HERDSA logo
[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]

Indonesian postgraduate students' experiences of learning

Margaret Kiley
 Advisory Centre for University Education
The University of Adelaide

J.H.F. Meyer
 School of Education
University of Cape Town

In the context of a research project related to Indonesian postgraduate students, the authors conducted a pilot study focused on Indonesian students' learning. The study involved 105 students at the University of Indonesia who completed Meyer's 88 item 'experiences of learning' inventory.

Initial analyses of data from this pilot study indicate that there are some sources of variation in learning behaviour at a construct level that are noticeably characteristic of at least one main group of Indonesian students. These findings are of theoretical and practical interest. Further analyses of the data are reported and discussion is be invited that might suggest how this information can inform future research as well as how it can be effectively utilised when working with Indonesian postgraduate students.

Context of the study

Previous studies

Although there has been an increasing literature related to post-secondary students' approaches to learning and some work specifically related to Asian students (Watkins and Regmi 1990; Meyer 1995; Biggs 1989; Ballard and Clanchy 1988), many of the studies which relate to South-east Asian students in fact describe only one group of students, usually Chinese. An example of this is the work by Renshaw and Volet (1995) which is titled "South-east Asian students at Australian Universities: A reappraisal of their tutorial participation and approaches to study". Despite the use of the term 'South-east Asian', 93% of the sample came from Singapore and the majority of those students had English as their first language. The authors of the paper appended a note to their title which states
"The term 'South-east Asian' has been used in the title of the paper because we seek to address the current usage of the term in the literature, and challenge existing stereotypes of students from South-east Asia" (p. 104).
Renshaw and Volet also state in their article that
"If a more positive and differential perception of overseas students is to emerge among Australian academics, there needs to be sustained research on the needs of these students (academic, social, financial and cultural needs) and an examination of their approaches to study that is sensitive to differences within and between groups" (p. 87).
Given the comments above it is not surprising that there is not a great deal of research related particularly to Indonesian students' learning. Some work is being conducted by a research group at the Atma Jaya Catholic University in Jakarta (Sutanto-Pekerti 1994 and Ajisuksmo 1994), at the University of Gajah Mada (Emilia 1990) and by Cannon (1995) who has conducted a pilot study with medical students at the University of Indonesia. Sutanto-Pekerti's work examines the means by which students can be encouraged to make meaning from texts. The work of Ajisuksmo examines the effects of teaching students to use meta-cognitive skills to enhance their learning ability. In addition, Daroesman and Daroesman (1992) conducted a tracer study of Indonesian graduates from Australia, and reported their experiences of learning within the general context of their time in Australia. In Australia, Phillips (1994) conducted a study involving 76 first year Indonesian students studying in Australian universities and the learning environments which they found most helpful. However, research related to Indonesian students' experiences and conceptions of learning is still at a very early stage.

The pilot study reported in this paper is one contribution to the further research suggested by Renshaw and Volet.

Indonesia: Its education and its students

The Republic of Indonesia is the world's largest geographical archipelago state consisting of more that 13,700 islands of which approximately 6,000 are inhabited. With a population of approximately 180,000,000 it is the world's fourth largest country. Given that Indonesia was 'created' as one country it is not surprising that throughout the archipelago there are approximately 3000 ethnic groups and 250 languages and dialects. However, despite Bahasa Indonesia being a national language, the majority of Indonesians have a language other than Indonesian as their 'first' language. Although the medium of instruction for primary schooling is Bahasa Indonesia, "the local regional language may be used during the first three years of primary education in parts of Indonesia which have major regional languages (such as Javanese, Sundanese and Balinese). The teaching and use of Chinese is discouraged" (NOOSR 1995 p. 3) . An example of this use of language is reflected in a study being conducted by one of the authors at the University of Adelaide involving 28 Indonesian postgraduate students, 43% of whom have Javanese as their home language.

Of the Indonesian students studying in Australia, many would come from Java, given that it is the most populous island with 59.9% of the population in 6.89% of the land area. Also, in many ways Java is the most developed island of the archipelago. As a result, much of the work related to Indonesian education and student learning, has tended to have a 'Javanese influence'. Of the pilot study being reported here 46% of the students were Javanese. The Javanese are traditionally known for their regard and deference to superiors - including teachers; their desire for harmony and concentration on the welfare of the group rather than the individual; and their 'indirect' form of communication (Cannon 1995) . In addition, a significant percentage of the Indonesian students studying in Australia is made up of postgraduate students.

