INFO GRAFIS PISA PDF
CARA PENILAIAN PISA CARA PENILAIAN PISA
Mendapatkan data-data
perkembangan pendidikan
secara akurat
Mengetahui
kekurangan suatu
sistem pendidikan
sehingga dapat
dilakukan perbaikan
yang efektif
Saling berbagi
pengalaman serta
praktik baik tentang
sistem pendidikan
dengan negara
peserta PISA
lainnya
MANFAAT PISA MANFAAT PISA
Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan
Informasi lebih lanjut silakan kunjungi laman:
http://litbang.kemdikbud.go.id
balitbang Kemendikbud
litbangdikbud
litbangdikbud
Balitbang Kemendikbud
Studi PISA mengukur kompetensi yang
dibutuhkan untuk kecakapan hidup.
Pada PISA 2018, Indonesia berpartisipasi
pada pengukuran literasi membaca,
matematika, sains, keuangan,
serta kompetensi global
Studi PISA dilaksanakan di sekolah-sekolah
yang dipilih melalui metode sampling
yang sahih. Pada PISA 2018,
terpilih 400 sekolah sampel di Indonesia.
Studi PISA tidak hanya melaporkan hasil
capaian literasi setiap negara,
namun juga informasi mengenai
aspek demogra , kebiasaan, persepsi,
serta aspirasi yang diperoleh dari
data respon angket sekolah dan siswa .
Peserta studi PISA adalah siswa
usia 15 tahun dari sekolah sampel.
Siswa tersebut dipilih secara acak
untuk memastikan hasil penilaian
yang tidak bias. Di Indonesia,
siswa sampel PISA tersebar
di SMP, MTs, SMA, MA, dan SMK
yang duduk di kelas 7 sampai kelas 12.
? ? ? ?
APA ITU PISA? APA ITU PISA?
PISA atau Programme for International Student
Assessment adalah suatu studi internasional di
bidang pendidikan yang diselenggarakan oleh OECD
(organisasi internasional bidang kerja sama dan
pembangunan ekonomi). PISA bertujuan untuk
mendorong negara-negara saling belajar satu sama
lain mengenai sistem pendidikan sehingga mampu
membangun sistem persekolahan yang lebih baik
dan inklusif secara efektif.
ANGGOTA PISA 2018 ANGGOTA PISA 2018
Negara OECD 36 & Asosiasi
Negara 43 Mitra OECD
sumber: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-participants.htm
Pada tahun 2018 sebanyak 79 negara mengikuti PISA,
dan hasilnya akan diumumkan secara serentak
di seluruh negara peserta pada tanggal 3 Desember 2019.
Indonesia terus mewujudkan
sistem pendidikan yang
inklusif dan memberi kesempatan
bersekolah kepada lebih banyak
penduduk
Membandingkan
capaian kompetensi
kecakapan hidup siswa
Indonesia terhadap
standar internasional,
serta mengetahui
perkembangan capaian
tersebut antar waktu
KAMU HARUS TAHU KAMU HARUS TAHU
Negara-negara
berpartisipasi secara 1 sukarela dalam PISA.
PISA bukan hanya
tentang memeringkat 3negara.
Siswa peserta studi
PISA tidak diberi
laporan individual,
tetapi skor mereka
menjadi bagian skor
rata-rata nasional.
2
Hasil studi PISA dapat
menggambarkan
efektivitas sekolah
dalam mempersiapkan
siswa untuk studi lebih
lanjut atau bekerja.
