Next Article in Journal
Factor Analysis of Students’ Knowledge Assessment Based on the Results of Online Entrance Testing in Mathematics to the University under the Conditions of COVID-19
Previous Article in Journal
Tourism in Geography Textbooks in Secondary Education and High School: The Case of the Balearic Islands
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci13010045
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Teacher Perception of Student Reading Competence and Its Relationship to Teaching Practice: A Comparison between Pre and during Pandemic Teaching in INDONESIA

by
Shally Novita
*,
Puspita Adhi Kusuma Wijayanti
and
Miryam Wedyaswari
Center for Psychological Innovation and Research, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor 45363, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(1), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010045
Submission received: 15 November 2022 / Revised: 18 December 2022 / Accepted: 28 December 2022 / Published: 31 December 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
During the pandemic, learning methods were changed to distance or hybrid learning to ensure both physical distancing as well as educational continuity. This study examines teacher perceptions of student reading competence prior to and during the pandemic in Indonesia. A total of 59 language teachers were asked about their perceptions of reading competence as well as their teaching practices, such as disciplinary climate, teacher support, teacher-directed instruction, teacher feedback, stimulation of reading, and instruction adaptation. Results revealed that Indonesian teachers believed more students would have better learning gains if face-to-face learning were implemented compared to distance or hybrid learning during the pandemic. In addition, teacher perception prior to and during the pandemic was affected by different aspects. Prior to the pandemic, teacher perception was affected by the disciplinary climate and teacher support. Meanwhile, during the pandemic, teacher perception was negatively affected by teacher-directed instruction.

1. Introduction

School closures seemed to be one of the most effective approaches to restrain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, which is responsible for the disease COVID-19 [1]. However, this non-pharmaceutical intervention is linked to various educational issues such as learning loss [2], widening education gaps between children from different socio-economic statuses [3,4,5], and ambiguity among teachers due to sudden changes in teaching methods and workloads [6].
Learning loss during the pandemic has been linked with school closure regulations, which vary from country to country [7]. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the learning loss during the pandemic also varied between countries. For example, a study in the Netherlands documented a general learning loss of 0.08 standard deviation [3], while a study in Belgium reported a learning loss of 0.19 standard deviation for mathematics and 0.29 for Dutch [5]. In contrast, American students showed 63–68% learning gains in reading during COVID-19 as compared to before the pandemic [8].
Specifically for Indonesia, [9] reported a decrease of 11 points on the PISA reading comprehension test and a loss of USD 249 in future annual individual earnings due to the four months of school closure in 2020. Taking into account that the majority of Indonesian schools were fully reopened in July 2022, and during 2021, the majority of schools were still implementing both distance and hybrid learning models; the decrease in actual PISA score and income loss for Indonesian children should drive serious concern.
In the period between March 2020 and June 2022, the Indonesian government issued several teaching and learning regulations, including full distance learning (between March 2020 and August 2021, with some variation for certain schools) and restricted face-to-face learning, or so-called hybrid learning (between September 2021 and June 2022, also with some variation for certain schools). The full face-to-face learning regulation was implemented in July 2022. This means that for more than two years, the teaching and learning in Indonesia were very responsive to the number of COVID-19 infections, and all involved parties had to adapt accordingly. During both distance and hybrid learning, teachers had to develop online teaching materials that could be accessed by students from home to ensure both continuity in the learning process and the implementation of physical distancing. Students who usually obtained teacher support during face-to-face learning had to work with different kinds of support or no support at all [4]. Parents also had to support the learning process of their children while having to either face the economic uncertainty of the pandemic or deal with the demands of the working-from-home regulations [10,11], all of which led to increased parenting stress [12]. The change and adaptivity demands during both distance and hybrid learning were high, and substantial effort was provided by various parties to ensure educational continuity. A systematic review of learning loss during COVID-19 reported various findings. Seven of eight studies found evidence of learning loss, while one study interestingly found learning gains in a particular group. Specifically, demographic factors play important roles in this result. Several studies observed an increase in inequality where certain demographics of students experienced learning losses more significantly than others [13]. However, systematic research studying the differences in learning outcomes prior to and during the pandemic in Indonesia is still limited.
This study aims to examine the perceptions of teachers about students’ learning outcomes prior to and during the pandemic. Teachers have deep firsthand knowledge about their students’ learning activities, processes, and progress and may observe the disengagement and learning loss from missed assignments to falling test scores during the pandemic [14]. We focus on reading competence as one of the most important subjects, as this correlates with students’ general academic performance as well as future outcomes such as socioeconomic status and well-being [15,16]. The information about reading competence prior to and during the pandemic will help teachers develop appropriate learning strategies, particularly during the pandemic, and could be used by policymakers to develop distance and/or hybrid learning regulations.

