Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
