Author: Luthfiyah Nurlaela

I have no idea since when both terms started to be used and when they became popular in Indonesia. As far as I remember, they happened to be the topic of discussion when there is a policy to encourage universities in Indonesia to become world-class universities (WCU), as though become so, they must become research universities (RU). This meaning can be fully understood because WCU is always associated with ranking classification done by Times Higher Education and sometimes by Shanghai Jia Tong. Well, the top-ranked universities in both categories are classified as RU.

What is the definition of RU? It is usually defined publicly as a university whose primary mission is to conduct research (a research university is one that is committed to research as a central part of its mission). Perhaps it will be clearer if contrasted with a teaching university (TU) which is usually defined as the university whose primary focus is to educate students to be successful individuals after graduation (a teaching university is focused on the students and strives to make their success a top priority). Therefore, RU and TU have different missions, hence the program focuses are also different.

Because RU and TU cannot be compared, thus the ranking should be made separate. Let’s say there happens to be an order of RU from very good to bad, the same situation can be applied to the TU order. Certainly, the indicator used for ranking RU is asymmetrical to the one for TU. As far as I’m concerned, the university ranking for TU has yet to exist. My supposition lies in the possibility of lessening the pace of universities in the competition to become RU, even though they are more suitable for being TU.

Which one is better between RU and TU? In my opinion, they cannot be compared because they have different missions and programs, thus the main activities are also different. It is then connected to the resources and infrastructures required which of course are also unsimilar. Perhaps we can make an analogy like a greengrocery and a fruit store. Because the types of commodities are not the same, the human resources and infrastructures needed are surely different. The greengrocery indeed also provides several types of fruits, but the portion is very small. Likewise, the fruit store provides vegetable stock as well but only a small portion. There might be a large store that can function as a fruit store and greengrocery, so that it has a big and complete stock of fruits and vegetables, but in this case, they surely require massive human resources and infrastructure. There is also a small store that sells both vegetables and fruits, but that kind of shop is usually an incomplete fruit store or greengrocery.

Similar to the analogy above, we can say that RU owns students and conducts the educational process, but that is not their main concern, or it can be said that supporting research is their primary focus. Those universities generally prioritize the master’s and doctoral programs because they can be directly associated with the research conducted by their lecturers. The graduates are also expected to be reliable researchers, thus learning process is more like an ‘apprenticeship’ with those researchers whose roles are as the lecturers in those RUs. Conversely, research activities are also carried out by TU but that is not the primary focus and the research conducted is well-addressed to support the educational process. From where do they develop the science to upgrade/update the competence of their lecturers? It is obtained from RU with a similar scientific field. Thus, the main duty of the lecturers at TU is not to invent or develop sciences but to prepare human resources to enter the workforce. There probably exists a ‘small’ university that can play the role of RU and TU, but it also requires massive and qualified human resources and infrastructure for both. Perhaps there is also a ‘small’ college that strives to become both, but it is likely impossible to be a good RU or TU.

The question may arise, what is the example of TU? There are many of them. The Indonesian Military Academy and Police Academy are more suitable to be defined so as the focus is to produce good officers. All official tertiary institutions or ministries outside the Ministry of Education and Culture, in my opinion, are included in TU, because the focus is on producing graduates who meet the requirements of the ministry. So where does the research take place? In the Research and Development agency owned by the ministry.

Are the universities/institutions under the Ministry of Education and Culture categorized as RU? I personally do not think that they should be categorized as RU or TU. They can be an RU and TU but with the awareness that it requires large amounts of human resources and infrastructures. One thing they must avoid is the unclear mission which might impact the programs to be unclear as well. They could be neither RU nor TU or if they desire to be RU as well as TU yet the human resources and infrastructures are not adequate so it is impossible to achieve.

In Indonesia’s context, TU is seemingly more needed than RU. Indonesia needs a large number of human resources in the operational field of various industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture, fishery, trading, tourism, and other services. It does not mean that we do not need research findings to fast-forward industrial development but it is not as many as the human resources in the operational field.