1.1. Teacher Perception on Reading Competence and Teacher Practices

Teachers have fundamental roles in students’ academic achievement. Teachers make observations and judgments about students’ learning that are usually used to make various important decisions, such as those about learning materials, teaching methods and instructions, classroom management, evaluation, and feedback [17]. Teachers’ perceptions and judgments about students’ competencies are expressed in the form of their pedagogical actions, and these are critical contributors to students’ academic self-concept, which in turn affects their achievement [18]. Teachers’ perceptions are an important factor in students’ performance because teachers’ beliefs influence their practices and, thus, the learning outcomes of their students [19]. Teachers’ perceptions also play a vital role in expectations, strategies, interactions, and relationships with their students, and these inferences can eventually cause students to behave or achieve in ways that confirm the teachers’ expectations [20].
This study seeks information about differences in students’ reading competence prior to and during the pandemic based on the perception of teachers. Generally, the literature has documented strong connections between teacher perceptions and students’ achievement [21], although teacher perception is also evident to have a subjective bias [22,23,24]. It was reported that the accuracy of teacher perceptions of students’ achievement might vary due to the context and conditions [25]. For example, an overestimation could be obtained: (1) when teachers’ judgment is compared to norm-referenced cognitive measures [26], (2) when using correlational analysis rather than percentage agreement methods [27], (3) when teachers need to rate the achievement of older students [28], or (4) if explicit information (e.g., exact assessment items) is provided to teachers before they rate their students’ achievement [29]. In contrast, an underestimation may be obtained when teacher judgments are compared to direct measures of academic achievement [30].
There are several issues that teachers should deal with when making judgments about students’ achievement. More specifically for reading, teachers seem to have difficulties judging their students’ reading competence, particularly if the students have average to low reading fluency [25]. During distance and hybrid learning, the challenges in judging reading competence become harder due to too few or no face-to-face instruction and learning interactions [31] or difficulty in finding the best methods for evaluation and feedback. Language teachers need to build a new perspective on an “online” classroom, including implementing a suitable disciplinary climate during hybrid learning. They are also challenged to provide new kinds of support for students’ reading development and to give instructions and feedback in ways distinct from before.
During distance and hybrid learning, most materials were prepared digitally and, in most cases, uploaded into a learning platform that could be accessed online. It was very unlikely that teachers prepared assignments that suited each student’s individual needs. Therefore, it is important that teachers know the collective ability of the students in their classroom. More specifically, in reading, language teachers need to know the level of competency of most students in their classroom and plan pedagogical strategies accordingly.
Furthermore, during distance and hybrid learning, the frequency of teacher-student interaction was relatively low compared to face-to-face learning [32]. Therefore, it is likely that teachers’ actions and practices had less impact on students during distance and hybrid learning than during face-to-face learning. Teachers found difficulty in giving instructions and feedback during distance and hybrid learning [33], not to mention implementing a disciplinary climate. During face-to-face learning, teacher support seemed to closely link with favorable conditions such as higher student achievement and engagement, less problem behavior, and positive relations [34,35]. Given the limited interaction between teachers and students and that learning support during the pandemic was likely provided by parents, teacher support likely played a less important role for students during the pandemic than prior to the pandemic.
In addition, teacher perceptions of students’ reading competence seem to be a function of the teacher’s experience. It was reported that teachers who had 6–10 years of teaching experience were more supportive of students’ reading competence than those who had more than 21 years of teaching experience [36].

1.2. Current Study

This study aims to investigate teachers’ perceptions of reading competence and compare these perceptions to findings prior to and during the pandemic. Based on the above-mentioned explanation, it is very likely that teachers had a more favorable perception of face-to-face learning as it enabled them to have more interaction with and provide more support to their students. Teachers may also find that it is easier to give instruction and feedback during face-to-face learning than during distance or hybrid learning. With all the mentioned favorable learning conditions, it is likely that teachers had more positive perceptions of reading competence during face-to-face learning (prior to the pandemic) than during distance or hybrid learning. In other words, it is likely that teachers would rate their students as having better reading competence prior to than during the pandemic (hypothesis 1).
Moreover, during the pandemic, there were restrictions on interactions, and teachers had less capacity to control and manage the learning conditions for the students. Therefore, teacher practices during the pandemic, such as teacher support, teacher feedback, instruction, stimulation of reading, and disciplinary climate, may be less meaningful for teacher perception of reading competence as compared to before the pandemic (hypothesis 2).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample and Procedure

The participants in this study were 59 language teachers in Indonesia. Most of the participants were female (83%), with an average age of 44.58 and an SD = 12.04. All participants were language teachers in an Indonesian junior secondary school and had worked in a similar school since at least the beginning of 2019 (one year prior to the pandemic). It is obligatory for all Indonesian children to complete 12 years of schooling, which consists of six years of elementary school, three years of junior secondary school, and three years of senior secondary school. Since all the teachers in this study were language teachers in a junior secondary school, they reported their perceptions about students in their seventh to ninth years of schooling, with a range of ages from approximately 12 to 14 years old.
The invitation to participate in the survey was distributed through social media, teacher associations, and at schools. A snowball sampling procedure was implemented that allowed participants to forward the invitation to other language teachers. There were no restrictions on the area of the schools, except that they were in Indonesia. However, all participants in this study worked for schools that were located in either West Java or Jakarta.
The survey was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022. Participants were asked to submit their consent before they began filling out the online questionnaires. All participants who completed the questionnaires obtained rewards in the form of e-money.

