COMPARISON OF SK AND KD IN THE 2006 CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS WITH KI AND KD IN THE 2013 CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS FOR THE INDONESIAN LANGUAGE SUBJECT FOR GRADE X HIGH SCHOOL SEEN FROM THE TAXONOMY OF LEARNING OBJECTIVES, SCOPE OF LANGUAGE SKILLS, L

Abstract

The title of this research is Comparison of SK and KD in the 2006 Curriculum Content Standards with KI and KD in the 2013 Curriculum Content Standards for Indonesian Language Subjects for Senior High School Grade X Viewed from the Taxonomy of Learning Objectives, Scope of Language Skills, Linguistics and Literature. Problem formulation: 1) how is the taxonomy of learning objectives in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for Senior High School Grade X?; 2) how is the taxonomy of learning objectives in KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for Senior High School Grade X (compulsory)?; 3) how is the comparison of the taxonomy of learning objectives in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards with KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for Senior High School Grade X?; 4) How do SK and KD compare in the 2006 curriculum content standards with KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X SMA in terms of language skills?; 5) How do SK and KD compare in the 2006 curriculum content standards with KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X SMA in terms of linguistics?; 6) How do SK and KD compare in the 2006 curriculum content standards with KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X SMA in terms of literary science? Objectives: 1) To know the taxonomy of learning objectives in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X SMA; 2) To know the taxonomy of learning objectives in KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X SMA (mandatory); 3) to compare the taxonomy of learning objectives in the 2006 curriculum content standards with the KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X senior high school; 4) to compare the 2006 curriculum content standards with the KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X senior high school in terms of language skills; 5) to compare the 2006 curriculum content standards with the KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X senior high school in terms of linguistics; 6) to compare the 2006 curriculum content standards with the KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for Indonesian language subjects for grade X senior high school in terms of literature. Method: descriptive qualitative. Conclusion: The taxonomy of learning objectives in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of Senior High School is more dominant in the cognitive domain of the understanding level (C2), then the psychomotor domain of the imitation level (P3), and the affective domain of the acceptance level (A1); the taxonomy of learning objectives in KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of Senior High School (mandatory) is more dominant in the cognitive domain of the application level (C3), then the affective domain of the characterization of values ​​level (A5), and the psychomotor domain of the habituation level (P4); Comparison of the taxonomy of learning objectives in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards with KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of Senior High School turns out to be equally dominant in the cognitive domain, but the difference lies in the level of the cognitive domain, in SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards dominates the cognitive domain of the understanding level (C2) while in KI and KD in the 2013 curriculum content standards dominates the cognitive domain of the application level (C3); comparison of SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of Senior High School seen from the scope of language skills that dominate more is writing skills, while in KI and KD that dominate more is speaking skills (formal and informal speaking) and writing (writing narratives, expositions, descriptions, and arguments); Comparison of SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of high school, seen from the scope of linguistic science, the dominant one is semantic linguistic science (types of meaning), while in KI and KD, the dominant ones are phonology (segmental and suprasegmental sounds), morphology (words), syntax (sentences), semantics (types of meaning, meaning relations, and figures of speech); Comparison of SK and KD in the 2006 curriculum content standards for the Indonesian language subject for grade X of high school, seen from the scope of literary science, the dominant one is prose fiction literary science, while in KI and KD, the dominant ones are poetry, prose fiction, and drama, almost all literary sciences can be realized equally in KI and KD of grade X of high school (mandatory), but the position of literary science here is only to support students in obtaining and conveying information through existing texts. at in KI and KD SMA Class X, meaning that the literary text is not a mandatory text that must be studied or understood by students, but rather mandatory texts that should be studied and understood by students, namely anecdotal texts, observation reports, complex procedures, and negotiations.