Because both RU and TU are equally needed and unable to be compared, hence they must be awarded equally. It means that if a university achieved to be a great TU, the award must be granted similarly to the one obtained by RU. Henceforth, not all universities can become either TU or RU. How the composition of both requires more in-depth study. It is said that Malaysia initially only appointed four universities which later became six to become RU. In my opinion, Indonesia also needs to formulate how many universities are assigned to become RU and in which fields of study, in accordance with the needs of the country. Meanwhile, it is better for others to become TU to produce the human resources needed for the development of this country.

How about Education Personnel Education Institute (LPTK)? In my opinion, LPTKs are "semi-official" tertiary institutions, because they are under the guidance of the Ministry of Education and Culture whose graduates become teachers that work in schools which is probably under the guidance of the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Ministry of Education and Culture certainly understands the qualifications and competencies of teachers needed, how many and what types. In this way, it is possible to design how many LPTKs are needed and what the study programs are, even where the exact location is in accordance with Indonesia's geography. Of course, several LPTKs are needed which are encouraged to become RUs to conduct research on various matters related to education. Hopefully.

The effort to improve education quality in Indonesia has been long initiated. A considerable number of programs, projects, and breakthroughs have been attempted, either regional or national initiatives, and foreign experts’ assistance, as well as the organizers of educational institutions. However, the results are yet close to satisfying. The UN data (which is soon to be substituted by AKM), the results of PISA, and some other data denote that our education quality has not been encouraging.

The question then arises, what has gone wrong in these attempts? Have they not arrived in the main problem of our education? Quoting from Pareto’s theory, do these attempts not touch the critical factor of education in Indonesia? In Surabayan Javanese, have these attempts yet arrived at its ‘punjeran’ or core? Or is it the approach that went wrong? Or are we not serious enough in implementing it? Or, or, and so on. This short article does not aim to discuss the perplexity above, but share the analysis results of our schools’ situation, with the hope that it can provide another view on the basis of research data.

National Accreditation Agency for School/Madrasa has just recently carried out trials on their new accreditation instruments. Even though those instruments are relatively new, if we view from the results, it serves very good validity and reliability. Figure 1 presents the intercorrelation of the items (X1-X11) towards the independent variable (ML=Graduates Quality), (X12-X18) towards (PB=learning process), (X19-X22) towards (MG=teacher’s performance), and (X23-X35) towards (MSM=school management) are pretty good. Therefore, we can strongly agree that the results can be taken as the conclusion.

Figure 1 also illustrates the analysis results of SEM which are processed from more than a hundred schools. It shows that 64% of the graduate quality can be explained by the occurring learning process. Meanwhile, 66% of learning can be explained by teachers’ performance, and 92% of teachers’ performance is explained by the school management. If we pay close attention to those numbers, all of which surpass 60%, which simply can be defined that another factor is certainly smaller.

If the quality of graduates is interpreted as the main indicator for education quality, hence the SEM results can be arranged as follows. Education quality is strongly influenced by the learning process at school, whereas the learning process quality is affected by the teacher’s performance, and the teacher’s performance is influenced by the school management. If we quote from Pareto’s theory, how improving school management and teacher performance can be the main key to education quality improvement.

This finding is in line with Abu Dohuo’s (199) that students’ study results are learning innovations carried out by teachers. There happen to be three requirements before doing innovation, in which teachers must be competent and committed to conducting innovation for the improvement of students’ study results. Well, this commitment is highly influenced by the work climate and this climate is a consequence of school management.

Do these findings also apply to higher education? To date, I have not discovered or read such research in this context. However, if we read articles vis-à-vis outcome-based education, e.g. article written by Eldeeb and Shatakumari (2013) entitled Outcome Based Education: Trend Review, which is related to outcome-based accreditation, e.g. by Harmanani (2017) entitled An Outcome Based Assessment Process for Accrediting Computer Programmes, it might be applicable to universities. Of course, it will be delightful if there exist studies replicating those above in the context of higher education in Indonesia.

Every time I present a discussion about learning during the Covid-19 pandemic, I always assume, could it be that this pandemic is one of The Almighty God’s plans to give us educators a lesson? Haven’t we experienced the same thing in the use of digital technology (IT)? We almost never withdraw cash at the bank because it is easier for us to use the ATM. Even we are benefitted from the function of mobile banking if we want to pay or transfer some amount of money to our family or relatives. When we are traveling somewhere by train, we purchase the ticket online and check into the platform using a machine. E-magazines, e-journals, or e-books have also become trendS where we can download and read them online. The question is, why haven’t we tried online learning (e-instruction)?

