1 International Literacy Assessment in Indonesia Suhendra Yusuf Bincang Edukasi Jakarta, 19 Februari 2013
International Literacy Assessment in Indonesia - Suhendra Yusuf
Dec 21, 2014
Presented at Bincang Edukasi 15 event, 19 February 2013, @america - Pacific Place Mall, Jakarta.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
International Literacy Assessment
in Indonesia Suhendra Yusuf
Bincang Edukasi Jakarta, 19 Februari 2013
Overview l During the first decade of the Third Millennium, Indonesia has taken part in several
international studies on students’ achievement i.e., PIRLS, PISA, TIMSS, and IBT as an effort to map its educational standards compared to the global ones.
l The results were still not yet satisfactory. The students’ average score in PIRLS 2006 was 407 and PIRLS 2011 was 428; all was below international average score 500.
l PISA 2000-‐2009 showed that the highest score in Reading literacy was 402 (2009), Math 391 (2006), and Science 395 (2003/6).
l TIMSS 1999-‐2011 also portrayed the highest score in Math (Grade 8) was 411 (2003) and Science 435 (1999).
l However, if the sample is focused on limited numbers of students in international schools, IBT (2009) showed the highest score in Math (Grade 10) was 753 and the lowest 523, average score 607.
l Results of international assessments have grown issues of discussion among the Ministry of Education, the House of Representatives, and experts in universities. Results have prompted a review of education policy.
2
Reasons to participate in international assessments l The main reasons to participate in international assessments are to monitor of quality of
education and to describe and understand determinant factors and observed differences of the students achievement among provinces in Indonesia.
l Program was proposed by the Center of National Education Assessment (CNEA/Puspendik) but the decision to participate was made by the National Education Research and Development Body, the Ministry of Education and Culture MoEC).
l The CNEA implemented the Assessments. Experts from higher institutions were involved in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the program.
l Pros and cons on the assessment participation. The opponent arguments: § Sample was too small. It did not reflect the whole population. § Test items and questionnaires were out of context. § Translated materials were not sufficient or inappropriate. § Assessment results only exacerbate or worsen the image of educational achievement
internationally. 3
Managing the Results
l Results were analyzed and discussed among experts in several academic meetings facilitated by the Center of National Education Assessment.
l Seminars were held to discuss the results in several occasions involving all educational stakeholders. Results were recommended to policy makers.
l Results were also exposed to policy makers in national, provincial, and local levels.
l The MoEC held a hearing with the House of Representatives to discuss aspects of educational policy based on critical educational issues.
l Exposure to policy makers in the House of Representatives, national, provincial, and local authorities in education had the most impact.
l Results were also published as a reference book. 4
Improving the education system l Results of international assessments have grown awareness and issue of discussion
among the MoEC authorities and the Indonesia House of Representatives. § Quoting results in formal and informal meetings § Becoming issues in mass media
l Results have prompted a review of education policy. § Curriculum 2013 was among other influenced by the international assessment results e.g.,
integrated subjects and more time to read in elementary schools. § Data from previous international assessments were usually compared and analyzed.
l The CNEA developed a program similar to international assessment called Indonesian National Assessment Program (INAP) to improve the quality of education. § Using Indonesian and local contexts § Referring to content standards in the curriculum
5
The Challenges l The existing curriculum:
§ Reading literacy is the bases for Math and Science literacy development § Reading Curriculum has not been changed since 1994. It is not a separate curriculum area.
There are only language teachers, not reading teachers § Instructional time devoted to language/Reading Curriculum was the lowest (15%) among
countries § Curriculum has no emphasis on reading engagement/ reading for enjoyment § Reading curriculum is not focused on certain cognitive processes and does not include the
highest cognitive process, i.e., examining/evaluating content, language and textual elements § Methods used to evaluate reading curriculum is not based on research § Curriculum for secondary school does not include Chemistry. Only 32% of TIMSS sample said
they have chemistry subject, resulting in the lowest among science strand § Geography is not part of science strand; it is a social science strand § Less contextual and rational thinking process in math curriculum
6
The Challenges l Teacher preparation is not yet sufficient
§ Most teachers receive their education through a teacher college program § They are supervised during education and have to pass qualifying exam § No completion of probationary teaching period § No completion of mentoring or induction program
l ESCS (Economic-‐Social-‐Cultural Status) Index is the lowest among participating countries: § The increase 1 point in the ESCS (parent education/occupation, home possession /
number of books at home index) will improve 17 points in students performance § ESCS influences students’ reading engagement: enjoyment in reading contributes 43%
and diversity of reading materials influences 60% to students performance § ESCS influences also students learning strategy: memorization and elaboration
strategies contribute 34% and 25% respectively to students performance 7
Reading Curriculum has not been changed since 1994
Lowest Instructional Time in Reading Curriculum
No emphasis on reading engagement
Not focused on certain cogni3ve processes
Evaluation is not based on research
Teacher preparation is not yet sufficient
Lowest ESCS Index (PISA 2009)
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
Iceland Canada Dubai (U
AE) Australia Denm
ark United Kingdom
Luxem
bourg United States
New
Zealand Sw
itzerland Serbia Ireland Greece
Lithuania Slovak Republic Italy France Croatia Russian Federation Poland Portugal Rom
ania Shanghai-‐China Jordan Trinidad and Tobago Azerbaijan Uruguay
Hong Kong-‐China
Albania Brazil Tunisia Thailand Indonesia
Indonesia lowest index does not result in lowest achievement…
Reading Performance and Social-‐economic Background (PISA 2009)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
SCORE < OECD ESCS INDEX < OCD
SCORE < OECD ESCS > OECD
SCORE > OECD ESCS < OECD
SCORE > OECD ESCS > OECD
Y = 56X ; R2 = 0,32 § Indonesia § Thailand
§ Peru
China, Singapore, Japan, Korea
§ Qatar In spite of ESCS lowest index, Indonesia has better achievement compared to higher indexes e.g. Peru and Qatar
Detailed Social-‐economic Factors Influencing Reading Performance (PISA 2009)
The increase 1 point in the ESCS index will improve 17 points in students’ reading performance
Engagement in Reading, Learning Strategies & Reading Performance (PISA 2009)
Diversity of reading materials and memorizing strategy mostly influence reading performance
Factors Influencing School Background (PISA 2009)
School resources, school size, and teachers quality influence significantly school social-‐economy index which has impact on the students performance.
