ministry of national education
Post on 08-Jan-2016
45 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Ministry of National Education
1
Indonesia Reading Proficiency and Influencing Factors
Jakarta, June 28-29, 2011
1
Contents
2
2
A. IntroductionB. National Policies ImplementationC. Trends in Indonesia Student’s Reading Performance, PISA 2000-2009E. Influencing FactorsF. Conclusions and RecommendationsG. Glossary
A. INTRODUCTION
A
3
3
4
THE IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS AND THE QUALITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AND THE RELEVANCE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION/POLYTECHNIC4
Secondary Education consist of general secondary education and vocational secondary education (Educ. Low 20/2003; article: 18). Vocational education is a subsystem education which specially help the student to prepare themselves in their future workplace (US National Council for Research into Vocational Education)
"Sentra produksi dan pengolahan hasil bumi" "Lumbung energi
nasional""Lumbung pangan
nasional"
Koridor Pantai Timur Sumatra – Jawa Bag. Barat
Koridor Pantai Utara Jawa
Koridor Jawa Timur-Bali-NTB
Koridor KalimantanKoridor Sulawesi
Koridor Papua
"Pendorong industri & manufaktur nasional" "Pintu gerbang pariwisata
nasional"
"Kawasan dengan SDA melimpah dan SDM yang
sejahtera"
Sumber: Menko Perekonomian, 2010
Master Plan: Percepatan dan Perluasan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia 2011-2025Pengembangan 6 Koridor Ekonomi Indonesia
Peningkatan Akses & Kualitas Pendidikan Menengah Umum & Relevansi Pendidikan Vokasi (SMK + Politeknik)
Penyediaan SDM
ECE: 28, 8 million studentsES : 39,5 million studentsJHS: 13,38 million StudentsSHS: 9,11 million studentsHE: 5,2 million students
Accelerating and expanding of Indonesia economic development in 2011-2025
THE IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS AND THE QUALITY OF SECONDARY SCHOOL AND THE RELEVANCE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Stock Supply of HDR
National energy shed National food shed
National main gate tourism
Population: 240 million (2009 estimate)Eslands: 17.504Mother Tongue: 583 languages/dialects
National industrial &manufacture stimulant
National NDR overflow &HDR prosperous
National production & earth products processing
THE IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS AND QUALITY OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD AND BASIC EDUCATION5
...early childhood period is the golden age in the child’s growth period. This is a valuable period and determines a child to recognize various
facts around as the stimulant to the personality, psychomotor, cognitive and social development...
5
“The early childhood education is held before the primary education ” (Educ. Low No 20/2003, article: 28)
Kons
epsi
Meninggal
Lahi
rBulan Bulan Tahun
U s i aDekade
Sumber: Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA. The developing brain. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
Pendengaran& penglihatan
Bahasa
Fungsi kognitif lebih tinggi
SD
Dewa
sa
Early Childhood Educ. 0-6 year: 28,8 millionBasic Edu. 7-15 year: 44.712 million
Sense of hearing & visibling
A g e
year
language
Higher cognitive function
month monthborn
Literacy Studies:PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, ICCS, INAP, SABER,
NE, SBM
BE Adult
Death
decade
Concept
1,5
%
8,6
%ES/MI
1.8
%
24,0
%
JHS/MTs
4,27
%
51.7
%
SHS/VOC/MA
HE
31,05 juta
12,69 juta
9,11 juta
5,2 juta
= % drop out= % Graduation don’t continue to the higher level of education 6
•GER EC Educ = 56.7%
•GER ES-other = 117.2%
•NER ES-other = 95.2%
•GER JHS-other = 98.3%
•GRE SHS-other = 73.0 %
•GRE HE = 26.3%
•Distribution of budget directly to school (BOS and BOMM) on time, on use and amount.
• Integration of NE with the selection of HE.