For six months, we have been forced to conduct online learning and it seems that teachers, lecturers, school students, and college students are already accustomed to it. Online meetings are generally held as well. We have to admit that there are still plenty of obstacles and disadvantages. Nevertheless, there also exist a lot of benefits of the implementation above.

Not all topics or competencies can be held online. Some are easy, some are not, and some are impossible to execute online. Our fellow teachers and lecturers are surely aware of that. Teachers can guide the students in browsing informative cognitive-related aspects online. Google acts as the guide. However, if they do an analysis of the information, they seemingly still need intensive assistance. One of which is formula application which seems difficult to do it online and when it is related to skills. The simple and undangerous ones can be held though not easily. However, if the movement or competence is too complex, thus it requires real assistance.

Some character aspects and those which are related to “sense” require exemplary hence physical interaction is necessary. Of course, it can be exemplified through video but only in a particular stage. Especially when we have been aware that character growth needs long-term attention and consistency on daily basis.

On the other hand, online learning also gives us positive impacts. The students who are usually passive in class suddenly turn active or often deliver questions. Students are trained to seek information. During face-to-face learning, teachers tend to give information with the lecturing method, while during online learning students are used to looking for sources on the internet. Online meetings are also effective because the participants can join from anywhere else. They become active in discussions as well. Even recently there are plenty of webinars and most of them are free.

The question may arise, if during the pandemic the schools are ‘reopen’, will online learning stop, and we be back to how it used to be? Before analyzing, let me tell you a story. A few weeks ago, I met a friend who is active in the marketing field, and then we talked. The explanation given is that malls shall function differently. Not for a trading setting but for a place where people can go sightseeing as well as becoming showrooms. Then, where can we do the transaction? In an online setting. People will visit malls to check on the goods or even try them but they do not purchase them directly. After finding the goods and being done sightseeing, they will go home and buy them online. Why? Because the price is relatively lower. The entrepreneurs have realized that prediction, thus in addition to opening outlets at the mall, they establish online shops as well.

Are all those goods bought online safe? Apparently not. If some particular ones such as standard products, let’s say a specific clothing or footwear brand, it is allegedly safe to purchase online. However, if it occurs to typical goods, e.g. batik shirts, and gold jewelry without any specific standard, it would be better to buy in conventional stores.

What about online food delivery? Will restaurants be stricken by the absence of visitors? According to my friend, they won’t be but there will be changes. People who visit restaurants and stalls are those who want to relax with their friends. In addition, the food’s taste likely will ‘change’ if they do takeaways. Therefore, restaurants will not be much eroded like those outlets at the mall which sell raw food. Will the online delivery stop? It won’t. Hungry people do not always want to relax, thus they will likely use this service. Thus, both of which shall go on side-by-side.
Well, how about the learning process? I am convinced that if the pandemic has reached an end, online learning will still be held and conducted side-by-side with ‘traditional learning’. That is what we call blended learning, or simply a mixture of both. It does not mean that students come to school. They can be in the classroom but they study the materials online. It does not mean that teachers are absent. They are present but will aid the students if they encounter difficulties. After students attend online learning, they can continue doing exercises with direct interaction with the teachers it used to be.

Now, we need to think about and prepare for which methods should be carried out online and by face-to-face interaction with teachers. In regard to online or face-to-face learning, probably the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects do not exactly need a similar method. The approaches used for elementary, middle, and high schools, and higher education are probably different. All of these are relatively new and none of us are experienced in this. It might be better if all teachers, lecturers, and especially those learning experts try out innovation to welcome the new era that is blended learning. Hopefully.

I don’t remember when the term HOTS (High Order Thinking Skills) began its popularity among teachers and educators in Indonesia. Clearly, it has become an important vocabulary in the world of education. Teachers are demanded to develop HOTS for their students. It is said that AKM (Minimum Competence Assessment) is soon to be substituted UN (National Exam) which is prepared based on HOTS. 

Unfortunately, there is a considerable number of teachers who have not comprehended the concept of HOTS properly. When they enrolled in the capacity sharing for supervisor candidates and tutor teachers who later escort the students of Elementary School Teacher Professional Education (PPG-PGSD) held by the Ministry of Education and Culture along with Tanoto Foundation, some of whom admitted that they have not been able to grasp the concept of HOTS, thus cluelessness was clouding over them to apply it to their students.