4
HASIL PISA INDONESIA 2018 TERBARU
PISA 2018 Results
Programme for International Student Assessment
PISA 2018 Results
Indonesia
Yuri Belfali
Head of Early Childhood and Schools
Change in the percentage of 15-year-olds covered by PISA
76
65
62 63
85
54
66
53
73
78
70
61
55
60
53
46
74
49
53
36
63
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Albania 2009
Brazil 2003
Colombia 2006
Costa Rica 2009
Indonesia 2003
Jordan 2006
Mexico 2003
Panama 2009
Turkey 2003
Uruguay 2003
Viet Nam 2012
% 2018 Reference year Fig I.9.4
Reference year
Performance trend should be interpreted
together with the enrolment trend (next slide)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Score-point difference
Assuming that in Indonesia, 15-year-olds not covered by PISA would have
performed amongst the bottom 75% had they sat the test in 2003
Reading Mathematics Science
Indonesia achieved rapid improvement in access to school,
without lowering the quality of learning
Fig I.9.5
Average mathematics and science
performance would have improved by
11 score points in PISA 2018 compared
to 2003 if all those15-year-olds that
were not covered by PISA 2003 sat the
PISA test at that time
+ Strength - Weakness
Single source text Multiple source text
Locate, evaluate, reflect Understand information
information
Strength and weakness of Indonesian students
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
B-S-J-Z (China)
Macao (China)
Estonia
Singapore
Ireland
Hong Kong (China)
Finland
Canada
Poland
Korea
Denmark
Japan
United Kingdom
Chinese Taipei
Slovenia
Sweden
New Zealand
United States
Norway
Australia
Portugal
Germany
Czech Republic
France
Belgium
Croatia
Russia
Latvia
OECD average
Italy
Belarus
Austria
Switzerland
Netherlands
Lithuania
Hungary
Ukraine*
Turkey
Iceland
Luxembourg
Greece
Israel
Slovak Republic
Chile
Malta
Serbia
Romania*
Jordan*
Uruguay
Costa Rica
United Arab Emirates
Moldova*
Montenegro
Mexico
Malaysia
Bulgaria
Colombia
Brazil
Qatar
Brunei Darussalam
Argentina*
Albania
Saudi Arabia*
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Peru
North Macedonia*
Thailand
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Kazakhstan
Panama
Georgia
Lebanon*
Indonesia
Morocco
Kosovo
Dominican Republic
Philippines
%
The share of low-achievers increased by around
17 percentage-points compared to PISA 2009
Level 1a
Level 1b
Level 1c
Below Level 1c
Students at Level 1 or below
Students at Level 2 or above
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Students’ proficiency in reading
Fig I.5.1 30% of students achieve the minimum
level of reading proficiency or higher
levels
All girls and boys should learn and
meet their full potential
…. regardless of their background
Equity
Philippines
Panama
Peru Argentina
Brunei Darussalam
Malaysia
Moldova Costa Rica
Romania Uruguay
Slovak Republic
Luxembourg
Belarus
Hungary Switzerland
France Czech Republic
Belgium
Germany
Israel
Lebanon
Thailand North Macedonia
Saudi Arabia
Colombia
Brazil
Bulgaria Mexico
United Arab Emirates
Chile
Greece
Ukraine Turkey
Lithuania
Austria Netherlands
Portugal Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
United States
New Zealand Sweden
Poland Ireland
Singapore
B-S-J-Z (China)
Dominican Republic
Kosovo
Morocco
Indonesia
Georgia Kazakhstan
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Albania
Qatar
Jordan Montenegro
Serbia
Malta
Iceland Italy Russia
Latvia
Croatia
Denmark Norway
Australia Japan United Kingdom
Korea
Finland
Canada
Estonia
Hong Kong (China)
Macao (China)
330
350
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
25 20 15 10 5 0
Reading performance (in score points)
Percentage of variation in performance explained by social-economic status
Reading performance and equity in PISA 2018
Higher Performance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance
High equity
8% of the variation in performance is
explained by socio-economic status
(OECD average: 12%)
Greater equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
Qatar
Philippines
Indonesia
Brunei Darussalam
Thailand