National policy for completion of acces and stock supplay
National policy for completion of acces and stock supplay6
BOS
BOS
BOMM
B. National Policies Implementation
7
The Focuss of National Educational Development The Focuss of National Educational Development Policies Year 2010-2014Policies Year 2010-2014
BE
HE ex
plo
ring –
str
ength
enin
g - e
mpow
erin
g
SHS
CHARACTER Education
INTE
GRATI
ON
& H
ABIT
UATIO
N
INTE
GRATI
ON
& H
ABIT
UATIO
N
ECE
ACADEMICAL Education
IMPROVED ACCESS AND SECONDARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND RELEVANCE GENERAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (VS+POLITECHNIC).
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATOR AND EDUCATION PERSONNEL
IMPROVED ACCESS AND COMPETITIVENESS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
IMPROVED ACCESS & QUALITY OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD OF EDUCATION
COMPLETION BASIC EDUCATIONNINE YEARS OF QUALITY
4
5
3
2
1
5 PROGRAM PRIORITIES POLICIES
...educational development is addressed to develop Indonesian intelligent and competitive people through increased availability, affordability, quality and relevance, equality and certainty of obtaining educational services….
8
Liter
acy S
tudies
:
PISA
, TIM
SS, P
IRLS
, ICCS
,
INAP,
SABER
, NE &
SBM
8
SPM ( Minim Services
Standard)
SSN (Nastional School Stadard)
RSBI
SBI (International Based School)
(0%)
SPM (Minimum Services Standard)
(41,31%)
(10,15%)
(50,39%)
(0,65%)
National Policy for Completion of MSS Into ES and JHS
National Policy for Completion of MSS Into ES and JHS
THE IMPROVEMENT O
F EDUCATIONAL SERVIC
E QUALITY
SchoolAmount of Standardized School
<SPM SPM SSN RSBI SBI TOTALES 65.869 75.965 4.831 239 0 146.904% 44,84 51,71 3,29 0,16 0
JHS 8.892 15.226 9.711 356 0 34.185% 26,01 44,54 28,41 1,04 0
TOTAL 74.806 91.243 14.545 595 0 181.089 % 41,31 50,39 8,03 0,33 0
Completion of SPM Educational Unit ES and JHS Will be completed in 2014
9
(International Based School Pioneer)
Quality Assu
rance (QA), Q
uality Contro
l (QC), a
nd Quality
Improvement (Q
I)
National Policy for Improvement Of the Educators and the Education Personnel
10• Teachers are required to have academic qualifications, competency, educator
certificate, physically and mentally health, and have the ability to achieve national education goals (Gov. Low 14/2005 Act. 8)
• Teachers who do not have academic qualifications and educator certificate referred to in this Act shall meet the academic qualifications and certificates of educators at the latest 10 (ten) years since the enactment of this Act. (Gov Low 14/2005 Act 82)
10
> S1/D4
< S1/D4
Certified
Not Yet Certified
TREND % QUALIFIED TEACHER S1/4 TREND % CERTIFIED TEACHER
Note: Target is already consider the passing in and passing out teacher until 2014
223.000 guru=
325.000 guru =
National policy of learning resources and instruction facilities development
• Teaching learning models development• Instruction materials models development• Standard development of educational textbook
assessment • Remedial book assessment that standardized• Supporting on education book writers• Textbooks translating• Competency development of education book
writers
11
National Policy Recommendation of Educational Budget Allocation for QA, QC
and QI1. Strengthening the weakest link (affirmative action). 2. The benefit is felt directly by student /community
(impact). 3. Achieve the goals mandated by the Strategic Plan of
MONE, RKP/priority activities plan 2012 , and RPJMN/national middle educational plan 2010-2014.
4. Answering solving the problem at hand (relevance).5. Ensure accuracy and use of budget allocations to be
transferred to the regions (Standard procedure 0peration).