HOTS is not a sole term, but it generally is interpreted as high-leveled thinking competence which covers the following categories: critical, creative, reflective, and problem-solving. Those were mentioned in two Cs at the beginning of 4-C namely critical thinking and creativity. There is also a shorter definition, which is solving problems creatively.

Various definitions above are in fact related to each other. To be able to solve problems creatively, one must require critical and reflective thinking to comprehend the problems to be solved. Meanwhile, to understand creative solving, high creativity is needed. If it is associated with Bloom’s taxonomy (although not matching properly), thinking creatively and reflectively is parallel to the level of analysis-synthesis and evaluation. Several experts mark it as a part of metacognition, while creative thinking is parallel to creating in Bloom’s taxonomy. This is why some people mention three levels at the beginning of the taxonomy (remembering, understanding, implementing) which is called LOTS (low-order thinking skill), as the three levels above them (analysis-synthesis, evaluation, creating) are included in HOTS.

Their perplexity occurred once again when the participants were asked to prepare a lesson plan for the first graders of elementary school to enhance HOTS. A senior first-grader teacher claimed that it was impossible. He/She argued that they were still in the concrete thinking stage. It seems like this teacher tried associating it with Piaget’s theory, of cognitive development, therefore the students are not able to do abstract thinking.

Another participant presented his/her lesson plan by showing the grouped toothbrushes. One group consisted of three and the other one consisted of two. Then, the first graders were asked to fill out the equality in their worksheet. From that, another participant remarked that elementary students are not yet able to read and write, how come they were asked to fill out the worksheet. By that claim, it was justified by a lot of participants, especially teachers.

I tried to mediate by saying, what if that question is delivered orally? So, the first graders are shown a picture, or the teacher brings real toothbrushes and then illustrates them like the picture. Then, the teacher asks orally, which has the most toothbrush? Can the students answer? Almost all of them confirmed they can. It means that the first graders are able to compare. When I asked, which Bloom’s taxonomy defines this comparison? Evaluation, they answered. Thus, the first graders are also able to evaluate, which means they can have HOTS. Since then, the participants understood. So, they remarked that if the first graders cannot answer, it is influenced by the image that they are still unable to read.

When the participants were busy with the discussion, I attempted to show a picture of the schoolyard and two students running from one corner to the other corner of the field. Let’s say Budi was running along the edge of the field while Tomi was running across it. Can two graders guess which one would arrive faster? The participants simultaneously answered they can. And I asked again how the students can conclude that Tomi arrived faster? One participant who is a second grader teacher stated, the students viewed that the track Tomi ran was shorter, thus he would be faster. The second graders are able to compare because the picture could be seen clearly. Isn’t that comparing? Isn’t that basically evaluating? It means the second graders have gotten into the evaluation level according to Bloom. Henceforth we can draw a conclusion that the first and second graders of elementary school have acquired HOTS because they are able to do an evaluation. Then, during the break time, several participants were discussing whether HOTS questions are associated with difficult questions in exams. I proposed a question to them if the third graders were asked to solve this question item:

                                           1/7 + 0.42 X 2/6 = ………………………………

Is it easy for them to do it? The participants would reply “Difficult, Sir.”. I asked once again if it is associated with Bloom’s taxonomy, what kind of category is it? Their answer was application because it only applied the principle of addition and multiplication. I continued asking whether it was categorized as HOTS or LOTS. They replied, LOTS. So, if there is a difficult question item, it is included in LOTS. Meanwhile, the previous question which could be answered easily by the first graders is categorized as HOTS. The conclusion was drawn that not all HOTS questions are difficult and not all LOTS questions are easy. In other words, the level of thinking is not always in line with the difficulty of the question item. 

Then, how do we easily comprehend HOTS? HOTS generally associates two concepts or phenomena. In the examples above, students were comparing two phenomena, namely the number of toothbrushes and running distance. Comparing two concepts is like questioning why grass does not grow under trees? It requires sunlight for the grass to grow well, meanwhile, sunlight cannot penetrate the thick-grown trees. Another example is why the water in a big river turns brown during heavy rain? Its water is usually originated from mountains or hills. The rainwater brings soil which causes the river to turn brown.