbud started to endorse the latest curriculum known as 

2013 Curriculum. Having undergone some revisions, 2013 Curriculum is the 

currently used curriculum ever since. Former Minister of National Education, 

Muhammad Nuh stated that the main points of 2013 Curriculum development 

are in refining mindset, strengthening curriculum management, deepening and 

broadening the materials, reinforcing the learning process, and adjusting the 

study needs to balance the outcome of the learning process (Kemendikbud, 

2013). In spite of the similarities with the previous curricula, 2013 Curriculum 

has some relatively new features. Among other things, 2013 Curriculum differs 

in terms of the learning approach recommended to use by teachers known as 

“Scientific Approach”. 

mailto:heri.gunawan4688@student.unri.ac.id
mailto:afrianto.a@lecturer.unri.ac.id


66     E-ISSN: 2621-6485    
 
 

When 2013 Curriculum was firstly introduced, there were some “push 

and pull” situations regarding its implementation in schools. Many teachers 

from multiple schools admitted that they were not ready to adopt the new 

curriculum (Afrianto, 2017). However, as stated in the Regulation of Ministry 

of Education and Culture (Permendikbud) No. 81A year 2013 about the 

implementation of 2013 Curriculum, since January 2017, 2013 Curriculum is 

no longer optional. Consequently, every teacher of any subject including 

English is mandated to use 2013 curriculum.  

One of the learning approaches recommended to use in the 2013 

Curriculum is “Scientific Approach”. The fundamental idea of the scientific 

approach is that teachers are suggested to apply the principles or activities that 

are commonly used in natural science classes. To be more specific, 

Kemendikbud (2013) explains that the Scientific Approach is an approach that 

refers to investigating techniques towards some phenomena, acquiring new 

knowledge, and correcting and combining the background knowledge. The 

steps of the 2013 Curriculum’s Scientific Approach are: observing, questioning, 

associating, experimenting, and networking. 

According to Permendikbud No. 22 year 2016, the learning process 

using 2013 Curriculum should touch the three domains of education; affection, 

cognition, and psychomotor. The affective domain is developed with a focus on 

the substantial transformation of the teaching materials so that the students 

know about “why”. The psychomotoric domain focuses on the substantial 

transformation of the teaching materials so that the students know about “how”. 

Whereas, the cognitive domain emphasizes the substantial transformation of the 

teaching materials so that the students know about “what”. The expected 

outcome is the improvement and balance between the ability to be a good 

person (soft skills) and the ability to be a capable and competent person to have 

a good life (hard skills) which cover the three competency aspects. With such 

learning processes, it can be expected that the learning result will yield learners 

who are productive, creative, and affective, through an integrated reinforcement 

on affective, cognitive, and psychometric aspects. 

As one of the official approaches in the curriculum, every teacher is 

then expected to be able to implement the Scientific Approach in the learning 

process, including English teachers in Siak Regency. However, since the 

approach is considered relatively new to some of the teachers, it is possible that 

some problems or issues in the implementation will occur. Some studies have 

investigated how this 2013 Curriculum has been implemented by teachers in 

the classroom. Yet, most of these studies still focused on schools located in 

urban areas. A study conducted by Ratnaningsih (2017), for example, found the 

teachers of a senior high school in Bandung has followed all the five steps in 

the respective order. Moreover, the teachers can demonstrate the learner-

centered learning strengthened by collaborative, cooperative, active and 

meaningful learning. This seconds the idea that the use of Scientific Approach 

in learning is able to facilitate the students to achieve the goals of learning. 

In addition, a research in Pekanbaru city conducted by Afrianto (2017) 

found three major problems faced by English teachers when implementing the 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485  

 

Gunawan, Daud 
 

67 

Scientific Approach in class. The three major problems are: (a) challenges to 

make the students active in learning; (b) intricate procedures of assessment; and 

(c) lack of supervision on the curriculum implementation. Meanwhile, 

Hariyanto (2015) in his research found that lack of time and students’ active 

participations were major problems in the implementation. Such problems in 

the scientific approach implementation are likely to compromise the 

effectiveness of English teaching and learning process in schools.  

Considering all the reasons above, it is necessary to study how English 

teachers of senior high schools in rural area implement the scientific approach 

in their classrooms. The school selected as a research site in this study is 

located in Siak Regency, Riau. It is about 150 kilo meters away from the central 

city of Pekanbaru. This study is aimed at answering two research questions: (1) 

how the scientific approach has been implemented in the classroom?; and (2) 

what problems have the teachers encountered during the implementation? The 

findings of this research are expected to provide empirical data of the real 

picture of how teachers implement 2013 Curriculum in district school and what 

problems that the teachers face in the practice. Therefore, the research findings 

can be one of the decision making bases to formulate a new policy towards the 

implementation of 2013 Curriculum. 

 

RESEARCH METHOD 

This research was a qualitative study conducted under interpretive 

research paradigm. The data processing was dealing with non-numerical data 

such as sentences, statements, or documents. In other words, the nature object 

of the research is basically in the forms of qualitative entities such as social 

phenomena, perceptions, and problems in the process of the Scientific 

Approach implementation. The qualitative data were gathered through semi-

structured interviews, followed by its analysis. All three English teachers at a 

high school in Siak Regency who were actively on duty were chosen to be the 

participants of the research. Respecting the confidentiality of the research 

participants, on the paper, the teachers are addressed with their initials instead 

of their names. 

As mentioned above, the data were gathered through in-depth semi-

structured interviews, which means the interviewee (the participants) were 

asked a series of questions regarding the scientific approach implementation. 

In-depth interviews are useful in getting detailed information about a person’s 

thoughts and behaviors or exploring new issues in depth. They are often used to 

provide context to other data (such as outcome data), offering a more complete 

picture of what happened in the program and why (Boyce & Neale, 2006). To 

do a semi-structured interview, an interview protocol as the basis of initial 

question was prepared before. It was used as a guide to make sure that the 

interview does not deviate from the main focus. The interview took about an 

hour for each participant and it was recorded with a notification and allowance 

request to the participant before beginning the interview. The recordings of the 

interview were transcribed and then the transcripts were analyzed. 



68     E-ISSN: 2621-6485    
 
 

In general, the data analysis was done by transcribing, editing, 

classifying, reducing, and presenting the data. Firstly the recordings of the 

interviews were transcribed. The transcriptions were checked and edited on the 

second or third listening. Next, the researcher highlighted some information on 

the transcripts that is related to the research questions. The highlighted items 

were then classified based on their group or category. Later, not all information 

or categories were going to be included or reported on the findings. The data 

were reduced and then presented in the discussion. 

The above-mentioned process of working with the transcripts was done 

by referring to the three procedures introduced by Flick (2002): open coding (a 

phase where all themes are found and categorized), axial coding (a stage where 

the researcher is looking for relationships among themes), and selective coding 

(a phase where the researcher is choosing the more relevant themes to be 

further explored in the discussion). 

 

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 

The Implementation 

During the interview, one of the question asked was “How do you 

implement the Scientific Approach in teaching English in the classroom?” This 

question was intentionally asked to know the teachers’ basic understanding 

about how to carry out teaching using the scientific approach. It is believed that 

the teachers clear understanding and their positive perception on how to 

implement the approach will significantly determine the success and the 

effectiveness of the teaching. Their understanding will guide them in 

implementing the approach. 

When asked about the question, the teachers gave relatively similar 

answers. They basically described or mentioned some steps in the Scientific 

Approach. Mr. D, one of the participants, could clearly name all the five steps 

in the scientific approach. Meanwhile, the other participant, Mr. E did not get to 

mention the five steps in the scientific approach. He only mentioned two steps; 

‘observing’ and ‘questioning’. He, however, confidently stated that by using the 

scientific approach in the class, his teaching is more directed. He added that the 

step-by-step activities in the scientific approach is clear and flexible. 

 
“I show a video of, for example, a, uh, speaker, an English 

native speaker, doing, uh, expressing something. We’ll analyze 

it together, then we, uh, I explain, and we observe. We observe 

the video, ask, discuss, and analyze uh, the text. Then we try to 

make the text together, do production, and then performance.”  

       (Mr. D) 

 

“Usually when I teach narrative text, we watch a video, right? 

After watching the video, uh, I ask the students to give some 

questions, indirectly.” 

       (Mr. E) 

 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485  

 

Gunawan, Daud 
 

69 

In addition to Mr. E’s ‘incomplete’ answer, he stated that the approach 

was implemented differently during different periods of time. For instance, 

before 2013 curriculum revisions, teachers were expected to carry out all the 

steps in the scientific approach in one meeting. However, this was later revised. 

The steps do not have to be included at one teaching session and the sequence 

can be altered according to the needs. 

The teachers’ description of some steps and how they are carried out 

indicate teachers’ full attempt in implementing the approach. The positive 

results of teachers implementing the scientific approach steps are also shown in 

some other schools in Indonesia through some studies by Sofyan (2016) and 

Ratnaningsih (2017). From their studies, it is reported that the teachers shared 

similar perception in which the scientific approach is regarded as an approach 

that integrates students’ attitude, skill, and knowledge by implementing the 

steps in the teaching and learning process. 