6. Strengthening quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvement through monitoring and evaluation. 12
12
C. TRENDS IN INDONESIA STUDENT’SREADING PERFORMANCE,
PISA 2000-2009
B
6
13
The objective of Indonesia participating PISA study
To find the information of student performance in term of reading, mathematic and science literacy for benchmarking with
other countries, so that the PISA results could be implemented as a set of tool for policy recommendation formulation for
improving the quality of education
14
The scope PISA• The focus of Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2009 is reading literacy. The scope of PISA study 2009:a) A profile of reading knowledge and skills, including digital literacy;
b) Contextual indicators relating reading performance results to student& school characteristics;c)
d)
Students’ engagement in reading activities, and learning strategies; andTrend data on change in student attitudes and in socio-economicindicators, and also on the impact of some indicators on the readingperformance results.
• The Coverage of the study: 470.000 out of 26 million students age 15 from 65 countries(34 OECD & 31 partner countries) are involved in PISA2009.
15
Sample, Domain and Test Designsample
Domain Science (35 items)
Reading (28 items)Problem solving (19 items)
Type of items: Multiple Choice, Shot Answer, EssayTest Design
167 items 13 items cluster (M7, S2, R2, PS2)13 test books (4 cluster/test book)Use linking items for setting items calibrating
Indonesia have participated in PISA study since 2000. 5.136 students from 183 schools are involved in the study Schools are located in rural (22,2%), small town (43%), town (14,7%), city (13,24%) & large city (6,74%).
16
Level Lower scorelimit Characteristics of tasks
6 698 Tasks at this level typically require the reader: to make multiple inferences, comparisons and contrasts; todemonstrate a full and detailed understanding of one or more texts; to deal with unfamiliar ideas, in thepresence of prominent competing information; and to generate abstract categories for interpretations.Reflective tasks may require the reader to hypothesize about or critically evaluate a complex text on anunfamiliar topic, and applying sophisticated understandings from beyond the text
5 626 Tasks at this level that involve the reader to locate and organize several pieces of deeply embeddedinformation, inferring which information in the text is relevant. Reflective tasks require critical evaluation orhypothesis, drawing on specialized knowledge. For all aspects of reading, tasks at this level typically involvedealing with concepts that are contrary to expectations.
4 553 Tasks at this level that involve the reader to locate and organize several pieces of embedded information.Reflective tasks at this level require readers to use formal or public knowledge to hypothesize about or criticallyevaluate a text. Readers must demonstrate an accurate understanding of long or complex texts whose contentor form may be unfamiliar.
3 480 Tasks at this level require the reader to locate, and in some cases recognise the relationship between severalpieces of information. Interpretative tasks at this level require the reader to integrate several parts of a text inorder to identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or phrase. Reflectivetasks at this level may require connections, comparisons, and explanations, or they may require the reader toevaluate a feature of the text.
2 407 Some tasks at this level require the reader to locate one or more pieces of information; and to recognize themain idea in a text. Tasks at this level may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in thetext. Typical reflective tasks at this level require readers to make a comparison or several connections betweenthe text and outside knowledge.
1a 335 Tasks at this level require the reader: to locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly stated information;to recognise the main theme or author’s purpose in a text about a familiar topic; and to make a simpleconnection between information. Typically the required information in the text is prominent and there is little, ifany, competing information.
