Main Article Content


This study aims to determine the dynamics of the implementation of the School Literacy Movement in the State Elementary School in Muntilan sub-district which includes 1) Teacher literacy awareness, 2) Student reading behavior and 3) Implementation of School Literacy Movement. This research is a descriptive qualitative research. The data sources of this study were 5 principals, 5 teachers, 20 students using data collection techniques through interviews, observation and documentation. The validity of the data is obtained by using source triangulation and technique triangulation. The data obtained were analyzed interactively consisting of data collection, data reduction, data presentation, drawing conclusions and verification. The data obtained is then described and analyzed. The results showed that 1) Teacher literacy awareness was not maximized so GLS implementation was not implemented 2) Majority student reading behavior was included in the Traditional Intruction category (reading related to academic material), so student literacy culture was not yet formed 3) The new GLS implementation was applied to the elementary minority Land in the district of Muntilan. The inhibiting factors that cause this condition occur are 1) The teacher does not have enthusiasm / motivation as a reader so updates to information literacy have not been maximized 2) Students lack a figure reader from the family so that low interest in reading 3) Students are addicted to devices 4) Socialization of GLS has not been deep and not accompanied by training and assistance. While the supporting factor for the implementation of GLS is the adiwiyata school program conducted in the majority of elementary schools where the program is carried out in line with the objectives of GLS, but has not yet been utilized by the school.

Article Details


  1. Kristansti. (2010). Indonesia perusak Lingkungan.
  2. Goleman, Daniel. (2010). Eco Literate: How Educators are Cultivating Motional, Social, and Ecological Intelligence. US: Jossey Bass.
  3. Aspin, David N., Chapman, Judith D, Ed. (2007). Values Education and Lifelong Learning: Principles, Policies, and Programmers. Netherland : Springer
  4. Talang N. E. (2001). Local Wisdom in the Process and adaption of Thai People, 2nd ed. Bangkok: Amarin Jenkins, H. Suarez-Orozco, M and Qin-Hilliard, D. b. (2004). Pop Cosmopolitanism : Mapping Cultural Flows in an age of media Convergence in the New millennium (edeteds). Los Angeles, California: University of California Press Berkeley.
  5. Dimenson, Sara, Ed. (2009). Character is Key: How to Unlock the Best in Our
  6. Nurfalah, Y. (2016). Urgensi Nilai-nilai Pendidikan Karakter. IAIT Kediri. Volume 27 Nomor 1 (Januari 2016).
  7. Creasy. (2008). What is Character Education?. Jurnal of education Policy, Vol.3, No. Hal:172-180.
  8. Adisusilo, S. (2014). Pembelajaran nilai karakter. Jakarta : PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
  9. Zakiyah, Q, dkk. (2014). Pendidikan Nilai. Editor. Beni ahmad saebani. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.
  10. Prihanto, P, & Haryono, B. (2018). Keputusan Orang Tua Dalam Menentukan Pendidikan Dasar Bagi Anak di Desa Pandeyan, Kecamatan Purwokerto Selatan, Kota Purwokerto. Jurnal Analisa Sosiologi, 4(1)
  11. Soetomo. (2012). Keswadayaan Masyarakat, Manifestasi Kapasitas Masyarakat untuk Berkembang secara Mandiri. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  12. Gardner, H. (2013). Multiple Intelegences : kecerdasan Majemuk : Teori Dalam Praktek. Sindoro Trans. Batam: Interaksara
  13. Goleman, Daniel. (2012). Ecological Intelligence : How Knowing The Hidden Impacts Of What We Buy CCn Change Everything (Edisi Bahasa Indonesia). Jakarta:Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
  14. Center for Ecoliteracy. (2004). Ecoliteracy competencies. [online] Diakses Dari http;//
  15. Creswell,J.W. (2013). Research design pendidikan kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan Mixed.Yogyakarta:Pustaka Belajar.