USAID Prioritas TTI Program, A Review [PDF]

USAID PRIORITAS TTI PROGRAM A REVIEW

USAID Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS) February 2017 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International. The contents are the responsibility of RTI International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS)

Contract AID-497-C-12-00003

Prepared for USAID/Indonesia

Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 USA

Cover Photos: Top: A lecturer from the primary school teacher education faculty (PGSD) at the State University of Surabaya, observing students using a microscope to examine the material structure of monocots and dicot plant cells. Bottom left: Indonesia Education University students undertaking a teaching practice in SDN Sukarasa 3.4, Bandung, accompanied by supervising teachers and lecturers. Bottom right: Madrasah primary teacher education students from Sunan Ampel Surabaya in a simulated teaching practice using homemade big books in literacy lectures. [Unless otherwise noted, all photos taken by USAID PRIORITAS staff or partners.]

RTI International is a registered trademark and a trade name of research Triangle Institute.

The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... V LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. V LIST OF ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND TERMS .................................................... VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 6 1.1 THE SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................. 6 1.2 RESPONDING TO THE SCOPE OF WORK ..................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 7 1.2.2 Strengthening class-based pre-service training .................................................... 8 1.2.3 Strengthening practical pre-service training .......................................................... 8 1.2.4 Developing the role of the TTIs as service providers ............................................ 8 1.2.5 Dissemination ........................................................................................................ 9

2

TEACHER TRAINING IN INDONESIA ................................................................ 10 2.1 ACCESS, SUPPLY, AND DEMAND .............................................................................. 10 2.2 TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMS............................................................................... 11 2.3 CURRICULA, METHODS, AND TEACHER TRAINERS ..................................................... 11 2.4 TEACHING PRACTICUMS .......................................................................................... 12 2.5 IN-SERVICE AND UPGRADING PROGRAMS ................................................................. 13 2.6 CHALLENGES.......................................................................................................... 14 2.6.1 Oversupply of teachers ....................................................................................... 14 2.6.2 Curriculum, pedagogy, and management of teacher training ............................. 14 2.6.3 Coordination between TTIs, districts, and schools .............................................. 15 2.6.4 The USAID PRIORITAS response ...................................................................... 16

3

STRENGTHENING CLASS-BASED PRE-SERVICE TRAINING ........................ 17 3.1 ADAPTING MATERIALS AND TRAINING MODULES........................................................ 17 3.2 DEVELOPING PRE-SERVICE CURRICULUM MATERIALS ............................................... 18 3.3 TRAINING FOR LECTURERS ...................................................................................... 19 3.3.1 Training of TTI facilitators .................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Training of TTI pedagogy lecturers in the adapted modules ............................... 20 3.3.3 Training of TTI pedagogy lecturers in the pre-service curriculum materials ........ 21 3.4 PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN FSU AND UNNES ............................................................. 23

4

STRENGTHENING PRACTICAL PRE-SERVICE TRAINING ............................. 25 4.1 DEVELOPING LABORATORY, PARTNER, AND “GOOD PRACTICE” SCHOOLS .................. 25 4.1.1 TTI laboratory and partner schools ..................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Good practice schools ......................................................................................... 26 4.2 DEVELOPING IMPROVED PRACTICUM PROGRAMS ..................................................... 26 4.2.1 Materials to support PPG preparation workshops ............................................... 27 4.2.2 Materials to support the PPL and PPG practicum programs ............................... 28 4.3 CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH............................................................................. 28 4.4 SHORT COURSES FOR TTI LECTURERS IN THE USA ................................................. 29

5

DEVELOPING THE ROLE OF TTIS AS SERVICE PROVIDERS ....................... 31 DESIGN AND DELIVERY OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING ...................................................... 31 STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANNING ............................................................................. 32

5.1 5.2

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

iii

5.2.1 Strategic planning workshops ............................................................................. 32 5.2.2 Continuing professional development (CPD) planning/budgeting workshops ..... 33 5.2.3 Designing and delivering in-service training ........................................................ 33 5.3 PARTNERSHIPS WITH DISTRICTS AND MORA ........................................................... 33 5.3.1 Partnerships ........................................................................................................ 33 5.3.2 “Service provider” consulting personnel .............................................................. 35 6

6.1 6.2 6.3

DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................. 37 TTI CONSORTIA ...................................................................................................... 37 SHOWCASE EVENTS................................................................................................ 39 DISSEMINATION TRAINING ....................................................................................... 39

7

OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ................................................................................. 41 7.1 EVALUATING OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ...................................................................... 41 7.1.1 Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................... 41 7.1.2 Survey/Focus-group discussions ........................................................................ 42 7.2 WHAT IS THE REACH OF THE TTI PROGRAM? ........................................................... 43 7.2.1 Extent of direct project training ............................................................................ 43 7.2.2 Extent and quality of dissemination training ........................................................ 45 7.3 ARE THE TRAINED TTI LECTURERS USING ACTIVE LEARNING APPROACHES? ............. 47 7.3.1 What do the students say about their lecturers’ practice?................................... 47 7.3.2 Are the student-teachers using active learning approaches? ............................. 48 7.4 WHAT DO THE TTI SPECIALISTS AND COORDINATORS SAY ABOUT LECTURERS’ PRACTICE? ............................................................................................................. 49 7.4.1 Are the TTI lecturers using the project materials? ............................................... 49 7.4.2 What impact has the UNNES-FSU partnership had? .......................................... 50 7.5 IS THE APPROACH TO PRE-SERVICE PRACTICUMS IMPROVING? ................................. 50 7.5.1 What impact have the lab and partner schools and the practicum programs had? .................................................................................................................... 51 7.5.2 Are “good practice schools” functioning in each district? .................................... 52 7.5.3 What impact did the US study program have? .................................................... 52 7.6 IS THE CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH (CAR) PROGRAM EFFECTIVE?...................... 53 7.7 ARE THE TTIS READY, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PROVIDE IN-SERVICE TRAINING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES? ...................................................................................... 54 7.8 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 55

8

LESSONS LEARNED, ISSUES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 57 8.1 BUILDING ON EXPERIENCE ...................................................................................... 57 8.2 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................ 58 8.2.1 The academic culture of TTIs .............................................................................. 58 8.2.2 Structural barriers to TTIs acting as service providers ........................................ 59 8.2.3 The USAID brand ................................................................................................ 59 8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 60 8.3.1 Building on success: practical pre-service training and classroom action research .............................................................................................................. 60 8.3.2 Mentoring and communities of practice............................................................... 61 8.3.3 Dissemination ...................................................................................................... 62 8.3.4 Monitoring and evaluation ................................................................................... 63 8.3.5 TTI pre-service curricula...................................................................................... 63

iv

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

8.3.6 TTIs as service providers .................................................................................... 64 8.3.7 TTIs as research centers..................................................................................... 65 8.3.8 Working with the ministries.................................................................................. 66 8.3.9 Lecturer absenteeism .......................................................................................... 66 8.4 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 67 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 68 ANNEX 1: PARTNER DISTRICTS AND TTIS ..................................................................... 69 ANNEX 2: USAID PRIORITAS MODULES AND TRAINING MATERIALS ........................ 73 ANNEX 3: TTI CONSULTANTS AND FACILITATORS FOR TEACHER TRAINING ......... 76 ANNEX 4: TTI CONSULTANTS AND FACILITATORS FOR GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 101 ANNEX 5: TTI SERVICE PROVIDER PARTNERSHIPS ................................................... 104 ANNEX 6: TTI DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 137 ANNEX 7: DATA COLLECTION FOR TTI REVIEW .......................................................... 140 ANNEX 8: NUMBER OF TRAINING PARTICIPANTS PER TTI ........................................ 141 ANNEX 9: NUMBER OF LECTURERS PER PARTNER TTI (REGULAR STATE INSTITUTIONS) .................................................................................................. 143

List of Tables Table 1.

USAID PRIORITAS Partner Teacher Training Institutes ................................. 7

Table 2.

Reference Materials for TTIs ......................................................................... 17

Table 3.

Primary Source Materials for TTIs ................................................................. 18

Table 4.

TTI Facilitators ............................................................................................... 20

Table 5.

Number of Participant Lecturers by TTI Type and Type of Activity ............... 22

Table 6.

MOUs and Formal Partnerships between TTIs and Other Agencies (Districts, Provinces, and MORA) .................................................................. 34

Table 7.

Governance and Management Consultants Trained in TTIs ......................... 36

Table 8.

TTI Partners and Consortia ........................................................................... 38

Table 9.

TTI Dissemination Activities through December 2016................................... 40

Table 10.

Summary of the Monitoring Results of TTI Indicators (July 2016)................. 42

Table 11.

Lecturers Trained per Partner TTI ................................................................. 43

List of Figures Figure 1.

Percentages of Student-Teachers Demonstrating Good Practice in Teaching in Regular State Universities (UN) and Islamic Institutions (UIN) .............................................................................................................. 48

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

v

List of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Terms ALFHE ALIS BHP BLU CAR CLCC CPD DBE DIKTI Dosen EGRA FGD FKIP FSU GOI GPA GPS Guru pamong HELM HKBP IAID IAIN IKIP IR1 JSS Kabupaten Kemenko PMK KKG KKM KKN Kota LPMP LPPM LPTK M&E Madrasah vi

Active Learning for Higher Education (DBE2 material) Active Learning in Schools (DBE2 material) Badan Hukum Pendidikan [former name]; now Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Badan Hukum (State TTI established as an independent legal entity) Badan Layanan Umum (Public Service Body) Classroom Action Research Creating Learning Communities for Children [GOI-UNESCO-UNICEF project] Continuing Professional Development Decentralized Basic Education Project (Comprised of three USAIDfunded projects: DBE1, DBE2, DBE3) Directorate Pendidikan Tinggi (Higher Education Directorate) Lecturer Early Grades Reading Assessment Focus-Group Discussion Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan or Teaching and Education Faculty Florida State University Government of Indonesia Grade Point Average Good practice schools Supervising teacher Higher Education Leadership and Management (USAID-funded project) Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (Batak Christian Protestant Church) Institut Agama Islam Darussalam Institut Agama Islam Negeri (State Islamic Institute) Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (Teaching and Education Institute) Intermediate Result Junior-secondary School District or Regency Kementrian Koordinasi Pengembangan Masyarakat dan Kebudayayaan (Coordinating Ministry for Community Development and Culture) Kelompok Kerja Guru (Teacher Working Group-regulat primary schools) Madrasah Teacher Working Group Kuliah Kerja Nyata (community service field work) City or Municipality Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (MOEC’s Teacher Training Centers) Center for Research and Community Outreach (Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat) Lembaga Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan (Institute of Teachers’ Education) Monitoring and Evaluation Islamic School The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

MBE MDE MGMP MOEC MORA MORHE MOU MSU MTs NA P4TK

Pancasila PGMI PGPAUD PGRA PGRI PGSD PKB PLPG PMK PPG PPL PRESTASI PRIORITAS PTN-BH Renstra RTI S1 Satker SBM SBMPTN SD

Managing Basic Education Michigan Department of Education Local Association of Secondary Teachers (grouped by subject matter) Ministry of Education and Culture Ministry of Religious Affairs Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education Memorandum of Understanding Michigan State University Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Junior-secondary Islamic School) not applicable Pusat Pengembangan & Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Teacher and Education Staff Professional Development and Empowerment Center) Five Principles (state philosophy) Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (Primary Madrasah Teacher Education) Pendidikan Guru Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini (Early Childhood Teacher Education) Pendidikan Guru Raudhatul Athfal (Islamic Early Childhood Teacher Education) Persatuan Guru Replublik Indonesia (National Indonesian Teachers Union) Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar (Primary Teacher Education) Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan (Continuing Professional Development) Pendidikan Latihan Profesi Guru (a ten-day in-service program for upgrading teacher qualifications for certification purposes) Pengembangan Masyarakat dan Kebudayayaan (Community Development and Culture) Pengembangan Profesi Guru (Teacher Professional Education - one year post-graduate program) Praktik (or “Program”) Pengalaman Lapangan (Student teacher practicum program) Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts (USAID-funded project) Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students Project Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Badan Hukum (State TTI established as an independent legal entity) formerly Badan Hukum Pendidikan or BHP Rencana Strategis (Strategic Plan) RTI International (trade name for Research Triangle Institute) Sarjana 1—a four-year diploma or degree as required by the Teacher Law of 2005 Satuan Kerja (Work Unit) School Based Management Seleksi Bersama Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri (Joint Selection for State Higher Education) Sekolah Dasar (Primary School)

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

vii

SDN SKS SM3T SMH SNMPTN SP STAIN STKIP STTA Tarbiyah TOR TOT TTI UHN UIN UINSA UINSU UKG UKSW UM UMN-AW UMPAR UMSU UMT UN UNBJA UNCOK UNESA UNIMED UNINUS UNISMUH UNITA UNM UNMA UNNES UMPAS UNS UNSYIAH UNTIRTA UNY UPI UPTD viii

Sekolah Dasar Negeri (State Primary School) Satuan Kredit Semester (Semester credit system) Sarjana Mengajar di Daerah Terdepan, Terluar dan Tertinggal (Graduates Teach in Remote Areas program) Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin [IAIN SMH] Seleksi Nasional Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri (National Selection for State Higher Education) service provider personnel Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri (State Islamic college). Sekolah Tinggi Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan (College of Teacher Training and Pedagogy) Short-term Technical Assistance Education faculty/subject in an Islamic school or institution Terms of Reference Training of Trainers Teacher Training Institute Universitas HKBP Nommensen Universitas Islam Negeri (State Islamic University) Universitas Islam Negeri Surabaya (State Islamic University of Surabaya) Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara (State Islamic University of North Sumatra) Ujian Kompetensi Guru (Teacher Competency Test) Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (Satya Wacana Christian University) Universitas Negeri Malang (State Islamic University of Malang) Universitas Muslim Nusantara Al-Wasliyah Universitas Muhammadiyah Pare-pare Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang State University Universitas Banten Jaya Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Islam Nusantara Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar Universitas Sisingamangaraja Tapanuli Universitas Negeri Makassar (State University of Makassar) Universitas Mathla'ul Anwar State University of Semarang Universitas Pasundan Bandung Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Sub-district level government office (Unit Pelaksanaan Teknis Daerah) The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

US USA USAID USM

United States United States of America (US) United States Agency for International Development Universitas Serambi Mekkah

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ix

This page intentionally left blank

x

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United States Agency for International Development–Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, and Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia’s Teachers, Administrators, and Students (USAID PRIORITAS) project began in May 2012 with the aim of achieving expanded access to quality basic education (IR1). The project is due to finish in September 2017. The intermediate results (IRs) that the project aims to achieve are as follows: •

strengthened instruction in schools in targeted districts (IR1-1)

•

improved education management and governance in targeted schools (IR1-2)

•

strengthened coordination between all levels of the Government of Indonesia (GOI) and education institutions (IR1-3).

This report describes the USAID PRIORITAS program involving Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs), which is aimed to achieve the first of the above intermediate results, IR1-1. The first section of this report outlines the objective of the program and the project’s response. The second section describes the context, focusing on the current state of teacher training in Indonesia, including challenges. The following four sections describe the main activities that the project has conducted with TTIs, and the final two sections discuss outcomes, impact, issues, and lessons learned, with recommendations for the future. Teacher training in Indonesia faces several serious challenges. These challenges include (1) an education system with an oversupply of teachers and a high demand for admissions into teacher training programs (teacher pay increases have led to teaching being viewed as an attractive career choice, resulting in compounding the oversupply of graduates); (2) problematic curriculum, pedagogy, and management of teacher training, with teacher trainers lacking practical teaching experience and tending to provide overly theoretical training; and (3) weak coordination between TTIs, schools, and schooling systems, with practicing teachers requiring in-service training to improve quality that TTIs are not yet well-prepared to provide. USAID PRIORITAS has addressed most of the above noted challenges to achieve IR1-1 by addressing two main tasks. These were stated in the Scope of Work 1 as follows: 1. Strengthen the capacity of selected pre-service teacher training institutes to produce skilled primary and junior-secondary teachers, competent and practiced in active learning methodologies with enhanced capability to teach reading, math and science. 2. Strengthen the capacity of selected in-service teacher training organizations to deliver quality, active learning, early grades reading, math and science teaching methodologies; ensure that these organizations have the capacity to deliver training in an organized and systematic fashion. A group of 16 TTIs was selected for inclusion in the program, to ensure that at least one regular state university and one Islamic institution were included in each of seven partner provinces. In 2015, one more TTI was added as part of the program in West Papua, making a total of 17 TTIs. The program was applied somewhat differently in this institution and so it is not included in this review. A further 31 TTIs were included as consortium partners, with a lower level of project intervention.

USAID. (2015). Scope of Work, Contract No. AID-497-C-12-00003, USAID PRIORITAS Project, Page 2 of 22 pages. Jakarta: RTI International. 1

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

1

USAID PRIORITAS managed the implementation of the above tasks in these 16 TTIs through the following four sets of activities. 1. Strengthening class-based pre-service training •

Adapting materials/training modules for use in pre-service training: The TTIs were involved in designing an in-service teacher training program and adapting it for training lecturers to improve teaching and learning in TTIs.

•

Developing a pre-service curriculum: TTI working groups were established and developed curricula for pre-service training that were aligned to active learning principles and the 2013 Curriculum in seven subjects: (1) early grades reading and literacy, (2) upper grades literacy (grades 5-6), (3) primary mathematics, (4) primary science, (5) junior-secondary literacy, (6) junior-secondary mathematics, and (7) junior-secondary science.

•

Training TTI pedagogy lecturers: Lecturers were trained in active learning, in studentcentered and innovative training methodologies for pre- and in-service training, and in practice-oriented training curricula.

•

Establishing a partnership between Florida State University (FSU) and the State University of Semarang (UNNES), focused on teaching of early-grade reading and reading development: The partnership designed and produced a set of course materials to train student teachers in literacy education.

2. Strengthening practical pre-service training •

Developing lab, partner, and “good practice” schools to provide a context for practical preservice training: USAID PRIORITAS worked with TTIs to identify, train, and mentor TTI lab and partner schools. The project also jointly selected, trained, and mentored “good practice” schools intended to support pre-service teacher training.

•

Increasing the practical elements of pre-service teacher training courses in TTIs by developing improved practicum programs: USAID PRIORITAS worked with the national government and partner TTIs to review and develop teacher practicum programs and trained lecturers and supervisors in improved practicums.

•

Implementing a program of Classroom Action Research (CAR) with lecturers and teachers to support innovation in teaching and learning with an emphasis on reading: The project worked with lecturers and teachers from TTIs and their lab schools to design and implement a round of CAR to strengthen links between the TTIs and schools and to build capacity and foster understanding of active learning among participants.

•

Arranging short courses for TTI in the USA: USAID PRIORITAS coordinated with the USAID-funded Program to Extend Scholarships and Training to Achieve Sustainable Impacts (PRESTASI) to provide training at Michigan State University (MSU) for TTI lecturers from partner TTIs in the management of teacher practicums.

3. Developing the role of the TTIs as service providers •

Providing in-service training in partner schools: The TTIs were involved in designing and implementing an in-service training program to improve teaching and learning in schools in 50 partner districts. This approach is being strengthened in the final phase of the project by directly tasking the TTIs to design a set of training modules (Module 4) – and supporting them to do this.

•

Facilitating strategic business planning: TTIs took part in workshops to explore ways to develop a more entrepreneurial and business-like approach as service providers to districts and other education systems. TTIs also took part in district workshops to jointly

2

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

prepare budgeted plans for teacher in-service training programs, many of which were adopted as part of district five-year strategic plans. •

Strengthening partnerships with districts: The project worked with TTIs to build capacity in partner districts to improve teacher management (teacher deployment and continuing professional development), to plan, budget, and implement effective in-service teacher training programs, and to support the implementation of those programs. Many TTIs established Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and working agreements with districts as a result.

4. Dissemination •

Establishing TTI consortia: Consortia of partner TTIs were established with the aim of disseminating to a wider group good practices and programs developed in partner TTIs. Regular meetings and joint activities were conducted.

•

Conducting showcases: Showcase events were held to promote to a wider audience the good practices developed with TTIs.

•

Encouraging dissemination: Internal dissemination of good practices within the partner and consortia TTI was encouraged, and some support was provided by the project in response to demand to support sustainability.

Outcomes Through the above four activities, the extent of the program in TTIs is thus very broad and comprehensive. USAID PRIORITAS has trained a total of 4,428 TTI lecturers and others. This total includes lecturers from partner TTIs and consortia members, along with non-academic staff, such as teachers and principals from TTI lab and partner schools. Within the partner TTIs, about 10% of lecturers have been trained (16% of pedagogy lecturers and up to 75% of those in target disciplines). These lecturers have attended an average of 12 days of training, some as many as 30 days. About two-thirds of them are now using a range of active learning approaches (a 60% increase on the baseline). Nearly 90% reportedly use the modules in their classes for students (pre-service) and about 60% use them in in-service training. Over twothirds of the lecturers’ students are now using active learning methods in their teaching practicums, further confirmation that the lecturers are using the project materials and active learning approaches in their pre-service classes. Dissemination programs co-funded by USAID PRIORITAS and the TTIs have reached approximately 2,500 more TTI lecturers, students, and teachers in lab and partner schools. While the long-term impact of these activities is unclear, most have followed the project approach quite closely, and results are thus likely to be comparable to the direct project training. Many TTIs are also independently funding and managing dissemination programs to introduce active learning and project materials to other lecturers. The extent to which these gains will be sustained and institutionalized within the cultures and practices of TTIs remains to be seen. In reality, a five-year project of this scale, even when building on the previous six-year DBE project, is unlikely, of itself, to produce deep, cultural, and institutionalized changes. However, the changes made are very significant and represent an important step towards the sustainable, institutionalized reforms that the project hopes to achieve. Meanwhile, changes to the management of student-teacher practicums and improvements to classroom action research programs have been profound and are well-appreciated by the TTIs and by national partners in the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA), and the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

3

(MORHE). Closing the gap between TTIs and schools, between lecturers and teachers, is having a substantial impact on the attitudes of both groups and, importantly, is resulting in a more effective, practice-oriented approach to pre-service training. When supported by other training and project materials provided by USAID PRIORITAS, this change provides an excellent base for ongoing capacity development—both by donor-funded projects and by the TTIs themselves. It is not so easy to draw conclusions about the service provider part of the TTI program. To become effective providers of in-service training, TTIs need major structural changes. Positive signs of this are happening in the institutions mentioned, such as UNIMED and UNM. However, further support is required to enable the TTIs to fully take on the role of professionally managed, international projects such as currently filled by USAID PRIORITAS. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on this TTI review, the most successful aspects of the program are those that relate to improving student-teacher practicums, developing the lab and partner schools, and conducting classroom action research (CAR). These programs share a common aim of closing the gap between TTIs and schools, between lecturers and teachers. In summary, recommendations for possible future interventions and activities are as follows: 1. Build on the current good practice in student-teacher practicums and expand the number of lab and partner schools; strengthen coordination with districts and MORA to support lab and partner schools; avoid the use of “model schools” or “good practice schools” that are distant from and not connected to TTIs. 2. Advocate for the TTIs to maintain and develop the mentoring relationship with their lab and partner schools after the project finishes, and hopefully expand to a larger group of schools. 3. Develop a CAR manual for TTIs; provide or arrange assistance to update MOEC’s manual for CAR. 4. Provide support for TTIs to plan and budget for internal dissemination and continuing professional development for lecturers; external dissemination could also be expanded; in the short-term, advocate for further, systematic internal dissemination by TTIs. 5. Include follow-up mentoring and creation of working groups for lecturers within TTIs, modeled on good practice at the school level; advocate for TTIs to create centers for good practice, allocating time and resources to support these. 6. Expand the monitoring and evaluation (M&E), including TTI as partners to develop their M&E capacity and strengthen the feedback loop, supporting continuous improvement. 7. Build on the successful adaption of school-level training modules and the FSU-UNNES model; expand modules with the addition of assignments, reading, tests, etc. Focus primarily on content pedagogy, alongside subject content and general pedagogy. Advocate for TTIs to adopt USAID PRIORITAS materials/modules, including the FSUUNNES literacy syllabus as complete course materials for specified subjects (mata kuliah). 8. Advocate for MORHE and TTIs to increase the proportion of practice-oriented subjects in teacher training and to encourage students to graduate with double majors, to enable them to be certified to teach at least two subjects. 9. Advocate for regulatory reform to enable TTIs to become more entrepreneurial as service providers; produce a book to share good practices from those TTIs that have successfully developed service provider programs.

4

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

10. Continue to build the capacity of TTI lecturers to become more practice-oriented and more familiar with classroom practice; meanwhile, TTIs should be encouraged to form partnerships with districts and MORA, where district facilitators continue to provide inservice training in partnership with the TTIs. 11. Continue to build the capacity of TTIs to design training modules and to implement these, to manage training events, and to monitor and evaluate the training—all in partnership with districts/MORA and all based on good practices. 12. Build the capacity of TTIs to conduct high-quality research to inform policy and professional practice. 13. Advocate for policy change to (1) manage intake of student teachers through quota or other means and (2) enable TTIs to act effectively as service providers. 14. Conduct a study on lecturer absenteeism and make the relevant policy recommendations. 15. Explore new models of working in partnership with TTIs to support the development of basic education. The efforts of the Indonesian government, working with its international partners to improve the quality of basic education through in-service training, have been ongoing for over 30 years. It is only recently that attention has turned to improving the quality of pre-service training and helping the TTIs to take on the role played by international donors and others in providing inservice training. The extensive achievements and lessons learned from USAID PRIORITAS are thus very important. While it is too early to expect the major structural and cultural changes recommended above, it is nonetheless important to identify them. Many of the important lessons from the years of experience working with districts and schools, can also be usefully applied to the TTI sector, as suggested. It is hoped that this review and the above recommendations will be useful in this context.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

5

1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe the USAID PRIORITAS program with Teacher Training Institutes (TTIs). The first section outlines the objective of the program and the project’s response. The second section describes the context, focusing on the current state of teacher training in Indonesia, including challenges. The following four sections describe the main activities conducted by the project with TTIs, and the final two sections discuss outcomes, impact, issues and lessons learned, with recommendations for the future.

1.1

The Scope of Work

USAID PRIORITAS project began in May 2012 and is scheduled to conclude in September 2017. The aim is to support the overall USAID goal of expanded access to quality basic education and improved quality and relevance of higher education (IR1)—specifically, teacher training. To achieve this objective, USAID PRIORITAS addressed four main tasks. These were stated in the Scope of Work 2 as follows (in descending level of expected resource allocation): 1. Strengthen the capacity of selected pre-service teacher training institutes to produce skilled primary and junior-secondary teachers, competent and practiced in active learning methodologies with enhanced capability to teach reading, math, and science. 2. Strengthen the capacity of selected in-service teacher training organizations to deliver quality, active learning, early grades reading, math and science teaching methodologies; ensure that these organizations have the capacity to deliver training in an organized and systematic fashion. 3. Strengthen and expand provincial and district capacity to improve education management and governance from the school level up, particularly as it relates to improving revenue streams to directly support teacher development and improved learning. 4. Strengthen coordination and feed-back systems across all levels of the GOI decentralized education system and key educational institutions. This report addresses Component 1 of the USAID PRIORITAS program, which aims to achieve the following intermediate result: IR 1.1, Strengthened Instruction in Schools, by achieving IR 1.1.1: More Effective Pre-Service (Teacher Education) Programs; and IR 1.1.2: More Effective In-Service (Teacher Education) Programs, which relate to the first two tasks above. Some activities in Component 2, which focus on governance and management of education, are also designed to support this objective. This report, prepared in the final project year, is particularly concerned with outcomes and lessons learned from the work with TTIs, which focused on pre-service and in-service training. Other related USAID PRIORITAS programs, including the early grades reading program, the district facilitator and school-level in-service teacher training program, and the district management and governance program, are addressed in different reports.

USAID. (2015). Scope of Work, Contract No. AID-497-C-12-00003, PRIORITAS Project, Page 2 of 22 pages. Jakarta: RTI International. 2

6

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

1.2

Responding to the Scope of Work

1.2.1

Introduction

As described in Section 2 of this report, the context and nature of education development in Indonesia is very dynamic. While responding to the tasks set out in the Scope of Work, the strategies adopted by USAID PRIORITAS thus evolved in response to changes in GOI policy, changes in USAID policy, and developments within the TTIs during the implementation period. During the first year, USAID requested a change in project focus to reflect an increased priority for improving literacy and early grades reading. A revised Scope of Work was issued in 2015 to incorporate a strengthened focus in this area, along with other agreed changes. A group of 16 TTIs was selected for inclusion in the program, to include at least one regular state university and one Islamic institution in each of seven partner provinces as noted in Table 1.

Table 1. No.

USAID PRIORITAS Partner Teacher Training Institutes

Provinces

TTIs

1

Aceh

Universitas Syiah Kuala (UNSYIAH)

2

Aceh

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Ar-Raniry

3

North Sumatra

Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED)

4

North Sumatra

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sumatra Utara

5

Banten

Universitas Sultan Agung Tirtayasa

6

Banten

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten (Serang)

7

West Java

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)

8

West Java

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung

9

Central Java

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES)

10

Central Java

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Walisongo Semarang

11

D.I. Yogyakarta

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

12

East Java

Universitas Negeri Malang (UM)

13

East Java

Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA)

14

East Java

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sunan Ampel Surabaya

15

South Sulawesi

Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM)

16

South Sulawesi

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Sultan Alauddin Makassar

A further 31 TTIs were included as consortium partners with a lower level of project intervention. See Annex 1 for a complete list of partner districts, TTIs, and consortium members. In 2015, one more TTI was added as part of the program in West Papua, making a total of 17. The program was somewhat different in the West Papua institution, and so it is not included in this review. As outlined in annual project work plans and described in routine project implementation reports, USAID PRIORITAS managed the implementation of the above tasks in TTIs through the following four sets of activities.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

7

1.2.2

Strengthening class-based pre-service training

•

Adaptation of materials/training modules for use in pre-service training: The TTIs were involved in designing an in-service teacher training program and adapting this for training lecturers to improve teaching and learning in TTIs (see Annex 2).

•

Developing a pre-service curriculum: TTI working groups were established and developed curricula for pre-service training that are aligned to active learning principles and the 2013 Curriculum in seven subjects: (1) early grades reading and literacy, (2) upper grades literacy (5–6), (3) primary mathematics, (4) primary science, (5) junior-secondary literacy, (6) junior-secondary mathematics, and (7) junior-secondary science.

•

Training TTI pedagogy lecturers: Lecturers were trained in active learning, and studentcentered and innovative training methodologies for pre- and in-service training, as well as in practice-oriented training curricula.

•

Establishing a partnership between Florida State University (FSU) and the State University of Semarang (UNNES), focused on teaching of early grade reading and reading development: Members of the partnership designed and produced a set of course materials to train student teachers in literacy education.

1.2.3

Strengthening practical pre-service training

•

Developing lab, partner, and “good practice” schools to provide a context for practical preservice training: USAID PRIORITAS worked with TTIs to identify, train, and mentor TTI lab and partner schools. The project also jointly selected, trained, and mentored “good practice” schools that are intended to support pre-service teacher training.

•

Increasing the practical elements of pre-service teacher training courses in TTIs by developing improved practicum programs: USAID PRIORITAS worked with the national government and partner TTIs to review and develop teacher practicum programs and trained lecturers and supervisors in improved practicums.

•

Implementing a program of Classroom Action Research (CAR) with lecturers and teachers to support innovation in teaching and learning with an emphasis on reading: The project worked with lecturers and teachers from TTIs and their lab schools to design and implement a round of CAR to strengthen links between the TTIs and schools and to build capacity and understanding of active learning among participants.

•

Short courses for TTI in the USA: USAID PRIORITAS coordinated with the USAID-funded PRESTASI project to provide training at MSU for TTI lecturers from partner TTIs in the management of teacher practicums.

1.2.4

Developing the role of the TTIs as service providers

•

In-service training in partner schools: The TTIs were involved in designing and implementing an in-service training program to improve teaching and learning in schools in 50 partner districts. This approach is being strengthened in the final phase of the project by directly tasking the TTIs to design a set of training modules (Module 4) and supporting them to do so.