2.2. Instrument

2.2.1. Teacher Perception of Reading Competence

Teachers were asked to judge what percent of students in their language classes—with a similar level of schooling—had mastered the domains of reading ability, including reading fluently (1 item), locating information (1 item), understanding (3 items), reflecting, and evaluating (2 items), and task management (3 items). The classifications of the reading domains follow the framework issued by PISA [37]. The teachers were then asked to give their opinions about their students prior to and during the pandemic. The teachers’ perception of reading competence was their total score of the students’ reading dimensions as classified by percent. This instrument shows Cronbach’s alphas of 0.93 and 0.96 for the periods prior to and during the pandemic, respectively.

2.2.2. Disciplinary Climate

To measure this practice, Indonesian teachers responded to five items about the class condition during Indonesian lessons. An example of the item is “Students do not listen to what I say”. The disciplinary climate used a four-point Likert scale with categories of “Every lesson”, “Most lessons”, “Some lessons”, and “Never or hardly ever”. The score of the disciplinary climate could vary between 5 and 20. This instrument has a reliability of 0.59, which is characterized as satisfactory by previous studies [38].

2.2.3. Teacher Support

Indonesian teachers provided their perceptions of teacher support in the Indonesian lesson by responding to four items, such as “I show an interest in every student’s learning.” These items have a four-point Likert scale ranging from “Every lesson” to “Never or hardly ever”. The response categories were reversed so that a higher score corresponds to higher teacher support. The score of the teacher support could vary between 4 and 16. Teacher support has a reliability of 0.56, which is characterized as acceptable by previous studies [38].

2.2.4. Teacher-Directed Instruction

To measure teacher-directed instruction, Indonesian teachers responded to four items, such as “I set clear goals for students learning”, to assess teacher-directed instruction in Indonesian lessons. These items have four response categories ranging from “Every lesson” to “Never or hardly ever”. Similar to teacher support, the response categories were reversed so that a higher score corresponds to more teacher-directed instruction. The score of the teacher-directed instruction could vary between 4 and 16. The scale has a reliability of 0.73 [39].

2.2.5. Teacher Feedback

The perceived teacher feedback was assessed using three items, such as “I give my students feedback on their strengths in this subject”, with a four-point Likert scale. The response categories are “Never or seldom”, “Some lessons”, “Many lessons”, and “Every lesson or almost every lesson”. Similar to both teacher support and teacher-directed instruction, the response categories were reversed so that a higher score corresponds to higher teacher feedback. The score of the teacher feedback could vary between 3 and 12. The teacher feedback has a scale reliability of 0.63, which is characterized as satisfactory by a previous study [38].

2.2.6. Stimulation of Reading and Teaching Strategies

Teachers were also asked to report how likely they were to stimulate reading during their classes. These were assessed by four items, such as “I promote students to express their opinion about a text”, with a four-point Likert scale ranging from “Never or hardly never” to “In all lessons”. The score of the stimulation of reading and teaching strategies could vary between 4 and 16. The scale has a reliability of 0.63, which is characterized as satisfactory by a previous study [38].

2.2.7. Instruction Adaptation

Furthermore, Indonesian teachers answered three questions about instruction adaptation in Indonesian, such as “I adapt the lesson to my class’s needs and knowledge”. These items have four response categories ranging from “Never or seldom” to “Every lesson or almost every lesson”. The score of the instruction adaptation could vary between 3 and 12. The instruction adaptation has a reliability of 0.61, which is characterized as satisfactory by a previous study [38].

2.2.8. Statistical Analysis

To test hypothesis 1, total reading scores and total scores for each reading dimension were compared between pre- and post-pandemic. If the data meets the assumption of normal distribution, a t-test analysis is performed. However, if the normal distribution assumption is violated, the data is analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Hypothesis 2 was tested by means of stepwise multiple regression. In the first step, the covariates were included in the model. In the second step, various teaching practices were included in the regression model. The analysis was conducted for teacher perceptions of reading competence in both pre and during the pandemic. The analysis was conducted in SPSS version 29.0 [40].

