100
Table 4.20 : Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Based on Teachers’
Language
As discussed in the previous chapter, 58 of students in this baseline study spoke Bahasa Indonesia as their main language, while 50 of their teachers spoke the language as their main
language. Meanwhile, the other half of the students and their teachers spoke other languages as their main language. The details of the other languages are shown in Table 4.21 and Table
4.22, for students and teachers, respectively. From the table, it was revealed that the teachers might not speak a similar language to their students although both did not speak Bahasa
Indonesia as their main language. This was another challenge for primary schools in rural and remote areas of Tanah Papua to obtain better Bahasa Indonesia reading performance.
Table 4.21: Students’ Main Language
Table 4.22: Teachers’ Main Language
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
Teacher Teacher language
Indonesian Language 10.74
16.58 Local Language
9.58 14.21
Teacher’s language = Student’s language
Yes 10.56
16.10 No
9.77 14.71
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
Biak Language
Bahasa Indonesia
75.58 Biak
22.80 Papua
0.90 Walak
0.54 Wamena
0.18
Jayapura Language
Bahasa Indonesia
85.50 Papua
4.59 Besum
2.04 Baliem
1.65 Jawa
0.92 Wamena
0.92 Bonggo
0.92 Ambon
0.73 Biak
0.73 Ormu
0.73 Walak
0.55 Lani
0.18 Manado
0.18 Flores
0.18 Kupang
0.18
Mimika Language
Bahasa Indonesia
46.60 Kamoro
23.17 Papua
11.28 Dani
5.11 Amume
4.26 Asmat
2.77 Damal
1.70 Walak
1.06 Mioko
0.85 Agimuga
0.85 Jawa
0.64 Bugis
0.64 Manado
0.43 Kei
0.43 Klamono
0.21
Jayawijaya Language
Papua 53.36
Baliem 14.02
Bahasa Indonesia
12.29 Wamena
9.40 Kamoro
6.91 Lani
1.34 Dani
0.96 Walak
1.15 Ambon
0.38 Amume
0.19
Manokwari Language
Bahasa Indonesia
57.99 Papua
17.44 Atam
14.99 Hatam
4.90 Biak
2.95 Jawa
0.74 Ambon
0.49 Klamono
0.25 Kupang
0.25
Sorong Language
Bahasa Indonesia
69.39 Moi
13.63 Papua
6.71 Jawa
3.77 Walak
2.31 Biak
1.88 Klamono
1.05 Malabam
0.63 Manado
0.42 Bugis
0.21
101
4.5 EGRA Results vs. School and Classroom’s Characteristics
In this baseline study, it was revealed that students from public schools had significantly better ORF scores and reading comprehension. In addition, school accreditation was another
differentiating variable. Non-accredited schools performed significantly lower than accredited schools in terms of ORF scores and reading comprehension. Compared to the non-accredited
schools, the students of B accredited schools obtained almost double the ORF scores. Furthermore, students from B accredited schools performed better than C accredited
schools.
Table 4.23: Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Based on School Characteristics
Biak Language
Bahasa Indonesia
48.33 Local language 48.33
Enrengkang 1.67
Toraja 1.67
Jayapura Language
Bahasa Indonesia
59.32 Local language 27.10
Java 5.08
Kaimana 3.39
Flores 1.69
Ternate 1.69
Toraja 1.69
Mimika Language
Bahasa Indonesia
62.07 Local language 27.58
Java 3.45
Toraja 3.45
Flores 1.72
Manado 1.72
Jayawijaya Language
Local language 74.54 Bahasa
Indonesia 18.18
Java 7.27
Manokwari Language
Bahasa Indonesia
68.63 Flores
1.96 Local language 29.40
Sorong Language
Bahasa Indonesia
61.70 Local language 31.92
Manado 4.26
Ternate 2.13
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
School School status
Public 10.96
17.03 Private
8.71 12.44
Status type SD Inti ref
10.33 15.15
SD Imbas 10.06
15.68 School accreditation
Non accredited ref 7.45
11.54 A
- -
B 15.14
22.69 C
11.56 16.87
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
102
School facilities also differentiated students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Having a library was an important differentiator. Schools which had a library obtained higher ORF
scores and better performance in terms of reading comprehension. Library availability had a more significant impact on reading performance if the students took advantage of it. When
the students used the library, they read 7 words per minute more than their counterparts who never used the library. They also comprehended more in their readings. In addition, the
availability of reading books for early grade students in the library also made a significant contribution to the reading performance.
Table 4.24: Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Based on School Characteristics
Table 4.24 also shows that physical facilities such as electricity and water sources also differentiated the students’ reading performance. Schools with power and water sources had
students with higher ORF scores and reading comprehension. They outperformed students from schools without electricity and water by almost 6 words per minute and almost double
in terms of reading comprehension.
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
There was a school library
Yes 11.97
18.02 No
8.53 13.06
Students were using the library at the time of the
visit No students are using it
9.63 15.06
Students are using it 16.46
23.40 There were easy reading
books for small children Yes
13.16 19.54
No 9.71
16.08 The school had a source
of electricity No ref
7.33 10.57
Yes, but not functioning today 11.99
18.52 Yes, and functioning today
12.48 19.38
School had cleaned water source
Yes 13.31
20.23 No
7.71 11.66
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
103
The availability of a reading corner where students can read and borrow books also played a significant role in students’ reading performance. Students from schools with a reading
corners obtained almost double ORF scores and much better reading comprehension than students from schools without a reading corners.
Meanwhile, students scores in a formal government test such as Calistung was also an important proxy for the EGRA results. Students who obtained good scores on a TKD or
Calistung test, also obtained higher ORF scores and better reading comprehension, and vice versa.
Table 4.25: Oral Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Based on School Characteristics
It is also important to pay attention to how the teachers manage their classrooms. A classical clas
s type was not considered to have a strong impact on students’ reading performance. In contrast, students from a “small group” classroom or “u-shaped” classroom outperformed
students from a classical classroom with more than 6 words per minute of ORF. Their reading comprehension was even almost doubled. Furthermore, a classroom with a reading corner
produced students with higher ORF and better reading comprehension than a classroom without a reading corner.
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
Head Teacher
Early grade children had access to the
books from the library Yes
12.57 19.57
No 11.15
16.35 There was a reading
corner where students can borrow and read
books Yes
13.94 21.44
No 8.58
12.89 Student achievement
are measured by TKD CALISTUNG Test
Good 14.17
21.35 Bad
7.11 11.03
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