1b 262 Tasks at this level require the reader to locate a single piece of explicitly stated information in a prominentposition in a short, syntactically simple text with a familiar context and text type. The text typically providessupport to the reader, such as repetition of information, pictures or familiar symbols. There is minimalcompeting information. 12
Summary descriptions for the seven levels of proficiency in reading17
2009 PISA Reading ScoresSome national policies:• Completion of MSS Into ES and JHS• Improvement of the Educators and
the Education Personnel• learning resources and instruction
facilities development• Recommendation of
Educational Budget Allocation for QA, QC and QI activities
18
GNI/GDP Non-OECD dan PISA Literasi No. Country / Territory GNI/GDP PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
1. Liechtenstein 65,000 519 538 526
2. Latvia 8,100 466 485 488
3. Russian Federation 5,780/8,030 480 469 477
4. Argentina 5,150 394 - 387
5. Brazil 4,730 338 361 372
6. Thailand 2,990/3,420 435 419 420
7. Tunisia 2,970 - 360 367
8. Columbia 2,740 - - 372
9. Jordan -/2,480 - - 395
10. Indonesia 1,420/369 369 362 393
11. Kyrgyzstan 490 - - 316
19
Indonesia students’ performance will be better rather than other countries if Gross National Income (GNI) or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has to be
increased
Scor
e po
int c
hang
e in
read
ing
perf
orm
ance
bet
wee
n 20
00 a
nd 2
009
Peru
Chile
Alba
nia
Indo
nesi
aLa
tvia
Isra
elPo
land
Port
ugal
Liec
hten
stei
nBr
azil
Kore
aH
unga
ryG
erm
any
Gre
ece
Hon
g Ko
ng-C
hina
Switz
erla
ndM
exic
oO
ECD
ave
rage
-26
Belg
ium
Bulg
aria
Ital
yD
enm
ark
Nor
way
Russ
ian
Fede
ratio
nJa
pan
Rom
ania
Uni
ted
Stat
esIc
elan
dN
ew Z
eala
ndFr
ance
Thai
land
Cana
daFi
nlan
dSp
ain
Aust
ralia
Czec
h Re
publ
icSw
eden
Arge
ntina
Irel
and
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 3 4 3 28 21 38 60 90 86 89 81 74 74 74 77 63 62 21 20 17 15 6 8 5 4 3 0 9 0
Change in Reading Performance in PISA 2000-2009
50
-5-10-15-20-25-30-35
504540353025201510
8
20
Change in treading performance PISA 2000-2009
is 31 point31
Thailand
Tunisia
Albania
Hong Kong-China
Uruguay
Azerbaijan
Trinidad and Tobago
Jordan
Shanghai-China
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Russian Federation
Croatia
France
Italy
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Greece
Ireland
Serbia
Switzerland
New Zealand
United States
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Denmark
Australia
Dubai (UAE)
Canada
Iceland
Brazil
Indonesia
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
Indonesia
-2.00
Note: Economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) index was derived from three indices:(1)highest occupational status of parents, (2) highest educational level of parents in years of
education, and (3) home possessions
Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) Index21
Year Average Score Rank Number ofCountries
2000 371 39 41
2003 382 39 40
2006 393 48 56
2009 402 57 65
Indonesia’s Rank in Reading Performance,PISA 2000-2009
Source: OECD Reports
9
Indonesia students’ reading performance have steadily improved during2000-2009 period. While, its rank depends upon the number of
countries participating in PISA study
22
Level 2000 2009≤ Level 1 68.7 53.5Level 2 24,8 34,3Level 3 6,1 11,2Level 4 0,4 1,0Level 5 0,0 0,0Level 6 - 0,0
Indonesia student’s literacy proficiency levels (%) PISA 2000-20089
13
During 2000-2009, Indonesia students’ reading performance have consistently improved.Percentage of students proficient at level 2 or above has increased.While, students proficient at level 1 or less ( ≤ level 1) have decreased
23
501
499
497
495402393382371
Indonesia OECD Average
2000
200320062009
Indonesia students’ reading performance have steadily improved from 2000-2009.While OECD students’ performance have been stagnant during the same period
7
Indonesia Student’s Reading Performance in PISA 2000-200924
Indonesia OECD Average
402
499
383
474
420
Indonesia Student’s Reading Performancein PISA 2009: By Gender
TotalBoysGirls
Girls performed better than boys in reading performance10
513
25
Percentage of Indonesian student’s at each proficiency level onthe reading scale in PISA 2009
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
OECD Average
OECD/Girls
OECD/Boys
Indonesia
Indonesia/Girls
Indonesia/Boys
Level < 1b
level 1b
level 1a
level 2
level 3
level 4
level 5
level 6
The higher the proficiency level, the better student’s readingcompetency. In PISA 2009, over 50% of the Indonesian student’s reading
proficiency is at level 1 or below11
26
494
494
495
493
493
493
409
402405 399
399 397
14
Indonesia OECD
Access & Retrieve
Integrate & Interpret
Reflect & Evaluate
Continous Texts
Non-Continous Texts
Total
27 Reading Performance 2009:Indonesia and OECD
501492
533501513 480
495480486492
407407408410
420 390398394392373
Yes No Yes No
Indonesia OECD
Read non fictions*
Read magazine*
Read fictions*
Read comic books
Read newspapers*
Students who are engaged in reading activities performed better in reading competency
18
28 Student’s Reading Performance and Reading Materials
D. INFLUENCING FACTORS
C
15
29
Logical Framework of the Influencing Factors ofReading Performance
16
Socio-economicbackground
Gender
Reading habits
Approachesto learning
Readingperformance
Source: Derived from OECD Report 2010
30
Parent educ level
Language at home
Reading Performance and Socio-Economic Factors
Reading performance Vs. GDPScore
GDP/ Capita (000 US$)
Reading perform. Vs. parents’ educationscore
% Pop in the age 35-44 w/ tertiary ed.