 

The Problems in the Implementation 

Besides implementation, the results of the semi-structured interviews 

also revealed some problems in the scientific approach reported by all the 

participants. The dimension of the problems can be said as something complex. 

However, in general these problems can be classified into four main issues: 

 

No. Problems of the Implementation 

1. insufficient teaching hours 

2. students’ high diversity 

3. discrepant curriculum content 

4. lack of facilities 

 

In the most recent revision of 2013 Curriculum it is stated that the 

teaching hour for English subject in high schools is reduced from four hours a 

week to be two hours a week (2 x 45 minutes). This reduction, among some 

other problems, was the problem that most participants complained about. Two 

of the participants, Mr. D and Ms. B agreed that the time reduction being a 

problematic issue in the scientific approach implementation. In his interview, 

Mr. D regretted the reduction of the teaching hour for English subject and 

stated that the reduced time does not seem to support the students to achieve the 

standard learning outcomes which he thinks are pretty high. He argued that the 

time allocation is insufficient for a teacher to carry out all the steps in the 

approach and therefore cannot meet with the expected goal that the student 

must achieve. He also added that even with the previous time allocation, it was 

quite challenging to raise students’ achievement in English, let alone with the 

current situation where the time allocation has been cut. 

 
“The problem of this curriculum is I think in terms of the time 

reduction, sir. Two hours. Meanwhile, the challenge is high.”  

        

 (Mr. D) 



70     E-ISSN: 2621-6485    
 
 

 

“First, the problem is about the time sir, [speaking of] this 2013 

Curriculum.  Only two hours, from four hours. Consequently, 

our chance [as a teacher] to give broader knowledge to the 

student is, uh, limited.” 

       

 (Ms. B) 

 

The issue on the time reduction is even more challenging when it meets 

with the condition of the students. Mr. D and Ms. B stated that the time 

reduction makes them work really hard to adjust their teaching considering the 

ability of the students in that area. According to Mr. D, the level of students’ 

ability in this school varies, even most of them are categorized in medium to 

low level. 

 

“Here [in this school], the ability of the students happens to be 

very drastic. Some are good, some are not. And some are 

quiet.” 

        

 (Mr. D) 

 

“The students’ ability is just like what I said before; some are 

very smart, some others are extremely low.” 

        

 (Ms. B) 

 

The spirit of 2013 Curriculum is to promote students-centered learning. 

This is evidenced by the emphasis in the scientific approach whose steps were 

designed to arouse students’ activeness in the class. In questioning step, for 

instance, the students are expected to be giving some questions about the topic 

given, not being “informed” by the teacher. Students’ low participation clearly 

becomes a problem that can impede the success of the scientific approach 

implementation since it can lead to students’ passiveness in the class. 

When asked about what strategy the teacher use to cope with the 

limited time and students’ diverse ability, both Mr. D and Ms. B gave relatively 

similar answers. Mr. D said he usually would divide the students into several 

groups where some of the “top students” were in each group. These top 

students are the ones who should help their friends in the group to become the 

teacher’s “second mouth”. This resembles the finding reported by Hariyanto 

(2015) saying that lack of time became one of the major problems in the 

Scientific Approach implementation in one school in Malang. Furthermore, 

there was a schedule that 2 hours is divided into two, before and after the break 

time. It made the students did not focus in the material. Thus, the teacher 

mostly made the discussion in the group rather than individually. Further, the 

teacher asked the coordinator of each group to manage their members. 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485  

 

Gunawan, Daud 
 

71 

Furthermore, albeit suitable for enjoyable learnings, there seems to be a 

discrepancy between the contents of 2013 curriculum and the National Exam 

according to Mr. E. The curriculum, especially the scientific approach, was 

designed in order to make the learning activity enjoyable. This is true, referring 

to the Process Standards by Kemendikbud (2013) saying that the teaching and 

learning process in school should be established in an interactive, inspiring, and 

fun way in order for students to be active. However, it does not seem to concur 

with the national examination content in which it requires the students to think 

analytically. 

 

“In the National Exam, even though [the learning] has been 

done using 2013 Curriculum, still, the form [of the questions] is 

about understanding about the text, right? ... Meanwhile in 2013 

Curriculum, those are no longer encouraged. …with the five 

steps (5M) done, it oddly seems to only result enjoyment, not 

preparing [the students] for the National Exam.” 