Argentina
Peru
Malaysia
Colombia
Jordan
Brazil
Mexico
Greece
Slovak Republic
Chile
Lithuania
Netherlands
Russia
Latvia
Norway
OECD average
Switzerland
Belgium
Turkey
Sweden
France
Australia
New Zealand
United States
Portugal
United Kingdom
Korea
Canada
Finland
Poland
Japan
Germany
Ireland
Estonia
Hong Kong (China)
Singapore
B-S-J-Z (China)
Mean score Bottom decile Ninth decile Middle decile Second decile Top decile
Mean performance in reading, by international decile of socio-economic
status
Fig II.2.2
Gender gap in performance
Fig II.7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Dominican Republic
Costa Rica
Lebanon
Jordan
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Mexico
Brazil
Canada
United States
Chile
Saudi Arabia
Colombia
Turkey
Singapore
Peru
Israel
Slovenia
Australia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Panama
Uruguay
Portugal
Serbia
Ireland
North Macedonia
Morocco
New Zealand
Denmark
Poland
Albania
Kazakhstan
Belgium (French)
Russia
Kosovo
Estonia
United Kingdom
Malta
OECD average
Croatia
Spain
Philippines
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Sweden
Greece
Bulgaria
Argentina
Belarus
Brunei Darussalam
Romania
Georgia
Iceland
Italy
Austria
Slovak Republic
Macao (China)
France
Montenegro
Malaysia
Hong Kong (China)
Finland
Moldova
Netherlands
Chinese Taipei
Hungary
Thailand
Luxembourg
Japan
B-S-J-Z (China)
Switzerland
Ukraine
Germany
Czech Republic
Viet Nam
Korea
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Indonesia
Science and engineering professionals Health professionals
% ICT professionals Science-related technicians and associate professionals
Expectation to work in science-related occupations
Fig II.8.7
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Peru
Uruguay
United Arab Emirates
Thailand
Australia
Hong Kong (China)
Turkey
Luxembourg
Brazil
Saudi Arabia
Colombia
Panama
Philippines
Argentina B-S-J-Z (China)
Israel
United States
New Zealand
Slovenia
Malta
Dominican Republic
Macao (China)
Indonesia
Jordan
Morocco
Canada
United Kingdom
Belgium Switzerland
Ireland
Spain
Denmark
Germany
Lebanon
Brunei Darussalam
Sweden
Korea
Baku (Azerbaijan) OECD average Slovak Republic
Greece
Mexico
Russia
Norway
Viet Nam
Japan
Chile
Malaysia
Hungary Qatar
Kazakhstan
Estonia
Serbia
Czech Republic
Chinese Taipei
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Iceland
France
Albania
Netherlands
Belarus
Singapore
Montenegro Georgia
Italy Costa Rica
Portugal
Ukraine
Poland
Kosovo
Croatia
Latvia
Finland
Bulgaria
Moldova
Lithuania
Romania
North Macedonia
Mean index difference between advantaged and
disadvantaged schools
Index of shortage of education staff Index of shortage of educational material
Difference in shortage of educational material and staff between
advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Fig II.5.5
Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Macao (China)
Kosovo
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Hong Kong (China)
Kazakhstan
Estonia
Croatia
Turkey
Montenegro
United Kingdom
Canada
Indonesia
Korea
Malta
Serbia
Morocco
Australia
North Macedonia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ireland
Iceland
Russia
Finland
Netherlands
Thailand
Jordan
Italy
Norway
Albania
Georgia
Dominican Republic
Denmark
Latvia
Greece
Chinese Taipei
Ukraine
Japan
B-S-J-Z (China)
Slovenia
New Zealand
Sweden
OECD average
Lithuania
Chile
Poland
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Germany
United States
Portugal
Costa Rica
Colombia
Austria
Malaysia
Singapore
France
Brazil
Qatar
Uruguay
Brunei Darussalam
Switzerland
Panama
Slovak Republic
Lebanon
Belgium
Belarus
Czech Republic
Romania
Argentina
Moldova
Israel
Hungary
Philippines
Luxembourg
United Arab Emirates
Bulgaria
Peru
Percentage of disadvantaged students who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in
their own country (academically resilient students) %
Academic resilience
Fig II.3.1
14% of disadvantaged students who
are in the top national quarter of
reading performance
How are students doing?
