1

DISTRICT – UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

Sumar Hendayana

Harun Imansyah

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

Issues & Challenges of INSETMGMP or Teacher Subject Forum

Government Regulation No.38 in 1994: in-service teacher training at district level, did not work? Project-based activities, no guarantee for

sustainabilty Venue at central city/district, transportation

problems for teachers at rural or remote areas Less support of school principals to the forum,

gave teaching assigment on forum day, Wednesday for math teachers & Saturday for science

No attractive activities, not promising 2

3APPROACH (Saito, 2004)

Enhancement of Quality in Math & Science Ed.

UPI

Pre-service

Feed back on school reality

Consultancy

Producing good prospective teachers

Intervention to students

Feedback on contemporary teachers’ needs

Consultancy Developing

teachers’ professionalism

Sharing experiences

Opportunities for expansion

Schools/subjectLesson

Study (in-service)

District office of Educ

DISTRICT – UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

Schools Target in Sumedang

district

4

School centers with 8-15 schools partner

556 teachers of junior secondary mathematics and science

80 faculty members

94 school principals & 8 supervisors

2006 - NOW

Activities

5

Inception meeting

Facilitator training(4 times a year)

School principal traning(twice a year)

Subject based Lesson Study(twice a month)

School based Lesson Study

(twice a month)

Evaluation workshop(twice a year)

Dissemination Forum (twice a year)

Baseline survey

Endline survey

District – University Partnership

6

Introducing cooperation programs to stake holders

Singing MoU by rector of UPI & head district of Sumedang

Supported by MONE & JICA

Baseline survey

7

29% teachers were under qualified 25% teachers were mismatch42% teachers has ever participated in

MGMP

Teacher centered in science class

Principal training

8

Twice a year at schools 1st meeting: introduced

cooperation programs & and discussing an agreement to support the teachers

2nd meeting: discussed principles of lesson study

Latter: principals observed lesson & post-class discussion

to build ownership

9

Facilitator training

32 facilitators: selected teachers from 8 working groups, leaders in wg Four times a year at schools 1st meeting: introduced cooperation programs & discussed principles of

lesson study Latter: facilitators observed lesson & engaged in post-class discussion

Lesson study

10

Do

See

Plan

One semester: 2 Plan meetings 3 Do-See meetings Venues at different schools

Lesson plan is developed collaboratively based upon learning problems to promote student active learning through hands-on & mind-on activity, daily life, and local materials

Plan

Open lesson (Do)

12

A teacher teach a lesson while others observe the lesson. Observation is focused on student activities. Observers do not make any intervention

Are students learning & how are they learning?

Is any student not learning & why? How did teacher help students

learning? Does it work?

Observers: teachers, facilitators, principals, supervisors, lecturers

Exploring math through experiment

13

Class discussion

14

presenting finding

dialogue among students

Post-class discussion (See)

15

The teacher and observers discuss to share and exchange views regarding student activities.

Observers learn each other to apply it at their class

Discuss follow-up

Impact on daily teaching practices?

16

Contextual learning in science on daily teaching practice utilizing available learning resources

Role sharing

17

SISTTEMSSchool-University

linkage

District (Policy & Financial)

Schools(Teachers & Financial)

JICA(experts)

UPI(lecturers)

DGQITEP (policy) DGHE (financial)

ConclusionSchool based in-service teacher training

Lecturers visit school 2x per month in 8 working groups of 20-40 teachers from 8-15 schools

Distance & transportation problems for teachers were reduced significantly

Lecturers & teachers worked collaboratively in research lesson promoting student active learning through lesson study

Principals, supervisors, education district officers actively involved to build ownership

Promoting role sharing to guarantee sustainability

18

Disparities in learning quality between urban and rural/remote areas were reduced

Innovatve contribution

PRE-SERVCE

IN-SERVICE

19

•All teachers have opprotunity to participate in the CTPD through collaborative research lesson utilized optimally available learning resources

•Distance & transportation problems for teachers were reduced significantly

•video records as

learning resource •Improve

student teaching practice

Lecturers help teachers and learn from reality

Lecturers obtain feedback for improvement of pre-service

Implication of developed

Model

Conclusionbenefit for both sides

20

Arigato GozaimasuThank You

Terima Kasih