        

 (Mr. E) 

 

Apparently, this phenomenon occurred not only in Siak. A research by 

Ratnaningsih (2017) reported a similar case where the teachers conducted 

active and meaningful learning but the students still lack of critical thinking 

(HOTS). In addition, although having carried out the learning and teaching 

activity with various media and creative delivery, the student seemed not to 

have initiative to learn without stimulation and encouragement from the 

teacher. 

This inconsistency of curriculum contents and National Exam is like 

leading two things that are supposed to meet to different directions. Even 

though National Examination is not the ultimate goal of learning, still, the 

results of the exam contribute certain percent to the students’ passing. Many 

students and parents still view National Exam as the final “battle” that 

determines the student’s future. Therefore, it is no wonder that eventually the 

National Exam will be taken very seriously by the students. Moreover, the view 

of students must excel in National Exam will affect the teachers’ teaching in 

some ways, including the using of some methods and strategies. To some of 

them, the scientific approach has not yet been optimally able to train students to 

deal with the standardized national exam. 

Another problem found in the implementation was in terms of the 

facilities. This includes both school and students’ facilities. The problem 

regarding the students’ facility was in terms of the learning sources or 

textbooks. One of the major differences between 2013 Curriculum and the 

previous ones is in terms of the students’ independent learning. That is, the 

principle of learning has shifted from “students are given information from the 

teacher” to become “students find out the information by themselves” 

(Permendikbud, 2016). This can be effectively done if the school provides 

various learning sources to the students. However, according to one of the 



72     E-ISSN: 2621-6485    
 
 

participants, the school did provide textbooks to the students, but not to all. In 

addition, the students were not supported with modules and/or references 

books. This condition affected on the effectiveness of the teaching since 

learning sources play an important role in the teaching and learning using the 

scientific approach. 

In terms of the school facilities, one respondent reported that his school 

used to operate with no electricity. It was until early 2018 the school finally 

was facilitated with electricity source. When the research was conducted, the 

school had just been using the power for six months or so. The creativity of the 

teacher in teaching using different media was challenged there. The media used 

to be limited to non-digital ones. The goal to liven up a ‘fun and active’ 

learning in the class was rather difficult to actualize. 

 

“The challenge in the implementation of the five steps (5M) 

that is very problematic is in [the condition of] village area 

like here, sir. Like what we’d been through, you know, we’ve 

just got the electricity source since the last couple months 

ago. It was difficult to realize a teacher who is creative, a 

more creative teacher, a more innovative teacher, like that.” 

                    

(Mr. E) 

 
Lack of facilities, in terms of both students’ and school facilities, has 

been a huge problem in many schools in Indonesia, especially schools in small 

towns or rural areas like Siak. Mirroring the problem regarding the lack of 

facilities in Siak, a research by Amalia (2018) reported that one of the 

difficulties faced by the teachers in one school in Surakarta was in terms of the 

classroom facilities. The classrooms were not equipped with functioning pieces 

of technology that can support teaching and learning activities such as LCD 

(Liquid Crystal Display) or projectors. That clearly neglected one point in 

Permendikbud No. 103 year 2013 that explains the use of technology and 

information is supposed to support and improve the learning efficiently and 

effectively. 

Mulyasa (2009 and 2013) states that the main factor to determine the 

successful curriculum implementation is teachers’ creativity. The teachers are 

demanded to create students to be productive, creative, and innovative in 

realizing the aims of learning. One way to realize a creative and innovative 

learning is with the support of piece of technology in the classroom. If teachers 

faced problems in implementing the planned program, he/she had to adjust the 

activities so that learning aims can be achieved. In SMAN 1 Bunga Raya case, 

let alone having LCDs or projectors, the power source in this school was absent 

for years. The teachers had to come up with alternative methods in teaching that 

usually minimize the opportunity to bring a creative and efficient learning. 

 

 

 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485  

 

Gunawan, Daud 
 

73 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the results of the semi-structured interviews, it can be said 

that the scientific approach has been relatively well implemented by English 

teachers at this rural area school. This can be seen from the reports which the 

participants uttered in the interviews. Most respondents could clearly mention 

the steps in the scientific approach and provide some descriptions about them. 

This means that the teachers have shown a very positive reception and 

understanding about the principles of the scientific approach. 

However, there is an indication that those steps might not have been 

implemented in a proper and optimal way. The evidence saying that the 

teachers sometimes do not include some steps in their classroom can be seen 

from their interviews when they described what the scientific approach is. One 

respondent, Mr. D indeed mentioned all the steps in his elaborative answer. 