Reading perform. Vs. spending on education
Score
Cumulative expenditure (000 US$)Reading perform. Vs. share of socio-
Score economically disadvantage student
Share of student ESCS Index below -1
28
Parents’ education and socio-economic conditions of students show importantdeterminants of students’ reading performance
31
Detailed Social-Economic Factors Influencing Reading Performance
29
One point increase is in theESCS index is expected toincrease 17 points in students’reading performance
32
Engagement in Reading, Learning Strategies and Reading Performance
30
Diversity of reading materials and memorization strategy contribute toimprovement of student’s reading performance
33
Student parents education level
Country
Fulfilled the Higher Education Level
%
Average Achievem
ent
Fulfilled the Academy Level
%
Average Achieveme
nt
Fulfilled the Secondary/Vocational Level
%
Average Achievement
Japan 45 576 18 555 36 536
Korea 35 580 15 560 41 551
Malaysia 11 548 20 526 27 518
Indonesia 9 465 6 438 24 433
Chili 16 480 10 444 32 415
Saudi Arabia
27 424 0 0 12 404
South Africa
11 341 13 280 30 250
Rata2 Internasional
28 507 17 487 28 472
34
Language students in accordance with tests used in the house
Country Always%
Average
Achievement
Almost always%
Average
Achievement
Sometimes
%
Average
Achievement
Never
%
Average Achieve
ment
Japan 94 554 4 553 1 -- 0 --
Korea 71 558 28 562 1 -- 0 --
Malaysia 51 502 14 521 28 518 7 523
Indonesia 22 421 11 427 57 419 10 417
Chili 87 416 9 408 4 357 0 --
Saudi Arabia
100 398 0 -- -- -- -- --
South Africa
18 347 9 310 57 252 15 153
Rata2 Internasional
68 482 11 483 17 442 4 389
35
The amount of books at homeCountry > 200
%Avera
ge Achieveme
nt
1001-200%
Average
Achievement
26-100 %
Average
Achievement
11-25 %
Average
Achievement
0-10%
Average
Achieveme
nt
Japan 17 584 17 567 32 552 22 539 13 517
Korea 19 596 22 572 33 556 10 533 15 514
Malaysia 5 557 9 540 28 524 40 501 17 482
Indonesia 1 -- 3 449 19 431 45 416 32 416
Chili 5 484 7 458 27 437 37 402 23 374
Saudi Arabia
10 422 9 414 25 410 33 391 23 382
South Africa
6 315 5 316 14 288 31 241 44 218
Rata2 Internasional
15 506 13 498 27 483 26 458 18 438
36
The confidence of students in reading
Country High Confidenc
e%
Average Achieveme
nt
Average Confidence
%
Average Achievem
ent
Less Confidenc
e%
Average Achieve
ment
Japan 20 595 46 551 34 529
Korea 20 612 42 556 38 553
Malaysia 38 530 48 500 14 496
Indonesia 40 418 53 421 7 442
Chili 46 434 44 393 10 407
Saudi Arabia
58 418 36 378 6 366
South Africa 45 282 45 215 9 207
Rata2 Internasion
al
48 490 38 445 13 430
37
E. CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
D
19
38
Conclusion
The position of Indonesian students' literacy skills compared with literacy benchmarking in the developing and growing countries in the world through the results of the PISA assessment study has given both valuable lessons learn for policy makers at the national and regional formulation of the policy in order to improve the quality of national education.
