Abstract
Learner agency, or the ability to take control of one’s own learning and the learning of others, is a substantial goal of the curricular reform across the world. This can be seen in the implementation of the 2013 curriculum (K13) in Indonesia. However, there has been little evidence regarding the ways that Indonesian teachers have engaged with prescribed innovations. This interpretivist study examined the extent to which curricular innovations have been embedded in classrooms and how far they reveal the quality of their enactments, with particular interest in the identification of pedagogic practices that are associated with the promotion of learner agency. Using rich data from 15 individual semi-structured interviews and filmed classroom observations of three teachers, the study observed learner agency practices, including those associated with promoting peer and self-assessment, learning autonomy, and sharing learning objectives and assessment criteria. However, the implementation of these strategies varied in intensity and was rather artificial, without a strong conceptual underpinning. Drawing on normalization process theory (NPT), this paper argues that the observed teachers’ engagement in the promotion of learner agency lacked coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and evaluation. Reform planners and teachers should understand the nature of successful implementation and consider adopting a framework to analyze and guide their evaluation of how reform should be organized, implemented, and evaluated to ensure effective embedding.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 104–122.
Arrafii, M. A. (2021a). Indonesian teachers’ conceptions of values and dimensions of assessment practice: The effect of teachers’ characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, 103245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103245
Arrafii, A. (2021b). Assessment reform in Indonesia: Contextual barriers and opportunities for implementation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1898931
Arrafii, M. A. (2022). “We must assess all, even a student farting [is also assessed] for the behavioural aspect of learning”: Teachers’ conceptions of assessment in the context of assessment reform in Indonesia. The Curriculum Journal, 33, 103–125.
Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self- assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Berry, R. (2011). Assessment reform around the world. In R. Berry (Ed.), Assessment reform in education: policy and practice. Springer.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lesson from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constraint and afford assessment practice. The Curriculum Journal, 16(2), 249–261.
Boon, S. I. (2016). How can peer assessment be used in ways which enhance the quality of younger children’s learning in primary schools. University of Leicester.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2018). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-Heritage setting. Routledge.
Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Routledge.
Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Student voice across contexts: Fostering student agency in today’s schools. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1705091
Corden, R. (2000). Literacy and learning through talk: Strategies for the primary classroom. Open University Press.
De Lisle, J. (2015). The promise and reality of formative assessment practice in a continuous assessment scheme: The case of Trinidad and Tobago. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 79–103.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: the disciplining the practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). Sage.
Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2008). Getting to the core of learning: using assessment for self-monitoring and self-regulation. In S. Swaffiled (Ed.), Unlocking assessment: understanding for reflection and application. Routhledge.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7(2006), 113–122.
Fulmer, G. W., Lee, I. C. H., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers’ assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(4), 475–494.
Fulmer, G. W., Tan, K. H. K., & Lee, I. C. H. (2019). Relationships among Singaporean secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment and school and policy contextual factors. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 166–183.
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. NYU Press.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143–162.
Grol, R., Wensing, M., & Bosch, M. C. (2013). Theories on implementation of change in healthcare. In R. Grol, M. Wensing, & M. Eccles (Eds.), Improving patient care: The implementation of change in health care (2nd ed., pp. 18–39). Wiley Blackwell.
Gu, P. Y. (2014). The unbearable lightness of the curriculum: What drives the assessment practices of a teacher of English as a foreign language in a Chinese secondary school? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 21(3), 286–305.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24(3), 287–309.
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101–111.
Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17(2016), 50–62.
Holliday, A. (1994). The house of TESEP and communicative approach: The special needs of state English language education. ELT Journal, 48(1), 3–11.
Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A., Häkkinen, P., Vasalampi, K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., & Tolvanen, A. (2020). Students’ agency profiles in relation to student-perceived teaching practices in university courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101604.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: Research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27(1992), 111–126.
Koh, K. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education, 22(2011), 255–276.
Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2012). Training self-assessment and task-selection skills: A cognitive approach to improving self-regulated learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 121–132.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Kuchah, K., & Smith, R. (2011). Pedagogy of autonomy for difficult circumstances: From practice to principles. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 119–140.
Lamb, M. (2002). Explaining successful language learning in difficult circumstances. Prospect, 17(2), 35–52.
Lamb, M. (2004). It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an Indonesian State School. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(3), 229–245.
Lin, L., & Reinders, H. (2019). Students’ and teachers’ readiness for autonomy: Beliefs and practices in develo** autonomy in the Chiness context. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 20(2019), 69–89.
Maclellan, E. (2004). Initial knowledge states about assessment: Novice teachers’ conceptualizations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 523–535.
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554.
Mercer, N., Dawes, R., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of hel** children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 367–385.
MoE. (2016a). Peraturan Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republic Indonesia Nomor 23 Tahun 2016a tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan. Ministry of Education.
MoE. (2016b). Peraturan Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republic Indonesia Nomor 22 Tahun 2016b tentang Standar Proses Pendidikan. Ministry of Education.
