ISLAM DAN PANCASILA DALAM PEMIKIRAN MOHAMMAD NATSIR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31958/jsk.v3i1.1490Keywords:
Mohammad Natsir, Pancasila, Indonesian politics, IslamAbstract
This research was conducted to see how Mohammad Natsir thought about the relationship between Islam and Pancasila. This study also explains the causes of Natsir's change of mind which initially supported Pancasila as part of Islam and later turned into an opponent of Pancasila in Konstituante on 11 November to 6 December 1957. The methodology used was a qualitative method by describing the results of the analysis carried out. The research data is obtained through a review of documents and scientific literature. The results of the study show that Mohammad Natsir's change of mind regarding the relationship between Islam and Pancasila was influenced by Mohammad Natsir's political socialization which began from Natsir's view of Islam influenced by the childhood environment (conditional and socio-cultural) in Minangkabau; direct influence from national figures such as Ahmad Hassan, H. Agus Salim, Sheikh Ahmad Syurkati and H. O Tjokroaminoto; the indirect influence of international figures throughout reading book such as Hassan Al-Banna, Amir Syakib Arselan, Rashid Ridha and Muhammad Abduh; the influence of Natsir's organization and political parties, namely Jong Islamieten Bond (JIB), Islamic Unity (Persis), and Masyumi political parties; and the influence of the political conditions at that time which made Natsir's views change, which initially accepted Pancasila and then became an opponent of the Pancasila. This research shown there are two patterns of Natsir's relationship with Pancasila, namely (1) Natsir accepted Pancasila and, (2) Natsir opposed Pancasila.
References
Anderson, Jason. (2016). Why practice makes perfect sense: the past, present and potential future of the ppp paradigm in language teacher education. ELTED. Vol 19, 14-22.
Astria, Niki. (2016). The use of PPP technique in teaching English to eleventh grade of MA Miftahul Ulum Ngraket Balong Ponorogo in academic year 2015/2016. Bachelor Thesis: STAIN Ponorogo.
Carless, David. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT
versus P-P-P debate: voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66.
Case, A. (2008). 15 reasons why PPP is so unfashionable. TEFL.net. Retrieved from http://edition.tefl.net/articles/teacher-technique/why-ppp-is-unfashionable/
Ellis, R. (1993a). Talking shop: Second language acquisition research: How does it help teachers? ELT Journal 47/1, 3-11.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: an SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1.
Ghazali. (2006). The Presentation-Practice-Production Vs Consciousness-Raising: Which Is Efficient in Teaching Grammar?
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: British Council.
Hellström, Rasmus. (2015). Task Based Language Teaching versus Presentation Practice Production. Thesis. Linköping University.
Herazo, J.D., Jerez, S., (2009). Learning through Communication in the EFL Class: Going beyond the PPP Approach. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura Vol. 14, No 23.
Huong, T.T.T. (2015). The study of grammar instruction for communicative purpose in high schools of Vietnam. International Journal of English Language Teaching Vol.3, No.8, pp.71-78
Jean & Simard .(2011). Grammar Teaching and Learning in L2: Necessary, but Boring? Foreign Language Annals• VOL. 44, NO.3.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 10-16). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Nassaji, H. and Fotos, S. (2011). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Nitta, R. & Gardner, S. (2005). Consciousness-raising and Practice in ELT Coursebooks. ELT Journal 59/1, 3-13.
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50/3, 417-528.
Saaristo, Pekka. (2015). Grammar is the heart of language: grammar and its role in language learning among Finnish university students. Voices of pedagogical development - Expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning (pp. 279-318).
Savage, K. L., Bitterline, G., Price, D., (2010). Grammar Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. (1996). ARC: A descriptive model for classroom work on language. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 79-92). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spada, N. & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interaction between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60/2, 263-308.
Summer, T. (2011). An Evaluation of Methodological Options for Grammar Instruction in EFL Textbooks: Are Methods Dead? Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter .
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). EFL courses for adults. ELT Journal 55/1, 80-101.
Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2013). Adult coursebooks. ELT Journal 67/2, 233-249.
Ur, P. (2011). Grammar teaching: Research, theory and practice. In Hinkel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume 2 (pp. 507-522). New York: Routledge.
Willis, J. (1994). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Zavala, B. (2012). Presentation, practice and production versus task based learning using from focused tasks. Maestría en Educación con Mención en Enseñanza de inglés como Lengua Extranjera. Universidad de Piura. Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación. Piura, Perú.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Mhd Alfahjri Sukri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a?áCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License?á(CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See?áThe Effect of Open Access).