39
Continues …..• Since 2000, Indonesian student’s performance in readinghave improved steadily. The score increase from 371 in PISA 2000 to 402 in PISA 2009.
• Indonesia is one of few countries that has made asignificant improvement in student readingperformance during 2000-2009.
• During the same period, variation in the student ‘sperformance has also decreased. It is partly due toimprovements among low-achieving students.
• Important determining factors of the student’s reading performance include: a) economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) index, b) availability of full-time certified teachers, c) student’s learning strategy, and d) student ICT activities.
40
continue …. The results of quality of inputs, processes, and outputs of education were: (1) the level of student competence, (2) deep levels of the material/syllabus, (3) conditions of the learning activities, (4) the ability of teachers, (5) utilization of the school environment for learning activities, (6) implementation of standards and practices of assessment activities, (7) the function of the leadership at the schools in term of school quality improvement, and (8) the formulation of policies to involve students , teachers, principals, parents, and school committees.
41
Recommendation National policies propose the systemic reform in aspects:
(1)The creation of the school environment, teachers quality, the curriculum reform, teaching learning activities, learning resources, higher stage assessment and other supporting aspects.
(2)The teachers have to develop their competence in academic, professional, social, and also personal through teacher certification development.
(3)The organization of pre-service and in-service training would be controlled and managed more professionally with due respect to the quality and meaningfulness of the goal of increasing the professionalism of teachers.
42
(4) Student learning strategy has to be focusedon three main areas: summarizing,understanding, remembering, andcontrolling.
(5) The availability of full-time and quality teachers, quality books, and access to internet needs to be improved.
22
(6) Student reading performance, the efforts to improve education quality should also be considered as an integral part of policies for improving household welfare
Continue 43
G. GLOSSARY
D
23
44
GLOSSARY• The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) was derived
from the following three indices: highest occupational status ofparents, highest educational level of parents in years of education, homepossessions
• The index of family wealth is based on the students’ responses on whetherthey had the following at home: a room of their own, a link to theInternet, a dishwasher, a DVD player; and their responses on the numberof cellular phones, televisions, computers, cars and the rooms with a bathor shower
• The index of home educational resources is based on the items measuringthe existence of educational resources at home including a desk and aquiet place to study, computer, software, books, technical referencebooks, & dictionary;
• The index of cultural possessions is based on the students’ responses towhether they had the following at home: classic literature, books ofpoetry and works of art.
• The index of school size was derived by summing up the number of girlsand boys at a school 24
45
GLOSSARY Continued …
•
•
•
•
The index of teacher shortage was derived from items measuring school principals’perceptions about qualified teachersThe index of memorization was derived from the frequency with which students didthe following when they were studying: i) try to memorize everything that iscovered in the text; ii) try to memorize as many details as possible; iii) read the textso many times that they can recite it; and iv) read the text over and over again.The index of elaboration was derived from the frequency with which students didthe following when they were studying: i) try to relate new information to priorknowledge acquired in other subjects; ii) figure out how the information might beuseful outside school; iii) try to understand the material better by relating it to myown experiences; and iv) figure out how the text information fits in with whathappens in real life.The index of control strategies was derived from students’ reports on how oftenthey did the following statements: i) when I study, I start by figuring out whatexactly I need to learn; ii) when I study, I check if I understand what I have read; iii)when I study, I try to figure out which concepts I still haven’t really understood; iv)when I study, I make sure that I remember the most important points in the text;and v) when I study and I don’t understand something, I look for additionalinformation to clarify this.
25
46
top related