•

Strategic business planning: TTIs took part in workshops to explore ways to develop a more entrepreneurial and business-like approach as service providers to districts and other education systems. TTIs took part in district workshops to jointly prepare budgeted

8

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

plans for teacher in-service training programs, many of which were adopted as part of district five-year strategic plans. •

Partnerships with districts: The project worked with TTIs to build capacity in partner districts to improve teacher management (teacher deployment and continuing professional development); to plan, budget, and implement effective in-service teacher training programs; and to support the implementation of those programs. Many TTIs established MOUs and working agreements with districts as a result.

1.2.5

Dissemination

•

TTI consortia: Consortia of partner TTIs were established with the aim of disseminating to a wider group good practices and programs developed in partner TTIs. Regular meetings and joint activities were conducted.

•

Showcases: Showcase events were held to promote to a wider audience the good practices developed with TTIs.

•

Dissemination: Internal dissemination of good practices within the partner and consortia TTI was encouraged, and limited support was provided by the project in response to demand to support sustainability.

To clarify the context for these interventions, the following section describes the Indonesian teacher training system. Following this, each of the above sets of activities is discussed, together with outcomes and, where appropriate, lessons learned.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

9

2 Teacher Training in Indonesia The scope, structure, regulatory framework and approach to teacher training in Indonesia are developing rapidly. From the 1950s until the 1990s, most primary and junior-secondary teachers were trained in specialized secondary schools. At the same time, beginning in the 1950s, tertiary TTIs, called Teaching and Education Institutes (Institut Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan or IKIP), were established. By 1995, the “teaching high-schools” system 3 was dismantled, and all teachers were trained in the state IKIPs (which have now been upgraded to become universities), in the education faculties (Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan or FKIP) of other universities, or in smaller private colleges. The state universities, particularly the former IKIPs, are generally regarded as the most reliable and prestigious teacher training institutes. There are currently 78 such state universities and 351 private institutions. As in the schooling system, Indonesia also has a tradition of Islamic higher education administered by the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA). The Islamic higher education sector includes state and private institutions that teach a range of secular and Islamic subjects, the latter including Tarbiyah (Education), which prepares teachers for the Islamic schools, called madrasah. There are three types of institutions: Islamic universities (UIN), Islamic institutes (IAIN) and Islamic colleges (STAIN).

2.1

Access, supply, and demand

Since 2015, Indonesia’s regular universities and higher education institutions, including TTIs, are administered under the Ministry for Research, Technology and Higher Education (MORHE). The Islamic institutes are still administered under MORA. There are currently 1,440,000 students enrolled in Indonesia’s 429 TTIs (Paramadina Public Policy Institute, 2016). According to a recent study, each year 300,000 new teachers graduate, while the need for teachers is around 40,000 (Paramadina Public Policy Institute, 2016). As yet, MORHE has not set quotas to limit the intake of new students into teacher training programs. Since the increase in incomes for teachers, resulting from teacher certification and salary increases (see below in Section 2.5), teaching has become a far more attractive profession, creating a strong demand for places in teacher training courses. While the more established institutions may have quotas for each program, many smaller private institutions have been established in recent years to meet the demand for places. The formal requirement for students to be accepted into a teacher training program is a higher school certificate issued at the end of Year 12 (the third and final year of senior-secondary schooling). While students wishing to study a particular subject are required to have passed the appropriate subject at senior secondary level, there are no special requirements for students entering the primary school teaching program. Individual institutions may also screen prospective students through entrance tests. There are three avenues to gain admission to one of the prestigious state universities: (1) an “invitation” or the so-called National Selection for State Higher Education (Seleksi Nasional Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri or SNMPTN) based on cumulative senior-secondary school

“Teaching high schools” were secondary schools that prepared students to become primary school teachers. 3

10

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

scores, reports, and other criteria assessed by the schools, With the quota for admission by this route being 40%; (2) a written test, known as Joint Selection for State Higher Education (Seleksi Bersama Masuk Perguruan Tinggi Negeri or SBMPTN), with an admissions quota of 30%; and (3) the “independent” track with an admissions quota of 30% (previously 20%). Entrance via this last route is based on students’ ability to pay relatively high entrance and tuition fees.

2.2

Teacher training programs

The Teacher Law of 2005 requires all teachers to have at least a four-year diploma or degree (Sarjana 1 or S1). Previously, students could qualify to become teachers with a one-, two-, or three-year diploma. In most institutions, to achieve an S1 degree, student teachers must meet the following requirements: (1) pass all required subjects, (2) achieve a minimum grade point average (GPA) of 2 out of 4, (3) pass a comprehensive examination, (4) write a final paper, and (5) depending on the institution, obtain between 147 and 165 SKS points (semester credit hour system). This includes practice teaching (Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan or PPL) and community service field work (Kuliah Kerja Nyata or KKN). Early childhood and primary teachers complete a general program for primary teaching, while junior- and senior-secondary teachers study specialist subjects, such as history or sciences. The course structure for primary student teachers is known as Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar (PGSD)—or Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (PGMI) in the Islamic sector. For early childhood teachers, it is known as Pendidikan Guru Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini (PGPAUD)—or Pendidikan Guru Raudhatul Athfal (PGRA) in the Islamic sector. These programs consist of several subjects (general, compulsory, and optional). Secondary teacher training is located within the science or humanities faculties at state universities. The science faculties house the departments of Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. The humanities faculties house the departments of Languages and Literature (including Indonesian and English), Arts, Social Sciences, Economics, Technology, and Sports. These faculties each contain two sub-faculties or parallel programs, one of which graduates students of the pure sciences or humanities (non-education), while the other graduates teachers who are qualified to teach in secondary schools (education). The Islamic institutions (UIN and IAIN) train both primary and secondary teachers in the faculty of Tarbiyah. Depending on the institution’s capacity, students can also undertake post-graduate studies for a master’s degree (Sarjana 2) or doctoral degree (Sarjana 3), both at regular and at Islamic universities. Some TTIs have established courses in education administration—at the undergraduate and graduate level—but these are not yet common.

2.3

Curricula, methods, and teacher trainers

The course content for primary and secondary teacher training is categorized into the following subjects: (1) General, (2) Basic Education (3) the Teaching and Learning Process, (4) Specific Field of Study/Subject Matter, and (5) Optional Subjects. The general category includes mandatory study of civics (including the state philosophy of Pancasila) and Bahasa Indonesia. Specific subjects studied for primary teacher training include: religion, science, Bahasa Indonesia, mathematics, social science, and civics. Primary teachers are trained in instructional strategies, assessment, learning media, education

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

11

research methodology, and pedagogy. Secondary teacher students study one major, the subject for which they will be qualified to teach. The training methodology depends largely on the lecturers’ competency and the teaching approach with which they feel most comfortable. Most use an approach that is more lecturercentered than student-centered. Meanwhile, the more progressive institutions and lecturers are beginning to adopt active learning approaches and include more creative and engaging approaches to teaching and learning. The USAID-funded DBE2 project provided training for lecturers in active learning prior to USAID PRIORITAS. Teacher trainers (dosen or lecturers) are typically drawn from the ranks of student teachers who graduated with high scores and were invited to continue with post-graduate studies. The great majority of teacher trainers and academics have thus had little or no experience in schools or in classroom teaching. Thus, teacher education programs typically tend towards theory rather than practice.

2.4

Teaching practicums

Most TTIs offer practice teaching programs as part of pre-service teacher education. Teachers complete a two- to three-month Student Teacher Practicum (Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan or PPL). The PPL program is a compulsory component of the S1 degree. Students must fulfill all course requirements prior to undertaking the PPL teaching practice course. The purpose of the PPL is to enable student teachers to apply the theory learned in previous semesters and to prepare them professionally through participation in direct field experience in partner schools. The program consists of a minimum of 16 teaching practice sessions in various classes prior to completing a final examination. Supervising teachers known as guru pamong, school principals, and supervisors from the university appraise the student teachers’ practice. In a number of institutions, PPL is now also included in a one-year, post-graduate Teacher Professional Education program (Pendidikan Profesi Guru or PPG), consisting of universitybased workshops and practical teaching in schools. At the time of writing this report, this program is only provided in the state universities (former IKIP), and only for graduates preparing to teach in remote locations in the Graduates Teach in Remote Areas program, known as SM3T (Sarjana Mengajar di Daerah Terdepan, Terluar dan Tertinggal) or, in some cases, for a small number of students sponsored by districts. It is intended that, by 2019, all regular TTIs will be required to offer a PPG program. This PPG program is to be completed after graduation from the degree program and will become a requirement for teachers to gain teaching certification. The PPG program consists of two parts: (1) a workshop/lecture program in the first semester and (2) a school placement for the second semester. Semester 1 takes place on campus; graduates attend workshops on developing learning materials and classroom action research, while in Semester 2, the practical program takes place in schools. The course content focuses on the improvement of student teachers’ pedagogical skills and consists of subject-specific pedagogy, development, and implementation of classroom action research, peer teaching (known as micro-teaching), and practice teaching (PPL). At the time of writing, teacher practicums such as PPL and PPG are not included in the teacher training provided by Tarbiyah faculties of the Islamic institutes. MORA is developing plans to improve teacher training in these institutions by introducing practicums similar to those in the regular teacher training institutions.

12

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

2.5

In-service and upgrading programs

Two main types of teacher in-service training exist: (1) upgrading qualifications and (2) nonaward-based continuing professional development (CPD). In alignment with the government’s current priority to improve the quality of teachers and the standard of teaching, both types are seen as important: the former for improving teacher standards and providing avenues for teacher certification, and both for improving the competency of Indonesia’s 3.9 million teachers. In 2007, the government commenced a massive upgrading program. The aim was to upgrade teacher qualifications over a five- to seven-year period, to achieve a minimum standard for all school teachers at degree level and higher education lecturers at postgraduate level in alignment with the 2005 Teacher Law. Teachers were offered a substantial incentive in the form of a monthly professional allowance, payable only to certified teachers, which effectively doubled the incomes of many. Despite good intentions, the program has not been without critics or problems. The upgrading of so many teachers in such a brief period required a huge in-service program using TTIs as providers. With resources stretched to the limit, serious questions arose about the quality of this training. Since teacher certification is directly linked to income, an informal payment-for-results system allegedly developed. Meanwhile, the national teachers’ union (PGRI), representing senior teachers, lobbied the government to soften its policy, enabling experienced teachers to gain certification based on portfolio assessment rather than academic achievement or professional competence. To accommodate the demand for upgrading, a 10-day in-service program called Pendidikan Latihan Profesi Guru (PLPG) was introduced by TTI for practicing teachers wishing to gain certification. The result was that the aim of increasing quality in the teaching force was seriously compromised in the short term while the cost of the program remained high. According to a World Bank report, there is no evidence to suggest that the upgrading and certification has improved teaching and learning (Chang, et al., 2013). A more recent analysis using an experimental design confirmed this finding (de Ree, Muralidharan, Pradhan, & Rogers, 2016). Apart from the need to upgrade teacher qualifications, there is also a need for teachers to retrain to be certified to teach different subjects. Mismatching of teacher and subject taught is a major problem throughout the system, especially in the Islamic sector. Many teachers are required to teach subjects for which they are not qualified or certified. Overall, there is an oversupply of civil service teachers in the secondary schools and an undersupply in primary schools. Universities can provide in-service programs to address both problems. The sheer number of teachers requiring retraining, upgrading and improvement in subject knowledge and pedagogical competency is daunting. Over half of Indonesia’s teachers are not yet certified. Around 15% (18% of primary and 12% of junior-secondary teachers) are under-qualified (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2016a) and, according to MOEC’s online teacher competency test, 44% of teachers’ competency scores are below the required standard score of 50 correct out of a possible score of 100. The government aims to lift the average score from around 44% to 80% by 2019. In 2015, less than 2% of teachers achieved the target score of 80 correct out of a possible score of 100 on the test (Ministry of Education & Culture, 2016b). The potential role for TTIs as providers of in-service training to districts, schools, and the Islamic education sector is substantial. While the universities have played a role for some years, there is increasing demand to help develop and implement programs for retraining and upgrading of and CPD for teachers. MOEC has taken steps to develop a program for online The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

13

teacher in-service training, but the universities and TTIs must play a major role to meet the demand.

2.6

Challenges

Teacher training in Indonesia faces a number of serious challenges. These challenges include (1) an education system with an oversupply of teachers and a high demand for admissions into teacher training programs (teacher pay increases have led to teaching being viewed as an attractive career choice, resulting in compounding the oversupply of graduates); (2) problematic curriculum, pedagogy, and management of teacher training, with teacher trainers lacking practical teaching experience and tending to provide overly theoretical training; and (3) weak coordination between TTIs, schools, and schooling systems, with practicing teachers requiring in-service training to improve quality that TTIs are not yet well-prepared to provide. 2.6.1

Oversupply of teachers

With an overall ratio of one teacher to 16 students, there are too many teachers in Indonesia. However, these are poorly distributed and the teaching quality that these teachers provide is varied. Urban schools are commonly overstaffed, while schools in rural and isolated areas are understaffed. During the 2000-2013 period, a 7% increase in primary school student numbers was outstripped by a 45% increase in the number of primary school teachers. As a result, the primary school student-teacher ratio dropped from 23:1 to 16:1. The main factors associated with this ratio decrease were (1) unrestricted appointment of civil servant teachers by districts (until 2011) and (2) direct hiring of temporary teachers by schools. Many temporary, non-civil servant teachers have been hired by schools to address shortages in their district teacher allocation. Thus, many schools have recruited more teachers than required, resulting in an excess of teachers. This oversupply of teachers in the system provides an ideal opportunity for government to improve the quality of new graduates by restricting enrollments and limiting numbers, enabling institutions to select the very best and brightest students for education. However, until now, controls have been weak and the government has been unable to limit access. On the contrary, many new institutions have been established in response to the demand, and with a lack of well-qualified teacher trainers to staff the new institutions, the quality of teacher training has fallen. It is anticipated that this situation will change as new regulations are promulgated; however, it will be too late to prevent a major oversupply of new teachers coming into an already overstaffed school system. While this problem will be mitigated to some extent by a wave of retirements, with approximately 30% of current teachers retiring in the coming decade (Chang et al., 2013), it is still likely to create a major problem for education administrators. 2.6.2

Curriculum, pedagogy, and management of teacher training

The current curriculum for teacher training is rather inflexible in that it produces teachers who are qualified and subsequently certified to teach only one subject at secondary level or to teach as a primary or early-childhood class teacher. A more flexible approach would allow students to graduate with two majors, allowing them to be certified to teach more than one subject or level. This would make teacher management far more efficient. The current system makes it difficult to match teachers with the needs of the system and leads to many mismatches with teachers forced to teach subjects for which they are not qualified. The curriculum also does not yet address all cross-curricular subjects effectively, including, for 14

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

example, literacy and the teaching of reading, critical thinking, student behavior management, and character education. The curriculum and approach to teacher training are also overly theoretical. Most teacher trainers lack practical teaching experience in schools and so tend to revert to theoretical subject matter, shying away from teaching practice in which they lack confidence. Teacher training tends to be “classical” in style, typically in lecture format. Although efforts to introduce a more contemporary active-learning approach are under way, including those supported by USAID PRIORITAS, much is still needed to change the education culture of the institutions. This problem impacts not only pre-service teacher training, but the institutions’ capacity to provide appropriate in-service training. Moreover, a major problem exists in the management of teacher training—and in tertiary education in general. Specifically, this problem manifests in the poor attendance of lecturers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is common practice for lecturers to skip assigned classes, leaving an “assistant lecturer” (usually a student) in charge. This problem was encountered by project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) staff, who found it very difficult to find classes at which both the lecturer and the observer were in attendance to collect data. This issue is one of the reasons that the project switched to using focus-group discussions (FGDs) with students, to determine the extent to which lecturers had implemented active learning methodologies in their classes. These FGDs further verified the problem of non-attendance, which then impacted the results of the monitoring and evaluation. It is difficult to implement active learning in classes, if the lecturer is not present! 2.6.3

Coordination between TTIs, districts, and schools

The links and coordination between the universities, schools, and school systems are weak. The greatest resource for teacher training—schools and practicing teachers—is underutilized. Research tends to use survey-based methodologies, rather than case study or action research methodologies that focus on improving practice. However, positive steps are being taken to address these issues. The new PPG programs will ensure that teachers receive a lengthy period of supported practice in schools before being certified. Some of the more established institutions, including USAID PRIORITAS partner TTIs, have developed strong links with partner schools and “lab schools,” which provide a venue for teacher practicums and classroom action research. Related to the links between TTIs and schools, the role of TTIs in providing continuing professional development programs for practicing teachers needs strengthening. The need to improve the quality of practicing teachers is well-recognized and has become a priority for MOEC, MORA, and increasingly, for districts. TTIs are the obvious primary providers of continuing professional development for practicing teachers. However, the institutional links are weak, as described. For reasons outlined above, TTI lecturers are poorly equipped to provide practical in-service training due to a lack of not having had practical experience themselves. Moreover, TTIs face legal and regulatory constraints as service providers, because they are limited in the extent to which they can charge a fee for service. While the regulatory environment is evolving, currently all TTIs (as with other tertiary education institutes) are established and governed under one of three legal bases: Satuan Kerja (or “Work Unit” abbreviated as “Satker”), Badan Layanan Umum (“Public Service Body,” abbreviated as BLU), or Perguruan Tinggi Negeri Badan Hukum (State TTI established as an independent legal entity, abbreviated as PTN-BH— formerly Badan Hukum Pendidikan of BHP). Each of these legal structures imposes different limitations on the institution, most The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

15

notably limiting the ability of the TTI to act as a business, to seek and generate funding through partnerships. The only one of the three that legally enables the institution to act in an entrepreneurial way is the third, PTN-BH. Different institutions have found different ways to circumvent the restrictions to develop a more entrepreneurial approach as a service provider to districts and MORA but, with the exception of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) in West Java (the project’s only partner TTI that has PTN-BH status), all operate in a “gray area” of the law if they develop service provider programs in which users pay for services. In some cases, the institutions have established independent companies or non-profit foundations that are fully owned by the institution; however, the legality of this approach is questionable. 2.6.4

The USAID PRIORITAS response

USAID PRIORITAS has addressed a number of the issues noted above, in alignment with the Scope of Work. In particular, the project has worked to (1) strengthen pre-service training by introducing more practical modules, (2) improve links between TTIs and schools by strengthening practicums for trainee teachers that will support the development of PPL and PPG programs, (3) strengthen in-service training by developing and adapting training modules with TTIs, and (4) strengthen TTI links with districts and the Islamic schooling system. Each of these is discussed in the following sections. The project has also assisted districts, TTIs, MORHE, and MORA to analyze data on teacher deployment to better plan for future system requirements and current in-service training needs. This assistance is discussed in separate reports. 4

See USAID PRIORITAS. (2015). Teacher Deployment in Indonesia, Challenges and Solutions—November 2015; and USAID PRIORITAS. (2016a). An Investigation into the Teacher Deployment and Teacher Continuing Professional Development Programs in Indonesia – June 2016. A third report on supply and demand for teacher training is in preparation.

4

16

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

3 Strengthening Class-Based Pre-service Training As explained in the first section of this report, USAID PRIORITAS worked to strengthen preservice training in TTIs through four main sets of activities: (1) adapting materials/training modules for use in pre-service training; (2) developing a pre-service curriculum; (3) training TTI pedagogy lecturers; and (4) establishing a partnership between Florida State University (FSU) and the State University of Semarang (UNNES). Each of these is described below.

3.1

Adapting materials and training modules

During the first three years of project implementation, the project developed three sets of three modules for use in training teachers and education personnel, each covering (1) active learning for primary schools, (2) active learning for junior-secondary schools, and (3) schoolbased management. These modules form a series of six- and seven-day training packages both for primary and junior-secondary school teachers and for education personnel (principals and supervisors) (see Annex 2). The training includes in-school practical sessions. A cadre of teachers and principals was trained in each partner province and district to serve as facilitators, who trained practicing teachers in school clusters and subject-based working groups (KKG and MGMP). Lecturers from partner TTIs were trained alongside provincial facilitators in national workshops and served as facilitators at provincial level, strengthening their understanding and creating stronger linkages between the TTIs and districts. The modules were also used by TTI lecturers to train teachers in their own lab and partner schools (see Section 4.1.1 below). These materials were designed specifically for providing in-service training to teachers in clusters and working groups; however, most of the content was regarded as suitable to be incorporated into TTI pre-service courses—with adaptation. A series of workshops was held with participants from all partner TTIs over the three years to adapt the materials for this purpose. To ensure relevance and to further enrich the modules, training materials from the USAID-funded DBE2 Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE) and Active Learning in Schools (ALIS) were also considered in the process. The adapted modules are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Reference Materials for TTIs Module

Published

Good Practice in Teaching for Primary School Module 1

May 2013

Good Practice in Teaching for Junior-Secondary School Module 1

May 2013

Good Practice in School Management for Primary School and Junior-Secondary School Module I

May 2013

Good Practice in Teaching for Primary School Module II

May 2014

Good Practice in Teaching for Junior-Secondary School Module II

May 2014

Good Practice in School Management for Primary School and Junior-Secondary School Module II

May 2014

Good Practice in Teaching Early Grades Reading for Primary School Module III

August 2016

Good Practice in Teaching Upper Primary Grades Module III

August 2016

Good Practice in School Management for Primary School Module III

August 2016

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

17

These materials are intended for multi-use by TTI personnel both in pre-service and in-service teacher training. All are available online at no cost from the USAID PRIORITAS website.

3.2

Developing pre-service curriculum materials

In addition to using in-service materials adapted for TTIs, the project developed specific instructional materials to strengthen TTI course content in the selected areas of reading and literacy (early grades, upper primary and junior-secondary), mathematics (primary and juniorsecondary), and science (primary and junior-secondary). These materials are intended to enrich and extend the current TTI pre-service course content in identified units of study. The aim is to strengthen content (understanding of specific topics) and to improve pedagogical approaches in these content areas. The mathematics and science units also include a focus on language and literacy that are specific to each subject. The materials were designed for integration into pre-service courses or to be used as resource materials for teacher practicums, PPG, or in-service programs. The enrichment materials were developed by project-trained TTI facilitators in province-level working groups facilitated by the project, in consultation with representatives of the TTIs and stakeholders from national government (including the Teacher and Education Staff Development and Empowerment Center [P4TK], MOEC, MORA, and the Directorate General for Higher Education [DIKTI/ MORHE]). 5 The working groups began by reviewing current course content and identifying the areas of course content strength and weakness as well as identifying priorities for development. Examples of topics identified for development are noted as follows: •

Early Grades Reading and Literacy: What is Literacy? Teaching Literacy in Early Grades; Promoting a Literacy Environment; Teaching Reading – Strategies for Teaching Reading and Comprehension; The Reading Program – Shared Reading, Guided Reading, Independent Reading; The Writing Program; Using Big Books and Media.

•

Junior-Secondary Mathematics: Teaching Algebra; Number and Integer; Geometry and Measurement; Data and Statistics; Working Mathematically.

•

Junior-Secondary Science: Energy for Life; Adaptation Systems; Navigation Systems; Sonar Systems; Electricity; Global Warming; Working Scientifically; Literacy in Science: Report Writing; Science in Everyday life.

All topics were based on the competencies and approaches outlined in the 2013 Curriculum (MOEC). The source materials were developed over a two-year period in two phases, and they were published in January 2014 and March 2015 (see Table 3).

Table 3. Training Module

Primary Source Materials for TTIs Target Lecturers

Published

Literacy for Early Grades

PGSD departments

January 2014

Literacy for Primary School

PGSD departments

March 2015

Mathematics for Primary School

PGSD departments

March 2015

In 2015, DIKTI moved from under MOEC to the newly established Ministry for Research, Technology and Higher Education (MORHE). 5

18

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Training Module

Target Lecturers

Published

Science for Primary School

PGSD departments

March 2015

Mathematics for Junior-Secondary

Mathematics departments

January 2014

Science for Junior-Secondary

Science departments

January 2014

Literacy for Junior-Secondary

Indonesia Language departments

March 2015

3.3

Training for lecturers

USAID PRIORITAS has trained two sets of lecturers: (1) facilitators who are given intensive training, and (2) “pedagogy lecturers” who receive the basic training. The term “pedagogy lecturers” is used to refer to TTI lecturers responsible for teacher training, rather than teaching pure sciences or humanities subjects, and to differentiate these training participants from the lecturers designated as “facilitators,” who facilitated training for their colleagues. 3.3.1

Training of TTI facilitators

A group of lecturers was nominated as facilitators in each partner TTI. Initially the group consisted of 16 facilitators: eight primary teacher trainers (five of whom focused on teachingand-learning and three on school-based management), and eight junior-secondary teacher trainers (with the same composition). This number varied somewhat during the course of the project, as personnel changed and new materials and modules were developed, ultimately totaling 272 facilitators (an average of 17 per TTI). See Table 4 below. Starting in September 2014, 16 individuals were also hired over time as part-time TTI Coordinators. Of these 16, 13 had previously served as TTI facilitators. Whereas the TTI Facilitators were tasked primarily to deliver training, the TTI Coordinators were tasked to organize and coordinate the training. Sixty of these facilitators (four from each partner TTI) were trained in three annual, national “training-of-trainers” (TOT) events, along with school-level facilitators (teachers, principals, and supervisors), to prepare them to train others in in-service programs. Some facilitators also took part in the materials adaptation workshops described above (Section 3.1), in the development of curriculum materials and subsequent associated training (Section 3.2), and in the practicum programs described in Section 4, below. TTI facilitators were also trained during national TOT events called “Review and Preparation Workshops” (one from each partner TTI) or province level “Review and Planning Meetings” (16 from each partner TTI) prior to each round of training conducted in TTIs. This approach was used both for the adapted materials (described in Section 3.1) and curriculum materials (Section 3.2). These facilitators then took the lead in training colleagues in their own institutions, as well as from TTIs in the “consortia” established in each province, using the adapted materials and TTI curriculum materials. In addition to the extensive training they received, these facilitators have spent an average of 49 days in on-the-job training, acting as facilitators (and in some cases coordinators). Some have many more days of experience. The TTI facilitators have thus become a well-trained, experienced, and valuable resource for the TTIs and could form a core group for future development of TTIs as service providers. See Annex 3 for a complete list of TTI facilitators and their number of days of experience with USAID PRIORITAS.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

19

Table 4. Province

TTI

M

F

Total

Aceh

Universitas Syiah Kuala

6

10

16

Aceh

UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh

11

9

20

Aceh

Universitas Serambi Mekkah

1

0

1

North Sumatra

UIN North Sumatra

4

12

16

North Sumatra

Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED)

9

8

17

West Java

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)

10

4

14

West Java

UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung

9

8

17

Banten

UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin

7

10

17

Banten

Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

6

8

14

Banten

LPMP

0

1

1

Yogyakarta

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

5

11

16

Central Java

UIN Walisongo

7

8

15

Central Java

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES)

5

11

16

East Java

Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA)

10

7

17

East Java

Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM)

13

5

18

East Java

UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

7

11

18

East Java

LPMP Provinsi Jawa Timur

2

0

2

South Sulawesi

Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM)

10

10

20

South Sulawesi

UIN Alauddin Makassar

8

9

17

130

142

272

Total

3.3.2

TTI Facilitators

Training of TTI pedagogy lecturers in the adapted modules

Three rounds of training for pedagogy lecturers have been conducted in partner TTIs over three years. The first round of training took place in 2013. A total of 882 lecturers were trained. Participants came from the 16 partner TTIs and consortium members. Training was provided separately for Primary Teaching, Junior-Secondary Teaching, and School-Based Management, respectively. Each workshop was facilitated by up to eight project TTI facilitators who worked with project staff to prepare and deliver the training over three-day workshops. The Primary and Junior-Secondary workshops included practice teaching experience in partner schools, including former DBE district schools. The School-Based Management unit was particularly well received due to the lack of such materials currently available in the TTIs and requests from the districts for training in this area. Subsequent training events took place in 2014 and again in 2016, 6 using adapted modules for in-service teacher training and following a similar format. One significant and successful

Training for lecturers was not provided in the final round, due to budget constraints. However, training for the lab and partner schools was provided. 6

20

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

aspect of the training was lecturer participation in practice teaching, using project partner schools. During the workshop, the lecturers were assisted to develop lesson plans using active learning approaches and current curriculum initiatives. These lessons were taught in partner schools using a team-teaching approach. An example of the outcome of this training comes from South Sulawesi, where the following comments were made by the participants during the reflection session immediately after the first round of training: •

“It’s not easy to arrange the students. It took a long preparation. Teaching is quite difficult.”

•

“I was sweating and nervous, but I enjoyed it.”

•

“We have the theory, but we don’t have the application.”

•

“It was tiring and overwhelming but fine. It was difficult to arrange the classroom.”

•

“When I give instructions to student teachers it is easy. When I ask the school students, it’s difficult. It’s difficult to find the right motivation and to connect to the students.”

•

“All classes should always have two teachers in primary school. It’s too difficult for one teacher.”

•

“I was working until 2 am to make my lesson plan, and teachers must do this every day!”

•

“We learnt how to use a variety of materials. We will use these ideas from the training.”

The reflection sessions after these school sessions raised a number of issues related to teacher preparation and classroom management and how well TTI courses prepare students for the classroom in general. The experience opened a healthy dialogue between the school and the lecturers in a way that simulation in training could not. All expressed appreciation for the experience. The discussions also assisted lecturers and project staff to reflect and identify areas for improvement in teacher practicum programs. Another extremely valuable benefit from this exercise was the creation of a real connection between the lecturers and the staff of the participating partner schools. For example, at SD Sudirman 2 in South Sulawesi, many of the teachers were former students of the lecturers teaching in their classrooms, and a new level of understanding and respect was evident between the two groups. The school invited them back to observe and discuss their programs at any time. 3.3.3

Training of TTI pedagogy lecturers in the pre-service curriculum materials

Training, similar to the adapted modules, also took place in partner TTIs to introduce pedagogy lecturers to the curriculum reference materials in two rounds: in 2014 and in 2015. Following the completion of the first set of Pre-Service Curriculum Resource Materials in 2013, workshops were held in all provinces in early 2014 to train lecturers from partner TTIs and selected consortia partners in using the materials. Approximately 80 lecturers from partnerand consortia-member universities attended the training during February 2014 in each province. Using “key persons” to facilitate the training ensured the quality and consistency of workshops across the provinces. The key persons consisted of expert university staff and consultants who were instrumental in the development of their subject modules. The resource materials were introduced, explored, and implemented through activity sessions that linked theory to practice. As described in Section 3.2, above, the aim of the materials is to strengthen content knowledge of selected topics in teaching reading, mathematics, and The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

21

science, and most importantly, to show how this knowledge can be practically applied in the pre-service program. Some groups explored the activities at two levels: (1) to improve the methodology for teachers lecturing student teachers and (2) to improve the pedagogy for student teachers teaching in their practicums. The workshops consisted of an overview of the materials and explored the possible usage in a variety of situations including for lecturers and in pre-service practicum training and schoolbased in-service training programs. The facilitators selected a number of units to model and simulate, emphasizing the links between the knowledge developed and the practical application through problem-based or inquiry approaches. Participants were actively involved in trying out the activities and considering how these could enrich their current lecture program. A second round of training of TTI Pedagogy Lecturers in Curricula and Materials took place in early 2015 (following completion of materials in 2014). The 80 participants in each province included lecturers from the relevant departments of the PGSD and PGMI and were supported by resource persons, consultants, and project staff. The participants explored materials for the four subjects, working through the content presented for each unit, followed by participation in the practical application of the materials. USAID PRIORITAS has trained a total of 4,428 lecturers and others in the TTI program. The following Table 5 shows the number of TTI facilitators and teacher trainers who have received training (either in the adapted modules or pre-service curriculum materials or both) throughout the project to date. The table distinguishes TTI facilitators, who assisted with conducting the training, from training participants and participants in non-training activities (such as module preparation and coordination meetings). The table does not include participants from outside the partner TTIs who took part in the TTI training. This included LPMP personnel, teachers and principals from TTI partner schools. See Annex 8 for a complete list.

Table 5.

Number of Participant Lecturers by TTI Type and Type of Activity

TTI Type

TTI Facilitators

Province

Training Activity Participants Participants

TTI Partners

Aceh

37

190

65

TTI Partners

North Sumatra

33

232

40

TTI Partners

Banten

31

209

28

TTI Partners

West Java

32

176

27

TTI Partners

Central Java/DI Yogyakarta

47

236

89

TTI Partners

East Java

55

199

29

TTI Partners

South Sulawesi

37

189

45

272

1,431

323

TTI Partners Total TTI Consortia

Aceh

0

112

21

TTI Consortia

North Sumatra

0

81

22

TTI Consortia

Banten

0

86

20

TTI Consortia

West Java

0

90

4

TTI Consortia

Central Java/DI Yogyakarta

0

133

38

TTI Consortia

East Java

0

199

6

TTI Consortia

South Sulawesi

0

194

13

22

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Type

Province

TTI Facilitators

TTI Consortia Total Grand Total

3.4

Training Activity Participants Participants

0

895

124

272

2,326

447

Partnership between FSU and UNNES

With USAID PRIORITAS support, FSU formed a partnership with UNNES in September 2014 to: •

develop curricula and courses for pre- and in-service teacher training in developing reading and literacy, especially in the early grades;

•

develop and pilot supporting training and classroom materials; and

•

roll out these courses and materials to other TTIs.

FSU staff and consultants made five visits to Indonesia beginning in late 2014. An initial needs assessment was conducted by FSU and UNNES in November 2014 and concluded in November 2016. The program began with a workshop in May 2015, attended by UNNES lecturers and teachers from the university’s lab school, to introduce the participants to current research on how children learn to read and write, to discuss ways to improve existing preservice courses, and to prepare students to implement research-based literacy practices. The two TTIs identified resources to enhance current courses. Lecturers from UNNES then worked on the development of these resources. FSU staff and consultants held a series of activities with UNNES during July–August 2015, to finalize the learning resources that are grouped as follows: (1) Introduction, (2) Oral Language and Listening Comprehension, (3) Phonological Awareness, (4) Print/Alphabetic Awareness, (5) Word Reading, (6) Reading Fluency, (7) Vocabulary, and (8) Independent Reading. Subsequently, UNNES lecturers tried out the materials in their courses and evaluated their effectiveness. The FSU team returned for two weeks in February 2016 to complete a further four units and finalize all the units. They worked with UNNES to review with students the implementation of the eight reading course units that have already been completed and to finalize the remaining four units. All 12 units were edited prior to roll-out to the other 16 partner TTIs, which took place in October 2016. The purpose of FSU’s October 2016 trip was to work with UNNES to develop the materials, inputs, and facilitation techniques required to lead a five-day workshop on the new course for lecturers from universities across Indonesia as well as for USAID PRIORITAS staff. The fiveday workshop took place in Yogyakarta and included a practice teaching component, where university lecturers worked in teams to facilitate one of the lectures in the resource document. Although the completion of the resource documents proved somewhat challenging because of the logistics of collaborating between FSU and UNNES at a distance, UNNES and the other universities now have a very valuable resource document that can serve as a springboard for enriching literacy-based pre-service and in-service programs across the country. The activities contained are engaging, while also linked to important conceptual and theoretical understanding about children’s literacy and how it develops. It is intended that the materials can be used in their entirety or re-packaged for multiple purposes. The 12 core units, which become 16 when peer teaching and test units (italicized below) are included, are listed as follows:

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

23

1. Introduction to the development of literacy in early primary grades 2. Basic foundations for reading and writing: oral language and understanding listening 3. Initial steps in learning to read and write: developing phonological awareness 4. Skills for pre-reading, reading, writing: the concept of writing and alphabetic awareness 5. Transition to text: learning to read words 6. Supporting the development of word reading skills 7. Peer teaching/lesson study (concepts discussed in units 2–6) 8. Test (concepts discussed in units 2–6) 9. Supporting understanding: developing children’s reading fluency 10. Supporting understanding: developing children’s vocabulary skills 11. Putting it all together: developing understanding of children’s literacy 12. Developing a reading culture: supporting group and individual reading 13. The role of writing in early primary grades 14. Developing literacy skills through a thematic approach 15. Peer teaching/lesson study (concepts discussed in units 9–14) 16. Test (concepts discussed in units 9–14)

24

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

4 Strengthening Practical Pre-service Training In addition to strengthening the lecture component of pre-service training as described in the previous section, USAID PRIORITAS worked to strengthen the practical component of preservice training by improving TTI links to schools through three main sets of activities: (1) developing lab, partner, and “good practice” schools; (2) developing improved practicum programs; and (3) implementing a program of Classroom Action Research (CAR). USAID PRIORITAS also coordinated with the USAID PRESTASI project to enable lecturers from partner TTIs and government counterparts to travel to the USA for short courses in practical teacher training.

4.1

Developing laboratory, partner, and “good practice” schools

To provide a context for practical pre-service training, USAID PRIORITAS worked with TTIs to identify, train, and mentor TTI lab and partner schools. The project also jointly selected, trained, and mentored “good practice” schools intended to support pre-service teacher training in partner districts. 4.1.1

TTI laboratory and partner schools

As described in Section 2, pre-service teacher education in Indonesia is required to include teaching practice in authentic contexts to enable student teachers to make connections between theory and practice. USAID PRIORITAS worked with a small sub-set of schools to be used by partner TTIs for teaching practice and as a laboratory for piloting new teaching approaches. Most regular TTIs (not the Islamic institutions) had a designated laboratory or “lab" school in the past—some located within their campus and some nearby. With a few exceptions (UNY, UPI, UNNES, UM, and UNESA), this program had lapsed or been discontinued in the partner TTIs. In 2013, the TTIs and district education officials selected six primary and three juniorsecondary schools, based on agreed selection criteria. Where lab schools still existed, these were included. A total of 147 schools, referred to as “lab and partner schools” participated (97 primary schools and 50 junior-secondary schools). Most are in close proximity to the partner TTI, to encourage ongoing collaboration. In all cases except UNY, the schools are located within the same city as the TTI. These schools became the focal points for the Practicum and Classroom Action Research programs facilitated by the project and described below. The lab and partner schools received intensive support over the life of the project, commencing with a study visit to local DBE districts, where they observed good practices in teaching and learning, school-based management, and community participation. A series of training workshops was then held for the schools using USAID PRIORITAS in-service, wholeschool development training modules. Schools received training using the Primary, JuniorSecondary, and School-Based Management modules 1, 2, and 3 over a three-year period. A total of 2,212 persons participated in the first round of training in 2013–2014, including 490 lecturers who wished to learn more about the USAID PRIORITAS program. To provide continued support, project staff and TTI facilitators made regular one-day visits to the schools for mentoring, planning, and assistance. The schools typically received a visit every two to three months. These visits continued until the time of writing this report. In early 2016, meetings were held between the TTIs and the lab and partner schools. These meetings provided an opportunity for the TTIs to review the program, together with project specialists

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

25

and the schools. Mentoring visits in the final year of project implementation will focus on group lesson study approaches that can be sustained after the project concludes. 4.1.2

Good practice schools

The project’s scope of work refers to “lab and model schools,” which were to act as a locus for the integration of the governance and management and the teaching and learning dimensions of USAID PRIORITAS. Because the term “model school” has been used in other programs in Indonesia and has connotations that are not compatible with the project’s view of the schools, the term “good practice schools” was adopted instead. These are distinct from the “lab and partner schools” described above and were located in partner districts, mostly not in the vicinity of the TTIs, although within the same provinces. The project thus created a network of good practice schools across partner provinces and districts. It was intended that these schools would act as “teaching” schools, where student teachers could undertake teaching practice in a supportive environment, surrounded by examples of good practice and assisted by experienced and capable practitioners, and where in-service teachers and school managers would have the opportunity to observe good practices. It was further intended that the good practice schools would host visits from other schools, both from inside and outside of their district, to share good practices with their colleagues. It was also expected that these schools would include some of the TTI lab or partner schools and USAID PRIORITAS partner schools. As the implementation of the project evolved, the “good practice school” program developed independently of the “lab and partner schools.” The term “good practice schools” came to refer specifically to selected project partner schools that had participated in the core training. Districts were asked to select up to four of their partner schools that represented good practices in both primary and junior-secondary education and included regular and Islamic schools. These schools were selected from Cohort 1 districts in 2014, from Cohort 2 in 2015, and Cohort 3 in 2016. A total of 164 schools were selected from Cohorts 1 and 2. Schools were also selected from Cohort 3 districts, but the program was discontinued before any training could be conducted. A program of meetings and study visits by good practice schools to other provinces was followed up with a three-day province-level training activity for the schools. The workshops focused on improving the teaching of early grades reading and literacy, along with mathematics and science for primary and junior-secondary schools. While it was intended that these schools would provide a hub for TTI practicums and in-service programs, it was found that the distance between the schools and the TTIs was too great and prevented the development of practical working relationships between the TTIs and the schools. The TTIs did not have any real sense of ownership of this program or of the “good practice schools.” The program was, therefore, discontinued, following advice from USAID, in mid-2016.

4.2

Developing improved practicum programs

As described in Section 3, above, during the first three years, USAID PRIORITAS trained pedagogy lecturers, teachers, and principals in lab and partner schools. Building on this practical work, the project worked with the national government and partner TTIs in 2015– 2016 to review and improve the quality and effectiveness of teacher practicum programs, and the project trained lecturers and supervisors in improved practicums. 26

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

As described in Section 2 of this report, TTIs currently offer practice teaching programs as part of the pre-service component (the two- to three-month practicum known as PPL), and some have introduced the one-year post-graduate PPG program in a limited way. The latter includes two components: (1) Semester 1, with practice-oriented workshops conducted on campus; and (2) Semester 2, with an extended “PPL” practicum conducted in schools. The current materials and approaches to practicums were reviewed in a series of national meetings with “key persons” from TTIs, MORHE, and other stakeholders. This review revealed a number of problems: (1) a lack of content and instruction in student-centered inquiry approaches; (2) theory-based lecture programs, which are not connected to the practice to be carried out in schools; (3) inadequate programming of the practice teaching component; and (4) inadequate support from lecturers for student teachers, apart from their role as assessors. While some programs were reasonably well designed, with meetings and information supplied to the supervising teachers taking part in the program and outlining teaching requirements for students, others were ad hoc arrangements, relying on the skills and commitment of the supervising teacher to provide appropriate skills development and opportunities for effective classroom practices. The important role of the supervising teacher was often overlooked, and no special training or information was provided to these teachers to prepare them for receiving student teachers. The role of the supervising lecturer was also explored, and approaches to assessment and instruments were reviewed. USAID PRIORITAS worked with heads of practicum departments from partner TTIs, representatives from MORHE, lecturers, supervising teachers, consultants, and project staff to develop materials to improve the effectiveness of the school experience program for student teachers. These materials were published in two sets, as described below. The first set is designed to support preparation for practicums and the second set to support implementation of the practicums. 4.2.1

Materials to support PPG preparation workshops

The materials form a module that regular pedagogy lecturers and PPG workshop lecturers can use to provide a more focused and practical-based program for student-teacher practicum preparation, prior to placement in schools for the school experience program. This material will be useful for Semester 1 of PPG, which is the first half of the one-year PPG program, and in which fresh graduates spend time in the TTI preparing for their practicum. The aim is to enrich the existing curriculum for the PPG Workshop, which focuses more on preparing lesson plans and microteaching. The workshop materials include the following units: Unit 1: Active Learning Unit 2: Reflective Journal Unit 3: Higher Order Questions and Worksheets Unit 4: Authentic Assessment Unit 5: Teaching Preparation Unit 6: Peer Teaching Practice Unit 7: Portfolio Unit 8: Follow-up Planning

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

27

Following a national TOT, workshops to introduce the materials to the TTI pedagogy lecturers responsible for practicums took place in all provinces in May 2015. All TTIs now have the materials available in file format for inclusion in their programs. 4.2.2

Materials to support the PPL and PPG practicum programs

These materials are intended to improve the management of teacher practicums, both regular PPL programs and the extended PPL, which form part of the one-year, post-graduate PPG program. The second part of the PPG program is a one-semester placement in schools for a program of school experience, providing students the opportunity to develop teaching skills supervised by a classroom teacher and monitored by lecturers from the TTI. Materials in the module include: Unit 1. Reflective Journal Unit 2. Conference Unit 3. Observation Unit 4. Guided Teaching Unit 5. Independent Teaching Unit 6. Authentic Assessment Unit 7. Practice in School Unit 8. Follow-up Planning A national TOT was conducted to prepare facilitators to introduce the materials in April 2016. This was followed with province-level workshops for pedagogy lecturers, which, at the time of writing, are currently underway.

4.3

Classroom Action Research

Classroom Action Research (CAR) is a popular method of research and professional development in Indonesia and elsewhere. Universities require students to complete an action research investigation as part of their coursework, and MOEC requires teachers to submit action research investigations to gain credit points towards accreditation. The GOI is supportive and wishes to promote CAR as a method for teacher professional development in which individuals and groups of teachers can widely participate to improve practice through informed investigation. The project’s CAR program took place over one year, between October 2014 and September 2015. A national key-persons meeting determined the technical and operational parameters for a program that placed classroom teachers at the center of the investigation, supported by TTI facilitators and lecturers. Research conducted by teams of TTI lecturers and teachers, and supported by project facilitators and staff, has been recognized as a way to promote linkages between the TTIs, their student teachers, and their practice teaching schools. Bringing TTI lecturers into schools ensures that they connect with real life situations in classrooms and benefit from a better understanding of the teaching and learning issues that teachers face daily. CAR research teams were formed consisting of four members: one TTI lecturer from a practice teaching department, one TTI project facilitator, and two teachers selected from a TTI lab or 28

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

partner school. Each partner TTI selected two teams, and a total of 128 CAR Team members met at an initial meeting in October 2014. During this meeting, teams discussed aims and goals, were introduced to a simple model for classroom action research, and worked on the formulation of clear research questions to be answered. A total of 20 provincial workshops, held between November 2014 and April 2015, provided opportunities for teams to meet for planning, data collection, writing, and reviewing the research process. The time-frame proved optimal in allowing revisions and revisits to schools, where necessary, to collect additional data or to pilot ideas for intervention. A National Review meeting, held in June 2015, provided teams with the chance to share their draft CAR reports, receive feedback from staff and peers, and finalize materials for completion. The completed research of selected CAR teams was presented to TTI, MOEC, MORA, MORHE, and project representatives in September 2015. The provinces and main subject areas were all represented by the seven teams, who presented their work to interested attendees. The ministry representatives commented very positively on the standard achieved by the teams and the perspectives gained through the cooperation between the TTIs and their partner school teachers. MOEC has requested assistance to revise the CAR guidelines and process that they are currently implementing, with the view of adopting a more clear and simplified approach to CAR, as demonstrated by the project CAR activity. The CAR was a major activity and was deemed highly successful and effective, both by research teams and those who shared in the final outputs of the process.

4.4

Short courses for TTI lecturers in the USA

USAID PRIORITAS collaborated with the USAID PRESTASI project to contribute to improved teacher practicum programs in Indonesia. The program provided opportunities for key persons at partner universities and for GOI representatives to visit a US university, with the aim of identifying best practices in teacher preparation and with a special focus on teacher practicums. Two cohorts of lecturers and government officials visited the USA under this program. The lecturers spent two months (eight weeks) in country. All were from USAID PRIORITAS partner TTIs, jointly selected with the TTIs and PRESTASI according to agreed criteria. All had a proven commitment to implementing USAID PRIORITAS programs for quality improvement in their institutions. The in-country short courses were preceded by a two-week preparation period and were followed up with a one-week debriefing and planning session in Jakarta. A group of government officials visited each group for one week (during the middle of the course period), accompanied by USAID PRIORITAS personnel. The first group of 25 participants attended the eight-week course at Michigan State University (MSU) in late 2015. Three GOI representatives (from MOEC and MORA) visited for one week to familiarize themselves with the program, meet with representatives of the US education system, and observe the program. The varied activities at MSU included school visits, discussions with stakeholders, and intensive discussion with MSU lecturers, intended to enhance the TTI lecturers’ project planning abilities, which had been developed in Indonesia prior to their departure. Ministry staff obtained knowledge and experience about the education system in the USA, teacher assessment, and teacher preparation (including teacher practicum programs). Mutual understanding between TTI lecturers and MOEC and MORA were also developed. The MOEC

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

29

and MORA representatives committed to providing concrete support for the implementation of TTI lecturers’ action plans for the teaching practicum upon the completion of the program. The second cohort of 25 lecturers attending the eight-week program, also at MSU, was selected from UPI, UNY, IAIN Banten, UIN Alauddin Makassar, UINSA, UIN Ar Raniry Aceh, and UIN Medan. Five national ministry representatives visited for one week. Opportunities were provided for them to meet with Michigan Department of Education (MDE) staff, who discussed issues such as teacher preparation, teacher certification, assessment, and professional development. The role of the university and certification standards was also discussed. Further meetings were held with the Dean of the College of Education at the university and staff from various units in MSU. The group visited the Chicago Public School Board of Education and two elementary schools to observe the teaching and learning activities. The ministry group met with the TTI participants, who presented their study progress to the group. The participation of the GOI representatives was intended to promote concrete support for the implementation of practicum action plans developed during the program.

30

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

5 Developing the Role of TTIs as Service Providers In addition to pre-service teacher training, USAID PRIORITAS addressed the actual and potential role for TTIs in providing in-service training for practicing teachers. Three interrelated USAID PRIORITAS programs are associated with in-service training: (1) collaborating in the design and delivery of in-service training in project partner schools; (2) strategic business planning; and (3) developing partnerships with districts and with MORA. Each is discussed in this report section. It was originally envisaged that USAID PRIORITAS would identify and develop within each TTI organizational structure a location that could function as a “service provider” center. However, at the start of the project, an initial survey found that few of the institutions had any kind of “center” for service provision of this sort. Many had some history of service delivery, but institutional capacity was generally weak, institutional arrangements varied widely, and most had no identifiable “center.” With some notable exceptions (particularly UPI and UNM), the “services” provided were generally individually based and not institutionalized. In the revised Scope of Work, USAID PRIORITAS was tasked to work “…with appropriate sections within TTIs and universities’ education departments as hubs for effective practices.” As a result, the focus for project interventions varied, and the project has worked with different sections, centers, and individuals within the TTIs to help them build capacity as “service providers” and create linkages with schools, districts, and MORA as users of services provided.

5.1

Design and delivery of in-service training

Representatives of partner TTIs were involved in designing and implementing an in-service training program known as “whole school development,” to improve teaching and learning as well as school-based management in 1,243 partner schools (842 primary and 401 juniorsecondary) in 50 partner districts. TTI personnel, including TTI facilitators and TTI personnel directly hired by the project, were an integral part of the teams responsible for the design, writing, delivery, and review of three training modules provided to these partner schools over four years of project implementation. Facilitators from partner TTIs took part in all national- and province-level TOT events. In some provinces, TTI facilitators continued to be involved in delivering training and mentoring schools and teachers at school and school cluster level (KKG and MGMP). This involvement occurred in Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi. Thus, the TTI facilitators were prepared through practical on-the-job training at every level to act as service providers delivering training or conducting TOTs for district facilitators and key teachers in partner districts or for MORA. As described in Section 4.1.1, above, TTI consultants and facilitators also directly delivered this same training to 147 lab and partner schools. This approach is being strengthened in the final phase of the project by directly tasking the TTIs to design a set of training modules (Module 4), and supporting them to do so. As a work in progress, two module development workshops were held with TTI lecturers in November and early December 2016. The aim was to further develop the capacity of the TTIs to take on a future role of preparing and managing teacher in-service training. A total of 80 juniorsecondary level lecturers and 80 primary level lecturers took part in the workshops, focused on developing training modules for good practice in literacy, science, and math at both levels.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

31

5.2

Strategic business planning

TTIs took part in a series of workshops to explore ways for the TTIs to develop a more entrepreneurial and businesslike approach as service providers to districts and other education systems. This series was conceived as a cross-sectoral program linking the TTI development program under Component 1 with the district and provincial governance and management program under Component 2. The ultimate aim is that TTIs will form strategic partnerships (often formalized with a Memorandum of Understanding or MOU) with provinces, districts, and other education systems (including MORA) and will provide ongoing teacher inservice training along with other services, thereby taking over the functions currently provided by donor-funded projects, such as USAID PRIORITAS. 5.2.1

Strategic planning workshops

A national-level TTI Strategic Business Planning workshop was held in Jakarta in June 2015. This workshop was attended by the Director of Higher Education of MORA, the Inspector General of MOEC, and the Secretary General of MORHE, indicating a high level of interest in this program. The project’s 16 TTI partners presented their experiences as service providers, and all participants discussed the opportunities and challenges in developing a role for TTIs as service providers. This Strategic Business Planning program continued with a series of province-level workshops for TTIs in late 2015. The aim was to develop the capacity of TTIs to provide in-service training and consultancy services to districts and provinces. In the past, some TTIs have signed MOUs with districts or provinces, but the tendency is for individuals rather than institutions to provide assistance on an individual contract basis. The risk with this approach is that it weakens the TTIs as institutions, by taking the most talented individuals away from their work in the TTI. In the longer term, it is hoped that TTIs will begin to take on the functions currently provided by donor-funded projects—that of supporting the education system to improve quality. The province-level Strategic Business Planning workshops focused on the following: •

Developing understanding of the role of a service provider in a competitive and qualityoriented environment;

•

Identifying existing services provided by TTIs and sharing good practices in training, consultancy, and service delivery;

•

Identifying needs for support with teacher in-service training in districts and in MORA and matching TTI planning with those needs; and

•

Discussing institutional arrangements for managing personnel, finances, etc.

The workshops were attended by high-level officials from partner TTI and consortia members, in most cases rectors and/or vice-rectors, along with heads of MORA offices and representative district education offices, plus provincial government representatives and TTI personnel, including those who have been working with USAID PRIORITAS, both as facilitators for training and as consultants for the governance and management program. Each workshop resulted in a draft plan for each TTI to provide services to match the needs in partner districts and MORA.

32

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

5.2.2

Continuing professional development (CPD) planning/budgeting workshops

Notwithstanding the constraints imposed by legal structures described in Section 2.6.3, above, in the short term, it is hoped that some TTIs will be willing and able to take a more proactive and entrepreneurial role as a service provider. To facilitate this process, USAID PRIORITAS involved representatives of partner TTIs in the Continuing Professional Development (Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan or PKB) planning and budgeting program, implemented with partner districts (Cohort 1, 2, 3, and former DBE districts) during 2015– 2016. As described in Section 5.2.1 above, the province-level TTI Strategic Planning workshops enabled the TTIs to develop plans to provide a service to the districts, based on the needs that those districts have identified in the PKB planning program. In this way, it was hoped that the demand from districts would be matched by supply from the TTIs. Specifically, it is expected that TTIs may be able to provide TOTs to train more facilitators in districts to meet the demand of disseminating USAID PRIORITAS module training to all teachers. TTIs may also assist districts with activities such as monitoring and evaluation of training, teacher deployment mapping and policy development, financial analysis, and strategic planning. Representatives of the TTIs participated in a series of workshops with districts, conducted under Component 2, the Governance and Management program, to support planning and budgeting of CPD. The intention was to link the two activities, so that the TTIs are able to develop their role as service providers to support the districts in planning and implementing CPD programs with their teachers. In this context, representatives of the TTIs were given opportunities to “market” their services to the districts and MORA, outlining the range of inservice training programs they can provide, including dissemination of the USAID PRIORITAS training packages. 5.2.3

Designing and delivering in-service training

In the final year of the project, the TTIs are expected to take on a greater role in designing and delivering USAID PRIORITAS in-service training, to strengthen their capacity to act as service providers to the districts and MORA. Work will continue with districts and MORA to strengthen links with the TTIs, as partners/service providers able to assist in the implementation of ongoing plans for teacher in-service training. These in-service training plans include those incorporated into district five-year strategic plans, known as “renstra,” as a result of the PKB planning workshops described above (Section 5.2.2).

5.3

Partnerships with districts and MORA

The project also worked with TTIs to build capacity in partner districts to improve teacher management (teacher deployment and continuing professional development), to plan, budget, and implement effective in-service teacher training programs, and to support the implementation of those programs. Many TTIs established MOUs and working agreements with districts and MORA offices as a result. 5.3.1

Partnerships

TTIs took part in province-level workshops with districts and MORA to jointly prepare budgeted plans for teacher in-service training programs, many of which were adopted as part of district

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

33

five-year strategic plans. Table 6, below, illustrates the number of formal partnerships between the TTIs and partner districts, provinces, MORA offices, and other agencies.

Table 6.

MOUs and Formal Partnerships between TTIs and Other Agencies (Districts, Provinces, and MORA) Province

State Universities (TTI)

Islamic TTI

Aceh

21

7

North Sumatra

60

6

Banten

7

9

West Java

5

6

Central Java

9

1

Yogyakarta

5

NA

East Java

32

7

South Sulawesi

64

10

TOTAL

203

46

As illustrated in Table 6 above, at least 249 relevant MOUs or formal partnerships exist between partner TTIs and districts, schools, MORA offices, or other agencies. The above is not an exhaustive list, as it proved challenging to obtain complete data from the institutions in the time available. It is also unclear how many of these MOUs are meaningful, in terms of real activity, real partnership. However, the list does give an indication of the depth and breadth of the TTIs’ engagement with districts and other partners as service providers. Based on this information, on average, each institution currently has 16 such working agreements. Some of the MOUs and partnerships have arisen directly from the project’s work to bring the TTIs together with the districts and MORA as a “service provider” that is able to provide support, especially in delivering teacher in-service training and disseminating good practices. Many were developed independently of USAID PRIORITAS. However, the project’s activities have strengthened and supported the implementation of many of these partnerships. Some MOUs are with individual schools; many are with local governments; and some are with government agencies, businesses, or private agencies. Most focus on the TTI’s role as a provider of education, training, research, assessment, community development, or capacity building (institutional strengthening or human resource development). A full list of the partnership agreements is provided in Annex 5. Most of these partnership agreements focus on the role of the TTI in supporting districts to improve quality through teacher in-service training. Others cover supporting roles for TTIs, such as teacher practicums (PPL), selection of principals, curriculum review, literacy programs, community outreach, leadership development, CAR, and other research activities. Some TTIs are more advanced than others in developing a role as a service provider. In particular, UPI and UNM both have well-defined programs and centers. UPI has provided extensive services to partner districts, including in other provinces, such as South Sumatra, where they have delivered a comprehensive program to train teachers in the lesson plan approach. UNM has established a center known as the Effective Schools Center (Pusat Sekolah Efektif), partly as a result of the interventions of DBE. Meanwhile, UNIMED has worked closely with USAID PRIORITAS to establish a new role as a service provider to districts across the province. The textbox below provides a brief case study on the recent experience with UNIMED. 34

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

The case of UNIMED, North Sumatra A series of meetings have been held during recent years between USAID PRIORITAS staff and Prof. Syawal Gultom, Rector of UNIMED. This TTI participated actively in strategic planning workshops and is a strong supporter of the USAID PRIORITAS approach. Professor Gultom asked USAID PRIORITAS to help draw up a step-by-step design for UNIMED to strenghten its role as a service provider. At recent meetings, on September 16 and October 5, 2016, the plan was discussed in detail with Professor Gultom.

Key points discussed are noted as follows: 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

5.3.2

The Rector indicated that he is very keen to see that the USAID PRIORITAS program is sustainable, and he intends that UNIMED will continue to support the implementation of good practices in the university, districts, and schools that were begun by USAID PRIORITAS. The purpose, objectives, and structure required for the university to become an active service provider have been clarified. The Rector has discussed the proposal with his Assistant Rectors and fully supports the establishment of a service provider entity within the university. It has been agreed that the service provider unit will report directly to the Rector within UNIMED. All lecturers on the staff and all trained USAID PRIORITAS facilitators will be included in the structure of this service provider body. As a service provider, UNIMED also intends to facilitate the revitalization of other TTIs in the area, especially at the district level. This revitalization is to be included in the service provider program design. One of the tools to be used for this purpose includes the routine TTI consortium meetings established by USAID PRIORITAS and led by UNIMED. The Rector requested that during the transition period at the end of the project, USAID PRIORTAS help facilitate cooperation between UNIMED and the USAID PRIORITAS partner districts. In response to a request, USAID PRIORITAS prepared a position paper (naskah akademik) to provide the rationale for establishing the service provider unit within UNIMED. UNIMED has already commenced establishing MOUs with local districts to support whole-school development. The initial plan is to pilot the program with five districts—Serdang Bedagai, Labura, Tobasa, Labuhan Batu, Humbahas, and Deli Serdang. In each district, a “Teacher Clinic” will be established, where teachers can receive needs-based CPD. The clinic will serve as a venue/forum for upgrading and refreshing the skills of district facilitators as well as providing targeted training for teachers with special requirements—or for underperforming teachers.

“Service provider” consulting personnel

In addition to these formal MOUs, USAID PRIORITAS worked with representatives of the TTIs under Component 2 as “service provider” personnel (SP) to support the implementation of activities to improve the management and governance of education at district and province level, including with MORA. Table 7 shows that a group of 38 SP was selected from partner

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

35

TTIs in each province. 7 See Annex 4 for a full list. These consultants, or “SP,” have varying sets of expertise and experience in facilitating project activities such as teacher deployment calculations and policy development, training needs analysis, and planning and budgeting for CPD. The average number of days spent in on-the-job training through USAID PRIORITAS is 43, although the training duration ranges from 4 to 138 days. Many also have previous experience with DBE1 or on other projects. This group thus represents an experienced and capable resource for TTIs as service providers and for districts and MORA regional offices as service users.

Table 7.

Governance and Management Consultants Trained in TTIs

Province

TTI

Number of TTI Governance and Management Consultants

Aceh

Unsyiah (2); IAIN Ar-Raniry (3); USM Banda Aceh (1)

6

North Sumatra

UNIMED (2); IAIN Sumut (1)

3

Banten

IAIN SMH Banten (3); UNTIRTA (1)

4

West Java

UPI (4); UIN Bandung (3)

7

Central Java

IAIN Walisongo (2); UNNES (1); IKIP PGRI Semarang (1); UKSW Salatiga (1); UNY (2); LPMP Jawa Tengah (1)

8

East Java

UNM (3); IAIN Sunan Ampel (1); UNESA (1)

5

South Sulawesi

UNM (4); UIN Alauddin (1)

5

TOTAL

38

Building on the successful DBE1 approach, these consultants (or “facilitators”) took part in the developing approaches and materials, piloting of these, and rolling out programs under Component 2 in all provinces. The two main programs in this context were (1) Teacher Deployment (Penataan dan Pemerataan Guru), and (2) Continuing Professional Development (Pengembangan Keprofesian Keberlanjutan or PKB). The Teacher Deployment program assisted districts to map their current teacher deployment, identify issues, and develop and implement policies to improve teacher deployment, based on needs. This program included teacher transfers, mobile teachers, multi-grade teaching, school mergers, and retraining. The CPD program focused particularly on developing budgeted, needs-based plans for dissemination of good practices and in-service training developed under Component 1, and culminated in the integration of these plans into five-year strategic plans for districts (renstra) and provincial MORA plans. The intention is that these SP are able to provide ongoing consulting services to districts and to MORA, facilitating the same programs in other districts or provinces, and continuing to support partner districts and MORA beyond the life of the project.

The individuals and the total number changed slightly during the project. The individuals referred to in this report are those currently active as “service provider” personnel.

7

36

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

6 Dissemination While the focus of the TTI program has been primarily on a group of 16 partner institutions (17 including the TTI in West Papua), 8 the intention is that good practices and systems established in partner TTIs will be disseminated to a wider group. This aim has been addressed through three related programs where (1) a consortium of partner TTIs were established in each province, with the aim of disseminating to the wider group good practices and programs developed in partner TTIs; (2) showcase events were held to promote to a wider audience, including national stakeholders and policymakers, the good practices developed with TTIs; and (3) internal dissemination of good practices was encouraged within the partner TTIs and consortia members, and limited support was provided by the project in response to demand to provide support.

6.1

TTI consortia

In the first few months of the project, the 16 initial partner TTIs were selected according to the following criteria: 1. TTIs with teacher training as the main activity 2. Having past successful experience working with the DBE project (DBE1, 2, and/or 3) 3. Considered by central and provincial governments to be key institutions within their province 4. Working with the USAID-funded Higher Education Leadership and Management (HELM) project 5. Stated enthusiasm and commitment from TTI’s leadership to be included in the proposed USAID PRIORITAS program 6. Taking representation of private, state, Islamic, and non-Islamic institutions into account 7. Other factors, including membership of an existing consortium 8. Willingness to become a mentor to other TTIs and to disseminate best practices 9. Accredited by MOEC to conduct a teacher certification program. In addition, the project took into account TTIs that were members of the Pittsburgh University Consortium, formed under DBE. The project also ensured that a mixture of state and private, general and Islamic institutions was chosen. In many cases, the choice of key institutions was quite obvious. Some are prominent TTIs and were strong DBE partners. In other cases, further consultation and analysis were required before reaching a decision on which TTIs to include. At the same time, a group of TTIs was selected to form a “consortium” associated with each of these partner TTIs. A total of 31 additional TTIs were identified as provincial consortium partners (see Table 8). 9

Note that STKIP Muhammadiyah Manokwari, the partner TTI in West Papua, joined the project much later than others (in 2014) and has received a different program, adjusted to suit the context. This institution is much smaller than others. As it is the only TTI in West Papua, there is no consortium in this province. 9 Note that the original group included two more TTIs: Universitas Jember and STAIN Bone, both of which were active members until 2015, when they withdrew. 8

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

37

Table 8. Province

TTI Partners and Consortia

TTI Partners

TTI Consortia

Aceh Aceh Aceh Aceh Number North Sumatra

Universitas Negeri Medan

North Sumatra

IAIN Sumatra Utara, Medan

North Sumatra North Sumatra Number Banten Banten

IAIN Sumatra Utara, Medan IAIN Sumatra Utara, Medan

Banten Banten Number West Java West Java West Java West Java Number Central Java

Universitas Sultan Agung Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Agung Tirtayasa

Central Java Central Java Central Java

Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry UIN Ar-Raniry UIN Ar-Raniry

2

IAIN Banten IAIN Banten

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia UIN Bandung UIN Bandung Universitas Negeri Semarang

2

2

Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Walisongo Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Walisongo

Central Java

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java

Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Surabaya IAIN Sunanampel, Surabaya AIN Sunanampel, Surabaya

South Sulawesi

Universitas Negeri Makassar

South Sulawesi South Sulawesi

UIN Sultan Alauddin Makassar UIN Sultan Alauddin Makassar

South Sulawesi

UIN Sultan Alauddin Makassar

West Papua

STKIP Muhammadiyah Manokwari

TOTAL

2

3

3

2

Universitas Al Muslim Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Universitas Jabbal Gofur Universitas Serambi Mekkah, Banda Aceh Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatra Utara (UMSU) Universitas Muslim Nusantara Al Washliyah (UMN-AW) Universitas HKBP Nommensen (UHN) Universitas Sisingamangaraja Tapanuli (UNITA) UNMA (Universitas Mathla'ul Anwar) Pandeglang UMT (Universitas Muhammadiyah) Kota Tangerang UNBJA (Universitas Banten Jaya) Kota Serang STKIP Setiabudhi Rangkasbitung Lebak UNINUS Bandung UNPAS Bandung STAI Siliwangi Cimahi IAID Ciamis

4

4

4

4

Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (UKSW) Salatiga Universitas PGRI Semarang Institut Agama Islam Negeri (IAIN) Purwokerto Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri (STAIN) Pekalongan Universitas Negeri Sebelas Maret Surakarta (UNS)

5

Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri Universitas PGRI Adi Buana IKIP PGRI Madiun Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo STAIN Tulung Agung STAIN Ponorogo Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo (UNCOK Palopo) Universitas Muhammadiyah Pare-pare (UMPAR) Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar (UNISMUH) IAIN Palopo

6

4

1 17

31

Regular meetings were held with the partner TTIs and consortia members in each province throughout the project. These meetings have taken place twice a year since Year 2 of the project, providing a forum for provincial partners and their consortia to share information on project activities and to promote dissemination of good practices. 38

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

The content and form of these meetings varied in each province. Typically, TTI partners and consortia presented brief progress reports on project activity. Participants discussed how to improve the quality of lectures and of practice teaching (PPL). In some cases, senior TTI representatives, who had taken part in the TTI training in the USA (See Section 4.4), gave presentations on topics such as “Learning Systems in U.S. Education.” Group discussions focused on successful project implementation and dissemination strategies in the TTIs. Activities that flowed from these meetings included dissemination of training for TTI lecturers who have not yet taken part in project activities, mentoring for trained TTI lecturers, and incorporating active learning into micro-teaching and practicum teaching (PPL) programs; requiring students who undertake micro-teaching and practicum programs to implement active learning, expanding implementation of active learning for the one-year postgraduate practice teaching programs and PLPG programs, and programming active learning as a main activity of community services. Representatives of consortia TTI have also been routinely included in many of the activities described earlier in this report.

6.2

Showcase events

To showcase the good practices developed under USAID PRIORITAS and encourage wider dissemination, TTI showcase events were held in each province and at the national level. This national showcase event, referred to as “National TTI Partner Review Meeting,” was held at the MOEC head office in April 2014. It brought together representatives of the national ministries and all partner TTIs to share in project activities and achievements during Year 2 of the project. The TTI partners created a visual showcase of achievements and panel discussions and reviewed progress, needs, and future program activities. Showcase meetings for TTIs in the seven partner provinces took place over the two-year period, 2015–2016. The meetings provided a forum for sharing progress, success, and outcomes from project training, workshops, and activities. The events included displays from partner universities and lab schools, which highlight examples of improved teacher planning and professional development, as well as examples of student work, illustrating inquiry-based, active learning approaches. Talk shows, including panels representing TTIs, district education office staff, and central government education representatives, highlighted progress made and served as fora to discuss issues and challenges faced in improving education quality and delivery to schools and universities. The showcases attracted attention from high-level ministry officials, including attendance from MOEC’s Director of Primary Education, Special Staff to the Minister for Education (Echelon 1), Special Staff for the Minister (MORHE), Head of Higher Education Section, Kemenko PMK, rectors from partner and consortia universities, and other high level officials from both MORA and MORHE.

6.3

Dissemination training

Following the training of lecturers, teachers, and student teachers using the adapted modules and the reading, math, and science modules described in Sections 3 and 4, above, USAID PRIORITAS started receiving requests from partner and consortia TTIs to disseminate the training to additional lecturers and teachers. The project allocated a small budget for each TTI to support such activities. The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

39

In this way, the success of the TTI program and the developed materials has spread among the project-partner and consortia TTI members. To encourage ownership and sustainability, the project responded to these requests by providing only facilitators and materials. The host TTI is responsible for planning and funding all other training components, including participant costs. As shown in Table 9, below, at the time of writing this report, 33 workshops had been held by TTIs, with limited support from the project, to disseminate USAID PRIORITAS training to lecturers, students, and teachers within the partner TTIs, in consortia TTIs, and in lab and partner schools, including madrasah. Approximately 2,500 participants have been trained in these activities, mostly over three or four days each. Details are included in Annex 6. The host TTI selects training materials that they feel suit their needs, and TTI facilitators provide a customized program. In addition to the workshops, some universities have conducted dissemination activities independently. In these cases, it is not as easy to report on the impact, as the project is no longer involved directly and it is difficult to collect complete data. One such activity, training for improved teacher practicums, took place in Makassar in August 2016. The two-day activity, fully funded by UNM, used the practicum module developed under USAID PRIORITAS. Five units were delivered: Unit 1, Writing a Reflective Journal; Unit 2, Conferencing; Unit 3, School and Class Observation; Unit 4, Supervising Teaching Practice; and Unit 5, Independent Teaching Practice. Some 173 participants attended, including 52 lecturers responsible for PPL and PPG, 29 school principals, 29 deputy school heads, and 63 supervising teachers (guru pamong). This model is one that could provide impetus to the program for TTIs as service providers, because it is likely to have a high level of sustainability after project interventions end.

Table 9.

TTI Dissemination Activities through December 2016 Number of TTI Dissemination Activities

Number of Participants Trained in TTI Dissemination Activities

Aceh

5

931

North Sumatra

6

270

Banten

2

169

West Java

1

47

Central Java

4

172

East Java

3

165

South Sulawesi

12

739

TOTAL

33

2,493

Province

40

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

7 Outcomes and Impact As described in the introduction to this report, USAID PRIORITAS has worked with 16 key TTIs over the past four-and-a-half years to: 1. Strengthen their capacity to produce skilled primary and junior-secondary teachers, competent and practiced in active learning methodologies, with enhanced capability to teach reading, math, and science; and 2. Strengthen their capacity to deliver quality, active learning; early-grades reading, math, and science teaching methodologies; and ensuring that these organizations have the capacity to deliver training in an organized and systematic fashion. When considering outcomes and impact, the first question is, “What is the reach of the USAID PRIORITAS program in TTIs?” • How many participants have been trained? • What percentage of the TTI’s academic staff does this represent? • How much training have they had? • What steps have been taken to disseminate the good practices to others in the TTIs? The second question is, “How effective has the training been?” • Are the lecturers using active learning approaches in the lectures? • Are lecturers using the project’s materials and modules? • Are the student-teacher practicums improved? • Is the classroom action research (CAR) making a difference? • Are the TTIs ready, willing, and able to take on the role of providing quality inservice training to teachers?

7.1

Evaluating outcomes and impact

These two questions are answered below. There are two main ways of answering them. First, the project is conducting a formal monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the program. While this is not complete (the final measure has not yet been conducted), 10 interim measures do give an indication of results. Second, as part of this current review, a series of interviews, surveys, and focus-group discussions (FGD) was conducted to obtain a more qualitative and nuanced picture of outcomes. This picture is further enriched by field experience and the knowledge and expertise of project personnel. Each of these approaches is briefly described below. 7.1.1

Monitoring and evaluation

The interventions designed to develop the capacity of TTIs have been wide-ranging, as outlined above. To assess the outcomes and impact of this effort, the project collected data for five indicators. Results of this monitoring and evaluation were reported to USAID in July 2016. 11

The final data collection for M&E is expected to take place early in 2017, with analysis to follow. USAID PRIORITAS. (2016b). Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Teacher Training Institutes. Jakarta: RTI International. 10 11

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

41

The data were collected in two phases, the first in 2013–2014 and the second in 2015. Analysis was conducted in 2016. The data are intended to measure the extent to which the following indicators have been implemented or achieved: 1. Active learning strategies are being implemented by pedagogy lecturers. 2. Project training materials are being used by lecturers in pre-service and in-service training. 3. Student teachers are demonstrating good practices in teaching and learning. 4. TTIs are functioning effectively as hubs for CPD. 5. Good Practice Schools are functioning in each district. For each of these indicators, a number of sub-indicators are described in the full report (July 2016). The data collection was extensive and involved detailed observations and interviews in all 16 partner TTIs. Table 10 summarizes the monitoring results for five indicators. 12 As shown in the table, the year in which data were collected varied. This variance in year results from variance in the availability of respondents in the TTIs, timing of project interventions, and revisions to the sub-indicators of the project.

Table 10. No.

Summary of the Monitoring Results of TTI Indicators (July 2016) Monitoring Results and Year of Data Collection Second First Phase Phase

Indicator Indicator

1

Lecturers in TTIs model active learning behavior

2

TTIs integrate project training materials and programs into pre-service and in-service teacher education curricula

Training materials are used in preservice: 88% of lecturers

(Detailed indicator: Number of trained lecturers who use the project’s training materials in pre-service and/or in-service teacher education curricula)

Training materials are used in inservice: 61% of lecturers (2015)

3

Student teachers demonstrate good practices in teaching and learning

4

TTIs function effectively as hubs of professional development

5

Good Practice Schools are functioning in each district

41% (2013)

64.2% (2015)

42% (2013)

72.8% (2015)

56.3% (2014)

81.3% (2015)

61% (2015)

Table 10 shows that good progress is evident overall. In the detailed analysis in the full report, however, the percentages vary among TTIs. This variance suggests that a steady improvement was not evident in all TTIs. Indicators 2 and 5 are related wholly to project inputs, therefore a “zero” baseline score was assumed. The meaning of these results is explained below. 7.1.2

Survey/Focus-group discussions

To enrich this M&E analysis and obtain a more comprehensive picture of the impact of the TTI program, along with an understanding of the constraints and lessons learned, a series of FGDs

A sixth indicator, 1R12, is “TTIs offer a more practice-oriented curriculum.” This sub-indicator is not included here as it was revised due to changes in the project interventions. Data will be collected in February 2017. 12

42

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

and surveys was conducted with TTI specialists and counterparts (TTI consultants in the partner institutions) in October 2016. FGDs were held in the central project office in Jakarta, and in North Sumatra, Banten, and South Sulawesi. Using the same schedule of questions, surveys were conducted with TTI specialists in other provinces (see Annex 7).

7.2

What is the reach of the TTI program?

A key question is how far has the program penetrated within each institution? Have enough lecturers been trained—and have they had enough training—to make a difference in the culture of the TTIs, enough to sustain the change? 7.2.1

Extent of direct project training

Have enough lecturers been trained? According to the latest project data, USAID PRIORITAS has trained a total of 4,428 participants in the TTI program (See Table 4, Section 3.3.1, above). This total includes 1,431 lecturers from partner TTIs, a further 268 facilitators, who are lecturers from the same partner TTIs, 947 lecturers from consortia TTIs, and 1,782 nonacademic staff (mainly supervising teachers from lab and partner schools 13). Including the facilitators, 14 a total of 1,699 lecturers were thus trained from the 16 partner TTIs. 15 Table 11, below, shows the total number of lecturers in the 16 partner TTIs—as well as the number of pedagogy lecturers in each. See Annex 9 for details about the number of lecturers for each subject (prodi) in each of the nine regular state TTIs working with USAID PRIORITAS.

Percentage of Pedagogy Lecturers Trained

91

111

1,647

332

7%

33%

Aceh

Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh

16

99

115

761

464

15%

25%

North Sumatra

Universitas Negeri Medan

17

131

148

1,002

790

15%

19%

Percentage of Total Trained

20

TTI

Total No. of Pedagogy Lecturers

Total No. of Lecturers Trained

Universitas Syiah Kuala

Province

Total No. of Lecturers

Participants

Lecturers Trained per Partner TTI Facilitators

Table 11.

The project trained an average of 9 persons from each TTI-partner primary school (6 teachers, 2 school committee members, and 1 principal) and 18 persons from each TTI-partner junior-secondary school (15 teachers, 2 school committee members, and 1 principal). This does not include those trained in the “good practice schools” program. 14 There are four additional TTI facilitators from LPMP and non-partner TTIs. These are included in the previous count of TTI facilitators but are not included here, as the purpose is to ascertain the level of integration into the partner TTIs. 15 Data on total numbers of lecturers in the TTI were obtained from MOEC and MORA online. 13

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

43

117

427

260

27%

45%

Banten

Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

14

115

129

588

203

22%

64%

Banten

IAIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten

17

94

111

1,090

665

10%

17%

West Java

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

14

119

133

1,282

1,030

10%

13%

West Java

Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Jati

17

57

74

1,045

637

7%

12%

Yogyakarta

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

16

90

106

1,030

782

10%

14%

Central Java

Universitas Negeri Semarang

16

83

99

1,047

708

9%

14%

Central Jav

Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang

15

63

78

1,136

693

7%

11%

East Java

Universitas Negeri Malang

18

52

70

986

663

7%

11%

East Java

Universitas Negeri Surabaya

17

73

90

936

632

10%

14%

East Java

Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel

18

74

92

1,808

1,103

5%

8%

South Sulawesi

Universitas Negeri Makassar

20

124

144

895

639

16%

23%

South Sulawesi

Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin

17

65

82

1,164

710

7%

12%

268

1,431

1,699

16,844

10,311

10%

16%

Total

Percentage of Pedagogy Lecturers Trained

101

Percentage of Total Trained

Total No. of Lecturers Trained

16

Total No. of Pedagogy Lecturers

Participants

Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan

TTI

Total No. of Lecturers

Facilitators

North Sumatra

Province

The total of 16,844 lecturers includes both permanent and temporary staff—the great majority of which are permanent. Of these, 10% have received USAID PRIORITAS training. However, pedagogy lecturers comprise only 61% of the total (i.e., lecturers who teach, for example, math education rather than pure math). 16 Assuming that the USAID PRIORITAS target is pedagogy lecturers only, the percentage trained is 16%. The question is whether 16% of pedagogy lecturers trained are enough to effect the desired changes in the TTIs. Moreover, in the larger TTIs, the percentage is smaller. Are the 11% of The amount of 61% is the exact figure for the regular state universities, based on MORHE’s online database, which shows the number in the education faculty or FKIP for each of the partner TTIs. Data are unavailable in this form for the Islamic institutions, so for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the percentage is the same. 16

44

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

pedagogy lecturers trained at UIN Walisongo or UNM enough to effect change, compared to 45% at UINSU or 64% at UNTIRTA, for example? These are relevant questions. However, the percentage of lecturers trained is much higher if only considering the target areas for USAID PRIORITAS. The project focused on primary teacher training (PGSD) and five secondary teaching subjects: math, Bahasa Indonesia, science, social science, and English. When only counting lecturers in these target disciplines and excluding other subjects such as religion, civics, and physical education, up to 75% have been trained. 17 In some TTIs, nearly all lecturers in the PGSD programs have attended training, for example. Have they received enough training? Based on the M&E survey in 2015, 18 the average participant had, by then, received 12 days of training (four modules/packets or training). At one end of the range, a few had attended only one training event (3 days). Meanwhile, at the other end of the range, some had attended 10 training events (30 days). Most were in the middle of this range. Many of these participants had also attended activities that were not counted as training, but which further increased their capacity. Such activities included “module adaptation workshops” and “review and planning meetings.” The average of 12 days represents a substantial amount of training that should result in substantial changes to practice. Moreover, as described earlier in this report, facilitators received even more intensive training and on-the-job experience delivering training, with an average of 49 days in-class and on-the-job experience. 7.2.2

Extent and quality of dissemination training

Part of the answer, as to whether the “reach” of USAID PRIORITAS efforts is enough to effect the intended changes, lies in the dissemination of training and good practices internally within the institutions. The figures of 10%, 16%, and 75% average integration, explained above, do not include the participants trained in dissemination activities, funded or partially funded by the TTIs themselves—or participants trained from consortia and non-academic staff. The extent of co-funded dissemination. According to project data (see Annex 6), over 2,000 lecturers have participated in dissemination programs (this is an approximate figure, excluding teachers, students, and other non-TTI personnel). 19 Adding this figure to the number of participants in direct project training means that approximately 25% of the academic staff in partner TTIs have now been trained. Assuming that all of these are pedagogy lecturers, approximately 40% of the pedagogy lecturers have now been trained. The extent of this internal dissemination has varied widely, with some TTI conducting a substantial amount of dissemination training and others very little. The target of this training has also varied, with some focusing on specific disciplines (prodi) within the institution, as a result of the commitment and interest of key personnel or “champions” of the program. UNM

Note that this percentage is approximate. It is very difficult to get an accurate picture of the number of pedagogy lecturers, generally, and specifically for the USAID PRIORITAS target disciplines. This is because in some TTIs, “pedagogy lecturers” are located within the pure science and humanities faculties, rather than within a separate education faculty. 18 This is based on the 2015 survey of 160 lecturers (10 from each institution). 19 Detailed data are not available, as these activities were managed by the TTIs, not the project. These figures are based on approved Terms of Reference. Attendance records are held by the TTIs. The numbers are thus approximate. 17

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

45

in South Sulawesi, for example, has been very active in providing dissemination training for its own lecturers and in many of the consortium institutions. At least 12 activities have taken place in South Sulawesi, compared to just one in West Java. The program in South Sulawesi is an example of supply creating demand. Frequent consortia meetings and successful dissemination programs have resulted in frequent requests from consortia TTI members for support with dissemination training. Meanwhile, UPI, in West Java, is relatively wellestablished as a “service provider,” providing extensive and well-developed in-service training programs in West Java and other provinces, such as South Sumatra. However, the dissemination of USAID PRIORITAS training has also been limited. As illustrated in Annex 6, several TTIs have also conducted dissemination training for teachers and principals in their lab and partner schools. This was to support the practicum program and provide a more conducive environment for student teachers to implement active learning in their practicums. Unlike the direct project training, with dissemination, most participants only attend one training event—consisting of two or three days. The quality of co-funded dissemination. Because the amount of training per participant and the quality of that training directly affects the effectiveness and impact of dissemination training, it is unlikely to be as great as that of the direct project training. In this respect, a difference exists between dissemination activities co-funded by the project and those fully funded by the TTIs. In the former, the project maintains standards through approving the Terms of Reference (TOR). Activities include preparation days and adhere closely to the original project methodology. Short-term outcomes are thus likely to be better when project co-funded. Although the FGD/survey suggests that participants were enthusiastic and very positive about the dissemination training, the question remains as to the impact of this training on their practice. Some respondents said that the teaching practice of participants in dissemination training may be “colored” (diwarnai) by the training, but it is not substantially altered. The extent of independent dissemination. Several FGD/survey respondents reported that TTIs have conducted informal or independent dissemination training in addition to the co-funded activities. The data on these activities are incomplete. It is thus not possible to say with any degree of accuracy how many have been trained or for how many days. The quality of independent dissemination. FGD/survey results suggest that some of these activities are more akin to socialization than to training and that the activities sometimes involve large numbers of participants. For example, facilitators from IAIN Walisongo introduced the USAID PRIORITAS modules to “hundreds” of private madrasah teachers from the Ma’arif network in Semarang. However, at most, the materials were described and the ideas behind them introduced in a presentation or a lecture, but no real training was conducted. This is a good start—but it is not enough. Experience suggests that a tendency exists among bureaucrats and managers, including in TTIs, to underestimate the amount of training required for a teacher or lecturer to substantially change their practice. One-off “socialization” activities are unlikely to result in any major change. In summary, while the quality of internal dissemination and its impact are unclear from the data available, it is clear that impact has been made.

46

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

7.3

Are the trained TTI lecturers using active learning approaches?

This is a key question. It goes to the heart of how effective the training has been. Three M&E indicators provide answers. First, the M&E team interviewed groups of students to find out if their lecturers are using active learning approaches. Second, the M&E team observed studentteachers’ practicums, which is a good proxy for answering the question about their lecturers’ practice. Third, the team asked the lecturers if they are using the project materials and training modules to support their practice. The FGD/survey also addressed this question. 7.3.1

What do the students say about their lecturers’ practice?

Early in the project implementation period, an effort was made to directly observe lecturers at work with their classes, using a similar approach to that used with teachers in project-partner schools. However, it was found that this was not feasible: the lecturers were often absent from their classes, and the M&E Specialists and TTI Coordinators tasked to collect data were often busy when the lecturers were in their classes and teaching. As a result, an FGD approach was adopted. The FGD approach may actually have produced better data than the observations would have done. It is not generally feasible to conduct random classroom observations in a TTI, because professional courtesy demands that lecturers be advised in advance of a planned observation. Consequently, the “Hawthorne Effect” 20 may distort results: lecturers are likely to use active learning methods in observed lessons when they would not normally do so. Thus, FGD is arguably a more valid means of determining the use of active learning methods. TTI Coordinators interviewed students about their experience in class with lecturers who had attended project training. Each FGD involved five students. Discussions probed if lecturers were •

using a mix of whole class, group, partner, and individual work with students;

•

asking non-recall questions and allowing time for students to answer;

•

using varied learning approaches;

•

moving around the room;

•

allowing students to ask questions and give feedback; and

•

using authentic problems to link theory to practice.

Based on the results, only 40% of lecturers were found to be using active learning approaches in 2013, when the baseline survey was conducted. This percentage increased to 64% in 2014. However, when disaggregated by institution, the results are less encouraging. While the percentages increased substantially in seven of the TTIs, they actually declined in nine. This variation occurred across regular and Islamic institutions. Two main possibilities could be the cause: either the lecturers in some TTIs did not implement the new approaches learned in the USAID PRIORITAS training, or the data collected in FGDs were inconsistent and not valid. Either way, it is difficult to claim a successful outcome when the results are so inconsistent. However, the indicators described below do provide some validation, confirming that the

The Hawthorne Effect, sometimes known as the “observer effect” refers to individuals modifying their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. 20

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

47

training has had an impact on lecturers’ practice because (1) the number of lecturers using project materials has increased, and (2) their students are adopting active learning approaches in their practicum lessons. 7.3.2

Are the student-teachers using active learning approaches?

The project did not directly train student-teachers, but it did train their lecturers. Observing the student-teachers using active learning approaches in their practicums thus serves as a proxy to find out whether their lecturers had introduced them to active learning. The student-teacher observation schedule focused on six aspects of active learning—exactly the same as those used in observing teachers during the school monitoring. These are the same sub-indicators described above and used as themes in the FGDs with students in assessing their lecturers. Discussions probed if student-teachers were •

using a mix of whole class, group, partner, and individual work with students;

•

asking non-recall questions and allowing time for children to answer;

•

using varied learning approaches;

•

moving around the room;

•

allowing students to ask questions and give feedback; and

•

using authentic problems to link theory to practice.

Figure 1.

Percentages of Student-Teachers Demonstrating Good Practice in Teaching in Regular State Universities (UN) and Islamic Institutions (UIN)

Figure 1, above, shows that many more student-teachers used active learning practices in teaching and assessment in 2015 than in 2013 (when the baseline data were collected). This increase held true both for regular State Universities (UN) and State Islamic Institutions (UIN and IAIN), although the gain was much greater in the Islamic institutes. Overall, the increase was 73% (from 42% of students in 2013 to 73% in 2015). In 2013, before the training was conducted, the average percentage in the state universities was much higher (47%) than in Islamic institutes (34%). After two years, the difference between the two types of institutes was negligible (3%).

48

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

7.4

What do the TTI specialists and coordinators say about lecturers’ practice?

The findings of the monitoring and evaluation reported above were supported by the FGDs and survey. All respondents spoke of changes in the teaching practice of participating lecturers—especially those lecturers who had received intensive training as facilitators, but also more broadly. Respondents cited anecdotal evidence of changes in the physical arrangements of classrooms and display of student work in classrooms—particularly in the primary school or PGSD programs. Respondents also mentioned an increase in lecturers’ level of enthusiasm. It was also frequently noted that the change is “not yet perfect” or totally consistent. Certainly, change exists, and many of the participating lecturers appear to have become strong supporters of active learning approaches, but this is not the case for all lecturers or for all of the time. This variance is to be expected for the level and amount of training provided. Real, sustained change in practice requires a cultural shift, both at individual and organizational levels—which is not always possible within the life of a five-year project. However, the project has clearly had an impact. Several respondents observed that older, more “senior” academic personnel are less likely to adopt new practices than are the younger and mid-career lecturers. In TTIs, such as UNIMED and UNM, where the rector strongly supports the program, take-up is likely to be greater, although resistance is still evident among some senior staff. 7.4.1

Are the TTI lecturers using the project materials?

To answer this question, the M&E team interviewed a sample of 160 lecturers, all of whom had received some USAID PRIORITAS training. The lecturers were asked if they were using the USAID PRIORITAS materials in their work. The results indicate that among the lecturers who had been trained, 88% were using the training modules and materials in their lectures, and 61% in in-service training for teachers. The percentage for in-service training is lower, as not all lecturers have the opportunity to deliver in-service training. According to the FGD/survey, the TTIs have not yet formally adopted the materials in their curricula, with one exception. The PGSD program in UNY has adopted all of the USAID PRIORITAS School-Based Management modules as their course material for a new course in school management. With this one exception, the modules are not currently used as a full package in the pre-service training. However, modules are certainly used as a reference by individual lecturers when preparing their lectures. The same is true of the seven reference books produced by the project (Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK). These books are being used, as intended, as a reference by trained lecturers. The modules and materials are most often used in practicum programs of various kinds: PLPG, PPG and the PPL. Lecturers use them in the training they provide for the studentteachers and for their supervising teachers (guru pamong). Student-teachers use them in their lesson planning. In some TTIs, the modules have also been used by student-teachers in the community service program (KKN). The adapted USAID PRIORITAS training modules are also being used in dissemination programs, when TTI lecturers are training teachers, but using only certain units. For example, some have combined Modules 1 and 2 for a single training activity. Modules and materials

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

49

have also been placed in TTI libraries, where they are freely available to students and academic staff. 7.4.2

What impact has the UNNES-FSU partnership had?

The partnership between FSU and UNNES produced a set of training modules and materials to use in TTI PGSD classes on early grades reading and writing. The materials have been piloted and are ready to use. Lecturers are encouraged to use them as references, as supplementary resources, or in their entirety. As explained in the introduction of this report, although materials are ready to use, they are regarded as “working documents.” It is hoped that they will be continually refined and improved as the TTIs improve their understanding and practice in the teaching of reading and literacy in early grades. The materials resulting from this partnership are already in use in UNNES, UNY, and UIN Walisongo and have now been introduced to lecturers from the other 14 partner TTIs (including Manokwari). Based on feedback from the participants in the rollout workshop conducted in October 2016, the materials are engaging, there is a good balance of theory and practice—with the emphasis on practice, and they are user-friendly. Most of the participants said that they felt confident to use the materials after the training. Follow-up discussions with representatives of the TTIs in late November indicated that 10 of the 17 have already made a commitment and have commenced planning to incorporate the materials into their coursework, while the remaining seven are still considering. While the preparation of teachers for teaching early-grades reading is typically very minimal, PGSD courses do include a focus on language (sometimes called “Bahasa Indonesia” and sometimes “Bahasa Indonesia dan Kesastraan”). In this context, 2 to 4 of the 16 lectures in a semester are devoted to the teaching of reading. Compared to courses in English-speaking nations such as the USA, this is extremely limited. Nonetheless, it provides a basis from which to expand the focus on literacy and the teaching of reading. The UNNES-FSU material consists of 16 units (including two units for peer teaching and two for testing), complete with PowerPoint presentations and support materials. Each of these units can be delivered in a single three-hour class, or divided into shorter sessions. To fully implement the course would thus require a much greater time allocation than is currently available in the typical PGSD program. Ideally, a full course (mata kuliah) would be dedicated to this program, the Teaching of Early Grades Literacy (Reading and Writing). This is an option available to the TTIs, should they choose to take it.

7.5

Is the approach to pre-service practicums improving?

The project has focused heavily on improving pre-service practicums for student-teachers. As described, this has included providing materials and training to improve preparation of studentteachers and supervision by lecturers and supervising teachers (guru pamong). The M&E has not yet fully captured the outcomes of these interventions, because the project evolved during the implementation period, necessitating a change in the indicator. Data will be collected on the revised indicator in 2017. Meanwhile, data are available from the FGD/survey on the impact of the program on the lab and partner schools and on practicums, as well as on the impact of the short-term courses for selected lecturers provided by the USAID PRESTASI project in the United States. Data are also available on the impact of the good practice schools program from both M&E and the FGD/survey.

50

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

7.5.1

What impact have the lab and partner schools and the practicum programs had?

The “lab and partner schools” are the 147 schools, located close to partner TTIs, which have been developed as venues for teacher practicums and classroom action research. As part of the whole-school development approach, the teachers and principals in these schools were trained in active learning and school-based management, making them better environments for students’ practicums. The USAID PRIORITAS program with these schools has had a big impact and is regarded as one of the most successful aspects of the project. At the beginning of the program, many of the existing lab schools were, according to project personnel, in poor condition and certainly not able to provide a good model of teaching or school management. The standard approach to student-teacher practicums was to provide some limited preparation and then send the student-teachers to the schools, with little or no coordination, supervision, or follow-up. The links between TTIs and schools, lecturers, and teachers, have been substantially strengthened by the USAID PRIORITAS program, and both parties are benefiting from these stronger links. The lab and partner schools provide an opportunity for university lecturers to directly experience classroom practice. Improving the quality of that experience has the benefit of informing pre-service training. Thus, participating lecturers are able to confidently discuss teaching practice with their students and provide a much more practice-oriented pre-service training curriculum. The teacher practicums (PPL) are of much better quality as a result of this program. A microteaching approach is used in preparation for the practicums. This preparation is now more practical, is based on the active learning approach, and uses USAID PRIORITAS materials and reference books. Thus, there is a positive impact on the lecturers, on the student-teachers, and on the schools and their teachers and children. Teachers, lecturers, and student-teachers can now observe good-practice teaching in model schools. Some partner schools are also becoming hubs of good practice for their clusters. TTI Facilitators used the adapted USAID PRIORITAS Modules 1, 2, and 3 in preparing the supervising teachers (guru pamong), and this has had a direct impact on their teaching and on the practicum experience for student teachers. Supervision of the PPL practicums is also more systematic and structured because of the program. Lecturers work with the supervising teachers and student-teachers through an observation and “conference” approach that was introduced by USAID PRIORITAS. The above noted changes are potentially substantial, given the number of students and teachers involved. For example, in UINSU, 1,200 student-teachers took part in PPL practicums this year, while in UNIMED the number was 1,500. Challenges remain, however. Only a percentage of the lecturers responsible for the practicum programs have received the project training. More lab and partner schools are needed close to the campus of many TTIs, as is more frequent monitoring from the lecturers than is generally being provided and that would ensure the success of the new practicum approach. It is also important for the TTIs to engage with the District Education Office (Dinas Pendidikan) in developing the practicum program. The commitment of the district is important, for example, to limit the frequency of school principal transfers, as this can reduce the effectiveness of the program.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

51

7.5.2

Are “good practice schools” functioning in each district?

As described, the term “good practice schools” (GPS) refers to the 164 schools that were selected from Cohort 1 and 2 districts and given a small amount of extra support to develop them for a role as hubs of good practice in the districts. It was intended that these schools would act as teaching schools, where teaching practicums could take place for student-teachers and where in-service teachers and school managers could observe good practices. It was expected that these schools would include some of the TTI lab or partner schools and some USAID PRIORITAS partner schools. As the project evolved, it became clear that the TTI lab and partner schools were effectively meeting the expectation, but the good practice schools located in partner districts were not. The main reason for this difference is that the district-based schools were too remote from the TTIs to effectively play this role and that, furthermore, unlike for the lab and partner schools, the TTIs had no real sense of ownership or partnership with these good practice schools. As a result, after consultation with USAID, it was decided to discontinue the Good Practice Schools Program in 2016. Prior to discontinuing the program, the M&E team assessed the schools based on the two objectives. A school was regarded as functioning as a “good practice school” in a district if it (1) had been used by the TTI for teaching practicums during the past 12 months, and/or (2) had received study visits by school principals and/or teachers from other schools at least three times for the past 12 months. The evaluation found that 62% of the schools met the criteria. However, only 12% were functioning to support both pre- and in-service training, as originally intended. The general view expressed in the FGD/survey is that the Good Practice Schools Program was substantially successful in improving the quality of the schools and preparing them to become hubs of good practice, but was ineffective as a support for the TTIs because the schools were mostly too distant from the TTIs to establish working relationships. In some schools, the program was handled mainly by district coordinators rather than the TTI specialists or facilitators. Some of the better good practice schools are reportedly those where district facilitators teach. Some of these schools were particularly successful in developing model literacy programs. Some schools expressed disappointment that the program was discontinued as they had committed to the program, in one case, even conducting a study visit to another province. Conversely, some good practice schools did not fully implement the program, due to lack of commitment from the principal and district education office. 7.5.3

What impact did the US study program have?

Fifty lecturers from partner TTIs took part in the PRESTASI short courses at MSU in the United States. Fourteen partner TTIs were involved, all but UM and UNNES. 21 The focus of the courses was primarily on the management of student-teacher practicums, and particularly on supervision, mentoring, supervising teachers (guru pamong) and student assessments.

UM declined to participate due to competing priorities. UNESA was not included, as this institution was already involved in a partnership with FSU. 21

52

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Some lecturers returning from the MSU course reportedly adopted new styles of teaching. All were said to have shared their experience through student lectures and formal workshops with other lecturers in the TTIs, as well as with principals and teachers in the lab and partner schools. Many lecturers also reviewed and revised TTI guidelines for student-teacher practicums after their return. Resulting changes to the teaching practicums include assigning several subjectbased lecturers to supervise individual practicums, rather than just one randomly assigned lecturer, as was often the case previously. Two UNY lecturers conducted and published research as a result of the MSU course. Their study is entitled “The development of teaching materials for primary school teacher education students in the learning process that accommodates diverse learners.”

7.6

Is the classroom action research (CAR) program effective?

Along with the lab and partner school program described above, the CAR program is regarded by project staff as one of the most successful aspects of the TTI program. For most of the participants, during CAR was the first time that lecturers and teachers truly collaborated. Academic staff discovered that they could learn much from teaching practitioners. Similarly, the teachers learned that they could collaborate effectively with academic staff. This realization changed the relationship and attitudes of both groups, potentially smoothing the way for ongoing collaboration possibilities. There is strong demand from teachers, schools, districts, and other lecturers within the TTIs for the CAR program to be sustained and disseminated. One reason is that both teachers and lecturers are now expected to publish research results as part of their professional responsibility and to gain formal credits to advance in their careers. This requirement is part of the government’s Continuing Professional Development (Pengembagan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan or PKB) program. The CAR approach is seen as accessible, meaningful, and manageable, both for lecturers and practitioners in this context. The approach produces useful outcomes for teachers and lecturers. CAR is also seen as a feasible approach to use in PKB programs in teacher working groups (KKG and MGMP). Because of this strong demand for research publication, a substantial amount of informal, independent dissemination of the CAR approach is occurring, with participants sharing their study reports and providing advice to colleagues who wish to use the approach. Several districts have requested training from the TTIs in the CAR approach; however, as no manual or module was produced, this has not taken place. MOEC also requested assistance to review and update the ministry’s own guidelines for CAR; however, this has not yet been followed up, because of limited funds for USAID PRIORITAS to provide this support in the short-term. Some teachers who participated in the CAR program are disseminating the approach to their teaching colleagues. Some lecturers who completed CAR are using the results of their studies in their teaching. Many lecturers are adopting the approach for their students. Final-year student-teachers both in Islamic and regular TTIs are using CAR for their required dissertation research. Lecturers are increasingly using CAR (rather than the more traditional survey approach) in their own research. Some of the TTIs have set aside funds to support CAR through research grants. The numbers of individual studies now being conducted as a result of introducing this practice is thus substantial.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

53

7.7

Are the TTIs ready, willing, and able to provide in-service training and consultancy services?

The aim of the project was to improve the capacity of TTI lecturers to deliver pre-service programs to their student-teachers, providing TTIs with the capacity to then use their skills to provide consulting services. Perhaps a long-term objective is to help TTIs to begin to take over the role of projects such as USAID PRIORITAS in designing and delivering effective in-service training to teachers, along with consulting services to districts and, at the same time, to improve the effectiveness of their pre-service training. The key question is whether the TTIs can do this, whether they are acting as effective hubs for continuing professional development. The M&E addressed this question by assessing the degree to which TTI lecturers had taken part in various project activities. The question was also addressed in the FGD/survey. Project records were analyzed to determine the number of lecturers involved in relevant activities. Because providing training and consulting services constitutes a rather new role for TTIs, the M&E framework assumed that the main avenue for TTIs to develop this role in the short term was for academic personnel to take part in project activities. The project has provided opportunity for TTI lecturers to be involved in six major project activities: (1) preservice and in-service training, (2) mentoring, (3) monitoring and evaluation, (4) students’ classroom action research, (5) preparation of training materials, and (6) providing consulting services to districts and provinces. It was assumed that, if a sufficient number of TTI staff members are well-trained and have expertise and skills in the six areas, the TTIs should be able to function effectively as hubs for continuing professional development for teachers. For the purposes of the M&E analysis, a TTI with staff involved in at least three of these project activities met the criteria to be described as an effective hub for continuing professional development. Results show an overall increase in meeting these criteria, from 50% in 2014 to 81% in 2015. This increase in results, however, begs the question if the TTIs are really prepared as institutions to act as service providers independent of USAID PRIORITAS. Are they ready to provide in-service training and consultancy services to districts, schools, and madrasah? Field experience suggests that, while most of the TTIs are already playing this role to some extent, further support and possibly structural and regulatory changes are required to enable them to achieve their potential in this regard. Certainly, the TTIs need to do a lot more before they can provide a similar level and type of service as is currently provided by donor-funded projects, such as USAID PRIORITAS. USAID PRIORITAS conducted a series of workshops with the TTIs to help them think through the issues and plan for a greater role as service providers, especially providers of in-service training to districts, schools, and MORA. Representatives of MOEC, MORA, and districts took part to strengthen the links. Representatives of the TTIs also took part in district and MORA strategic planning workshops to further support this process. Many of the TTIs signed new MOUs with districts or with MORA as a result of these activities. Districts and MORA offices have included TTI services in their strategic plans. TTI lecturers have also been involved in preparing USAID PRIORITAS training modules. In the final project year, workshops are being held to support the TTIs in taking on this role. Feedback from organizers of the workshops (November–December 2016) suggests that, while the lecturers appreciated the opportunity to take part and most can provide good input on the content for the modules, they still lack confidence to independently design the training and incorporate good practices for in-service training into the modules. 54

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Discussions with project personnel and counterparts, along with field experience and results from the FGD/survey, all suggest that most TTIs are not yet well-prepared to take on the role as service provider, designing and delivering modules for in-service training, and perhaps managing, monitoring, and evaluating the training. Much individual expertise resides within the TTIs. Many lecturers are qualified to take on these roles; however, they tend to resort to individual contracts for this work. The TTIs as institutions do not, with some exceptions noted below, act effectively in the role as service provider. Three main reasons affect why TTIs may not yet be effective as service providers: (1) TTI lecturers lack practical experience and, thus, lack confidence to provide in-service training to practitioners; (2) bureaucratic and regulatory environments make it difficult for TTIs to manage, promote, provide, and receive payment for services; and (3) TTIs do not typically allocate time to lecturers to enable them to act as service providers, conducting in-service training or providing consulting services to districts, for example. Thus, most lecturers are too busy with routine tasks and academic responsibilities to do so. These issues are addressed in the final section of this report. To develop their role as service providers, TTIs need to establish centers for in-service training, or hubs for continuing professional development. One or two TTIs have already done this: UPI has relatively strong experience as a service provider; UNM established the Effective Schools Center during the DBE period; and UINSA has a Business Unit, for example. UNIMED is also in the process of setting up a center with support from USAID PRIORITAS. Some positive development is taking place in this regard. Nonetheless, most service provision is still individual in nature.

7.8

Conclusions

USAID PRIORITAS has trained around 8% of lecturers in the partner TTIs (12% of pedagogy lecturers and up to 63% of those in target disciplines). The lecturers have attended an average of 12 days of training, some as many as 30 days. About two-thirds of lecturers are now using a range of active learning approaches (a 60% increase on the baseline). Nearly 90% of lecturers reportedly use the modules in their classes for students (pre-service), and about 60% use them in in-service training. Over two-thirds of the lecturers’ students are now using active learning methods in their teaching practicums, further confirmation that the lecturers are using the project materials and active learning approaches in their pre-service classes. Dissemination programs co-funded by USAID PRIORITAS and the TTIs have reached approximately 2,500 more TTI lecturers, students, and teachers in lab and partner schools. While the outcome of these activities is unclear, most have followed the project approach quite closely, and results are thus likely to be comparable to the direct project training. Many TTIs are also independently funding and conducting dissemination programs to introduce active learning and project materials to other lecturers. The extent to which these gains will be sustained and institutionalized within the cultures and practices of TTIs remains to be seen. In reality, a five-year project of this scale, even when building on the previous six-year DBE project, is unlikely of itself to produce deep, cultural, and institutionalized changes. However, the changes that have been made are very significant and represent an important step towards the sustainable, institutionalized reforms that the project hopes to achieve. Meanwhile, changes to the management of student-teacher practicums and improvements to CAR programs have been profound and are well appreciated by the TTIs and by national

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

55

partners in MOEC, MORA, and MORHE. Closing the gap between TTIs and schools, between lecturers and teachers, is having a substantial impact on the attitudes of both groups and, importantly, is resulting in a more effective, practice-oriented approach to pre-service training. When supported by the other training and project materials provided by USAID PRIORITAS, this change provides an excellent base for ongoing capacity development—both by donorfunded projects and by the TTIs themselves. It is not so easy to draw conclusions about the service provider part of the TTI program. To become effective providers of in-service training, TTIs need major structural changes. Positive signs of this are happening in the institutions mentioned, such as UNIMED and UNM. However, further support is required to enable the TTIs to fully take on the role of professionally managed, international projects such as currently filled by USAID PRIORITAS.

56

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

8 Lessons Learned, Issues, and Recommendations As described in Section 2 of this report, TTIs and the teacher training sector in Indonesia are facing a number of challenges: (1) an oversupply of teachers in the education system, compounded by an oversupply of TTI graduates coming into the system in coming years; (2) a lack of practical teaching experience among TTI lecturers, who tend to provide overly theoretical training, resulting in a very theoretical curriculum and lecture-based teaching approach; and (3) weak coordination between TTIs, schools, districts, and MORA, where TTIs are not yet well-equipped to respond to the demand for much-needed in-service training. USAID PRIORITAS has addressed most of these issues, in alignment with the project’s Scope of Work. In general, the project has worked to strengthen pre-service and in-service training. The inputs, outputs, and impact of the project in this regard have been discussed in previous sections (3-6, and 7). In this final section of the report, lessons learned and recommendations for the future are considered.

8.1

Building on experience

Donor-funded efforts to develop the capacity of teacher training in TTIs are relatively recent. In this context, USAID PRIORITAS is building on the previous USAID-funded DBE project, with project performance period from 2005 to 2011. Among other things, DBE2 aimed to improve the capacity of TTIs, working with a group of 15 partner institutions (a similar, though not identical, group to that for USAID PRIORITAS). The final independent project evaluation concluded that the success of DBE was limited in developing the role of the TTIs as providers of in-service training. The aspect of DBE2’s TTI program that was regarded as most successful was known as Active Learning for Higher Education (ALFHE), and introduced active learning approaches within the institutions. Meanwhile, DBE1 worked with a small number of TTIs, developing the capacity of selected lecturers to act as “service providers,” providing consultancy services to districts and MORA, using project-developed tools for district finance analysis, school unit cost analysis, district strategic planning, and teacher deployment analysis. Looking ahead, the DBE final evaluation report had this to say in 2012: The PRIORITAS program proposes to make universities the center for change within the education system. While everyone agrees that universities can address many of the problems in the long-term through pre-service teacher training, in the short- to medium-term, large numbers of teachers need professional upgrading opportunities. Most people interviewed think that university personnel know little about the realities of classroom teaching and are far too theoretical in approach. .... The task of converting universities into centers for servicing district and school in-service training or other educational needs or as a locus for institutionalizing this expertise, may be a very difficult task for PRIORITAS. 22

USAID. (2012). Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project Final Evaluation. Volume I: Main Report and Volume II: Annexes. p xv. Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc., Aguirre Division. 22

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

57

Building on this previous experience and the gains made by DBE, USAID PRIORITAS focused first on developing pre-service training in TTIs, while at the same time working with districts and schools to develop in-service training. The project worked with district facilitators (trained teachers, principals, and supervisors) to provide in-service training to teachers—following the approach successfully developed in earlier projects such as Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC), Managing Basic Education (MBE), and DBE—while building the capacity of districts to disseminate the training to other schools and to institutionalize CPD of teachers through strategic planning and budgeting. The TTI program, as described, focused on the primary task of improving pre-service training, making it more practice-oriented, and only then focused on the secondary task and longerterm goal of developing the capacity of the TTI to provide in-service training. Nonetheless, important steps have been taken towards achieving this goal. The project’s approach was to work first with the districts and build on this school-level training model, known as “whole school development.” One of the most significant outcomes of USAID PRIORITAS, previously highlighted in Section 7 of this report, is a strengthening of the links between TTIs and schools, making the preservice programs more practice-oriented, improving student-teacher practicums, and introducing classroom action research, and in these ways addressing the problem of preservice training being overly theoretical. These approaches have been successful because they responded to a demand made by TTIs; they align well with what the institutions and the ministries say they need and want in terms of capacity building. The aim to develop the role of the TTI as service providers, providing in-service training to teachers, is a work in progress. As with DBE, this aspect of the program was less of a focus, although it has been significantly advanced by the USAID PRIORITAS program. The reasons for the service provider aspect of the program being less of a focus were previously mentioned and noted in the DBE final review. They are primarily structural and cultural in nature, as described below.

8.2

Constraints and opportunities

What are the main opportunities for and constraints to achieving the aims of improving preservice training, making it more practical, and developing the role of TTIs as providers of inservice training? A number of common themes emerged from the review in response to this question. The main question is not whether TTI lecturers have the capacity to adopt good practices, but rather whether the system allows them to, and whether they have an incentive to do so. 8.2.1

The academic culture of TTIs

Within the prevailing academic culture, TTIs have a higher status than schools, lecturers have a higher status than teachers, and theory has a higher status than practice. Lecturers are usually recruited from among the best graduates (that is, those who excelled in theory) and are promoted directly into a role as academics. Few lecturers ever acquire any experience of teaching in schools. This is why, as described, pre-service teacher training is typically overly theoretical and heavily lecture based. Most lecturers are familiar with theory and lecture-based approaches, and may be initially somewhat reluctant to adopt an active learning approach for pre-service training: they are unfamiliar with the approach, and it probably appears to be less serious, less “academic,” than 58

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

the traditional lecture and theory-based curriculum. While the DBE and USAID PRIORITAS programs have shown that lecturers can adopt active learning approaches and that most appreciate the opportunity to do so, some resistance reportedly exists—especially from among the more senior lecturers. Many TTI facilitators were very nervous when required to prepare and conduct lessons with children in regular schools as part of the USAID PRIORITAS training program. This type of activity clearly took them outside their professional “comfort zone.” However, it is worth noting that most lecturers found the experience to be very rewarding and encouraging. Some of the FGD/survey respondents observed that take-up of active learning is better in the primary school teacher-training programs known as PGSD. The number of lecturers in these programs is smaller, there is a greater focus on pedagogy, and the active learning approach and material seem more familiar. Teachers also noted that they do not always welcome lecturers in their schools, as teachers perceive lecturers as a threat to their role as independent practitioners. However, the USAID PRIORITAS experience has shown clearly that these perceptions can be overcome so that everyone benefits. In summary, the introduction of active learning in pre-service training has been relatively successful, despite initial resistance. However, it is difficult for TTI lecturers to provide effective in-service training to practicing teachers when lecturers, themselves, lack practical teaching experience. USAID PRIORITAS has succeeded in overcoming the barriers and misperceptions between the TTI and schools, between lecturers and teachers, through the lab and partner school program, classroom action research, and improved student-teacher practicums. But surmounting this issue has yet to be transformed into a broader role for TTIs in providing in-service teacher training to districts, schools, and teachers. 8.2.2

Structural barriers to TTIs acting as service providers

Structural changes are also required for TTIs to effectively develop programs providing inservice training to districts, MORA, and other partners. The primary role of the TTIs is to train aspiring teachers and the second role is to conduct research. While the third role, community outreach (or “pengabdian Masyarakat”) is relevant, there are obstacles for TTIs in developing an entrepreneurial, businesslike approach to service provision. Few of the TTIs have an identified unit or section for such a program. Few TTIs are able to charge a fee for service, without contravening the legal basis and auditing requirements for the institution. Few, if any, have allocated time and resources to enable lecturers to provide in-service training or consultancy services to districts, schools, madrasah, or other agencies. 8.2.3

The USAID brand

As mentioned, the effort to improve TTIs through donor-funded capacity building is relatively new. A number of respondents in the FGD/survey mentioned that in the earlier days, when DBE was first introduced, the project encountered a degree of resistance and suspicion, resulting from lack of understanding about USAID’s motives—particularly against the background of broader geopolitical concerns of the time. This perception may have had a negative impact on achievements. In contrast to the time period when the DBE project was active, there appears to be no real resistance of this nature now, during the USAID PRIORITAS project. The USAID brand is reportedly seen as very positive and is associated with professionalism and with activities The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

59

being conducted on time, using excellent content, and applying a highly effective training approach. However, the disadvantage of this successful branding is that dissemination activities are sometimes regarded with skepticism in that without the USAID “guarantee,” stakeholders and participants are inclined not to take an activity seriously.

8.3

Recommendations

The USAID PRIORITAS project is scheduled to conclude in September 2017. The main program has been implemented, and because of budgetary considerations during the final months of closeout, it would seem impractical to propose new activities to be added during this final period. The following recommendations, however, are based on lessons learned and are mainly intended for consideration in designing future projects and interventions to support the TTIs. 8.3.1

Building on success: practical pre-service training and classroom action research

Based on this review, the most successful aspects of the program are those that relate to improving student-teacher practicums, developing the lab and partner schools, and classroom action research. These programs share a common aim of closing the gap between TTIs and schools, between lecturers and teachers. The results can be far-reaching as lecturers become more familiar with the realities of classroom practice, their lectures become informed by these realities, and thus become more practice-oriented and less theoretical, resulting in the teacher training becoming more relevant overall. Future efforts to improve pre-service teacher training could build on this success, using a similar approach and expanding it to reach all lecturers in the partner TTIs and a greater number of lab and partner schools, sufficient for all student-teachers to conduct their practicums. Expanding the number of lab and partner schools would require increased coordination between the TTIs and district education offices, or MORA for the madrasah. This increased coordination would also help ensure that the district and MORA support the schools. It could also lead to greater partnership, for example, with the TTIs providing in-service training to teachers under a service provider agreement. The USAID PRIORITAS experience with “good practice schools” reflects a broader international experience. “Model” schools often do not function as well as expected to support the dissemination of good practices. At best, such schools become islands of good practice, unconnected to satellite schools. In particular, the USAID PRIORITAS good practice schools were unable to effectively partner with TTIs due to distance. Meanwhile, the lab and partner schools do work well. They are located close to the TTIs, and a sense of shared ownership for the programs was established through USAID PRIORITAS. Future efforts should build on this experience. The highly successful classroom action research (CAR) program could also be sustained and expanded to support the development of a more practice-oriented curriculum and the ongoing improvement of teaching practice. The development of a simple, user-friendly set of guidelines or a manual for CAR would be a first step. Developing such guidelines could possibly be achieved within the life of the current project. Coordinating with MOEC to help revise their manual would also be a very positive step towards institutionalizing the good practices developed. If USAID PRIORITAS is unable to do this due to resource constraints, the project

60

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

could possibly recommend suitable consultants from among the TTIs who may have the capacity to do so. Recommendations in summary: Future efforts could 1. build on the good practice in student-teacher practicums and expand the number of lab and partner schools; 2. strengthen coordination with districts and MORA to support lab and partner schools; 3. avoid the use of “model schools” or “good practice schools” that are distant and unconnected to TTIs; 4. develop a CAR manual for TTIs; and 5. provide or arrange assistance to update MOEC’s manual for CAR. 8.3.2

Mentoring and communities of practice

The experience of MBE, DBE, and USAID PRIORITAS has shown that one of the key factors associated with successful take-up of good practices by teachers is mentoring—usually referred to as pendampingan. District Facilitators who deliver the training to their colleagues in teacher working groups (KKG, KKM, or MGMP) visit the participating teachers after the training, to support teachers in implementing the newly learned practices in their schools and classrooms. Without this follow-up pendampingan, there is typically little change to the practice of teachers and school managers. There are many reasons for this need for follow-up mentoring. Teachers may initially be enthusiastic after a training activity but most teachers experience an “implementation dip” 23 when trying to sustain the good practices in the weeks following the training. Follow-up visits and mentoring can help counteract such a “dip.” Teachers also learn best in communities of practice; 24 hence, the use of teacher working groups for the training and a whole school development approach is recommended. These lessons, learned from years of providing in-service training to school teachers, could be applied within the TTIs. The TTIs are large institutions, within which lecturers are often isolated in their practice. Establishing working groups for lecturers who have attended training—and assigning TTI facilitators to work with these and provide follow-up mentoring— could support the sustainability of good practices, helping the lecturers to maintain the changes they have made and to learn from one another as they develop their practice. Some lecturers may already be doing this informally. The expectation is that the facilitators, who receive intensive training, will train their colleagues. However, in most TTIs there is no institutional structure, strategic plan, or funding for this type of cascade training to occur. In addition, no incentive is yet provided for highly trained lecturers to mentor, peer teach, or model good practice to their colleagues. A type of internal center for active learning is required to legitimize a mentoring type of program, to provide a “home” for its activity, and to enable facilitators to carry out their activities. Such a center requires internal funding, planning, and a basis in policy. Such an approach would require a systematic

Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 23 24

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

61

commitment from the TTIs, the creation of working groups, and allocation of time for lecturers to provide follow-up mentoring. The TTIs should also maintain and develop the mentoring relationship with their lab and partner schools after the project finishes and, hopefully, expand to a larger group of schools. Recommendations in summary: Future efforts could 1. include follow-up mentoring and creation of working groups for lecturers, modeled on good practice at school level; 2. advocate for TTIs to create centers for good practice, allocating time and resources to support such centers; and 3. advocate for the TTIs to maintain and develop the mentoring relationship with their lab and partner schools after the project finishes and possibly expand to a larger group of schools. 8.3.3

Dissemination

As explained in the previous section, the USAID PRIORITAS approach to training TTI lecturers parallels that for training teachers in schools. The project has directly trained 10% of the academic staff in partner TTIs (16% of the pedagogy lecturers and up to 75% of those in target disciplines). A core group of 272 TTI facilitators and coordinators has received intensive training and on-the-job experience over an average of 49 days. The remainder has received an average of 12 days’ training. While the impact on the practice of these lecturers appears to be significant, if the aim is to bring about broad institutional change, the number of lecturers participating in each TTI is probably too small. As a result, the program is not yet institutionalized within the TTIs. For such institutionalization to occur, a more substantial and sustained input is required, which could be achieved in two ways: (1) through a follow-up project, and/or (2) through systematic dissemination. To date, dissemination programs have included (1) internal dissemination (training of lecturers within the partner TTIs); (2) dissemination to schools (training of teachers and principals in lab and partner schools or other schools in the role of service provider); and (3) dissemination to other TTIs (training of lecturers at TTI consortia members). The experience has varied widely between provinces. In some institutions, such as UNTIRTA, routine or annual in-house training for lecturers is being used as a forum to disseminate the good practices, training modules, and materials generated by USAID PRIORITAS. But this is not yet widespread. Without a comprehensive and strategic internal dissemination program, such as is now in place in districts and MORA for teachers, it is unlikely that the changes made to lecturers’ practice will result in deep changes to the TTIs’ professional culture. While this level of dissemination may have been beyond the scope of USAID PRIORITAS, it is the next logical step. A great deal of dissemination has taken place, some of it co-funded by the project, but TTIs have not yet planned or budgeted for dissemination in a strategic way. For such planning and budgeting to occur, the approach successfully developed by USAID PRIORITAS for working with the districts and MORA could be adapted for use with the TTI. This approach would likely include a series of workshops and on-the-job assistance for TTI administrators, similar to that provided to district administrators. The aim should be to help the TTIs establish an ongoing system, structure, plan, and budget to enable all lecturers to

62

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

routinely attend CPD activities, starting with the dissemination of core modules that are focused on active learning and practice-oriented teacher training. In the short-term, during the remainder of the USAID PRIORITAS implementation period, efforts can be strengthened to advocate within the TTI for independent dissemination of good practices and USAID PRIORITAS training, helping the institutions to plan for the future, making the best use possible of the intensively trained facilitators and the modules developed by the project. Recommendations in summary: Future efforts 1. could provide support for TTIs to plan and budget for internal dissemination and continuing professional development of lecturers; 2. could expand external dissemination; and 3. could advocate for further, systematic internal dissemination by TTIs in the short term. 8.3.4

Monitoring and evaluation

The TTI program has evolved over the life of the project. As a result, the originally designed M&E framework has not been able to completely capture the full extent of the program and its impacts. For any future project, a more comprehensive M&E framework could be developed in collaboration with the TTIs. Making the TTIs active partners in the monitoring and evaluation of the project could give them greater ownership of the program and help build their capacity to conduct systematic M&E, while at the same time providing more comprehensive results. Recommendations in summary: Future efforts could 1. expand the design of the M&E; and 2. include TTIs as partners to develop their capacity and strengthen the feedback loop, thus supporting continuous improvement. 8.3.5

TTI pre-service curricula

USAID PRIORITAS has produced a range of teaching modules and reference materials for lecturers to use in training students and/or preparing supervising teachers and principals in lab and partner schools. The FSU-UNNES partnership produced a practical, semester-long syllabus for teaching basic literacy in early grades. To date the only example of a TTI fully adopting a USAID PRIORITAS set of materials is UNY, where the school-based management modules have been adopted for a new course in the PGSD curriculum. Ideally, the literacy syllabus will be adopted in its entirety for a new subject (mata kuliah) on teaching literacy in early grades within PGSD programs. To improve the teaching of pedagogy, TTIs could adopt or adapt other USAID PRIORITAS modules, following the example of UNY. During the remaining implementation period, USAID PRIORITAS could advocate for module adoption to occur, meeting with TTI administrators, providing examples of good practice where TTIs have adopted good materials for their syllabi, and providing guidance on how this can be achieved. A future project could also learn from the FSU-UNNES model. The USAID PRIORITAS training modules, which were initially developed for in-service training and subsequently adapted for use in pre-service training, could be further adapted for semester-long subject The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

63

syllabi (mata kuliah) by repackaging and adding reading, assignments, semester tests, etc. It is important to note that the TTIs rejected this approach when USAID PRIORITAS offered it. TTIs reported that their course content was already established. The TTIs did not welcome an intervention to rewrite their curricula, opting instead for supplementary materials, such as were subsequently developed. Possibly, in time, they may change their thinking and be more open to this type of curriculum intervention. Following international good practice and the successful approach developed by USAID PRIORITAS, teacher training (pre- and in-service) should focus on “content pedagogy” as a priority, along with subject knowledge and general pedagogy. 25 Content pedagogy is about how best to teach specific content, such as well-defined mathematical skills and concepts, or approaches to early grades reading. These efforts to support curriculum development could involve officials from MORHE, MOEC, and MORA, as appropriate. More substantial changes to pre-service teacher training curricula should aim to make the syllabus more practice-oriented, building on the success described above. Ideally, the amount of time allocated to general subjects, such as civics, religion, educational philosophy, and psychology, which are typically very theoretical, could be reduced in favor of increasing the time allocated to more practical subjects. In addition, allowing student-teachers to graduate with two teaching subjects (a double major), should be encouraged to make the teaching force more flexible and improve subsequent teacher deployment. Recommendations in summary: Building on the successful adaption of school-level training modules, and following the FSUUNNES model 1. expand modules with the addition of assignments, reading, tests, etc.; 2. focus primarily on content pedagogy, alongside subject content and general pedagogy; 26 3. advocate for TTIs to adopt USAID PRIORITAS materials/modules, including the FSUUNNES literacy syllabus as complete course materials for specified subjects (mata kuliah); and 4. advocate for MORHE and TTI to increase the proportion of practice-oriented subjects in teacher training and to encourage double majors to enable graduates to be certified to teach at least two subjects. 8.3.6

TTIs as service providers

The DBE and USAID PRIORITAS experiences have both shown that it is difficult, but not impossible, for TTIs to develop their role as providers of in-service training and consultancy services to districts, MORA, and other agencies. The main constraint, noted in this report, is that TTIs are governed by regulations that prevent most of them from charging a fee for services to districts or other external agencies. Some of the TTIs have found ways around this constraint, but more work is required. Ideally, a change in the regulations would enable them to become more entrepreneurial. Guerriero, S. (2014). Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge and the Teaching Profession. Background Report and Project Objectives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 26 Note that the TTIs rejected this approach when it was offered early during the USAID PRIORITAS project. 25

64

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Apart from the regulatory changes required, the TTIs need to develop their capacity in a number of ways, specifically: (1) for lecturers and courses to become more practice-oriented, to be able to provide relevant training to practicing teachers; and (2) to be able to design and implement training modules, to manage training events, and to monitor and evaluate their training, in partnership with districts/MORA and based on good practices. This capacity development is a work in progress. USAID PRIORITAS has helped the partner TTIs to move in this direction, but progress has been limited by the constraints mentioned. A future project could build on the progress made. The best role for the TTI as service providers in the immediate future is to work in partnership with district facilitators to provide training for trainers (TOTs) and specialist training (such as classroom action research)— but not to provide direct practical training to school teachers. Ideally, providing practical training should be the job of trained district facilitators from projects like USAID PRIORITAS—teachers who understand teaching practice. At the same time, efforts should continue to strengthen the school cluster/teacher working group system, as the most effective forum for continuing professional development. TTIs thus need to establish new partnerships and working relationships with the districts and MORA, in which they recognize and support the district facilitators as the frontline providers of in-service training. For TTIs to establish such partnerships and relationships, the districts and MORA will need to convey official status and provide support to enable trained district facilitators to continue their role in providing in-service training to colleagues in the districts, which can become part of the agreement between TTIs and districts. Recommendations in summary: 1. Advocate for regulatory reform to enable TTIs to become more entrepreneurial as service providers. 2. Produce a book to share good practices from TTIs that have successfully developed service provider programs. 3. Continue, through future efforts, to build the capacity of TTI lecturers to become more practice-oriented, more familiar with classroom practice. 4. Encourage TTIs to form partnerships with districts and MORA, in which district facilitators continue to provide in-service training in partnership with the TTIs. 5. Continue, through future efforts, to build the capacity of TTIs to design and implement training modules, to manage training events, and to monitor and evaluate the training, in partnership with districts/MORA and based on good practices. 8.3.7

TTIs as research centers

After the primary core function of teaching, the second core function for universities, including TTIs, is research. In this report, the focus on Classroom Action Research (CAR) under USAID PRIORITAS has been discussed. In addition to CAR, a broader need exists for strengthening the capacity for TTIs to be able to conduct high quality research, the results of which would provide information for producing published articles and reports that can serve as input into public policy and professional practice. Future projects could work with TTIs to build capacity to conduct research, using tools such as the Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA), to provide valid input into policy and to help develop teaching practice in the Indonesian context.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

65

Recommendation in summary: 1. Provide future assistance to build the capacity of TTIs to conduct high-quality research to inform policy and professional practice. 8.3.8

Working with the ministries

Two years into the project implementation period, the government established a new ministry, the Ministry of Research, Higher Education and Technology (MORHE). This change meant that the TTIs, which were formerly under MOEC alongside basic education, are now under a separate line ministry. The Islamic TTIs remain under MORA. As a result, USAID PRIORITAS is required to coordinate with three national ministries (MORHE, MOEC, and MORA) for the TTI program. Oversupply is one of the main problems facing teacher training in Indonesia—as discussed in Section 2 of this report. In addition to an oversupply of teachers already existing within the education system, teachers are also unevenly distributed, with many being uncertified and underpaid as temporary teachers. Meanwhile, teaching has become a more attractive profession because of increased incomes, resulting in a growing demand for more admissions to TTIs, with the ensuing teacher supply increasing—especially among secondary teachers. This situation of oversupply and uneven distribution of teachers is likely to create a major political problem in coming years, with many TTI graduates unable to find employment. It also creates an opportunity for government to increase the intake standards for student-teachers and new teachers, and to repurpose the TTIs as providers of in-service as well as pre-service teacher training. This change would require an important policy shift by the national ministries. It would not be an easy policy to implement, as resistance from stakeholders, including the teacher unions and the TTIs themselves, would likely be high. It would also require changes in the regulations to enable the TTIs to become more entrepreneurial, providing services to districts, MORA, and others. Nonetheless, regulatory change is a logical policy positon to take, which could turn a negative situation into a positive, addressing the need for more and better in-service training to improve the basic education system, while at the same time maintaining the role and function of the TTIs, by shifting their focus to include more in-service training. This shift could involve such changes as removing the restrictions on TTIs charging for services, restricting the intake of new students through quotas (for specific programs) that are based on projections of future system needs, providing incentives to TTIs to develop in-service programs, requiring lecturers to have in-school teaching experience prior to being appointed to TTI academic staff, strengthening the concept of “tri-dharma” (the three functions of higher education: teaching, research, and community service), and expanding the job descriptions (tupoksi) for lecturers. Recommendations in summary: Advocate for policy change to 1. manage intake of student teachers through quotas or other means; and 2. enable TTIs to act effectively as service providers. 8.3.9

Lecturer absenteeism

Lecturer absenteeism is a largely ignored and unexplored problem in the TTIs. Senior academic staff often have internal commitments related to administrative tasks within the TTI, or independent, external, income-generating activities such as consulting. Thus, they are 66

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

frequently absent from scheduled classes. Using students as “assistant lecturers” is a commonplace practice to cover such absences. While this practice is common knowledge, it has not been studied and the problem does not appear to be widely recognized or addressed. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lecturer absenteeism impacts negatively on the quality and consistency of pre-service teacher training. However, without systematic study, it is not possible to know the full extent of the problem or its impacts. For this reason, a study of lecturer absenteeism is recommended. At the same time, government and donor-funded projects need to look at new ways of working with the TTIs as partners, which do not weaken the institutions by contracting individual academics and taking them out of the institutions. Recommendations in summary: 1. Conduct a study on lecturer absenteeism and make policy recommendations. 2. Explore new models of working in partnership with TTIs to support the development of basic education.