Another respondent, Mr. E, by comparison only mentioned two steps 

(observing and questioning) in his answer to the same question. This could 

mean either the interviewer did not get to go further to explore Mr. E’s answer, 

or it is fair to say that the teacher did not implement all the steps properly. 

There is an indication that it occurs due to the lack or trainings 

experienced by the teachers. From the interviews, it was discovered that two 

teachers got once to none training experiences and the other one had 

experienced trainings several times. This could back up the factor why the 

implementation has not been done optimally. 

Furthermore, an occurrence of some problems during the 

implementation was inevitable. Among some other problems, insufficient 

teaching hours and students’ extreme diversity were the main issues the 

teachers expressed during the interviews. In addition to the problem, the 

mismatch between the contents of the 2013 Curriculum and of the National 

Exam seems to be another major issue in the implementation. In regard of the 

time allocation that seems to be one of difficulties that can impede the success 

of the scientific approach implementation, it is suggested to the government or 

the policy makers to reconsider the time allocation especially for English 

subject. 

Moreover, up to this point, the training has not reached all the teachers 

especially those who are in the small cities or rural areas. Due to lack of 

trainings experienced by teachers in many schools and in order for the teachers 

to understand on how to implement the scientific approach properly, it is 

advisable for the government to provide more trainings for all the teachers in 

near future. 

At last, according to the recent revision of 2013 Curriculum, 

Permendikbud 22/2016, creating is another step in the Scientific Approach. 

However, since the teachers in SMAN 1 Bunga Raya Siak have not been 

familiar with this step, this research did not get to investigate the creating step. 

Therefore, a further research investigating this matter is recommended to add 

and study the creating step in the implementation. In addition, the data from the 

semi-structured interviews might have not been able to vividly report what 

actually happened in the class due to some limitations of the methodology 



74     E-ISSN: 2621-6485    
 
 

aspect of the study. Therefore, the other researchers are hoped to do better 

researches by employing the technique which had not been implemented by the 

researcher in this present study such as observation or field study. 

 

REFERENCES 

Afrianto. (2017). The implementation of scientific approach for teaching 

English in Senior High School: voices from the field. Advances in 

Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR) 110: 

186-191. 

 

Amalia, S. (2018). A Study on the Implementation of Scientific Approach of 

2013 Curriculum in English Teaching Process at Twelfth Grade of 

SMK Sakti Gemolong in 2017/2018 Academic Year. Thesis. 

Surakarta: The State Islamic Institute of Surakarta. 

 

Boyce, C. & Neale, P. (2006). Interviews: A Guide for Designing and 

Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Pathfinder. 

 

Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage 

Publication. 

 

Hariyanto, I.P.D. (2015) A Study on the Implementation of Scientific 

Approach Used by English Teacher in Teaching English to Low 

Level Students at SMP in Malang. S1 Thesis. Malang: University of 

Muhammadiyah Malang. 

 

Kemendikbud. (2013). Materi Pelatihan Guru Implementasi Kurikulum 

2013 SMP/MTs. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 

 

Kemendikbud. (2013). Permendikbud No. 81A/2013 – Implementasi 

Kurikulum: Pedoman Umum Pengajaran. Jakarta: Kementrian 

Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 

 

Kemendikbud. (2014). Permendikbud No. 103/2014 – Pembelajaran pada 

Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan 

dan Kebudayaan. 

 

Kemendikbud. (2016). Permendikbud No. 22/2016 – Standar Proses 

Pendidikan. 

 

Mulyasa, H. E. (2009). Implementasi Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan 

Pendidikan: Kemandirian Guru dan Kepala Sekolah. Jakarta: Bumi 

Aksara. 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485  

 

Gunawan, Daud 
 

75 

Mulyasa, H. E. (2013). Pengembangan dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. 

Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. 

 

Mustafa, Z. (2009). Mengurangi Variabel Hingga Instrumentasi. Jakarta: 

Graha Imu. 

 

Polit, D.F. & Hungler, B.P. (1995). Nursing research principles and 

methods. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott. 

 

Ratnaningsih, S. (2017). Scientific approach of 2013 curriculum: Teachers’ 

implementation in English language teaching. English Review: 

Journal of English Education, 6(1), 33-40. DOI: 

10.25134/erjee.v6i1.768 

 

Sofyan, A. (2016). The Implementation of Scientific Approach in English 

Teaching Based on 2013 Curriculum in SMK Negeri 2 Sragen in the 

Academic Year of 2015/2016. Thesis. Surakarta: Universitas 

Muhammadiyah Surakarta. 

 

______ http://sekolah.data.kemdikbud.go.id. 
 