The respect for teachers has been reinforced through the historical development of Indonesian Universities. Although there was not a university in Indonesia before the Second World War by 1946 Universitas Gajah Mada had been established in Yogyakarta and by 1947 Universitas Indonesia (UI) was established in Jakarta. Both universities were a loose collection of existing faculties and schools, each with considerable autonomy. A particular feature of Indonesian Universities which, while reflecting the notion of respect of the teacher and superiors, could understandably be influencing current graduates. Kelabora (1991) suggests that the Indonesian authorities did not establish a university and then advertise for suitable academics, rather Indonesian universities grew up around distinguished scholars with the teacher as the ultimate source of knowledge with whom students would come from around the country to study.

"This notion is quite old and well established within the Indonesian society. Its roots go back deep into the old Hindu culture where students come and study under a Brahman, a holy man...Thus, under Professor Roessenno a faculty of engineering was set up in Yogyakarta in 1946. In 1946 too, Dr Sarjito established a faculty of medicine in Klaten and Surakarta" (p 21).
With this background information one might assume, therefore, that there might be particular issues related to Indonesian students studying in Australia, particularly postgraduates. In a longitudinal study with postgraduate Indonesian students studying in Australia one of the authors has been attempting to address some of these issues. However, the matter of students' experiences of learning is a difficult one. Many of the Indonesian postgraduate students coming to study in Australia undertake intensive courses of anything from a 3-12 months in English for Academic Purposes at the Indonesia Australian Language Foundation. Part of this course is to address expected differences in teaching and learning. As a result, it was considered unreliable to attempt to survey students regarding their learning once they had arrived in Australia. The only reliable way would be to survey them 'in situ' that is, in Indonesia.

Therefore, to assist in developing a more comprehensive picture of Indonesian students as a particular group, and especially postgraduate students, it was decided to undertake a pilot study in Indonesia.

Aim of the pilot study

The aim of the study was to explore the Indonesian experiences of learning and whether there were particular experiences within the Indonesian sample which might be attributable to language and culture. An instrument and model of student learning were used that have been widely adopted in higher education in the past.

Method

Subjects

The study involved 105 postgraduate students studying at the University of Indonesia. The students came from the disciplines of Sociology, Anthropology, Women's Studies, Environmental Studies and Staff Development. While the majority of students described themselves as Javanese (n=49), the other 56 students represented over 20 ethnic groups with the main groups being: Minangkabau (n=10), Batak (n=8) and Sundanese (n=6). The age range for respondents was 23 to 60 years with 77% of all students in the 25-39 age range and with 37% being in the 30-34 age range. There was a similar age distribution for the non-Javanese and Javanese students.

The students were invited to respond to the inventory at the end of regular classes once the purpose of the study had been explained. One student chose not to respond.

Instrument

The inventory consisted of 88 statements from Meyer's "Experiences of Learning" inventory. Meyer's standard shortened survey instrument consists of 88 statements directed at students' specific responses to their course of study. This inventory is based, in part, on constructs embedded in the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI).

The inventory reflects a conceptual model of student learning in which there is variation in contrasting forms of intention, motivation, process, pathologies and other constructs. For example, the Deep Approach construct is intended to capture variation in students' declared intentions to 'understand' what they are doing. This construct, which is of particular interest in this study, is defined by 4 items, viz

  1. I usually try to understand thoroughly the meaning of what I have to learn.
  2. I often find myself questioning things that I hear in class or read in books.
  3. I generally try to put a lot of effort into trying to understand things which at first seem difficult.
  4. When starting on a new topic in this course I often ask myself questions that I hope will be answered.
The 88 items in the inventory were examined for cultural bias or misunderstanding by two Australian-born academics who had worked in Indonesia, as well as two Indonesian students; one having only studied in Indonesia and one currently studying in Australia. The items were translated by a qualified Indonesian translator who also commented on the wording and appropriateness of some items.

The translated inventory was then back-translated by an Indonesian student into English and also completed and commented upon by an Indonesian-based Indonesian student. During the administration of the inventory students were invited to clarify items but there were very few cases where this needed to be done.

The administration of the survey was undertaken during one week in December 1995.

Results

The response data for the Indonesian sample (divided into two subgroups: Javanese and non-Javanese) were subjected to a variety of exploratory item, correlation and factor analyses. At a construct level, Tables 1 and 2 suggest that there may be underlying patterns of response that are different between the two Indonesian subgroups.

The focus here is on the 'deep-level' intention, motivation and process constructs for the Indonesian sample in particular, DA (Deep Approach), IM (Intrinsic Motivation), UE (Use of Evidence) and RI (Relating Ideas). These constructs are collectively intended to represent a source of variation in intention and process terms in what might be called a 'deep approach' to learning.

Deep Approach: An intention to 'understand' what is being learned that involves critical engagement and expenditure of effort.