8.4

Conclusion

The efforts of the Indonesian Government, working with its international partners to improve the quality of basic education through in-service training, have been ongoing for over 30 years. It is only recently that attention has turned to improving the quality of pre-service training and helping the TTIs to take on the function currently performed by international donors and others in providing in-service training. The achievements and lessons learned from USAID PRIORITAS are thus very important. While it is too early to expect the major structural and cultural changes recommended above, it is nonetheless important to identify them. Many of the important lessons from the years of experience working with districts and schools can also be usefully applied to the TTI sector, as suggested. It is hoped that this review and the final analysis summarized here will be useful in this context.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

67

REFERENCES Chang, M. C., Shaeffer, S., Al-Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A. B., de Ree, J., & Stevenson, R. (2013). Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The role of politics and evidence in policy making. Directions in development. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/9780-8213-9829-6. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0. de Ree, J., Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M., & Rogers, H. (2016). Double for Nothing? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of an Unconditional Teacher Salary Increase on Student Performance in Indonesia. Working Paper 21806. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21806 Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press. Guerriero, S. (2014). Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge and the Teaching Profession. Background Report and Project Objectives. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016a). National indicators for education planning (NIEP). [Data set.]. Retrieved 6 June, 2016, from http://niep.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index.php?r=site/index Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016b). Laporan Hasil UKG 2015. [Report on Results of Teacher Competency Test 2015]. Jakarta: Ministry of Education & Culture, Directorate General for Teachers and Education Personnel. Paramadina Public Policy Institute. (2016). LPTK dan harapan mencetak guru berkualitas. [Teacher training institutes and the expectation to produce quality teachers]. Retrieved from http://policy.paramadina.ac.id/lptk-dan-harapan-mencetak-guruberkualitas/ USAID. (2012). Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project Final Evaluation. Volume I: Main Report and Volume II: Annexes. Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc., Aguirre Division. USAID. (2015). Scope of Work, Contract No. AID-497-C-12-00003, USAID PRIORITAS Project, page 2 of 22 pages. Jakarta: RTI International. USAID PRIORITAS. (2015). Teacher Deployment in Indonesia, Challenges and Solutions— November 2015. Jakarta: RTI International. USAID PRIORITAS. (2016a). An Investigation into the Teacher Deployment and Teacher Continuing Professional Development Programs in Indonesia – June 2016. Jakarta: RTI International. USAID PRIORITAS. (2016b). Assessing the Impact of the USAID PRIORITAS Program on Teacher Training Institutes. Jakarta: RTI International. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

68

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 1: PARTNER DISTRICTS AND TTIs No. 1

Province Aceh Aceh

USAID PRIORITAS PARTNER DISTRICTS Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Aceh Jaya Aceh Barat Daya Benar Mariah Aceh Utara

Aceh Aceh 2

Aceh Tamiang Pidie Jaya

Aceh North Sumatra

2 Labuhan Batu

4 Langkat

North Sumatra

Nias Selatan

Toba Samosir

North Sumatra

Kota Medan

North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra

3

2

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

DBE PARTNER DISTRICTS

TTI PARTNERS

Aceh Tengah

Universitas Syiah Kuala

Universitas Al Muslim

Pidie

UIN ArRaniry

Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh Universitas Jabbal Gofur Universitas Serambi Mekkah, Banda Aceh 4 Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatra Utara (UMSU) Universitas Muslim Nusantara Al Washliyah (UMN-AW) Universitas HKBP Nommensen (UHN) Universitas Sisingamangaraja Tapanuli (UNITA)

Bireun 3 Deli Serdang

2 Universitas Negeri Medan

Labuhanbatu Utara

Tapanuli Utara

IAIN Sumatra Utara, Medan

Humbang Hasundutan

Kota Binjai

Serdang Bedagai

4

TTI CONSORTIA

Kota Sibolga Kota Tebing Tinggi Tapanuli Selatan Kota Tanjung Balai 7

2

4

69

No. 3

Province Banten

USAID PRIORITAS PARTNER DISTRICTS Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Pandeglang Tangerang

DBE PARTNER DISTRICTS

TTI PARTNERS

Lebak

IAIN Banten

Kota Cilegon

Universitas Sultan Agung Tirtayasa

Banten Banten

Kabupaten Serang

Tangerang Selatan

Banten

4

Banten West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java

70

Kota Tangerang 2 Bandung Barat

2 Cirebon

Ciamis Cimahi

Tasikmalaya Bekasi Kuningan

3

4

Indramayu

Karawang Sukabumi Garut Kota Bogor

3

5

2 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia UIN Bandung

2

TTI CONSORTIA UNMA (Universitas Mathla'ul Anwar) Pandeglang UMT (Universitas Muhammadiyah) Kota Tangerang UNBJA (Universitas Banten Jaya) Kota Serang STKIP Setiabudhi Rangkasbitung Lebak 4 UNINUS Bandung UNPAS Bandung STAI Siliwangi Cimahi IAID Ciamis

4

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No. 5

Province Central Java

USAID PRIORITAS PARTNER DISTRICTS Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Banjarnegara Pekalongan

Jepara

Universitas Negeri Semarang

Central Java Central Java

Batang

Boyolali

IAIN Walisongo Semarang.

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Wonosobo

DBE PARTNER DISTRICTS

TTI PARTNERS

Central Java

6

Central Java

Purbalingga

Karanganyar

Central Java Central Java

Sragen Kabupaten Semarang

Kudus Blora

Central Java Central Java Central Java Central Java East Java East Java East Java

5 Pamekasan

Ngawi

2

Situbondo

Lumajang

Demak Grobogan Purworejo

8

Kota Batu

Bangkalan

Lamongan

Sidoarjo

Jombang

Tuban

Banyuwangi

Kota Mojokerto

East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java

Kabupaten Madiun Kabupaten Mojokerto Kabupaten Blitar

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

3 Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Surabaya

IAIN Sunanampel, Surabaya

TTI CONSORTIA Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (UKSW) Salatiga IKIP PGRI Semarang Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri (STAIN) Purwokerto Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam Negeri (STAIN) Pekalongan Universitas Negeri Sebelas March Surakarta (UNS)

5 Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri Universitas PGRI Adi Buana IKIP PGRI Madiun Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo STAIN Tulung Agung STAIN Ponorogo

Bojonegoro Nganjuk Pasuruan

71

No.

7

Province East Java East Java South Sulawesi

USAID PRIORITAS PARTNER DISTRICTS Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Maros

5

2 Pare-pare

4

DBE PARTNER DISTRICTS Sampang Enrekang

8

TTI PARTNERS

3 Universitas Negeri Makassar

South Sulawesi South Sulawesi

8

9

South Sulawesi

Bantaeng

Takalar

Pangkajene Kepulauan

South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi Papua Papua Papua West Papua

Wajo

Bone Tana Toraja

Soppeng Pinrang Sidenreng Rappang Kota Makassar 6

3

West Papua Grand Total

23

4 Jayawijaya Yahukimo 2 Manokwari Selatan 1 23

UIN Sultan Alauddin Makassar

2

TTI CONSORTIA

6 Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo (UNCOK Palopo) Universitas Muhammadiyah Parepare (UMPAR) Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar (UNISMUH) IAIN Palopo

4

STKIP Muhammadiyah Manokwari 1 8

40

17

31

Note: Two more TTIs were active as consortia members until 2015, when they withdrew: STAIN Bone (South Sulawesi) and Universitas Jember (East Java).

72

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 2: USAID PRIORITAS MODULES AND TRAINING MATERIALS [Information for this Annex 2 skipped because it is in Bahasa Indonesia.] No. Judul Modul PELATIHAN TINGKAT SEKOLAH (In-Service) Modul 1 1 Modul I: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) 2 Modul 1: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) 3 Modul 1: Praktik yang Baik dalam Fasilitasi dan Pendampingan Modul II 4 Modul II: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) 5 Modul II: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs)

Modul III

Modul III: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) 7 Modul III-A: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Pembelajaran Membaca Kelas Awal 8 Modul III-B: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Pembelajaran Kelas Tinggi 9 Modul III-C: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah PELATIHAN TINGKAT LPTK (Pre-Service) Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK I 10 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK I: Praktik yang Baik dalam Pembelajaran di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) 11 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK I: Praktik yang Baik dalam Pembelajaran di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) 12 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK I: Praktik yang Baik dalam Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) dan SMP/MTs Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK II 13 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK II: Praktik yang Baik dalam Pembelajaran di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) 14 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK II: Praktik yang Baik dalam Pembelajaran di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) 15 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK II: Praktik yang Baik dalam Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) dan SMP/MTs 6

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Terbit

February 2013 February 2013 February 2013

May 2014 REVISI Des 2015 May 2014 REVISI Des 2015 March 2015 July 2015 REVISI January 2016

May 2013 May 2013 May 2013

May 2014 May 2014 May 2014

73

No. Judul Modul Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK III 16 Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK III: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Pembelajaran

Terbit August 2016

Membaca Kelas Awal

17

Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK III: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Pembelajaran Kelas

August 2016

Bahan Rujukan bagi LPTK III: Praktik yang Baik di Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) Manajemen Berbasis

August 2016

Tinggi

18

Sekolah

Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK 19 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran Matematika January 2014 di Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) di LPTK 20 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran Literasi January 2014 Kelas Awal SD/MI di LPTK 21 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran IPA di January 2014 Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) di LPTK 22 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran Literasi March 2015 SD/MI di LPTK 23 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran Matematika March 2015 Sekolah Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) di LPTK 24 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran Literasi March 2015 Sekolah Menengah Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) di LPTK 25 Buku Sumber untuk Dosen LPTK: Pembelajaran IPA Sekolah March 2015 Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) di LPTK MATERI UNTUK SEKOLAH PRAKTIK YANG BAIK: SEKOLAH MITRA LPTK 26 Materi untuk Sekolah Praktik yang Baik: Sekolah February 2015 Dasar/Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (SD/MI) 27 Materi untuk Sekolah Praktik yang Baik: Sekolah Menengah February 2015 Pertama/Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP/MTs) MODUL PPL DAN PPG UNTUK LPTK 28 November Modul untuk Workshop Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG) 2015 di LPTK 29

Modul Praktik Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL) untuk PPG LPTK

WORKSHOP TATA KELOLA GURU Modul Pelatihan Penataan dan Pemerataan Guru 30 Modul 1: Workshop Penyamaan Persepsi 31 Modul 1I: Workshop Analisis Data dan Penyusunan Isu-Isu Strategis 32 Modul 1II: Workshop Analisis Kebijakan 33 Modul 1V: Workshop Implementasi Kebijakan

Modul Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan 34

74

Modul Pengembangan Keprofesian Berkelanjutan

August 2016

July 2014 July 2014 July 2014 July 2014 July 2015

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No. Judul Modul Aplikasi Pelaporan Keuangan Sekolah (ALPEKA) 35 Aplikasi Laporan Pertanggung-Jawaban Keuangan Dana

BOS Tingkat Sekolah

BUKU PRAKTIK YANG BAIK 36 Pembelajaran di SD/MI 37 Pembelajaran di SMP/MTs 38 Budaya Baca di SD/MI dan SMP/MTs 39 Tata Kelola dan Manajemen di SD/MI dan SMP/MTs

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Terbit August 2013

September 2014 September 2014 September 2014 September 2014

75

ANNEX 3: TTI CONSULTANTS AND FACILITATORS FOR TEACHER TRAINING TTI Coordinators No.

Provinces

Full Name

1.

Aceh

Mawardi, S.Ag., M.Pd.

2.

Aceh

Dra. Asiah MD., M.P.

3.

5.

North Sumatra North Sumatra Banten

Fibri Rakhmawati, S.Si., M.Si. Prof. Dr. Abdul Hamid K. M.Pd. Dr. Yudi Juniardi, M.Pd.

6.

Banten

7.

Position

Sex

TTI

Faculty

Head of Instructional Development Center Head of Praktek & Pemahaman Lapangan Secretary

M

UIN Ar-Raniry

F

Universitas Syiah Kuala

F

IAIN Medan

Dean

M

Vice Dean I

F

Fitri Hilmiyati, M.Ed.

Dean

F

Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa IAIN SMH Banten

West Java

Drs. Yudi Dirgantara, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

8.

West Java

Dra. Yulia Rahmawati, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

9.

Central Java Central Java Central Java

Prof. Dr. Ani Rusilowati, M.Pd. Ismail, SM, M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Lecture/Secretary

F

4.

10. 11.

76

Esti Swastika Sari, S.Pd., M. Hum

Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN), Bandung Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), Bandung Universitas Negeri Semarang IAIN Walisongo Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Tarbiyah, Pend. Matematika Teknik Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Tarbiyah & Keguruan Teknologi dan Kejuruan Mathematic dan IPA Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Bahasa dan Seni

Days on the job as coordinators 2014–2016 96 72 96 44 118 143 162 112 133 99 132

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Provinces

12.

East Java

13.

East Java

14.

East Java

15.

South Sulawesi South Sulawesi

16.

Full Name

Position

Sex

Dr. Evi Fatimatur Rusydiyah, M.Ag. Sugiyanto, S.Pd., M.Si

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

Silfia Asningtias, M. TESOL La Sunra

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Drs. Suddin Bani, M.Ag.

Lecturer

M

TTI

UIN Sunan Ampel, Surabaya Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Makassar UIN Alauddin Makassar

Faculty

Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan FMIPA Fisika Bahasa Inggris Bahasa dan Sastra Tarbiyah dan Keguruan

Days on the job as coordinators 2014–2016 128 163 102 111 75

Note: All the above Coordinators were previously hired as TTI Facilitators, except for Abdul Hamid, La Sunra, and Suddin Bani. Coordinators are also included in the following tables; their days of employment as Coordinators are added to days of work as Facilitators in the following tables. Coordinators are indicated in bold below.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

77

TTI Facilitators – Aceh No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

1.

Aceh

Samsul Kamal M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

2.

Aceh

Erni Maidiyah M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

3.

Aceh

M. Duskri DR., M.Kes.

Lecturer

M

4.

Aceh

Nurasiah S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

5.

Aceh

Lecturer

M

6.

Aceh

Andriansyah S.Pd.I., M.S.Ed. Chamisah S.Ag., M.Ed.

Lecturer

F

7.

Aceh

Azwardi S.Pd., M.Hum.

Lecturer

M

8.

Aceh

Budi Arianto S.Pd., M.A.

Lecturer

M

9.

Aceh

Ngadimin M.Si.

Lecturer

M

10.

Aceh

Mawardi M. Hum, M.A. 27

Lecturer

M

11.

Aceh

Nur Akmaliah M. Ed.

Lecturer

F

12.

Aceh

Soewarno M.Si.

Lecturer

M

13.

Aceh

Subhayni M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

14.

Aceh

Fitriyawani M. Pd.

Lecturer

F

27

TTI UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh

Faculty IPA/Fisika Matematika Matematika IPS/Sejarah Bahasa Inggris Bahasa Inggris Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Indonesia IPA/Fisika IPS/Sejarah B. Inggris IPA/Fisika Bahasa Indonesia IPA/Fisika

Number of days on-the-job training 38 97 81 16 28 1 15 24 23 149 117 77 39 9

In this table and the following tables, names in bold font indicate those who served as coordinators.

78

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

15.

Aceh

Mulia M. Ed.

Lecturer

M

16.

Aceh

Lecturer

F

17.

Aceh

Cut Khairunnisak S.Pd., M.Sc. Mawardi S. Ag., M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

18.

Aceh

Alfiati Syafrina Dra., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

19.

Aceh

Mislinawati. S Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

20.

Aceh

Hasmiana Hasan Dra., M.Si.

Lecturer

F

21.

Aceh

Tursinawati S.Pd.I, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

22.

Aceh

Tasnim Idris Dra, M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

23.

Aceh

Hafriani Dra., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

24.

Aceh

Elita Agustina M.Si.

Lecturer

F

25.

Aceh

Realita M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

26.

Aceh

Nida Jarmita M. Pd.

Lecturer

F

27.

Aceh

Fauzi M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

28.

Aceh

M. Husin Drs., M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

29.

Aceh

M. Yamin Drs.

Lecturer

M

30.

Aceh

Fithriyah M. Pd.

Lecturer

F

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh

Faculty Bahasa Inggris Kelas Awal/PGSD IPS/PGMI IPA/PGSD Bahasa Indonesia/PGSD IPS/PGSD IPA/PGSD Bahasa Indonesia/PGMI Matematika/PGMI IPA/PGMI Kelas Awal/PGMI Matematika/PGMI Kelas Awal/PGSD IPS/PGSD IPS/PGSD Kelas Awal/PGMI

Number of days on-the-job training 9 34 75 20 26 8 12 8 11 17 22 26 30 6 12 36

79

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

31.

Aceh

Zikra Hayati M. Pd.

Lecturer

F

32.

Aceh

Bukhari M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

33.

Aceh

Adnan M. Pd.

Lecturer

M

34.

Aceh

Surya S.T.

Lecturer

M

35.

Aceh

Ika Apriani

Lecturer

F

36.

Aceh

Asiah M. Daud

Lecturer

F

TTI UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Serambi Mekkah Universitas Syiah Kuala Universitas Syiah Kuala

Faculty Matematika/PGMI PGSD PGSD/Kelas Awal FKM USM FKIP FKIP TOTAL Average

80

Number of days on-the-job training 21 82 58 88 6 110 1,505 42

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Facilitators – North Sumatra No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Province North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED)

Drs. Daitin Tarigan, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

Dra. Mastiana Ritonga, M.Pd. Fakhrurrozi, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Lala Jelita Ananda, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Rosmaini, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Meida Nugrahalia, M.Sc.

Lecturer

F

Dr. Syamsidar Tanjung, M.Si. Nurhairani, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

Dr. Izwita Dewi Lubis, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Dra. Inayah Hanum, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Rika

Lecturer

F

Sri Yunita, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Aida Sitompul, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

Dr. Rahmat Husen, M.Ed.

Lecturer

M

Dr. Rahma Dewi, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Rahmulyani, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Faculty UNIMED-FIP UNIMED-FIP UNIMED-FIP UNIMED-FIP UNIMED - FBS UNIMED - FMIPA UNIMED-FIS-Sejarah UNIMED - FIP UNIMED-FMIPAMatematika UNIMED-FBSBahasa Indonesia UNIMED - FBS UNIMED - FIS PPKN UNIMED-FMIPABiologi UNIMED-FBSBahasa Inggris UNIMED - FIK UNIMED - FIP

Number of days on-the-job training 158 52 7 39 128 141 93 55 77 141 53 93 52 15 34 24

81

No. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

82

Province North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra

Full Name

Position

Sex

Mariati Salmiah, S.Pd., M.Hum. Dra. Farida Jaya, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

Dr. Masganti Sitorus, MA

Lecturer

F

Rina Filiasari, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

Rosdiana Dalimunthe, S.Pd., M.Pd. Dr. Eka Susanti, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

M

Drs. Isran Rasyid Karo-Karo, M.Pd. Nirwana Anas, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

M

Muhammad Nuh, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

Fibri Rakhmawati, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

Tri Indah Kusumawati, SS, M.Hum. Dr. Solihatul Hamidah Daulay, M.Hum. Syarbaini Saleh, S.Sos., M.Si. Muhammad Iqbal, S.Pd.L.

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Drs. Hendry Fauza, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

Amiruddin, S.Pd.I., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

TTI UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra UIN North Sumatra

Faculty UIN-SU-Pendidikan B. Inggris UIN-SU-Pendidikan Agama Islam UIN-SU-PGMI UIN-SU-Pendidikan Matematika UIN-SU-Pendidikan B. Inggris UIN- SU UIN-SU UIN-SU UIN-SU UIN-SU-Pendidikan Matematika UIN-SU-Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia UIN-SU - Bahasa Inggris UIN-SU- Civic Education UIN-SU-Manajemen Pendidikan Islam UIN-SU-Pendidikan Agama Islam UIN-SU - Manajemen Pendidikan Islam

Number of days on-the-job training 52 46 23 60 31 17 38 36 76 164 25 18 44 47 97 6

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No. 33.

Province North Sumatra

Full Name Prof. Dr. Abdul Hamid K. M.Pd.

Position Dean

Sex

TTI

M

Universitas Negeri Medan

Faculty Teknikh TOTAL Average

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of days on-the-job training 44 1,986 60

83

TTI Facilitators – Banten No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin

1.

Banten

Herwan, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

2.

Banten

Lecturer

F

3.

Banten

Lecturer

F

4.

Banten

Ana Nurhasanah, S.Pd., M.Pd. Lusiani Dewi Assaat, S.Pd., M.Si. Syachruroji, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

5.

Banten

Siti Aisah, S.Pd., M.Hum.

Lecturer

F

6.

Banten

Lecturer

M

7.

Banten

Lecturer

F

8.

Banten

Udi Samanhudi, S.Pd., M.Pd. Dr. Rida Oktorida Khastini, S.Si., M.Si. Siti Suharsih, S.S., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

9.

Banten

Damanhuri, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

10.

Banten

Lecturer

M

11.

Banten

Lecturer

M

12.

Banten

Dr. Hepsi Nindiasari, S.Pd., M.Pd. Ujang Jamaludin, S.Pd., M.Pd., M.Si. Pipit Marianingsih, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

13.

Banten

Dr. Meti Istimurti, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

14.

Banten

Lecturer

F

15.

Banten

Sundawati Tisnasari, M.Pd. Dr. Anis Fauzi, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

84

Faculty Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia / FKIP PGSD / FKIP Pendidikan Matematika / FKIP PGSD / FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris / FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris / FKIP Pendidikan Biologi/ FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris / FKIP PGSD / FKIP Pendidikan Matematika / FKIP Pendidikan Biologi / FKIP Pendidikan Biologi / FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia / FKIP Pendidikan Bahasa Indonesia/ FKIP Pendidikan IPS/FTK

Number of days on-the-job training 23 63 42 16 42 20 13 14 17 72 8 27 31 20 10

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Manajmen Pendidikan/FTK Pend. Bhs Inggris/FTK Matematika/FTK

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

M

Lecturer

M

Tarbiyah dan Keguruan

16.

Banten

17.

Banten

18.

Banten

19.

Banten

20.

Banten

21.

Banten

22.

Banten

23.

Banten

Yayu Heryatun, S.Pd., M.Pd. Uyu Muawwanah, S.Pd., M.Pd. Dr. Asep Saefurohman, S.Si., M.Si. Dr. Agus Gunawan, M.Pd.

24.

Banten

Dr. Apud, S.Ag., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

25.

Banten

Dra. Anis Zohriah, M.M.

Lecturer

F

26.

Banten

Ila Amalia, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

27.

Banten

Siti Shalihah, M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

28.

Banten

Dra. Siti Ngaisah, M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

29.

Banten

Lecturer

F

30.

Banten

Lecturer

F

31.

Banten

Emilia Sukma Dara Damanik, M.Hum. Yahdinil Firda Nadirah, M.Si. Yana Kurniawan M.Si.

Widyaiswara

P

UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin UIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin LPMP

32.

Banten

Fitri Hilmiyati, M.Ed.

Dean

F

IAIN SMH Banten

Dr. Moh. Amin Abdul Haq, M.M. Eulis Rahmawati, S.Pd., M.Pd. Muhammad Rifqi Rijal, S.Si., M.Pd. Khaeroni, M.Si.

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Faculty

Matematika/FTK Pendidikan Bhs Inggris/FTK Pend.Bhs Indonesia/FTK Pendidikan IPA/FTK Pendidikan IPS/FTK Manajamen Pendidikan/FTK Pend. IPS/FTK Pendidikan Bhs Inggris/FTK PGMI/FTK PGMI/FTK Pendidikan Bhs Inggris/FTK PAUDI/FTK

Number of days on-the-job training 1 13 16 30 40 62 9 8 24 17 32 6 39 21 14 60 162

85

No. 33.

Province Banten

Full Name Dr. Yudi Juniardi, M.Pd.

Position Vice Dean I

Sex F

TTI Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa

Faculty Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan TOTAL Average

86

Number of days on-the-job training 125 1,106 34

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Facilitators – West Java No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

1.

West Java

Tatat Hartati, Ph.D.

Lecturer

F

2.

West Java

Effy Mulyasari, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

3.

West Java

Dr. Yunus Abidin, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

4.

West Java

Dra. Ernalis, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

5.

West Java

Dra. Ade Rohayati, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

6.

West Java

Dr. Dharma Kesuma, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

7.

West Java

Dr. Hari Mulyadi, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

8.

West Java

Dr. Dian H. Utama, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

9.

West Java

Dr. E. Kosasih, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

10.

West Java

Dr. Parsaoran, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

11.

West Java

Taruna Sena, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)

Faculty FIP FIP FIP FIP FPMIPA FIP FPEB FPEB FPEB-Bahasa Indonesia FPMIPA-Fisika FPIPS-Sejarah

Number of days on-the-job training 49 30 27 16 8 12 8 8 42 68 32

87

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

12.

West Java

Dr. Hasbullah, M.T., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

13.

West Java

Drs. Asep Syarif Hidayat, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

14.

West Java

Nandi, Ph.D.

Lecturer

M

15.

West Java

Dr. Ida Farida CH., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

16.

West Java

Iyon Maryono, M.P.Mat.

Lecturer

M

17.

West Java

Muhammad Aminudin, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

18.

West Java

Neng Gustini, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

19.

West Java

Dian Ekawati, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

20.

West Java

Dra. Juariah, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

21.

West Java

Sumiati Sa'adah, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

22.

West Java

Dr. H. Sajidin, S.S., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

88

TTI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung

Faculty FPTK FPMIPA FPIPS FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTI-IPA FTK-Bahasa Inggris

Number of days on-the-job training 5 61 14 51 57 21 17 31 30 8 24

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

23.

West Java

Drs. H. Asis Saifudin, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

24.

West Java

Heri Hidayat, S.Sn, M.Ag..

Lecturer

M

25.

West Java

Hj. Ade Yeti Nuryantini, M.Si., MM.Pd.

Lecturer

F

26.

West Java

Dede Rohaniawati, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

27.

West Java

Yayu Nurhayati, S.Si., M.Stat

Lecturer

F

28.

West Java

Dr. Ara Hidayat, M.Pd..

Lecturer

M

29.

West Java

Dr. Aam Kurnia, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

30.

West Java

Nano Nurdiansyah, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

31.

West Java

Drs. Yudi Dirgantara, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

32.

West Java

Dra. Yulia Rahmawati, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

TTI UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung UIN Sunan Gunung Jati Bandung Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN), Bandung Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), Bandung

Faculty FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK-MTK FTK-IPA FTK Kls Awal FTK-IPS Tarbiyah & Keguruan Teknologi dan Kejuruan TOTAL Average

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of days on-the-job training 61 32 13 7 22 34 10 14 175

127 1,114 35

89

TTI Facilitators – Central Java and Yogyakarta No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI

Faculty

1.

Central Java

Ismail, SM, M.Ag.

Lecturer

M

IAIN Walisongo

2.

Central Java

Sayyidatul Fadlillah, M.Pd.

F

UIN Walisongo

3.

Central Java

Sayyidatul Fadlillah, M.Pd.

F

UIN Walisongo

Kelas Awal

4.

Central Java

Fihris, M.Ag.

F

UIN Walisongo

IPS

5.

Central Java

F

UIN Walisongo

Matematika

6.

Central Java

Kristiliani Purwanti, S.Si., M.Pd. Listiyono, S.Pd., M.Pd.

M

UIN Walisongo

IPA

7.

Central Java

Daviq Rizal, S.Pd., M.Pd.

M

UIN Walisongo

Bahasa Indonesia

8.

Central Java

Zulaikha, M.Pd.

F

UIN Walisongo

Kelas Awal

9.

Central Java

Saminanto, M.Si.

M

UIN Walisongo

MBS

10.

Central Java

M

UIN Walisongo

MBS

11.

Central Java

Joko Budi Purnomo, S.Pd., M.Pd. Desy Wulandari, M.Pd.

Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGMI Lecturer PGSD

Tarbiyah dan Keguruan Kelas Awal

F

Kelas Awal

12.