Moses, L., Rylak, D., Reader, T., Hertz, C., & Odgen, M. (2020). Educators’ perspectives on supporting student agency. Theory and Practice, 59(2), 213–222.
Newby, P. (2013). Research methods for education. Routledge.
Nicol, D. J., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Nieminen, J., & Tuohilampi, L. (2020). ‘Finally studying for myself’- examining student agency in summative and formative self-assessment models. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 1031–1045.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(2020), 1–13.
OECD, ADB. (2015). Education in Indonesia: Rising to the challenge. OECD Publishing.
Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 61–77.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Longman.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2016), 803–830.
Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging science of learnable intelligence. The Free Press.
Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 61–78.
Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The Spanish instance, building upon Black and Wiliam (2005). The Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 27–38.
Scott, D., & Usher, R. (2002). Understanding educational research. Routledge.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
Sikes, P. (2006). On dodgy ground? Problematics and ethics in educational research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 29(1), 105–117.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8.
Stutchbury, K., & Fox, A. (2009). Ethics in educational research: Introducing a methodological tool for effective ethical analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(4), 489–504.
Sundayana, W. (2015). Readiness and competence of senior high school English teachers to implement Curriculum 2013. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 29–36.
Top**, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290.
Vaughn, M. (2020). What is student agency and why is it needed now more than ever? Theory and Practice, 59(2), 109–118.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Waters, A. (2009). A guide to methodologia: Past, present, and future. ELT Journal, 63(2), 108–115.
Wood, P. (2017). Overcoming the problem of embedding change in educational. British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society, 31(1), 33–38.
Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: Issues of breadth and quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(1), 140–160.
Yarrow, F., & Top**, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Yu, F., Liu, Y., & Chan, T. (2005). A web-based learning system for question posing and peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.
Funding
This study was supported by Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP), Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethics approval
This study was approved by and in accordance with the regulation set by the Ministry of Education, Republic of Indonesia and The Body of Research and Regional Planning (BAPPEDA) in Lombok, Indonesia.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Interview extract with initial codes in the square bracket | Sub-category | Main category | |
---|---|---|---|
Researcher | Have you involved students in formulating and discussing the learning targets? | ||
Teacher (C5) | I always do that before the lesson starts [FREQUENCY] | ||
Researcher | Do you ask students to formulate the learning targets? | ||
Teacher (C5) | Yes, after beginning the lesson I always prepare, like, say, preparing the power point slides and presenting the learning media, usually a picture, that implies the learning targets [SETTING UP CONTEXT]. Then I ask students opinions about the picture in the slide [ELICITING IDEAS ABOUT LEARNING TARGETS] | Sharing the teacher-made learning targets | Sharing learning targets |
Researcher | All right, but my question is, do you involve students in constructing the learning targets? | ||
Teacher (C5) | Yes, I do it through presenting media and learning activities by which students can infer what they are going to learn. After these activities, I ask them what are we going to learn today? Then they answer “we will learn about this and that” [SETTING UP THE CONTEXT]. I elicited their ideas about the learning target and write the ideas on the board [LISTING IDEAS ABOUT THE LEARNING TARGETS]. Some ideas don’t connect with purposes of the lesson. After all ideas are listed, then I presented the slide informing students about the planned learning targets of today’s lesson [SHARING THE LEARNING TARGETS] | Sharing the teacher-made learning targets | Sharing learning targets |
Researcher | Why do you elicit students’ ideas about learning targets? | ||
Teacher (C5) | I think students need to know what they are going to learn [LEARNING TOPICS] and what they going to achieve [LEARNING OBJECTIVES] so they can be motivated in learning and have priority what knowledge or skill to acquire [IMPACTS]. Students also need to know the purposes of completing the task [LEARNING OBJECTIVES] | Reasons for sharing objectives with students | Sharing learning targets |
Researcher | Which means that the learning targets are already set up by teacher before lesson begins? | ||
Teacher (C5) | Yes | ||
Researcher | Then students are guessing the learning targets from pictures or other media presented. Have you thought to involve students in a discussion for setting up their own learning targets? | ||
Teacher (C5) | We conduct teaching and learning based on the lesson plan that explicitly mentions the learning objectives [LESSON PLAN-DRIVEN TARGETS]. Our job is to make sure that students know what they are going to learn and what to achieve [MAKING LEARNING EXPLICIT]. If we ask them to formulate their own learning targets, it is kind of unrealistic [UNREALISTIC TASK] because of the numbers of students [LARGE CLASS] and that we [teachers] already have had the learning targets which are synthesized from the curriculum and syllabus that we must follow [CURRICULUM-DRIVEN TARGETS] | Reasons for sharing objectives with students Impractical Reasons for being impractical | Sharing learning targets Perception against learner agency Curriculum- driven pedagogy/contextual influences |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Burhanuddin, Arrafii, M.A. Unfolding the typology and quality of the learner agency practices in the teachers’ implementation of the 2013 curriculum in Indonesia: the normalisation process theory perspective. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 24, 545–561 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09806-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09806-0