The Strengths… l The National Examination held by the Ministry of Education and Culture
(2009-‐2011) for Grade 9 showed a significant improvement in Science and English. In spite of a decrease in Math and Indonesian, the scores are above international achievement. o Test items with local contexts get better results than those with international
contexts.
l The International Benchmark Test (IBT) – using limited numbers of students in international schools as the sample of the study – showed the highest score in Math (Grade 10) was 753 and the lowest 523, average score 607. o There are 1300 schools of this category (out of 182.538 schools with 58 million
students) all over the country.
19
National Exam (Grade-‐9)
20
Subject 2009 2010 2011 score sd score sd score sd
Mathematics 7.60 1.57 7.53 1.28 7.3 1.70 Science 7.32 1.28 7.32 1.17 7.41 1.35 Indonesian 7.38 1.19 7.47 1.08 7.12 1.18 English 7.14 1.45 7.14 1.25 7.52 1.50
21
International Benchmark Test (IBT)
l IBT is designed by ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) to assess the performance of students from school against local, national and international standards. o The tests are in English, Math, and Science. o The Math strands are chance and data, measurement, number, and space. o The English strands are comprehension, punctuation, spelling, grammar, and
vocabulary. o The Science strands are physical science, earth science, and life science.
l Student results for the IBT are compared with TIMSS 2007 for: o Mathematics in Years 4, 5, 8 and 9 o Science in Years 4, 5 and 8
IBT Results No. Subjects Test
Level Schools Grade No. of
students Mean score
Score range
1. Math 10 SMAN 8 Pekanbaru 10 242 607 523 – 735
2. Math 9 SMAN 1 Mataram 10 212 614 419 – 749
3. Math 10 SMAN 1 Mataram 11 61 618 513 – 687
4. Math 10 SMAN 1 Mataram 12 48 647 559 – 759
Total 621 419 – 759
5. English 10 SMAN 8 Pekanbaru 10 242 525 422 – 627 6. English 10 SMAN 1 Mataram 10 211 505 319 – 602
7. English 10 SMAN 1 Mataram 11 61 562 499 – 643
8. English 10 SMAN 1 Mataram 12 46 557 490 – 661 Total 537 319 – 661 22
IBT Results
23
IBT Results
24
l International assessments have been used to monitor and compare the quality of education locally and internationally and to understand factors influencing the students achievement.
l The program has become issues of discussion among the MoEC authorities, the House of Representatives, and academician. Results have been used to review the education policy.
l The opponents to program participation particularly argue on the sample representativeness, the quality of test materials, and the unexpected results to worsen the image of quality of education achievement internationally.
Lesson Learned…
l The need to reform the curriculum: § Results of international-‐level studies might be accounted for by differences
in curriculum rather than intellectual differences among students (Gustafsson and Undheim, 1996)
§ Reading has to be a separate curriculum area. There should be more reading teachers
§ Instructional time devoted to reading has to be increased at least twice from current curriculum
§ Curriculum has more emphasis on reading for enjoyment § Reading curriculum has to focus on certain cognitive processes, to include
process of examining/evaluating content, language and textual elements § More research in implementation of reading curriculum has to be conducted
Lesson Learned…
l Reading literacy is the basis of Math and Science literacy development. o There is a need to a more comprehensive approach to reading instruction to
include teaching for motivation. o The need of professional development for subject teachers, including
training in the use of research-‐based reading instruction . o The need of classroom-‐based strategies for improving student reading and
comprehension strategies across the curriculum. o More professional initial and continuing teacher education. The
International Reading Association (1998) recommended that primary teachers have 280 hours of instruction in reading and how to teach it.
Lesson Learned…
l There is a need to continuing teacher education and appropriate ongoing professional development in reading, math, and science.
l There should be an effective intervention for children experiencing difficulties.
l As of the sample of the next study: better to focus purposively on a certain type of schools as a benchmark or a model of school development.
Lesson Learned…
o Project Director International Benchmark Test (IBT), Institut Asesmen Indonesia (IAI) in collaboration with Australia Council for Educational Research Australia
o International Quality Control Monitor for the implementation of PIRLS 2006 & 2011
o Researcher PISA & PIRLS 2000 – 2011 o Associate Professor and vice Rector Nusantara Islamic
University Bandung o Author Benchmark Internasional Mutu Pendidikan (co-‐
authored with Bahrul Hayat, Bumi Aksara, 2010)
Dr. Suhendra Yusuf
Our students are at risk..!
Related Documents