Central Java

Dr. Sri Sulistyorini, M.Pd.

Lecturer PGSD

F

13.

Central Java

Sutji Wardhayani,S.Pd., M.Kes

Lecturer PGSD

F

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES)

90

IPA IPA/Matematika

Number of days on-the-job training 102 25 25 18 49 57 16 216 45 24 167 40 4

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI

Faculty

14.

Central Java

Petra Kristi, M.Ed.

Lecturer FIP

F

15.

Central Java

Nugraheti Sismulyasih, M.Pd.

Lecturer FIP

F

16.

Central Java

Drs Umar Samadi, M.Pd.

Lecturer PGSD

F

17.

Central Java

Drs Jaino

Lecturer PGSD

M

18.

Central Java

Dra Yuyarti, M.Pd.

Lecturer PGSD

F

19.

Central Java

Atik Rahmawati, S.Pd., M.Si.

F

20.

Central Java

F

UIN Walisongo

Matematika

21.

Central Java

Lulu Choirunnisa, S.Si., M.Pd. Mujiasih, S.Pd., M.Pd.

F

UIN Walisongo

Matematika

22.

Central Java

Siti Tarwiyah, S.S., M.Hum.

F

UIN Walisongo

Bahasa Inggris

23.

Central Java

Andi Fadlan, SSi., M.Sc.

M

UIN Walisongo

IPA/IPS

24.

Central Java

Fatkuroji, M.Pd.

M

UIN Walisongo

MBS

25.

Central Java

Dr. Fahrurozi, M.Ag.

M

UIN Walisongo

MBS

26.

Central Java

Prof. Dr. Ani Rusilowati, M.Pd.

Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FTIK Lecturer FMIPA

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) UIN Walisongo

F

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES)

IPA

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

IPS Bahasa Indonesia MBS MBS MBS IPA

Number of days on-the-job training 104 147 45 32 8 26 39 27 22 111 114 69 166

91

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

27.

Central Java

Novia Trisanti, S.Pd., M.Pd

Lecturer FBS

F

28.

Central Java

Rahayu Pristiwati, S.Pd., M.Pd

Lecturer FBS

F

29.

Central Java

Andy Suryadi, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer FIS

M

30.

Central Java

Suseno, S.Pd., MA

Lecturer FBS

M

31.

Central Java

Hery Sutarto, M.Pd.

Lecturer FMPA

M

32.

Central Java

Muh. Sholeh S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer FIS

M

33.

Central Java

C. Murni Wahyanti, M.A.

Lecturer FBS

F

34.

DI Yogyakarta

Unik Ambar Wati, M.Pd.

F

35.

DI Yogyakarta

36.

DI Yogyakarta

37.

DI Yogyakarta

Septia Sugiarsih, S.Pd, M.Pd. Woro Sri Hastuti, S.Pd, M.Pd. Supartinah, S.Pd, M.Hum.

Lecturer PGSD Lecturer PGSD Lecturer PGSD Lecturer PGSD

38.

DI Yogyakarta

Fathurrahman, M.Pd.

M

39.

DI Yogyakarta

Rahayu Condro Murti, M.Si.

Lecturer FIP Lecturer PGSD

92

F F F

F

TTI Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Faculty Bahasa Inggris Bahasa Indonesia IPS Bahasa Indonesia Matematika MBS MBS Kelas Awal Bahasa Indonesia IPA Bahasa Indonesia/Kelas Awal IPS MBS

Number of days on-the-job training 68 14 37 209 66 111 20 30 52 94 74 12 61

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

40.

DI Yogyakarta

41.

DI Yogyakarta

Agung Hastomo, S.Pd, M.Pd. Banu Setyo Adi, M.Pd.

42.

DI Yogyakarta

Kusmarwanti, M.Pd., MA

43.

DI Yogyakarta

44.

DI Yogyakarta

Sabar Nurohman, S.Pd. Si., M.Pd. Ilham Rizkianto

45.

DI Yogyakarta

Ella Wulandari, M.A.

46.

DI Yogyakarta

Anik Widiastuti, M.Pd.

47.

DI Yogyakarta

Taat Wulandari, M.Pd

48.

DI Yogyakarta

Dra. Endang Listyani, M.S

49.

DI Yogyakarta

Esti Swastika Sari, S.Pd., M.Hum.

Position Lecturer PGSD Lecturer PGSD Lecturer FBS Lecturer FMIPA Lecturer FMIPA Lecturer FBS Lecturer FIS Lecturer FIS Lecturer FMIPA Lecturer FBS

Sex M M F M M F F F F F

TTI Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Faculty MBS MBS Bahasa Indonesia IPA Matematika Bahasa Inggris IPS MBS MBS MBS TOTAL Average

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of days on-the-job training 21 21 61 162 60 36 5 14 32 160 3,090 63

93

TTI Facilitators – East Java No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA)

1.

East Java

Masengut Sukidi

Lecturer

M

2.

East Java

Farida Istianah

Lecturer

F

3.

East Java

Ganes Gunansyah

Lecturer

M

4.

East Java

Ulhaq Zuhdi

Lecturer

M

5.

East Java

Ika Rahmawati

Lecturer

F

6.

East Java

Purwanto, Drs., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

7.

East Java

A. Julianto

Lecturer

M

8.

East Java

Erni Roesminingsih, Dra, Dr.

Lecturer

M

9.

East Java

Esti Kurniasih, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

10.

East Java

Diding Wahyudin Rohaidi

Lecturer

M

11.

East Java

Heny Subandiyah

Lecturer

F

94

Faculty FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-PGSD FIP-MP FBS-BHS ING FBS-BHS IND FBS-BHS IND

Number of days on-the-job training 90 26 55 32 55 68 25 92 21 14 149

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Surabaya (UNESA) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM)

12.

East Java

Silfia Asningtias

Lecturer

F

13.

East Java

Muji Sri Prastiwi

Lecturer

F

14.

East Java

Harmanto

Lecturer

M

15.

East Java

Sumarno, Drs. M.Hum.

Lecturer

M

16.

East Java

Siti Khabibah

Lecturer

F

17.

East Java

Karwanto, M.Pd. Dr

Lecturer

M

18.

East Java

Pramono, S.Pd., M.Or.

Lecturer

M

19.

East Java

Suharjo, M.S., M.A.

Lecturer

M

20.

East Java

Lecturer

M

21.

East Java

Teguh Triwiyanto, S.Pd. M.Pd. Sjafruddin A. Rahman

Lecturer

M

22.

East Java

Lilik Bintartik

Lecturer

F

23.

East Java

Sri Estu W.

Lecturer

F

24.

East Java

Sri Harmini

Lecturer

F

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Faculty FBS-BHS ING FMIPA FIS-PPKn FISH FMIPA FIP-MP FIP-MP FIP-KSDP FIP-AP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP

Number of days on-the-job training 158 21 43 37 33 11 49 88 6 29 31 32 64

95

No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) Universitas Negeri Malang (UNM) UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

25.

East Java

Murtiningsih

Lecturer

M

26.

East Java

I Wayan Sutama

Lecturer

M

27.

East Java

Sukamti

Lecturer

M

28.

East Java

Arafik

Lecturer

M

29.

East Java

Wiwik Dwi Hastuti, M.Pd

Lecturer

F

30.

East Java

Andi Muhtar

Lecturer

M

31.

East Java

Nurchasanah

Lecturer

F

32.

East Java

Sugiyanto

Lecturer

M

33.

East Java

Eddy Budiono

Lecturer

M

34.

East Java

Lathiful Anwar

Lecturer

M

35.

East Java

Ahmad Nurabadi

Lecturer

M

36.

East Java

Umi Hanifah, M.Ag.

Lecturer

F

37.

East Java

Ahmad Hanif Asyhar

Lecturer

M

38.

East Java

R. Saifuddin

Lecturer

M

39.

East Java

Lecturer

F

40.

East Java

Evi Fatimatur Rusydiyah Junaidi, M.Ag., Dr.

Lecturer

M

96

Faculty FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FIP-KSDP FS-ING FS-ING FMIPA FMIPA FMIPA FIP-KSDP FTK FST FTK FTK FTK

Number of days on-the-job training 21 48 39 27 87 43 55 194 85 72 74 23 14 10 141 42

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

41.

East Java

42.

East Java

43.

Full Name

Position

Sex

TTI UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya LPMP Provinsi Jawa Timur LPMP Provinsi Jawa Timur

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

M

East Java

Lilik Channa A. W, Dra, Ma Agus Prasetyo Kurniawan, M.Pd. Moh. Hafiyusholeh

Lecturer

M

44.

East Java

Muflihah, Ma.

Lecturer

F

45.

East Java

Hernik Farisia

Lecturer

F

46.

East Java

Hilda Izzati Madjid, M.A.

Lecturer

F

47.

East Java

Rakhmawati, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

48.

East Java

Rizka Safriyani

Lecturer

F

49.

East Java

M. Amin, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

50.

East Java

Febriana Kristanti, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

51.

East Java

Maunah Setyawati, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

52.

East Java

Sutini, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

53.

East Java

Lecturer

M

54.

East Java

Machfud Bachtiyar, M.Pdi. Wahsun

Widyaiswara

M

55.

East Java

Fadibah Setiawan

Widyaiswara

M

Faculty FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK FTK

25 71 22 17 99 9 97 17 39 29 82 40 47 46 9

TOTAL Average

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of days on-the-job training

2,853 52

97

TTI Facilitators – South Sulawesi No.

Province

Full Name

Position

Sex

1.

South Sulawesi

Drs. Bernard, MS.

Lecturer

M

2.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Faridah, M.Ed.

Lecturer

F

3.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

4.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

5.

South Sulawesi

Dra. Sitti Hajerah Hasyim, M.Si. Prof. Dr. Hj. Johar Amir, M.Hum. Drs. Abdullah, M.Hum.

Lecturer

M

6.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Hj. A. Asmawati. M.Si.

Lecturer

F

7.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Ahmad Yani, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

8.

South Sulawesi

Drs. Jasri Jangi, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

9.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Alimuddin, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

10.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

M

11.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

12.

South Sulawesi

Prof. Dr. H. Patta Bundu, M.Ed. Widya Karmila Sari Achmad, S.Pd., M.Pd. Drs. Andi Makkasau, M.Si.

Lecturer

M

13.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Hasaruddin Hafid, M.Ed.

Lecturer

M

14.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

15.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Hj. Sulastriningsih, M.Hum. Syamsiah D, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

98

TTI Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM)

Faculty Matematika FMIPA UNM Administrasi Pendidikan FIP UNM Ekonomi FIE UNM Bahasa Indonesia FBS UNM Bahasa Inggris FBS UNM Biologi FMIPA UNM Fisika FMIPA UNM Kimia FMIPA UNM Matematika FMIPA UNM PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM

Number of days on-the-job training 195 117 138 39 51 75 49 105 58 129 47 43 43 77 69

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Province

16.

South Sulawesi

17.

Full Name

Position

Sex

Lecturer

F

South Sulawesi

Dra. Hj. St. Johara Nonci, M.Si. Dra. Nurhaedah A, M.Si.

Lecturer

F

18.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Ratmawati T

Lecturer

F

19.

South Sulawesi

Sumarlin Mus, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

20.

South Sulawesi

Umar Sulaiman, S.Ag. M.Pd

Lecturer

M

21.

South Sulawesi

Drs. M. Shabir U, M.Ag.

Lecturer

M

22.

South Sulawesi

Sri Sulastri, S.Si., M.Si.

Lecturer

F

23.

South Sulawesi

Ahmad Afiif, S.Ag. M.Si.

Lecturer

M

24.

South Sulawesi

Usman, S.Ag, M.Pd

Lecturer

M

25.

South Sulawesi

H. Muh. Rapi, S.Ag. M.Pd

Lecturer

M

26.

South Sulawesi

Aisyah Chalik, S.Ag, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

27.

South Sulawesi

Nursalam, S.Pd, M.Si

Lecturer

M

28.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

29.

South Sulawesi

Andi Dian Anggraeni, S.Pd, M.Pd. Dra. Andi Halimah, M.Pd.

Lecturer

F

30.

South Sulawesi

Lecturer

F

31.

South Sulawesi

Dr. Hj. Djuwairiah Ahmad, M.Pd. Dr. St. Maniah, S.Ag.

Lecturer

F

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UM) UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar

Faculty PGSD FIP UNM PGSD FIP UNM Administrasi Pendidikan FIP UNM Administrasi Pendidikan FIP UNM PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMI UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN

Number of days on-the-job training 6 5 4 14 77 50 12 69 80 24 11 171 56 21 4 5

99

No.

Province

32.

South Sulawesi

33.

South Sulawesi

34.

Full Name

Position

Sex

Lecturer

F

Lecturer

F

South Sulawesi

Dra. Hamsiah Djafar, M.Hum. Dr. Hj. St. Syamsudduha, M.Pd. Ridwan Idris, S.Ag., M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

35.

South Sulawesi

Dr. M. Yusuf Tahir, M.Pd.

Lecturer

M

36.

South Sulawesi

La Sunra

Lecturer

M

37.

South Sulawesi

Drs. Suddin Bani, M.Ag.

Lecturer

M

TTI UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar UIN Alauiddin Makassar Universitas Negeri Makassar UIN Alauddin Makassar

Faculty PGMI UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN PGMTs UIN Bahasa dan Sastra Tarbiyah dan Keguruan TOTAL Average

100

Number of days on-the-job training 41 97 10 16 111 75 2194 59

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 4: TTI CONSULTANTS AND FACILITATORS FOR GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT No.

Name

1.

Aceh Asiah MD., Dra., M.P.

2.

Sulastri, Dra., M.Si.

3.

TTI

Position

Faculty

Lecturer/TTI Coordinator (EDC) Lecturer

FKIP

Azhar M. Nur, Dr.,M.Pd.

Universitas Syiah Kuala (Unsyiah) Universitas Syiah Kuala (Unsyiah) IAIN Ar-Raniry

Lecturer

4.

Masbur, S.Ag., M.Ag.

IAIN Ar-Raniry

Lecturer

5. 6.

IAIN Ar-Raniry USM Banda Aceh

Lecturer Lecturer

1.

Mawardi, S.Ag., M.Pd, Surya, ST. North Sumatra Prof. Dr. Effendi Napitupulu,

Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan (FITK) Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan (FITK) FTK FKM

Lecturer

2.

Dr. Mutsyuhito Solin

Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED) Universitas Negeri Medan (UNIMED)

3.

Dr. Indra Jaya,

1. 2. 3. 4.

IAIN Sumatra Utara

Banten Eko Wahyu Wibowo, S.Si, MM, M.Si Biru Muqdamien, SE, M.Kom

IAIN SMH Banten

Aan Ansori, S.Kom, M.Kom

IAIN SMH Banten

Abdul Fatah, M. Si

Universitas Sultan Agung Tirtayasa (UNTIRTA)

IAIN SMH Banten

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Lecturer Lecturer

Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer

FKIP

FT FBS UIN – SU Pendidikan Matematika

Number of days on-the-job training 34 8 8 4 12 64 14 26 29

Penata Tk.1 (III/d) Lektor Kepala Penata (III/c) Lektor Penata Muda Tk. 1 (III/c) Lektor

41

Dosen Data dan Informasi

10

44

47

101

No.

Name

1.

West Java Dr. Suryadi

2.

Dr. Dedi Ahmad Kurniadi

3.

Jajang Kusnendar, MT

4.

Dr. Abu Bakar

5. 6. 7.

Drs. M. Mutaqin, M.Pd. Dr. Andewi Suhartini, M.Ag. Dr. Moh. Sulhan, M.Ag. Central Java

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

102

TTI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI) UIN Bandung UIN Bandung UIN Bandung

Fatkuroji, M.Pd.

IAIN Walisongo Semarang

Dr. Fahrurrozi, M.Ag

IAIN Walisongo Semarang

Yuli Utanto, S.Pd., M.Si Sudaryanta, S.Pd., M.Si Dr. Yovitha Yuliejantiningsih, M.Pd Y. Windrawanto, M.Pd Dr. Wiwik Wijayanti Mada Sutapa, M.Si

Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) LPMP Central Java IKIP PGRI Semarang Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana (UKSW Salatiga) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY) Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Position

Faculty

Lecturer

FIP

Lecturer

FIP

Lecturer/ShortTerm Technical Assistant, RTI Lecturer

FPMIPA

Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer

Penata Tk. I (III/d) Pembina (IV/a) Penata Tk. I (III/d)

Lecturer

Lektor pada FITK UIN Walisongo Lektor pada FITK UIN Walisongo

FIP

Lecturer Lecturer Fungsional Umum Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer Lecturer

Number of days on-the-job training 54 22 61 28 17 24 37 50 20

III/a - Penata Muda FIP

56

Penata III/c Penata III/c Lektor/Dosen Pascasarjana

50 40

Rektor

55

Penata III/c Lektor

37

Penata Muda III/a FIP

43

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Name

TTI

Position

Faculty

Number of days on-the-job training

East Java 1.

Pramono, S.Pd., M.Or.

UNM (Universitas Negeri Malang)

Lecturer

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan

7

2.

Teguh Triwiyanto, S.Pd. M.Pd.

UNM (Universitas Negeri Malang)

Lecturer/ShortTerm Technical Assistant, RTI

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan

68

3.

Rakhmawati, M.Pd.

IAIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

Lecturer

Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan

11

4.

Dr. Erny Roesminingsih, M.Si.

Lecturer

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan

14

Lecturer

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan

26

Lecturer/Consultant with UN MSS project Lecturer

FSI

Lecturer Lecturer

FBS

5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Dr. Suharjo, MS, MA (DF Pengganti) South Sulawesi Supriadi Torro Sahid S.Pd, M.Pd. Usman, S.Ag., M.Pd. Sitti Hajerah Hasyim (DF Pengganti) Sahade, S.Pd., M.Pd. (DF Pengganti)

UNESA Universitas Negeri Surabaya UNM (Universitas Negeri Malang) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM) UIN Alauddin Makassar Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM) Universitas Negeri Makassar (UNM)

Lecturer

FMIPA

46 70

FE

138

FE

46

TOTAL Average

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

47

1,408 43

103

ANNEX 5: TTI SERVICE PROVIDER PARTNERSHIPS TTI Service Provider Partnerships – Aceh No.

104

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

1. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Pidie Jaya

MOU: 9417/UNll.1.2TU/2015 Nomor: 420/2191/2015

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

2. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Aceh Utara

MOU

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

3. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Aceh Jaya

MOU: 421.2/1298.a/2015

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

4. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Aceh Tamiang

MOU: /424/D.2/XI1/2015

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

5. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Aceh Tengah

MOU

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

6. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Bener Mariah

MOU: 244/ /01KBUD/2015

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

7. UNSYIAH

Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Pidie

MOU

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

8. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Pidie

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

9. UIN Ar-Raniry,

MORA Kabupaten Aceh Utara

MOU: KD.01.05j4jPP.00j4692j2015 Nomor: Un.08jFTKjKP.01.1j9534j2015 MOU: Un.08/FTK/KP.01.1/9528/2015

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

10. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Pidie Jaya

11. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Aceh Jaya

12. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Aceh Tamiang

13. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Aceh Tengah

14. UIN Ar-Raniry

MORA Kabupaten Bener Mariah

15. UIN Ar-Raniry

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama MOU: Un.08/FTK/Kp.Ol.l/9527/2015 Nomor: Kd.Ol.20/2/PP.03/2228/2015 MOU: Un.08/FTK/Kp.01.1/9530/2015 Nomor: Kd.01.18/1-a/HM.01/2554/2015 MOU: Kd.Ol.ll/2/PP.OO/3439/2015 Nomor: Un.08/FTK/Kp.01.1/9529/2015 MOU: No.08/FTK/KP.01.1/9532/2015

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

December 23, 2015

Teacher Competency Improvement Program

SMKN 1 Banda Aceh

MOU: Un.08/FTK/Kp.01.l/9531/2D15 Tanggal: 23 Desember 2015 School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

16. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMKN 2 Banda Aceh

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

17. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMKN 2 Telkom Banda Aceh

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

18. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMK 1 Jantho Aceh Besar

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

19. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMKN 1 Aceh Besar

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

105

No.

106

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

20. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMKN2 Aceh Besar

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

21. UIN Ar-Raniry

SMKN 5 Aceh Besar

School teaching practicum

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

22. UIN Ar-Raniry

Perusahaan Telkom Banda Aceh

Seminar and student practice study to Telkom business

2016 – no time limit

Develop student skills and knowledge

23. UIN Ar-Raniry

Direktorat Jenderal Pajak Aceh

Providing human resources

2010–2016

As a forum for community outreach

24. UIN Ar-Raniry

STAIN Malikussaleh Lhokseumawe

2010–2016

Increasing the quality of academic staff in the Tarbiyah Faculty

25. UIN Ar-Raniry

Universitas Padjadjaran Bandung

Developing education, teaching, organizational development, research, seminars, workshops and community outreach Education, research and community outreach

2010–2015

Developing a research journal for lecturers

26. UIN Ar-Raniry

STAI Dirundeng Meulaboh

Education collaboration to develop the capacity of lecturers and to train new lecturers for STAI Dirundeng Meulaboh.

2010–2016

Collaboration to develop the capacity of lecturers in English, in order that the lecturers from both institutions develop competency, speech, and English language pedagogy

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

27. UIN Ar-Raniry

Universitas Serambi Mekkah (USM)

28. UIN Ar-Raniry

Politeknik Aceh

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama Provide support in the areas of mentoring human resources and mentoring the organization to develop the research and academic programs along with others. Conduct TOEFL test preparation for students and lecturers

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

2010–2016

Collaboration to increase capacity of lecturers to use English language

2010–2015

Having the English Language Study program become well known among other education agencies in Banda Aceh. The Politeknik is also using alumni from the English Language program in Tarbiyah and Teaching Faculty at UIN Ar-Raniry.

107

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – North Sumatra No.

108

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

1. UNIMED

Universitas Negeri Padang (Sociaology Faculty)

Partnership to improve human resources

2015–2019

2. UNIMED

Pemda Labuhan Batu Utara

Education quality improvement and human resource development

2014–2018

3. UNIMED

PT Astra International

Human resource development in Medan and North Sumatra

2014–2017

Building the image and reputation of UNIMED

4. UNIMED

Universitas Medan Area

2014–2019

Building the image and reputation of UNIMED

5. UNIMED

LANTAMAL I

Partnership in Education, Training, Research and Community Outreach Partnership

2014–2015

6. UNIMED

Pemda Labuhan Batu Selatan

Partnership

2014–2014

7. UNIMED

State Protestant Christian Religious College, Tarutung

Partnership

2014–2019

Mangrove forest conservation, migrant bird protection, empowering coastal communities, mangrove tourism and development of knowledge and technology Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Evaluation of temporary teacher qualifications and competencies in state schools Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Education quality improvement, research and publication, community outreach, improving competitive advantage Building the image and reputation of UNIMED

Research in education, sociology and anthropology, community outreach, sharing research and reports and developing a journal, sharing visits to student teacher practicums Building the image and reputation of UNIMED

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

8. UNIMED

North Sumatra Police Office (POLRI)

Partnership

2014–2014

9. UNIMED

Living environment, Research and Development Body, Samosir District

Partnership

2014–2014

10. UNIMED

UNY

Partnership

2014–2014

11. UNIMED

UNM

Partnership

2015–2020

12. UIN Sumatera Utara

Pemkab Asahan

Partnership to improve human resources

November, 26, 2008

13. UIN Sumatera Utara

Pemkab Labuhan Batu Utara

Beasiswa Mahasiswa

September, 30, 2015

14. UIN Sumatera Utara

Dinas Pendidikan Nasional Propinsi Sumatera Utara

Human resource development in Medan and North Sumatra

November, 21, 2007

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Supervising selection of police recruits Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Preparing an academic paper and draft regulation for the protection and management of the living environment in Samosir Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Student exchanges Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Student exchanges Building the image and reputation of UNIMED Improving the Quality of Human Resources through Education, Training and Institutional Development Community Governments Asahan District Scholarship for students who come from North Labuhan Batu Regency Program Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel Qualification Event Implementation S1 / D-4 Educators through the program S-1 Tarbiyah Faculty

109

No.

110

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

15. UIN Sumatera Utara

Kementrian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak Republik Indonesia

Gender

June, 2, 2016

16. UIN Sumatera Utara

Deputi Bidang Kesetaraan Gender Kementrian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak Republik Indonesia

Partnership

June, 2, 2016

SCOPE (Key Content) Accelerating the Implementation of Gender Mainstreaming through Academic Reinforcement at the State Islamic University of North Sumatra Pelaksanaan Pengarusutamaan Gender melalui Penguatan Akademik pada Aspek Pendidikan di Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – Banten No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

1. UNTIRTA

Kota Serang

MOU 009/UN43/MOU.DT/05/2014

May 2014

Human Resource Development, Education, Research and Development, and Community Empowerment

2. UNTIRTA

023/IR-CAP/VI/2014 011/UN43/MOU.KM/02/2014 013/UN43/MOU.LT/08/2014 073/1167-BPPD/2014

June 26, 2014 August 28, 2014

Collaboration for education support, research and local empowerment Commitment to collaborate to conduct research, development and preparation of computer technology (ICT) as a consortium

4. UNTIRTA

PT Chandra Asri Petrochemical Tbk. Consortium (Untirta, Balitbangda Prov Banten, PT Chandra Asri Petrochemical, Sentra Teknologi Polimer) Province of Banten

073/HUK/2014 015/UN43/MOU.KL/12/2014

December 8, 2014

5. UNTIRTA

Kota Cilegon

Collaboration

May 23-24, 2016

6. UNTIRTA

Kota Cilegon

Collaboration

May 25-26, 2016

UNTIRTA, 7. Science Department 8. IAIN SMH

Kabupaten Serang

MOU

Empowerment and improvement of human resources and development potential, Banten Province Workshop to prepare teachers and education personnel for primary and Junior-secondary schooling. Workshop to prepare teachers and education personnel for primary and Junior-secondary schooling (JSS) Improving the careers for JSS science teachers

Province of Banten

MOU (Rector and Pemda/MORA Provincial Office)

9. IAIN SMH

MORA, Province of Banten

MOU

3. UNTIRTA

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

September –November 2016 Since 2014 Since 2015 until now

Disseminate PAKEM, CTL and SBM through KKM, Pengawas/MGMP and KKG Prepare a plan and design for Madrasah Quality Improvement Program

111

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

10. IAIN SMH

MORA (Islamic Education)

MOU

2015

11. IAIN SMH

MORA, Province of Banten

MOU

2015

12. IAIN SMH

Provincial Accreditation Body for Secondary Schools MORA, Province of Banten

MOU IAIN with Provincial BAP SM

2015

Collaboration between IAIN and MORA (provincial office) IAIN-DINAS PENDIDIKAN PROVINSI Education Faculty with Dinas Kota Serang Education Faculty with Kab. Serang

2015–2016

13. IAIN SMH 14. IAIN SMH

112

PARTNER (Service User)

15. IAIN SMH

Dinas Pendidikan, Province of Banten Dinas Pendidikan, Kota Serang

16. IAIN SMH

Kabupaten Serang

2015–2016 Since 2014 Since 2014

SCOPE (Key Content) Training and Classroom Action Research (CAR) for Islamic Education teachers SD-SMP and SMA Selection of Outstanding Teachers, School Principals and Pengawas eleksi Guru, Province-level Prepare Provincial Accreditation Assessors Preparation for Mentoring Madrasah Accreditation Team to evaluate teachers and school principals Conducting teacher practicums (PPL) Conducting and mentoring student practicums (PPL)

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – West Java No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

1. UIN SGD BDG

Pemkab Cianjur

B6557/Un.05/I.3/OT.01/ 08/2016

August 25, 2016

2. UIN SGD BDG

Pemkot Banjar

3. UIN SGD BDG

Pemkab Garut

Un.05/I.3/OT.00.1/183. A/2016 Un.05/I.3/OT.01.1/125/2016

February 25, 2016 February 11, 2016

4. UIN SGD BDG

Pemkot Bandung

Un.05/I.3/PP.00.9/617.A/2015

February 11, 2016

5. UIN SGD BDG

Pemkab Purwakarta

Un.05/V.8/OT.01/209/2014

6. UIN SGD BDG

Kanwil Kemenag Provinsi Jawa Barat

Un.05/V.8/OT.01/140/2012

April 23, 2014 March 13, 2012

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Partnership in the fields of education, training, courses, research, and community outreach. Education partnership and human resource development program. Research and knowledge assessment, mentoring and human resource quality improvement, community outreach, support for mosque management, teaching practicums/ apprenticeships, etc. Research, knowledge assessment and sharing, mentoring and human resource quality improvement, teacher quality improvement for teachers in madrasah diniyah and Islamic education, community outreach, support for mosque management, teaching practicums/ apprenticeships, etc. Education and training, research, community outreach Quality improvement for madrasah and Islamic early childhood centers (RA), quality improvement for Islamic education, quality improvement for madrasah diniyah and pondok pesantren, quality improvement for majelis taklim, TPA, TPQ, and similar bodies.

113

No.

114

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

7. UPI

Provinsi Jabar

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

8. UPI

Pemkot Tasik Malaya

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

9. UPI

Pemda Kab. Tasik Malaya

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

10. UPI

Pemda Kab. Majalengka

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

11. UPI

Pemda Kab. Indramayu

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

12. UPI

Pemda Kab. Subang

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

13. UPI

Pemda Kab. Landak

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

14. UPI

Pemda Kab. Sorong

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

15. UPI

Pemda Kab. Kaimana

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

16. UPI

Pt. Krakatau Steel

Kesepakatan Bersama

Ongoing

17. UPI

PROVINSI RIAU

001/NKB/1/2013 0040/UN40/HK/2013

January 7, 2013 5 years

18. UPI

Dikdas Kemendikbud

27/C.C4.5/KP/2013 1260/UN40/HK/2013

January 14, 2013 5 years

SCOPE (Key Content) Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Education and training, research, community outreach Joint Agreement Statement Collaborate in education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint statement Improving quality and access for education, especially basic education services

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

19. UPI

Badan Pendidikan Dan Penelitian Kesejahteraan Sosial Kementerian Sosial Ri

16/BKS/MOU/04/2013 1970/UN40/HK/2013

April 2, 2013 5 years

20. UPI

Pemda Kab. Bangka Selatan

2275/UN40/HK/2013

April 19, 2013 5 years

21. UPI

Asosiasi Pengajar Bahasa Indonesia Bagi Penutur Asing (Apbipa)

2845/UN40/HK/2013

May 18, 2013 5 years

22. UPI

Institut Prancais Indonesia Bandung

23. UPI

May 21, 2013 May 21, 2013 June 28, 2013 5 years

24. UPI

Sesko TNI

PKS/02/VI/2013 3761/UN40/HK/2013

25. UPI

Sesko TNI

B/507-12/01/2/SESKO 3762/UN40/HK/2013

June 28, 2013 5 years

26. UPI

Provinsi Jambi

11/NK-GUB/DISDIKHKM/II/06/2013 4058/UN40/HK/2013

July 22, 2013 5 years

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Shared Understanding Provide education, training, and development of standardized Teaching of Bahasa Indonesia by Native Speakers Statement of Understanding Memorandum of Understanding Joint Award Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education along with TOEFL English Language Statement of Understanding Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education along with TOEFL English Language Joint Agreement Statement Education Quality Improvement and human resource development Sumber Daya Daerah

115

No.