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
Germany
Georgia
Austria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Belgium
Indonesia
Iceland
Viet Nam
Kosovo
Belarus
Norway
Estonia
North Macedonia
Israel
Slovenia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Luxembourg
Russia
Hungary
Greece
Moldova
Albania
B-S-J-Z (China)
OECD average
Finland
Uruguay
Romania
Thailand
Mexico
Chinese Taipei
Philippines
Spain
United Arab Emirates
Italy
Serbia
Macao (China)
Slovak Republic
Panama
Latvia
Chile
Sweden
Argentina
Montenegro
Poland
Lebanon
France
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Costa Rica
Peru
Dominican Republic
Qatar
Colombia
Portugal
Australia
Bulgaria
Hong Kong (China)
Turkey
Brunei Darussalam
Jordan
New Zealand
Korea
Saudi Arabia
Ireland
Singapore
Morocco
United Kingdom
Brazil
Malta
United States
Index of student co-operation Index of student competition
Mean index
Student co-operation and competition
Fig III.8.1
Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation
Statistically significant differences between the
index of student co-operation and the index of
student competition are shown in darker tones
Student co-operation is relatively higher than
student competition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lebanon
Philippines
Brunei Darussalam
Morocco
Luxembourg
Malta
Indonesia
Singapore
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Ukraine
Malaysia
Switzerland
Canada
Spain
Austria
Hong Kong (China)
Macao (China)
Italy
Germany
Sweden
Belgium
United States
Chinese Taipei
New Zealand
Israel
Australia
Bulgaria
OECD average
United Kingdom
Panama
France
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Latvia
Norway
Kazakhstan
Slovenia
Netherlands
Moldova
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Russia
Finland
North Macedonia
Iceland
Turkey
Peru
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Greece
Georgia
Saudi Arabia
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Jordan
Viet Nam
Estonia
Serbia
Belarus
Montenegro
Albania
Uruguay
Costa Rica
Argentina
Dominican Republic
Kosovo
Croatia
Romania
Portugal
Mexico
Thailand
Hungary
Chile
Poland
Colombia
Brazil
Japan
Korea
B-S-J-Z (China)
% Based on students' reports about what language they speak at home most of the time
Students who do not speak the language of instruction at home
Fig I.4.11
Across OECD countries, 12% of
students reported to speak a language at
home most of the time that is different
from the language of assessment.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Netherlands
Kazakhstan
Finland
Indonesia
Albania
Costa Rica
Croatia
Romania
Belarus
Colombia
Ukraine
Peru
Austria
Montenegro
Estonia
Germany
Spain
Switzerland
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovenia
Saudi Arabia
Portugal
Serbia
Georgia
Hungary
Lithuania
Iceland
Greece
Viet Nam
Latvia
Sweden
OECD average
Moldova
Korea
Panama
Russia
Mexico
B-S-J-Z (China)
Brazil
Italy
Poland
Slovak Republic
Kosovo
Luxembourg
Dominican Republic
Czech Republic
Chile
Ireland
Jordan
Uruguay
Morocco
Thailand
Qatar
Argentina
United States
United Arab Emirates
Bulgaria
Japan
France
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Malaysia
Philippines
Macao (China)
United Kingdom
Malta
Hong Kong (China)
Turkey
Chinese Taipei
Brunei Darussalam
Percentage of students with positive well-being
Disadvantaged students (bottom quarter of socio-economic status)
Advantaged students (top quarter of socio-economic status)
Students' well-being, by socio-economic status
Students with positive well-being:
• satisfied with their lives
• do not feel like outsiders
• do not doubt their future plans when facing
failure
Fig II.3.7
And teachers?
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Albania
Kosovo
Korea
Indonesia
Panama
Colombia
Thailand
Kazakhstan
Chile
Viet Nam
Dominican Republic
Philippines
Moldova
B-S-J-Z (China)
Costa Rica
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Peru
United Arab Emirates
Singapore
Jordan
Mexico
United States
Romania
Malaysia
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Brunei Darussalam
Malta
Saudi Arabia
Brazil
Argentina
Australia
Denmark
Ireland
Chinese Taipei
Switzerland
Portugal
Montenegro
Uruguay
Georgia
Qatar
Norway
Belarus
Hong Kong (China)
Iceland
Belgium
Spain
France
Sweden
OECD average
Serbia
Morocco
Croatia
Bulgaria
Hungary
Russia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Italy
Lithuania
Israel
Estonia
Austria
Ukraine
Turkey
Slovenia
Germany
Macao (China)
Finland
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Latvia
Greece
Japan
Poland
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Mean index
Index of teacher enthusiasm
Fig III.5.1
R² = 0.09
R² = 0.10
R² = 0.03
R² = 0.12
R² = 0.18
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average reading score
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot"
Teacher behaviour hindering learning and average reading performance
according to school principals (
Fig III.7.4
Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs
Teacher absenteeism
Staff resisting change
Teachers not being well prepared for classes
Teachers being too strict with students
Particularly for Indonesia
Thank you!
Yuri.belfali@oecd.org @YuriBelfali_EDU
http://www.oecd.org/pisa
HASIL PISA INDONESIA 2018 VERSI KEMENDIKBUD
Belum ada tanggapan untuk "ALL ABOUT PISA IN INDONESIA"
Post a Comment