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation as well as the minimum and maximum scores for interval variables, while it reports the percentage for categorical variables. The majority of teachers work for public schools, and on average have approximately 19 years of teaching experience. Generally, teachers’ perceptions of reading competence prior to the pandemic seem to be higher than during the pandemic. Similar results are also reported for all reading dimensions. However, the standard deviation during the pandemic seems to be higher than those prior to the pandemic, indicating that during pandemic teachers reported more variations in terms of the proportion of students that have the ability in reading competence or in certain reading dimensions. Furthermore, all teacher practices seem to have moderate to high mean scores, except for instruction adaptation, which has relatively lower mean scores than other teacher practices.

3.2. Differences in Teacher Perceptions of Students’ Reading Competence

Based on the Wilcoxon signed rank test, there were more students that were rated to have capabilities in reading fluently and understanding prior to than during the pandemic. The test statistic for reading fluently is 392.00 with SE = 199.29, p = 0.00, and the test statistic for understanding is 294.00 with SE = 122.58, p = 0.00.
In addition, four paired t-tests were performed for locating information, evaluation and reflection, task management and reading competence. All analyses yielded significant findings, indicating that more students are capable of locating the information, completing evaluations and reflections, and performing task management for reading prior to than during the pandemic. The results are t = 5.25, p = 0.00, Cohen’s d = 0.68; t = 4.55, p = 0.00, Cohen’s d = 0.59; t = 4.68, p = 0.00, Cohen’s d = 0.61 for locating information, evaluating and reflecting, and task management, respectively. Furthermore, the results for teachers’ perceptions of reading competence are t = 4.84, p = 0.00, and Cohen’s d = 0.63. These results indicate that teachers perceive students’ reading competence prior to the pandemic better than during the pandemic, therefore, confirming the first hypothesis.

3.3. Teacher’s Practices Have Less Impact on Teacher’s Perception of Students’ Reading Competence during Pandemics Compared to Prior to Pandemics

The results of stepwise regression yielded two significant findings for teachers’ perceptions of reading competence prior to the pandemic and one significant result for reading competence during the pandemic. As shown by Table 2, both disciplinary climate and teacher support seem to have significant contributions in explaining the variance of teacher perception on reading competence prior to the pandemic, with B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, β = 0.29, p = 0.03 and B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, β = 0.36, p = 0.03 for disciplinary climate and teacher support, respectively.
Analysis of teachers’ perceptions of reading competence during the pandemic shows that only teacher-directed instruction may have a meaningful impact on reading competence with B = −0.05, SE = 0.02, β = −0.34, p = 0.03. The negative sign indicates that the more teachers provided directed instruction, the lower the proportion of students who satisfy the indicators of reading competence.
Overall, the models can explain 18% of the variance in reading competence prior to the pandemic and 15% of the variance in reading competence during the pandemic.

4. Discussion

This study examines whether language teachers in Indonesia had more positive perceptions of reading competence prior to the pandemic compared to during the pandemic. This study also investigates whether various teaching practices had a greater impact on language teachers’ perceptions of reading competence prior to the pandemic than during the pandemic.
The results of a series of t-tests and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test reveal that more students in one class achieved the standard mentioned in all five reading dimensions (i.e., reading fluently, locating information, understanding, evaluation and reflection, and task demand) prior to the pandemic than during the pandemic. These significant results are supported by moderate effect sizes that vary between 0.61 and 0.68. It is argued that these results are a consequence of distinct teaching and learning methods that were implemented prior to and during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, Indonesian schools implemented face-to-face learning methods, which enabled language teachers to have face-to-face personal interactions with their students, manage the classroom, and control the learning activities of their students directly. Previous studies have reported that 37% of secondary school students spent two hours a day learning during the pandemic, and only approximately 27% of the students invested at least four hours a day in learning [41]. For some students, learning time during the pandemic was almost zero [42].
During the pandemic, students obtained direct instruction remotely, and language teachers had a relatively good chance to adapt their instructions based on their observations during the language classes. Language teachers could also provide their feedback and arrange evaluations directly, which is effective for improving outcomes in the learning process [43,44].
It is very likely that due to less learning time and unfavorable learning conditions during the pandemic, students experienced learning losses in reading, which were also detected by the language teachers. Therefore, language teachers decrease their expectations about the proportion of the students in their classes that satisfy the standard of reading dimensions. Since there is no direct measure of reading competence used in this study, the assumption about learning loss cannot be directly made. The lower language teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading competence could be used as preliminary data for the existence of learning losses in reading experienced by Indonesian secondary school students.
An analysis of the stepwise regression suggests that both disciplinary climate and teacher support are important predictors of teachers’ perceptions of reading competence prior to the pandemic, with B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, β = 0.29, p = 0.03 and B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, β = 0.36, p = 0.03 for disciplinary climate and teacher support, respectively. These results show that disciplinary climate and teacher support are not good predictors of the teachers’ perceptions of reading competence, indicating that the variations in disciplinary climate and teacher support during the pandemic would not make any difference to teachers’ perceptions of the reading competence of their students.
In contrast, during the pandemic, teacher-directed instruction seemed to negatively affect their perceptions about students’ reading competence, with B = −0.05, SE = 0.02, β = −0.34, p = 0.03. Teacher-directed instruction is a teaching strategy that mostly relies on a teacher’s ability to deliver the lesson clearly and with the appropriate structures [45]. The strategy includes clearly stating learning goals, giving students several practice sessions until they understand the subject matter, presenting a summary of the previous class, and describing how the learning content relates to everyday life. The findings imply that the more teachers try to rely only on their capabilities in teaching, the less successful they perceive their students to be. Thus, PISA suggests teachers use other strategies in addition to teacher-directed instruction, which are active learning (i.e., promoting engagement in students’ learning) and cognitive activation strategies (i.e., strategies that encourage students to use higher-order thinking skills).
In this study, all teacher practices were measured once, and therefore, there is no possibility of comparing the teacher practices prior to and during the pandemic. However, using similar data on teacher practice, this study could show that specific teacher practices are more important for teachers’ perceptions of reading competence under specific conditions. During face-to-face learning, language teachers could manage the classroom relatively easily compared to distance or hybrid learning [46]. Teachers also had more chances to provide direct support for their students, give relatively uncomplicated instructions, and provide direct feedback on their students’ learning progress. Therefore, language teachers had the chance to provide direct support to their students during reading classes and give them additional sessions or extra help if needed [47]. These are very unlikely to happen during distance or hybrid learning due to the lack of or limited face-to-face sessions. In addition, providing educational support through online methods could be complicated and, to some extent, less effective because it is a function of at least two external aspects. First, providing educational support through an online method would require fast, reliable broadband internet, which is a significant issue in successful distance learning in all parts of the world, including Indonesia [48,49,50]. Second, observing the students via video is evidently ineffective and may lead to false conclusions [51]. If teachers cannot draw valid conclusions about the needs of their students, it is unlikely they will provide suitable support for them.
In addition, it is interesting that teacher-directed instruction had negative impacts on teachers’ perceptions of reading competence. These results could be obtained due to instruction quality and how students perceive the instructions. According to [52,53], teachers do not always provide high-quality instruction. During distance and hybrid learning, where teachers struggle to implement suitable instructional strategies, the instruction quality could be even lower than prior to the pandemic, resulting in a negative impact on students’ reading outcomes and, therefore, teachers’ perceptions of students’ reading competence. In addition, it is possible that students see direct instruction from teachers as a sign of a teacher’s untrustiness towards students’ reading competence as well as an unwillingness of a teacher to allow their students to be independent learners [54].

5. Conclusions

This study aims to seek evidence of whether teachers have different perceptions about the reading competence of their students prior to and during the pandemic. This study also wants to disentangle whether several teaching practices are related to reading competence prior to and during the pandemic.
Based on teacher reports, students had better reading competence during face-to-face learning prior to the pandemic compared to distance or hybrid learning during the pandemic. In addition, disciplinary climate and teacher support seem to explain the significant variance in reading competence prior to the pandemic, while teacher-directed instruction has a negative correlation with reading competence during the pandemic. These results added evidence of the high possibility of learning loss during the pandemic, particularly in Indonesia. The findings may also serve as important information for educational practitioners, policymakers, parents, and other stakeholders dealing with learning to read, particularly during the pandemic.

6. Limitations

Although the study adds important points and information about teaching reading during the pandemic, this study has several limitations.
First, in order to measure the learning loss, it is necessary to measure the reading competence of students via a direct measure of reading competence. With this measure, it is possible to determine the approximate learning loss that was caused by school closures during the pandemic. This information is valuable for educational practitioners to plan pedagogical strategies that suit students’ actual competence and not only curriculum standards. In addition, the information about learning loss would be important for policymakers to determine educational regulations and roadmaps.
Second, most studies on teacher judgment provide judgments of the teacher for each student, which allows for a deeper analysis of their judgments. The judgments of the teacher for each student in the classroom would be of high relevance if the students’ reading competence were also measured.
Third, measuring teacher practices prior to and during the pandemic could be important to have knowledge about teachers’ perceptions of their teaching practice during distance and hybrid learning. It could also be important to add students’ perceptions of teaching practices during the pandemic. In this study, the teachers’ practices were measured once. However, given the nature of the items related to the teacher practices, the information about teacher practices could be used for both conditions with some consideration. First, it is important to add information about the frequency of reading classes prior to and during the pandemic. Second, it is necessary to provide information about the teaching methods that were predominantly used by the language teachers during distance and hybrid learning.
Fourth, in this study, we used a relatively less conventional criteria of reliability compared to those that were repeatedly implemented in prior studies (for example: [55]).
In addition, the sample size is relatively homogenous because teachers needed to fulfill several requirements to be participants in this study. This led to a relatively small sample size and reduced the power of this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.N. and M.W.; methodology, S.N.; formal analysis, S.N.; investigation, M.W.; resources, S.N., P.A.K.W. and M.W.; data curation, S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.N.; writing—review and editing, P.A.K.W.; project administration, M.W.; funding acquisition, S.N., P.A.K.W. and M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Directorate of Research and Community Service Universitas Padjadjaran with funding number 4895/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. This study has obtained an ethical clearance with registered number 2111071154 and the ethical approval number is 158/UN6.KEP/EC/2022 from the ethics board of commission.