Intrinsic Motivation: A positive motivational influence reflected in interest and even excitement in the subject being studied coupled with a desire to learn more about it.

Use of Evidence: A deep-level process of examining evidence used in support of a conclusion or argument.

Relating Ideas: An active, deep-level, process of attempting to relate new ideas to other contexts and experiences; 'mapping' them out to see how they fit together (Meyer 1994 pp. 13-15) .

In some contexts OL (Operation Learning) may also be associated with this broader dimension of variation.
Operation Learning (OL): An engagement of problem solving that is reliant on factual detail and logical analysis.
All of these constructs are considered by many writing in the field as essential components of 'deep-level' learning in a western higher education institution (Ballard and Clanchy 1988; Biggs 1989; Ramsden 1992; Meyer and Sass 1993).

For the sake of completion, coefficient alphas on all of the constructs embedded in the inventory for the Javanese and non-Javanese students are represented in Table 1. For a full explanation of these constructs and what they mean see Meyer (1995:1)

Table 1: "Javanese" alpha scores compared with "non-Javanese"

Scale"Javanese" alpha
(n=49)		"non-Javanese"
alpha (n=56)
Deep Approach.28.60
Intrinsic Motivation.36.76
Use of Evidence.30.65
Relating Ideas.51.68
Operation Learning.18.54
Comprehension Learning.63.37
Strategic Approach.70.40
Extrinsic Motivation.68.64
Achievement Motivation.40.62
Book Skills.72.67
Fragmentation.69.59
Memorisation.77.79
Syllabus Boundness.35.56
Fear of Failure.45.40
Disorganised Study.63.64
Globetrotting.69.43
Improvidence.54.66
Work Load.74.82
Assessment Awareness.50.62
Divergent Problem Solving.44.55

Of particular interest in Table 1 is the disturbingly low values of alpha for the Javanese sample. Although the 'deep' intention, intrinsic motivation and process constructs are of interest here it should also be noted that there also appears to be a large difference in the alpha values of the OL subscale also. Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations of the response scores of the 4 items in the deep approach subscale. At face value the means for the individual subgroups do not appear to differ. However there are some differences of note in the standard deviations, notably, on item 24 which refers explicitly to expenditure of effort in 'seeking understanding'.

Table 2: Item statistics for the Indonesian subgroups

Itemnon-Javanese (n=56)Javanese (n=49)
Mean SDMeanSD
54.7.694.7.66
104.2.964.2.87
244.4.814.7.52
343.71.14.01.0

The contents of Table 3 are also of particular interest. The entries in the upper and lower triangles represent the corresponding correlation coefficients for the non-Javanese and Javanese subgroups respectively. It is clear from inspection that the two corresponding correlation matrices are quite dissimilar. This implies a structural (correctional) difference in the responses of the two subgroups that needs to be explained.

Table 3: Inter-item correlation matrices

Item
5102434
Javanese5-.25.44.24Non-Javanese
10.07-.21.42
24.13.31-.16
34-.07.05.22-

What is also of interest is a comparison between the responses of the Javanese students and a group of undergraduate students in Singapore (n=72) detailed in Table 4. The Singapore results came from a previous (unpublished) study conducted by Meyer, and this comparison indicates that there may also be some general similarities between the responses of the Javanese subgroup and the Singaporean sample. As part of the overall analysis attempts were made to improve the alpha score for a number of scales by deleting one, and in some cases two, items. Of particular interest is that not only did the same scales exhibit very low alphas, but that in four cases, (viz, Deep Approach, Achieving Motivation, Operation Learning and Assessment Awareness), the same item (Column 4) was empirically identified as being the most significant to delete from the calculations.

Table 4: Comparison of Javanese group with Singaporean group of students

1234
ItemJavanese
alpha (n=49)		Singaporean
alpha (n= 72)		Same Items
deleted
DA.35.4534
AM.49.394
OL.46.3327
AA.58.5770
Note: The items listed in Column 4 include:
  1. When starting on a topic in this course, I often have questions that I hope will be answered.
  2. I enjoy academic competition: I find it exciting.
  3. I prefer to follow the usual, or common, approaches to solving problems rather than anything new or different.
  4. The subject matter that tests actually cover is usually clear to me.

Discussion

It is clear from what has been presented that at least one aspect of a model of 'western' student learning does not adequately fit the Javanese data at the most basic level of response. There is little point in attempting to develop a model based on constructs that do not empirically appear to be coherent but the data raise some interesting questions and possible explanations.

It could be that the results are simply a statistical artefact. It seems improbable but this could at least, in part, explain the decomposition of the DA construct.