116

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama 415.4-546 YEARS 2013 4378/UN40/HK/2013

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

27. UPI

Pemda Kab Kaur

28. UPI

Pt. Garuda Indonesia (Persero)

29. UPI

Provinsi Aceh

10/MOU/2013 4998/UN40/HK/2013

30. UPI

Paya Kumbuh Sumbar

12/MOU/2013 4744/UN40/HK/2013

August 28, 2013 5 years

31. UPI

Pemda Kab. Pangandaran

427.4/83-UMUM/2013 4810/UN40/HK/2013

August 31, 2013 5 years

32. UPI

Pemkab Kab. Pidie Prov. Aceh

420/7526 4893/UN40/HK/2013

September 2, 2013 5 years

33. UPI

Disdik Kebudayaan Pemuda Dan Olah Raga Kota Metro Prov. Lampung

126/KASD.D/D.3/01/2013 5003 /UN40/HK/2013

September 3, 2013 5 years

July 31, 2013 5 years August 1, 2013 1 year August 1, 2013 5 years

SCOPE (Key Content) Statement of Understanding Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Direct corporate cooperation MOU (Nota Kesepahaman) Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education and regional human resource development Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education and regional human resource development Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

34. UPI

Pemda Kab. Adm. Kepulauan Seribu

6064/-1. 851 5003/UN40/HK/2013

September 9, 2013 5 years

35. UPI

Pemda Kabupaten Karimun

180/HK/IX/Ist-3/2013 4989/UN40/HK/2013

September 9, 2013 5 years

36. UPI

Pemda Kab. Bandung

420/04-DISDIKBUD/2013 5239/UN40/HK/2013

September 19, 2013 5 years

37. UPI

Pemda Kab. Bengkayang

420/985.B/Dispen-Dikmen/X/2013 6145/UN40/HK/2013

October 2, 2013 5 years

38. UPI

Pemda Kab. Kuningan

4684/UN40/HK/2013

1 year

39. UPI

Pemda Kabupaten Purwakarta

180/08/HUK/2013 6345/UN40/HK/2013

November 13, 2013 5 years

40. UPI

Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Ditjen Dikmen Kemendikbud

6571/UN40/HK/2013

November 25, 2013 5 years

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education and regional human resource development Joint Agreement Peningkatan dan Pengembangan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan

117

No. 41. UPI

118

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

190189/J/KP/2013 5994/UN40/HK/2013

October 23, 2013 4 years

Joint Agreement Development of national-standard schools in Provinsi Jawa Barat

42. UPI

Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan Dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Kemendibud Pemkot Tanjung Pinang

181/1.3.01/2/MOU/2014 2734/UN40/HK/2014

February 18, 2014 5 years

43. UPI

Pemkot Bandung

119/1172-Bag.KSD 3515/UN40/HK/2014

April 28, 2014 5 years

44. UPI

Pemda Kab. Pringsewu

KB/B.09/D.01/2014 5328/UN40/HK/2014

45. UPI

Pemda Kab. Bandung Barat

073/MOU.15-Disdikpora/2014 4794/UN40/HK/2014

August 21, 2014 5 years August 26, 2014 2 years

46. UPI

Pemda Kab. Sukabumi

6172/UN40/HK/2014

October 1, 2014 1 year

47. UPI

Pemda Kab. Nias Utara

180/8/HK/2014 6192/UN40/HK/2014

October 2, 2014 5 years

Joint Agreement Statement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education and technology development Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Improving quality and access to special and special services. Joint Agreement Statement Providing research/evaluation, education/training, community outreach and consulting services Joint Agreement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Statement Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

48. UPI

Pemdakab. Indragiri Hulu

66/180/hk-ORTAL/X/2014 6723/UN40/HK/2014

October 29, 2014 5 years

49. UPI

Pt. Esa Visual Padjadjaran Tivi (PTJV) Kemenag

Nomr blm ada

51. UPI

Direktorat Pembinaan Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (Smk)

1332/D3.3/2014

52. UPI

Pemkot Cimahi

180/PERJ/2014 7074/UN40/HK/2014

53. UPI

Pemda Kab. Sarolangun

6198/UN40/HK/2014

May 12, 2014 May 19, 2014 5 years June 6, 2014 5 years November 20, 2014 5 years October 2, 2014 5 years

54. UPI

Kota Padang

55. UPI

National Indonesian Sports Committee, Jabar

50. UPI

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

2527/YEARS 2014 3840/UN40/HK/204

0070/04/I/2015 0924/UN40/HK/2015

February 4, 2015 4 years

SCOPE (Key Content) Joint Statement Provide education, training, research, community outreach, and professional services in the field of education Joint Agreement Statement Statement of Understanding Statement of Joint Understanding Statement of Understanding Statement of Understanding Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Provide education, training, research, community outreach and professional services in the field of education Joint Understanding 1. Support for Sport Science, 2. Provision of Coaching and Coach Development, 3. Performance Development, Talent Development, Talent Identification System 4. Training Facilities

119

No.

120

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

56. UPI

Pemkot Pekan Baru

100/KERJ/III/2015 2202/UN40/HK/2015

57. UPI

PT. Benesse Indonesia

002/BENESSE/II/2015 2334/UN40/DN/2015

58. UPI

Universitas Iqra Buru

07/E.02/UNIBQU/IV/2015 2866/UN40/DN/2015

59. UPI

LPDP

60. UPI

Persatuan Guru Nahdatul Ulama

NK-02/LPDP/2015 2341/UN40/DN/2015 3974/UN40/DN/2015

61. UPI

Lemhanas

62. UPI 63. UPI

Menteri Desa, Pembangunan Daerah Tertinggal, Dan Transmigrasi PT. Pamduta

64. UPI

Kementerian Dalam Negeri

65. UPI

Pemda Kab. Paser

66. UPI

PT. Indosiar Visual Mandiri

DATES: (Signed/ Duration) March 3, 2015 5 years March 9, 2015 4 years April 2, 2015 5 years March 9, 2015 May 9, 2015

NK/07/V/2015 3634/UN40/DN/2015

SCOPE (Key Content) Joint Statement of Understanding In the fields of education, research, training and community outreach Joint Statement of Understanding In the fields of education, research, training and community outreach Joint Agreement Concerning provision of education, training, research and human resource development Joint Statement Joint Agreement Joint Statement Joint Statement of Understanding

400/004/SPK/PEMKAB PASER/2011 012/H40/DKU/I/P/2011 7418/UN40/HK/2014

June 13, 2015 July 10, 2015 January 28, 2011

Statement of Understanding Joint Agreement

December 4, 2014

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – Central Java and Yogyakarta No. 1.

2.

3.

TTI (Service Provider) UNNES

UNNES

UNNES

PARTNER (Service User) Kabupaten Blora

Kabupaten Banjarnegara

Kabupaten Jepara

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama MOU

MOU

MOU

DATES: (Signed/ Duration) 2016

2016

2016

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: - Improving the quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service Activities completed: Lecturers providing outreach to schools Scope: - Improving the quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service Activities completed: Lecturers providing outreach to schools Scope: Lecturers providing outreach to schools

121

No. 4.

TTI (Service Provider) UNNES

PARTNER (Service User) Kabupaten Aceh Besar

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama MOU

DATES: (Signed/ Duration) 2016

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: - Improving quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service - Entrepreneurship Activities completed: Conducting a seminar

122

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No. 5.

6.

TTI (Service Provider) UNNES

UNNES

PARTNER (Service User) Kabupaten Semarang

Kabupaten Sanggau (Kalbar)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama MOU

MOU

DATES: (Signed/ Duration) 2016

2015

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: - Improving the quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service - Advocacy - Information and communication network - Environmental conservation - Health and economy Activities completed: - Collaborative research - Community service outreach - Advocacy - Information and communication network - Environmental conservation - Health and Economy Scope: Improving human resources Activities completed: Enrolled three students from Sanggau supported by Bidik Mission scholarship

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

123

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

7.

UNNES

Kabupaten Batang

MOU

2015

8.

UNNES

Kabupaten Nias Utara

MOU

2015

9.

UNNES

Kabupaten Kudus

MOU

2014

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: Use of the laboratory to assess the results of construction work Activities completed: Consulting services Scope: - Improving the quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service Scope: - Improving the quality of human resources - Collaboration in research - Collaboration in community service - Village/community economy - Health Activities completed: - Agricultural research - Health counseling - Empowering community/village economies

124

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

10. UIN Walisongo Semarang

Kepala Kantor Kemenag Kab Pekalongan

MOU (Rektor)

2016

11. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Dinas Pendidikan Sumatera Selatan

2013

12. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi DIY

UNY: 09/UN34.36/MoU/2013 Sumsel:011/SPK/Disdik/201 3 19/PERJ.YK/2014 16/UN34/MoU/VII/2014

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

2014

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: - Three-day workshop on practical learning strategies and preparation of teaching/learning aids for teachers of kindergarten (RA) in Kabupaten Pekalongan - Workshop and mentoring for Classroom Action Research (CAR) for civil servant teacher in madrasah (MI, MTs, and MA) in Kabupaten Pekalongan. - Workshop and mentoring for Classroom Action Research (CAR) for madrasah/school supervisors in Kabupaten Pekalongan. Scope: Education and human resources development Scope: - Research - Community outreach - Empowerment - Human resources development

125

No.

126

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

13. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Kabupaten Bangka Tengah

Bangka:420/24/Dindik/2015 UNY:14/UN34/MoU/VI/2015

2015

14. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

Kementerian Tenaga Kerja

2016

15. Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)

BKKBN

Kemnaker:366/BPPK/III/201 6 UNY:07/UN34/MoU/III/2016 UNY:11/UN34/MoU/IV/2015 BKKBN DIY:737/HK.101/J6/2015

2015

SCOPE (Key Content) and Activities completed Scope: Education and human resources development Scope: Education, research, and human resources development Scope: Education, research, and human resources development

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – East Java No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

1. UNESA

MORA Bangkalan

2. UNESA

Lembaga Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Kepala Sekolah (LPPKS)

3. UNESA

East Java Provincial Education Office Pemerintah Kabupaten Nunukan

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

March 12, 2015 February 26, 2016

August 15, 2013 July 8, 2008

5. UM

Kaltim Fertilizer Foundation (Yayasan Pupuk Kaltim), Bontang

Note of Understanding (Nota Kesepahaman) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

6. UM

Vidrata Foundation (Yayasan Vidrata), Bontang

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

November 14, 2011

7. UM

Provincial Government of Kepulauan Riau

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

May 2, 2012

8. UM

District Government of Situbondo

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

July 16, 2012

9. UM

District Government of Teluk Bintuni

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

December 6, 2012

4. UM

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

November 14, 2011

SCOPE (Key Content) Develop education and training Improve the competency of teachers and education personnel to provide support for the achievement of education quality focused on school leadership, including selection of new principals and training for new and existing principals Development of education in East Java Improving the education, research and community outreach Enrollment of new students, teacher training, recruitment of teachers and education personnel, mentoring of students and school management Enrollment of new students, teacher training, recruitment of teachers and education personnel, mentoring of students and school management Education management, training, research, community outreach, and professional education services Cooperate to develop and build the district, education, research and community outreach Improving human resources in the context of improving education quality in Kabupaten Teluk Bintuni

127

No. 10. UM

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

Kalimantan Selatan Provincial Education Office Universitas PGRI Adibuana Surabaya

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

March 16, 2013 June 10, 2013

12. UM

Jombang District government

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

June 17, 2013

13. UM

Malang District Education Office

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

September 24, 2013

14. UM

Human Resource Development, Education and Culture and Education Quality Asurance body, MOEC (Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan, Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan) Yayasan Kebangkitan Ummat Islam (YKUI), Pondok Pesantren Maskumambang Gresik North Kalimantan Provincial Government

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

October 23, 2013

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

January 16, 2014

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

April 3, 2014

17. UM

Bappeda, Nganjuk District

18. UM

SMK Directorate, MOEC

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

April 7, 2014 June 6, 2014

11. UM

15. UM 16. UM

128

TTI (Service Provider)

SCOPE (Key Content) Education, research and community outreach (Tri Dharma) Education and teaching, research, human resource development and community outreach Education and teaching, research, human resource development and community outreach Management of cooperative program in the Arts and Design Degree Program (S1) Development of national standard schools in East Java Province

Human resource development, education and teaching development, research and community outreach Education, development, research and community outreach, along with human resource quality improvement Education, research, and development Education, teaching, research, human resource development and community outreach

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

19. UM

Pasuruan District Education Office

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

July 8, 2014

20. UM

PT. Benesse Indonesia Jakarta, Malang District Education Office

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

July 17, 2014

21. UM

Djarum Foundation

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

October 2, 2014

22. UM

Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (LPMP)

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

October 9, 2014

23. UM

Jombang District Education Office

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

November 3, 2014

24. UM

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

January 13, 2015

25. UM

Lembaga Pengembangan Masyarakat Amungne dan Kamoro (LPMAK) Papua Pemerintah Kabupaten Sidoarjo

26. UM

Blitar City Government

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

September 1, 2015 January 18, 2016

27. UM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Ponorogo

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

February 11, 2016

28. UM

SMAN 1 Glagah Banyuwangi

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

March 17, 2016

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Management of cooperative program in the Arts and Design Degree Program (S1) Program to improve the competency of teachers and the quality of learning in math and science through Lesson Study Clubs Education, teaching, research, community outreach, and human resource development Development of schools based on national education standards and acceleration of education quality improvement in East Java Province Development and improvement of teacher and education personnel competency in Jombang District Human resource development through the education program Education, research and community outreach in Sidoarjo District Education, research, and community outreach, along with human resource quality improvement Cooperation in the fields of education, research and community outreach, along with human resource development Cooperation in the field of mentoring and training for Science Olympiad

129

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

29. UM

130

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

30. UM

North Kayong District Government, West Kalimantan Blitar District Government

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama) Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

March 22, 2016 April 23, 2016 May 25, 2016

31. UM

Pacitan District Government

32. UM

Lembaga Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Kepala Sekkolah (LPPKS)

Cooperative Agreement (Perjanjian Kerjasama)

June 3, 2016

33. UINSA

MORA, Surabaya

Cooperative Agreement (Kesepakatan kerjasama)

August 15, 2016

34. UINSA

MORA, Nganjuk

Surat Permohonan Nara sumber No. Kd.15.13./2/PP.04/1483/2015

December 4, 2015

35. UINSA

Schools / Madrasah in Surabaya and Sidoarjo

July 18, 2016

36. UINSA

Badan Arsip dan Perpustakaan (BARPUS) Surabaya City Government

Perjanjian Kerjasama (MoU) Nomor Un.07/1/PP.00.9/1394/P/2016 Perjanjian Kerjasama (MoU) antara UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya dengan Badan Arsip dan Perpustakaan Nomor Un.07/1/PP.00.9/1667/P/2015 dan Nomor 041/3799/436.7.7./2015

October 7, 2015

SCOPE (Key Content) Cooperation to develop the region Improve development in Kabupaten Blitar through Tridharma program Education, research and community outreach, along with human resource development Improve the competency of teachers and education personnel to provide support for the achievement of education quality focused on school leadership, including selection of new principals and training for new and existing principals Improve the competency of education personnel and librarians to support the implementation of reading culture program in madrasah Improving the quality of teachers and school principals through training in 2013 Curriculum and active learning Placement of practicum students (PPL) to provide them with teaching practice Development of the application, “Ayo membaca” and supporting the implementation of KKN (Kuliah Kerja Nyata) Literacy

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

37. UINSA

Madrasah and Pesantren, Surabaya City

Cooperative Agreement (Kesepakatan kerjasama)

January 12, 2016

38. UINSA

ALG. Pty (Australian Law Group)

Perjanjian Kerjasama (MoU)

March 16, 2015

39. UINSA

East Java Provincial Government

Surat Permohonan Nara sumber No. 451/1749/031/2016

April 8, 2016

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Implementation of KKN Literacy program by students including two activities, namely library revitalization and Reading Curriculum (Kurikulum Wajib Baca or KWB) Review of curriculum for Education and Teaching Faculty (Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan) by external body Training for teachers of Madrasah Diniyah (MADIN)

131

TTI Service Provider Partnerships – South Sulawesi No.

TTI (Service Provider)

1. PGMI FTK UINAM

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama Partnership on PPL Program

2. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIS As’adiyah 120 Layang, Makassar MIS Al Abrar, Makassar

3. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIS Bahrul Ulum, Gowa

Partnership on PPL Program

4. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIS Muhammadiyah 6 Makassr

Partnership on PPL Program

5. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIS Nasrul Haq, Makassar

Partnership on PPL Program

6. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIN Banta Bantaeng, Makassar

Partnership on PPL Program

7. PGMI FTK UINAM

MIS At Taqwa Panaikang, Makassar IAIN Palopo

Partnership on PPL Program

9. PGMI FTK UINAM

PGMI FTK IAIN Antasari Banjarmasin

Partnership on Tri Dharma PT

10. UIN Alauddin Makassar

MORA Soppeng, Sidrap, Wajo, Parepare, Barru and Pangkep

MOU

8. PGMI FTK UINAM

132

PARTNER (Service User)

Partnership on PPL Program

Partnership on Programs

DATES: (Signed/ Duration) August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 21, 2009 August 16, 2015

SCOPE (Key Content) Program Implementation Program Implementation Program Implementation Program Implementation Program Implementation Program Implementation Program Implementation Education and Training Program Twinning Program Exchange Program Sandwich Program Lecturing support Expert training Academic support for post graduates - Research, translating, and copublishing a journal - Academic forums - PPL Facilitator Support the Establishment of Prodi PGRA -

December 12, 2016

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

11. UNM

Pemerintah Daerah Luwu Timur

MOU

2009–2014

12. UNM

MOU

2009–2014

13. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Jeneponto Pemerintah Kabupaten Maros

MOU

2009–2014

14. UNM

SMPN 12 Makassar

MOU

2009–2014

15. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Bantaeng Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan

MOU

2009–2014

MOU

2010–2015

17. UNM

Dinas Pendidikan dan Olah Raga Provinsi Maluku

MOU

2010–2015

18. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Luwu

MOU

2010–2015

19. UNM 20. UNM

Universitas Musamus Merauke Pemerintah Kabupaten Wajo

MOU MOU

2010–2015 2011–2014

21. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Pangkep

MOU

2011–2016

22. UNM

Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi Pemerintah Kabupaten Enrekang

MOU

2011–2016

MOU

2011–2015

16. UNM

23. UNM

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Human resources development, evaluation and research oriented to IPTEK development Providing education, training research and institutional development Providing education, training research and institutional development Developing subjects of mathematics, biology, physics, TIK, counseling and mentoring teachers Improving human resources quality in the context of regional autonomy. Human resources development to anticipate regional autonomy in the area of education Human resources development to anticipate regional autonomy in the area of education Education, research and community outreach Human resources development Human resources development (Kuliah Kerja Nyata or KKN) Conducting tests and school principal selection Evaluation, provision and community access to technology Human resources development

133

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

24. UNM

Dinas Pendidikan Kutai Kartanegara

MOU

2012–2016

25. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Toraja Utara

MOU

2012–2016

26. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Kota Baru Kaltim PemKab. Hulu Sungai Tengah Pemerintah Kab. Soppeng

MOU

2012–2017

MOU MOU

2012–2017 2012–2017

MOU MOU

2012–2017 2012–2017

31. UNM

Sekolah Islam Athirah Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) Surabaya Pemerintah Kabupaten Gowa

MOU and MOA

2012–2017

32. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Toli-Toli

MOU

2012–2017

33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

UNM UNM UNM UNM UNM

Universitas Nusa Cendana Universitas Negeri Gorontalo Bank Mandiri STIE Nobel Makassar PT Vale

MOU MOU MOU MOU MOU

2013–2018 2013–2018 2013–2018 2013–2018 2013–2016

38. UNM

Balitbangda Pemprov. Sulsel

MOU

2013–2018

39. UNM

Komite Pemantauan Legislatif (KOPEL)

MOU

2013–2018

27. UNM 28. UNM 29. UNM 30. UNM

134

PARTNER (Service User)

SCOPE (Key Content) Providing education, training research, evaluation, community outreach and institutional development Providing education, training research, evaluation and institutional development Education Education Education, Research and Community outreach Education Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education Education Credit for public servants (PNS) Education Education, Research and Community outreach Conducting research, evaluation, development, and implementation of a regional innovation system Collaboration for Advocacy on Corruption in South Sulawesi

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

PARTNER (Service User)

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

40. UNM

Dispora MALUKU

MOU and MOA

2013–2018

41. UNM

MOU

2013–2018

42. UNM 43. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Tarakan KALTIM Pemerintah Kabupaten Sinjai ISI Surakarta

MOU MOU

2013–2018 2013–2018

44. UNM

Bank Indonesia

MOU

2013–2016

45. UNM

MOU

2014–2019

46. UNM

Pemerintah Kabupaten Waropen Jayapura Pemerintah Kabupaten Bima

MOU

2014–2019

47. UNM

Universitas Sulawesi Barat

MOU

2014–2019

48. UNM

Pemerintah Kota Sorong

MOU

2014–2019

49. UNM

Pemerintah Provinsi Kalimantan Utara Institut Pendidikan Dalam Negeri (IPDN) Pemerintah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Sul Sel Komnas Ham

MOU

2014–2019

MOU

2014–2019

MOU and MOA

2014–2019

MOU

2014–2019

MOU

2014–2019

50. UNM 51. UNM 52. UNM 53. UNM

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

SCOPE (Key Content) Partnership with S1 KKT Special Education Partnership S1 KKT FIK Community Service Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach (Program Apprenticeship program with Bank of Indonesia), support and research, together with development of courses for banking Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Advancing Human Rights through Education, Research and Community outreach (Tridarma Perguruan Tinggi) 135

No.

TTI (Service Provider)

54. UNM

MOU / Surat Keterangan Kerjasama

DATES: (Signed/ Duration)

SCOPE (Key Content)

MOU

2014–2019

Education Scholarships

55. UNM 56. UNM 57. UNM

Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan Kemenkeu RI Bionas Energi Indonesia (BEI) Pemkab Paser, Kaltim Pemkab Kepulauan Aru

MOU MOU

2014–2019 2014–2019 2014–2019

58. UNM

APINDO

MOU

2015–2018

59. UNM

Pemkab Pinrang

MOU

2015–2018

60. UNM

Pemkab Halmahera Utara, Maluku Lembaga Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Kepala Sekolah Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) Pusat Layanan Tes Indonessia Kementerian Agama kantor Wilayah Prov. SulSel

MOU

2015–2020

MOU

2015–2020

Research Research Partnership Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Education, Research and Community outreach Mineral exploration and higher education development Education and training for principals

MOU MOU MOU and MOA

2015–2020 2015–2020 2015–2016

Provision and use of banking services Facilitating online testing Conducting psychological testing

61. UNM 62. UNM 63. UNM 64. UNM

136

PARTNER (Service User)

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 6: TTI DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES Aceh No.

Date

Days

1 2 3 4

May 2016 Dec 2015 Mar 2015 Feb 2015

4 3 4 6

5

Feb 2015

3

Activity PPG Workshop Active Learning Module 2 Module SMP/MTs Curriculum (for students and lecturers) Module SD/MI Curriculum (for students and lecturers)

TTI Unsyiah FKIP Uni Serambi Mekkah UIN Ar Raniry Unsyiah Unsyiah

No. participants 51 50 80 630 120

TOTAL

931

North Sumatra No.

Date

Days

1 2

June 2016 June 2016

3 3

3

June 2016

3

4

Mar 2015

3

5

Feb 2016

3

6

Feb 2016

3

Activity Curricula SMP Literacy/Math Pedagogy Lecturers SMP Module 1 Pedagogy Lecturers SMP Module 1 Lab School, Primary (for teachers) PPG Instructors, (primary and secondary) 1 PPG Instructors, (primary and secondary) 2

TTI UNITA UMN

No. participants 40 40

UMSU

40

SD Swasta Al Azhar Provincial/UNIMED Provincial/UNIMED

TOTAL

30 60 60 270

Banten No.

Date

Days

Activity

1

Jan 2016

3

Module SD/SMP

2

July 2015 TOTAL

3

Module SMP

TTI STKIP Setia Budhi Rangkasbitung IAIN SMH

No. participants 39 130 169

West Java No. 1

Date June 2015

Days 3

Activity Pedagogy Lecturer

TOTAL

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI STKIP Muhammadiyah Kuningan

No. participants 47 47

137

Central Java No.

Date

Days

1

Nov 2015

3

2 3 4

Sept 2015 June 2015 Nov 2014

3 4 4

Activity Active Learning Module 1-2 (for lecturers and students) Active Learning Module 1-2 Active Learning Module 1-2 Good Practice in Lab Schools SD (for teachers)

TTI Unkris Satyawacana STAIN Pekaongan UNS (Sebelas March) UNNES

TOTAL

No. participants 50 60 40 22 172

East Java No.

Date

Days

Activity

TTI BMPS Malang (Badan Musyawarah Perguruan Swasta) MGMP Malang

1

Feb 2016

3

Module 1 SMP (for teachers)

2

March 2016

4

3

Aug 2015

4

Module 1 Active Learning (for teachers) Module 1 and 2 Active Learning and School-Based Management (for teachers)

UINSA Surabaya

TOTAL

No. participants 60 50 55 165

South Sulawesi No.

Date

Days

1

July-Aug 2016

3

2

Feb 2016

3

3

Feb 2016

3

4

Dec 2015

4

5

Dec 2015

3

6

Sept 2015

3

7

Feb 2015

4

8

9

138

Jan 2015

Dec 2014

3

3

Activity Active Learning, Primary and JSS Module 1-2 (for lecturers and students) PPG Instructors (SD and SMP) 1 PPG Instructors (SD and SMP) 2 SMP Module 1-2 for Lecturers SMP Module 1-2 for Lecturers SMP Module 1-2 for Lecturers Active Learning – for Pedagogy Lecturers and Lab/Partner Schools, Module 1-2 Active Learning – for Pedagogy Lecturers and Lab/Partner Schools, Module 1-2 Active Learning – for Pedagogy Lecturers and Lab/Partner Schools, Module 1-2

TTI UIN Alauddin UNM UNM IAIN Palopo UNCP Palolo IAIN Palolo

No. participants 96 66 66 31 63 50

UNCP Palolo 78 UNISMUH 50 UNISMUH 55

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

No.

Date

Days

10

Nov 2014

4

11

Oct 2014

3

12

June 2014

3

Activity Pedagogy Lecturers and Lab/ Partner Schools, Module 1-2 Active Learning – Pedagogy Lecturers, Module 1-2 Active Learning – Pedagogy Lecturers, Module 1

TOTAL

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

TTI UMPAR UMPAR UNCP and STAIN Palopo

No. participants 50 50 84 739

139

ANNEX 7: DATA COLLECTION FOR TTI REVIEW Data collection for TTI Review, October 2016 Province Jakarta Aceh North Sumatra West Java Banten Central Java East Java South Sulawesi

140

Data collection FGD conducted with the TTI Advisor and TTI Specialist from national project team Written responses to the questions schedule, prepared by the TTI Specialist FGD conducted with the TTI Specialist and TTI Coordinators from UNIMED and UINSU Written response to the questions schedule, prepared by the TTI Specialist FGD conducted with the TTI Specialist and TTI Coordinators from UNTIRTA and IAIN Written response to the questions schedule, prepared by the TTI Specialist Written response to the questions schedule, prepared by the TTI Specialist FGD conducted with the TTI Specialist and TTI Coordinators from UNM and UIN Sultan Alauddin (by Skype)

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 8: NUMBER OF TRAINING PARTICIPANTS PER TTI Province Aceh Aceh Aceh Aceh Aceh Aceh Total North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra North Sumatra Total West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java West Java Total Banten Banten Banten Banten Banten Banten Banten Banten Total D.I. Yogyakarta D.I. Yogyakarta Total Central Java

Partnership

Full ID

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-011 - Universitas Syiah Kuala 201-011 - Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh 131-001 - Universitas Jabal Ghafur 131-004 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh 131-006 - Universitas Al Muslim

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-040 - Universitas Negeri Medan 201-008 - Universitas Islam Negeri Sumatera Utara Medan 011-002 - Universitas HKBP Nommensen 011-003 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Utara 011-018 - Universitas Sisingamangaraja XII Tapanuli Utara 011-027 - Universitas Muslim Nusantara Al-wasliyah

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-034 - Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia 201-004 - Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Gunung Jati 041-003 - Universitas Islam Nusantara 041-008 - Universitas Pasundan 212-005 - Institut Agama Islam Darussalam (IAID) Ciamis Jawa Barat 213-132 - STAI Siliwangi Bandung 041-014 - Universitas Wiralodra

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-042 - Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa 202-003 - IAIN Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten 041-032 - Universitas Mathla ul Anwar 041-051 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang 041-055 - Universitas Banten Jaya 043-223 - STKIP Setiabudhi 043-304 - Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi Bina Bangsa

TTI Partners

001-038 - Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

TTI Partners

001-041 - Universitas Negeri Semarang

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of lecturers trained 43 50 4 12 26 135 94 86 8 30 15 4 237 33 21 21 9 8 131 1 224 119 115 30 32 30 31 1 358 84 84 70

141

Province Central Java Central Java Central Java Central Java Central Java Central Java Central Java Total East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java East Java Total South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi South Sulawesi Total Other (LPMP and teachers) Other Total Grand Total N/A means not applicable

142

Partnership

Full ID

TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

201-010 - Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang 001-027 - Universitas Sebelas Maret 061-001 - Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana 061-038 - Universitas PGRI Semarang 203-009 - STAIN Pekalongan 203-031 - STAIN Purwokerto

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-033 - Universitas Negeri Malang 001-039 - Universitas Negeri Surabaya 201-007 - Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel 001-025 - Universitas Jember 071-049 - Universitas PGRI Adi Buana 071-060 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo 071-072 - Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri 072-010 - IKIP PGRI Madiun 202-017 - IAIN Tulungagung 203-010 - STAIN Ponorogo 001-019 - Universitas Brawijaya 071-024 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang 071-075 - Universitas PGRI Banyuwangi

TTI Partners TTI Partners TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia TTI Consortia

001-036 - Universitas Negeri Makassar 201-006 - Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin 091-004 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar 091-024 - Universitas Muhammadiyah Pare-pare 091-039 - Universitas Cokroaminoto Palopo 202-021 - IAIN Palopo 203-023 - STAIN Watampone

#N/A

#N/A

Number of lecturers trained 65 33 22 32 30 22 274 15 46 47 10 7 10 10 2 10 9 2 13 1 182 82 44 10 9 8 9 5 167 52 52 1,713

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

ANNEX 9: NUMBER OF LECTURERS PER PARTNER TTI (REGULAR STATE INSTITUTIONS) Number of lecturers in partner TTIs TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 894 931 980 1047 961 1016 1281 582 1562 9254

Number of pedagogy lecturers in partner TTIs (Jumlah Dosen FKIP Di Sembilan LPTK Mitra) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 639 631 768 708 632 770 1029 202 331 5710

Number of non-pedagogy lecturers in partner TTIs (Jumlah Dosen non FKIP Di Sembilan LPTK Mitra) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 255 300 212 339 329 246 252 380 1231 3544

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 1 55 22 0 2 14 1 6 85 186

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 32 22 0 0 12 1 1 1 69

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 1 23 0 0 2 2 0 5 84 117

143

Number of PGSD lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Prodi Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 70 50 35 67 25 34 21 15 30 347

Number of math education lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Prodi Pendidikan Matematika S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 23 21 30 25 14 19 19 21 27 199

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Indonesian language and literature education lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Dan Sastra Indonesia S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

144

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 18 13 21 24 14 13 12 19 19 153

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Number of English language education lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Untuk Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 23 13 25 22 26 28 13 27 27

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

204

4

Number of Science Education lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Prodi Pendidikan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 8 8 11 18 13 8 11 77

Number of Social Studies Education lecturers (Jumlah Dosen Prodi Pendidikan IPS S1) TTI/ Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Grand Total

Perm. Lecturers/ Dosen Tetap 8 8 9 6 31

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Temp. Lecturers/ Dosen Tidak Tetap 0 1 1 0 2

145

Number of lecturers for six subjects in partner TTIs (Jumlah Dosen Untuk 6 Prodi di LPTK Mitra untuk jenjang S1) Nama LPTK Nama LPTK Universitas Negeri Makassar Universitas Negeri Malang Universitas Negeri Medan Universitas Negeri Semarang Universitas Negeri Surabaya Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Universitas Syiah Kuala Grand Total

146

Pendidikan IPA Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 8 0 8 0 11 18 13 8 11

0 0 0 0 0

77

0

Pendidikan Matematika Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 23 0 21 0 30 0 25 0 14 0 19 0 19 0 21 0 27 0 199

0

PGSD Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 70 0 50 1 35 0 67 0 25 0 34 0 21 0 15 0 30 0 347

1

Pendidikan IPS Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 8 0 8 1

9 6

1 0

31

2

Pendidikan Bhs Indonesia Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 18 0 13 3 21 0 24 0 14 0 13 0 12 0 19 0 19 0 153

3

Pendidikan Bhs Inggris Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 23 0 13 2 25 0 22 0 26 0 28 2 13 0 27 0 27 0 204

4

Total Dosen Dosen Tidak Tetap Tetap 150 0 113 7 111 0 149 0 97 0 116 3 79 0 93 0 103 0 1,011

The USAID PRIORITAS TTI Program, A Review, February 2017

10