Data Availability Statement

Data are not available due to the confidentiality concerns.

Acknowledgments

This study receives funding form Universitas Padjadjaran in 2021. Our express our gratitude to all teachers that participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haug, N.; Geyrhofer, L.; Londei, A.; Dervic, E.; Desvars-Larrive, A.; Loreto, V.; Pinior, B.; Thurner, S.; Klimek, P. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 1303–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Schult, J.; Mahler, N.; Fauth, B.; Lindner, M.A. Did students learn less during the COVID-19 pandemic? Reading and mathematics competencies before and after the first pandemic wave. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2022, 33, 544–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Engzell, P.; Frey, A.; Verhagen, M.D. Learning loss due to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2022376118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Goudeau, S.; Sanrey, C.; Stanczak, A.; Manstead, A.; Darnon, C. Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 1273–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maldonado, J.E.; de Witte, K. The effect of school closures on standardised student test outcomes. Br. Ed. Ucational Res. J. 2022, 48, 49–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Silva, S.; Fernandes, J.; Peres, P.; Lima, V.; Silva, C. Teachers’ Perceptions of Remote Learning during the Pandemic: A Case Study. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zierer, K. Effects of Pandemic-Related School Closures on Pupils’ Performance and Learning in Selected Countries: A Rapid Review. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kuhfeld, M.; Soland, J.; Tarasawa, B.; Johnson, A.; Ruzek, E.; Liu, J. Projecting the Potential Impact of COVID-19 School Closures on Academic Achievement. Educ. Res. 2020, 49, 549–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yarrow, N.; Masood, E.; Afkar, R. Estimates of COVID-19 Impacts on Learning and Earning in Indonesia: How to Turn the Tide. 2020. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/34378/Main-Report.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  10. Adams-Prassl, A.; Boneva, T.; Golin, M.; Rauh, C. Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time surveys. J. Public Econ. 2020, 189, 104245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Witteveen, D.; Velthorst, E. Economic hardship and mental health complaints during COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 27277–27284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Halayem, S.; Sayari, N.; Cherif, W.; Cheour, M.; Damak, R. Relationship between parenting stress and school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2020, 74, 497–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Donnelly, R.; Patrinos, H.A. Learning loss during COVID-19: An early systematic review. Prospects 2022, 51, 601–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, L.-K.; Dorn, E.; Sarakatsannis, J.; Wiesinger, A. Teacher Survey: Learning Loss Is Global—And Significant. McKinsey. 2021. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/teacher-survey-learning-loss-is-global-and-significant (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  15. Savolainen, H.; Ahonen, T.; Aro, M.; Tolvanen, A.; Holopainen, L. Reading comprehension, word reading and spelling as predictors of school achievement and choice of secondary education. Learn. Instr. 2008, 18, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Svensson, I. Reading and writing disabilities among inmates in correctional settings. A Swedish perspective. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2011, 21, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Artelt, C.; Gräsel, C. Diagnostische Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Z. Fur Padagog. Psychol. 2009, 23, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Marsh, H.W.; Martin, A.J. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 81, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Contreras, M.E. UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title the Effects of Teacher Perceptions and Expectations on Student Achievement. 2011. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1b84k07z (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  20. Williams, A.R. The Effect of Teachers’ Expectations and Perceptions on Student Achievement in Reading for Third and Fifth Grade Students Achievement in Reading for Third and Fifth Grade Students. 2012. Available online: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  21. Feinberg, A.; Shapiro, E. Teacher Accuracy: An Examination of Teacher-Based Judgments of Students’ Reading with Differing Achievement Levels. J. Educ. Res. 2010, 102, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Glock, S.; Krolak-Schwerdt, S.; Klapproth, F.; Böhmer, M. Beyond judgment bias: How students’ ethnicity and academic profile consistency influence teachers’ tracking judgments. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2013, 16, 555–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Heyder, A.; Kessels, U.; Steinmayr, R. Explaining academic-track boys’ underachievement in language grades: Not a lack of aptitude but students’ motivational beliefs and parents’ perceptions? Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 87, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jussim, L.; Harber, K.D. Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2016, 9, 131–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Begeny, J.C.; Eckert, T.L.; Montarello, S.A.; Storie, M.S. Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Reading Abilities: An Examination of the Relationship Between Teachers’ Judgments and Students’ Performance Across a Continuum of Rating Methods. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2008, 23, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hoge, R.D.; Coladarci, T. Teacher-Based Judgments of Academic Achievement: A Review of Literature. Rev. Educ. Res. 1989, 59, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eckert, T.L.; Dunn, E.K.; Codding, R.S.; Begeny, J.C.; Kleinmann, A.E. Assessment of mathematics and reading performance: An examination of the correspondence between direct assessment of student performance and teacher report. Psychol. Sch. 2006, 43, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kenny, D.T.; Chekaluk, E. Early reading performance: A comparison of teacher-based and test-based assessments. J. Learn. Disabil. 1993, 26, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Demaray, M.K.; Elliott, S.N. Teachers’ judgments of students’ academic functioning: A comparison of actual and predicted performances. Sch. Psychol. Q. 1998, 13, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hamilton, C.; Shinn, M.R. Characteristics of Word Callers: An Investigation of the Accuracy of Teachers’ Judgments of Reading Comprehension and Oral Reading Skills. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 32, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arsendy, S.; Gunawan, C.J.; Rarasati, N.; Suryadarma, D. Teaching and Learning during School Closure: Lessons from Indonesia; Perspectives Series of Paper; ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute: Singapore, 2020; p. 89. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11540/12448 (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  32. Niemi, H.M.; Kousa, P. A Case Study of Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions in a Finnish High School during the COVID Pandemic. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Sci. 2020, 4, 352–369. Available online: https://www.ijtes.net (accessed on 3 March 2022). [CrossRef]
  33. Kundu, A.; Bej, T. COVID-19 response: An analysis of teachers’ perception on pedagogical successes and challenges of digital teaching practice during new normal. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 6879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hamre, B.K.; Pianta, R.C. Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Dev. 2001, 72, 625–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Skinner, E.; Furrer, C.; Marchand, G.; Kindermann, T. Engagement and Disaffection in the Classroom: Part of a Larger Motivational Dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Giles, R.M.; Tunks, K. Teachers’ Thoughts on Teaching Reading: An Investigation of Early Childhood Teachers’ Perceptions of Literacy Acquisition. Early Child. Educ. J. 2015, 43, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). PISA 2018 Technical Report. 2019. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/ (accessed on 30 November 2021).
  38. Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. van Griethuijsen, R.A.L.F.; van Eijck, M.W.; Haste, H.; den Brok, P.J.; Skinner, N.C.; Mansour, N.; Gencer, A.S.; BouJaoude, S. Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Res. Sci. Educ. 2015, 45, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (29.0); IBM Corp: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Silke, A.; Sarah, B.; Hans, D.; Adrian, L.; Alexander, P.; Malte, S.; Carina, T. Schulschließungen Wegen Corona: Regelmäßiger Kontakt zur Schule Kann Die Schulischen Aktivitäten der Jugendlichen Erhöhen. IAB Forum. 2020. Available online: https://www.iab-forum.de/schulschliessungen-wegen-corona-regelmassiger-kontakt-zur-schule-kann-die-schulischen-aktivitaten-der-jugendlichen-erhohen/ (accessed on 1 February 2021).
  42. Wößmann, L. Folgekosten ausbleibenden Lernens: Was wir über die Corona-bedingten Schulschließungen aus der Forschung lernen können. Ifo Schnelld. 2020, 73, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Mäkipää, T.; Hahl, K.; Luodonpää-Manni, M. Teachers’ perceptions of assessment and feedback practices in Finland’s foreign language classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. CEPS J. Spec. Issue 2021, 11, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, M.; Mak, P.; Yuan, R. Feedback Experience of Online Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Voices from Pre-service English Language Teachers. Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 2021, 30, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Insights from theTALIS-PISA Link Data: Teaching Strategies for Instructional Quality. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/ (accessed on 30 November 2021).
  46. Zou, C.; Li, P.; Jin, L. Online college English education in Wuhan against the COVID-19 pandemic: Student and teacher readiness, challenges and implications. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lie, A.; Tamah, S.M.; Gozali, I.; Triwidayati, K.R.; Utami, T.S.D.; Jemadi, F. Secondary School Language Teachers’ Online Learning Engagement during the Covid-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2020, 19, 803–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Novita, S.; Ulfa, A.; Mutiara Zaharani, H.; Andini Dv Brilianti, L.; Maysaa Fatina Riyad, D.; Adriana Devi, N.; Nisa Ul Inayah, C.; Nurmalasari, R.; Aria Feriska, S.; Andraini, N.; et al. Persepsi Siswa Terhadap Proses Pembelajaran Selama Pandemi: Laporan Deskriptif Tentang Kesenjangan Pendidikan. J. Psychol. Sci. Prof. 2022, 6, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Patrick, S.K.; Grissom, J.A.; Woods, S.C.; Newsome, U.L.W. Broadband Access, District Policy, and Student Opportunities for Remote Learning During COVID-19 School Closures. AERA Open 2021, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pham, H.H.; Ho, T.T.H. Toward a ‘new normal’ with e-learning in Vietnamese higher education during the post COVID-19 pandemic. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2020, 39, 1327–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Petillion, R.J.; McNeil, W.S. Student Satisfaction with Synchronous Online Organic Chemistry Laboratories: Prerecorded Video vs. Livestream. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98, 2861–2869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Burnett, P.C. The Impact of Teacher Feedback on Student Self-Talk and Self-Concept in Reading and Mathematics. J. Classr. Interact. 2003, 38, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007, 77, 81–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Blair, K.S.C.; Lee, I.S.; Cho, S.J.; Dunlap, G. Positive Behavior Support Through Family–School Collaboration for Young Children with Autism. Top. Early Child. Spec. Educ. 2010, 31, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Novita, S.; Andriani, D.; Lipowski, M.; Lipowska, M. Anxiety towards COVID-19, Fear of Negative Appearance, Healthy Lifestyle, and Their Relationship with Well-Being during the Pandemic: A Cross-Cultural Study between Indonesia and Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of all variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of all variables.
PredictorMean (SD)Min-MaxPercentage
Teacher perception on reading competence (in %)
Prior to pandemics
During pandemic
82.00 (10.00)54–100
74.00 (14.00)42–100
Reading fluently (in %)
Prior to pandemics
During pandemics
79.92 (13.76) 50–100
71.39 (17.70)36–100
Locating information (in %)
Prior to pandemics
During pandemics
85.17 (12.50) 50–100
74.71 (16.80)41–100
Understanding (in %)
Prior to pandemics
During pandemics
81.84 (11.95) 50–100
74.32 (15.81)42–100
Evaluating and reflecting (in %)
Prior to pandemics
During pandemics
81.48 (10.75) 48–100
73.04 (14.57)41–100
Disciplinary climate 18.81 (1.53)12–20
Teacher support 13.81 (1.94)10–16
Teacher-directed instruction15.48 (1.04)12–16
Teacher feedback9.85 (1.68)6–12
Stimulation of reading and teaching strategies13.12 (1.97)8–16
Instruction adaptation5.61 (1.74)3–9
Sex Female = 83%
Male = 17%
Experience (in years)19.31 (20.00)2–39
School status Public = 78%
Private = 22%
Note. n = 59.
Table
Table 2. Stepwise regression with reading competence (prior to and during the pandemic) as dependent variables.
Table 2. Stepwise regression with reading competence (prior to and during the pandemic) as dependent variables.
PredictorPrior to Pandemic
B (SE)		During Pandemics
B (SE)
Sex−0.02 (0.08)−0.05 (0.03)−0.01 (0.05)−0.04 (0.05)
Experience0.00 (0.00)0.00 (0.00)−0.00 (0.00)0.00 (0.00)
School status0.01 (0.03)0.01 (0.03)0.04 (0.05)0.03 (0.05)
Disciplinary climate 0.02 (0.01) * 0.02 (0.01)
Teacher support 0.02 (0.01) * 0.02 (0.01)
Teacher-directed instruction −0.03 (0.02) −0.05 (0.02) *
Teacher feedback 0.00 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)
Stimulation of reading and teaching strategies 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)
Instruction adaptation −0.01 (0.01) −0.02 (0.01)
Adjusted R square5%18%1%15%
Note. n = 59. * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Novita, S.; Wijayanti, P.A.K.; Wedyaswari, M. Teacher Perception of Student Reading Competence and Its Relationship to Teaching Practice: A Comparison between Pre and during Pandemic Teaching in INDONESIA. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010045

AMA Style

Novita S, Wijayanti PAK, Wedyaswari M. Teacher Perception of Student Reading Competence and Its Relationship to Teaching Practice: A Comparison between Pre and during Pandemic Teaching in INDONESIA. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(1):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010045

Chicago/Turabian Style

Novita, Shally, Puspita Adhi Kusuma Wijayanti, and Miryam Wedyaswari. 2023. "Teacher Perception of Student Reading Competence and Its Relationship to Teaching Practice: A Comparison between Pre and during Pandemic Teaching in INDONESIA" Education Sciences 13, no. 1: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010045

APA Style

Novita, S., Wijayanti, P. A. K., & Wedyaswari, M. (2023). Teacher Perception of Student Reading Competence and Its Relationship to Teaching Practice: A Comparison between Pre and during Pandemic Teaching in INDONESIA. Education Sciences, 13(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010045

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop