98
In addition, parental support of their children’s learning at home also had a positive result. Parents’ attention to their children’s homework and their encouragement of their children to
study regularly for about 2-3 hours or even more than 3 hours at home had a positive impact on their children’s ORF scores and reading comprehension. Children who spent more than 3
hours to learn at home obtained ORF scores almost ten times higher than those who never studied at home. Furthermore, parents who spoke mainly Indonesian language at home also
had children with better reading performance.
4.4 EGRA Results vs. Teachers’ Profiles
The gender of the teacher, either male or female, did not have any significant difference in terms of studen
ts’ ORF scores and reading comprehension. Although the EGRA scores of the students who were taught by female teachers were slightly higher, it was statistically
insignificant. In terms of teachers’ academic qualifications, it was obvious that teachers with higher academic backgrounds than junior high school graduates resulted in students with
higher ORF scores and better reading comprehension. Interestingly, as shown in Table 4.19, teachers who had Bachelor’s Degrees obtained almost an equal level of students’ reading
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
Parent Parent’s Income
Less than 500.000 IDR ref 7.84
11.32 500.000
– 999.999 IDR 8.51
13.72 1.000.000
– 2.999.999 IDR 10.80
16.20 3.000.000
– 6.000.000 IDR 19.52
30.15 More than 6.000.000 IDR
23.71 41.33
Parents help the child’s homework at home
Yes 6.91
10.76 No
10.82 16.35
Child spent time to learn at home
Never study at home ref 4.33
5.36 Less than 1 hour
9.89 14.72
1 – less than 2 hours
11.74 18.86
2 – 3 hours
12.91 18.93
More than 3 hours 38.00
53.33 Parent’s Language
Indonesian Language 12.70
19.79 Local Language
6.44 8.98
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
99
performance as those who graduated from senior high school. This finding challenged the effectiveness of MOEC’s program to allocate Bachelor’s Degree teachers from big cities of
Indonesia to the 3T areas of Indonesia, including the rural and remote areas of Tanah Papua. Moreover, teachers’ pre-service training did not differentiate students’ reading performance.
Whether they had attended pre-service training or not their students obtained relatively similar ORF scores and reading comprehension. The same was true with training on how to
teach reading. It seemed that the training had not yet improved the teachers’ skills.
Table 4.19: Oral Reading Fluency and Reading C omprehension Based on Teachers’
Characteristics
The main language of the teachers also had a significant impact on their students’ reading performance. Teachers whose main language was Bahasa Indonesia had students with
significantly higher ORF scores and better reading comprehension than those who did not use Bahasa Indonesia as their main language. In addition, having a similar language between teacher
and students enabled the students to have better reading comprehension.
SSME Category
Indicator ORF
Wordsminute Reading
Comprehension Correct
Teacher Teacher Gender
Male 9.70
14.98 Female
10.53 15.77
Teacher’s highest level of academic education
Junior high school 4.09
7.83 Senior high school
SMASPGSPGA 11.12
16.39 Diploma 1,2,3
7.14 10.44
Bachelor 10.84
16.75 Teacher received any
pre-service training Yes
10.30 15.69
No 9.67
14.36 Teacher received
special training on how to teach reading
Yes 9.28
14.04 No
11.03 16.80
ref : signifies the reference group : indicates statistical significance at the .05 level
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