Secondly, could the differences in these data result from the comparison between a homogeneous group (i.e. all Javanese) and a heterogeneous group (i.e. 56 students representing over 20 ethnic groups)?

The third response to these results is that the students, as a group, considered that this approach to their learning was what was expected and so answered in that way. It seems unlikely that this is a reasonable explanation, recognising that a number of other scales have more typical response rates.

The fourth possible response is that the survey instrument was not sensitive to the particular cultural norms of Indonesian postgraduate students and in particular, Javanese students.

The fifth possible explanation is whether in fact all members of this group of Javanese postgraduate students perhaps consistently adopt a deep approach to their learning and, if they do, what does this concept actually mean to them?

And finally, following on from the previous point, do Javanese students ascribe a different meaning to the process of understanding from that of the intention to understand?

An opportunity to discuss these initial findings and their follow-up will be provided in the conference session.

Acknowledgment

Sincere thanks are expressed to Associate Professor Bob Cannon and Dr Siti Oetarini Widodo, both of the Centre for Development and Research into Higher Education at the University of Indonesia. Without their assistance, the survey of students could not have been conducted.

In addition, the work of Aan Hasanah, Riri Fitri Sari and Linda Seymour in translating and checking the survey instrument, is gratefully acknowledged.

Further work is presently underway to explore this phenomenon. Bahasa Indonesia translations of the instrument are available to other researchers who may wish to use it in collaboration with the authors.

References

Ajisuksmo, C. (1994). "Self-regulated Learning Pada Mahasiswa Indonesia: Penelitian pada mahasiswa Unika Atma Jaya." Atma dan Jaya (August 1994): pp. 19-29.

Ballard, B. and J. Clanchy (1988). Studying in Australia. Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.

Biggs, J. (1989). "Approaches to the Enhancement of Tertiary Teaching." Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 8 ( No 1).

Cannon, R. (1995). Javanese Cultural Norms and University Teaching, pers. com.

Cannon, R. (1995). Research Note: A preliminary investigation into the approaches to learning by medical students at Universitas Indonesia. Penelitian Pendidikan Tinggi. Indonesia, Pusat Pengembangan dan Penelitian Pendidikan Tinggi, Universitas Indonesia.

Daroesman, I. P. and R. Daroesman (1992). Degrees of Success: A tracer study of Australian Government sponsored Indonesian fellowships 1970-1989. Canberra, IDP, AIDAB.

Emilia, O. (1990). "Approaches to Learning at Gadjah Mada School of Medicine." Bulletin Pendidikan, Vol 1 (December 1990): pp. 46-51.

Kelabora, L. (1991). "Indonesia: Developing a tertiary education system across an Archipelago." Indonesian Studies, Vol 8 (No 1&2): pp. 3-24.

Meyer, J. H. F. (1995). "Gender-group differences in the Learning Behaviours of Entering First Year University Students." Higher Education, Vol 27: pp. 469-485.

Meyer, J. H. F. (1995). Quantitative Exploration of Conceptions of Learning. HERDSA '95, Rockhampton, Queensland, HERDSA.

Meyer, J. H. F. and A. R. Sass (1993). "The impact of the First Year on the Learning Behaviour of Engineering Students." International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 9 (3): pp. 209-217.

NOOSR (1995). Indonesia: A Comparative Study. Canberra, Department of Employment, Education and Training.

Phillips, D. (1994). Changes in University Teaching as Faculty Staff Interact with Cross-cultural and International Students. Tertiary Teaching and Cultural Diversity. E. Martens. Adelaide, Centre for Multicultural Studies.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London, Routledge.

Renshaw, P. and S. Volet (1995). "South-East Asian Students at Australian Universities: A reappraisal of their tutorial participation and approaches to study." Australian Educational Researcher, Vol 22 (No 2, August 1995): pp. 85-106.

Sutanto-Pekerti, A. (1994). "Meningkatkan Pembelajaran Melalui Membaca Bahan Tertulis." Atma dan Jaya (August 1994): pp. 11-18.

Watkins, D. and M. Regmi (1990). "An Investigation of the Approach to Learning of Nepalese Tertiary Students." Higher Education, Vol. 20: pp. 459-469.

Authors: Margaret Kiley, Advisory Centre for University Education, The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5066. Email: mkiley@acue.adelaide.edu.au

Professor J.H.F. (Erik) Meyer, School of Education and Director of the Student Learning Research Group, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa. Email: erik@education.uct.ac.za

Please cite as: (1996). Indonesian postgraduate students' experiences of learning. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/kiley.html

[ HERDSA ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
This URL: http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/kiley.html
Created 7 May 2002. Last revision: 24 May 2002.
© Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc