Terms of Reference for Research

Learning Recovery Assessment

May 2022

Savethechildren.org
1.RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Name of the Study Learning Recovery Assessment
Expected Study Desk Review, Quantitative and qualitative methods
methodologies
● Desk review of relevant documents
● Quantitative methods (survey)
● Qualitative methods (key informant interview, focus group
discussion)
Expected start/end dates, Start dates: May 2022
Number of workdays
End dates: November 2022
Number of workdays: 121 days
Study duration 6,5 Months
Study locations: The locations are in Indonesia which are spread over two provinces:
1. Nusa Tenggara Timur
2. Jawa Barat
Thematic areas Education
Donor
Estimated respondents 2070 persons by qualitative and quantitative method
Overall goal of the Study To provide input for the existing strategic direction and design
implementation of the government learning recovery initiative that
focuses on wellbeing and learning outcomes for all children in
Indonesia.

More detail on the project background, scope of assessment, key questions, methodology, key
deliverables and timeframes for its implementation are provided in the sections that follow.

2.BACKGROUND
The Covid-19 pandemic has hit Indonesia since March 2020, forcing more than 646,000 schools to
close and more than 60 million children from kindergarten to vocational schools studying from home.
Various studies conducted by the Ministry of Education, the United Nations, and other national
development partners have captured the impact of the pandemic on children learning outcome such as
learning loss, decreased literacy and numeracy levels, and other more serious consequences ranging
from potential dropouts, child marriage, child labour, and overall children wellbeing. For example, a
study conducted by MOEC and INOVASI revealed, after learning from home for a year there was a
decline in the literacy and numeracy learning abilities of low-grade elementary school students, which
was equivalent to the loss of 5-6 months of learning. There is a widening gap between what is
expected by the curriculum and student learning outcomes. There needs to be an effort to learning
recovery so that there is no prolonged decline in learning abilities 1.
The Indonesian government itself through a Joint Decree (SKB) of the Minister of Education, Culture,
Research and Technology (MOeCRT); Religious Affairs (MoRA); Health (MOH); and Home Affairs
(MOHA) provided a guidance on a safe school reopening protocols and learning modality
(online/hybrid learning) during the pandemic in June and October 2021, also most recently in January
1
Pusat Penelitian Kebijakan, Kemdikbud and INOVASI (2021). Learning recovery: Time for Action, Policy Brief - August 2021)

1
2022. Most schools in Indonesia have closed and re-opened during this period as part of wider
measures to curb the spread of Covid-19. Following the temporary school closures, considering the
public health situations, the government tries to reopen schools in an attempt to mitigate the negative
effects of disruption in in-person classroom learning. The reopening of schools needs to ensure the
readiness of the education system for school reopening, learning continuity, and system resilience to
anticipate and reduce risks of the possibility of Covid-19 transmission among the school population
and society.
During these uncertain periods hybrid teaching and learning processes with online and offline
methods (in-person classroom), have been running for 3-6 months. As schools reopen for face-to-face
learning across the country, a learning recovery measure, such as a catch-up intervention using
remedial learning, should be put in place to minimize the impact of long-term school closures on
children’s lives, especially on substantial loss and inequality in learning.
The national government have attempted to restore learning lost by issuing various policies to support
the learning recovery. This for example, the issuance of MOECRT decree No.56/2022 on the
Guidance of the implementation of school curricula in support of learning recovery. This decree
gives the authority to schools to choose the use of the curriculum, either using Kurikulum 13, or
simplified Kurikulum 13, or Kurikulum Merdeka, in accordance with the conditions of the schools,
students, and regional potentials.
Globally, efforts to restore learning are also carried out by involving various international institutions,
such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank. Recommendations issued by the these Institutions
to recover education disruptions due to Covid-19 pandemic include the need for 3 (three) priority
efforts: (i) Back-to-school: all children are back to school and receive the tailored services needed to
meet their learning, health, psychosocial well-being, and other needs; (ii) Remedial learning: all
children receive support to catch up on lost learning; (iii) Teachers supported: all teachers are
prepared and supported to address learning losses among their students and to incorporate digital
technology into their learning.2
In line with these recommendations and considering the government initiatives to enhance learning
recovery, this study will map out all learning recovery initiatives, policies and strategies being
implemented by MoECRT and MoRA. In addition, it aims to identify in what ways school
stakeholders document and share their experiences in implementing earning recovery initiatives to
inform future improvement.
Based on this background, Save The Children Indonesia Research and Evaluation unit, namely
CERDAS (Child-focused Evaluation and Research to Develop Actionable Solutions) to assess school
readiness in implementing learning recovery initiatives after two years of the pandemic. The
assessment is carried out to map national and sub-national policies related to learning recovery efforts,
the practices of learning recovery in schools, perceived effectiveness of learning recovery initiative,
the challenges and problems faced by schools and district offices, as well as identify gaps that must be
anticipated at the school and district offices. All findings will be used to propose contextual
recommendations to advocate related Ministries efforts in enhancing the learning recovery policy and
programs, especially at primary school level.

3.CONTEXT
The study will examine the learning recovery process in the context of school reopening following the
inclination of COVID-19 cases nationally. Up to present, there have been several research examining
COVID-19 impact on education. The summary of selected previous studies is as seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of previous related studies

2
UNESCO, The World Bank, and UNICEF (2021). Mission: Recovering Education in 2021

2
 Author Title Scope Result and recommendations

World Bank The struggle Reviewing the Proposed policy actions for bringing
against COVID- Government’s children back to learning at school
19 in Indonesian education policy
● Focus on learning and ensure
Education: responses during the
engagement of children from
COVID-19 pandemic
Responses, marginalised groups and with special
(Policy responses to
requirements, and needs
COVID-19 - March
policy needs for
2020 to March 2021) ● Acknowledge learning losses and
learning recovery
emphasise learning recovery
(Published, 2021)
● Support teachers and principals
● Build a more resilient education system
through the empowerment of schools
and communities to respond to
emergencies
UNICEF Assessment of Selection of schools
school readiness
(Encompassing ECD
in mitigating the
centers, primary, junior,
risk of COVID-
and senior secondary
19 (TOR, Nov
schools) and other
2021)
stakeholders in Indonesia
Checklist of key The results of studies Promote effective and equitable learning
considerations to conducted in several recovery
promote countries
1) Identifying and reaching the most
effective and vulnerable, 2) Learning, 3) Wellbeing and
equitable learning protection
recovery
Tanoto School Readiness Conducted in 5 Teaching and learning activities during the
Foundation in Face-to-face Provinces - 25 Districts - pandemic are influenced by changes in
Learning 558 School units learning models, accessibility of
(Pembelajaran information-communication technology,
Tatap Muka Principals: 753 teacher readiness, and the psychosocial
Terbatas) (2021) Teachers: 3145 needs of students. It is necessary to restore
learning from various elements and
Parents: 3070 educational stakeholders.
Students: 45

INOVASI Learning Data were collected from Five areas for action are: engagement,
Recovery: Time 18,370 students, 18,368 address core learning needs, build
for Action (Policy parents, 1,875 teachers, capacity, support multiple stakeholders,
Brief - August and 612 principals from enable local leadership and solutions
2021) a sample of schools and
madrasa in eight
Indonesia provinces
UNESCO Indonesia Case This case study was Recommendations for increasing resilience
and Study: conducted through a to future shocks
literature review, this
UNICEF Situation ● Recommendations for increasing
case study also involved
Analysis on the resilience to future shocks
interviews with key
Effects of and
stakeholders, which ● Based on the long-term vision for
Responses to
include government Indonesia’s education sector and pre-
COVID-19 on the
policy makers and COVID-19 learning levels, clearly
Education Sector
implementers, UNICEF define the focus of learning for the short

3
 Author Title Scope Result and recommendations

in Asia and UNESCO teams and and medium-term, and the approaches to
Education Cluster be used to achieve these.
(2021)
members in Indonesia.
● Develop a comprehensive strategy for
taking forward a blended approach to
learning that can be adapted to remote
learning in times of crisis but is also
applied when schools are open as part of
everyday teaching and learning to
complement face-to-face lessons.
● Develop a comprehensive strategy for
mitigating the inequalities in education
in Indonesia.
● Review and revise existing national
strategies, policies and plans to
incorporate the reforms discussed in
recommendations 1-3; and
● Identify and work towards improving the
effectiveness of decentralised education
financing and management
UNESCO, Where Are We on Pulse survey was Presents the importance of and progress
Education administered through made in the five key actions for education
UNICEF &
Recovery? (2022) UNICEF country offices recovery encapsulated by RAPID –
World Bank
and UNICEF national
● Reach every child and retain them in
committees to assess the
school,
extent to which countries
were effectively engaged ● Assess current learning levels,
in learning recovery. A
● Prioritise fundamentals,
total of 122 country
responses were provided ● Increase catch-up learning, and
in consultation with
ministries of education ● Develop psychosocial health and well-
officials. being.

In summary, previous studies are mostly focused on the Impact of COVID-19 on the education
system, children's access to education and learning loss, as well as school preparedness related to
health protocols and mitigating the risk of local transmission. In addition, some also examined the
national policies to bring children back to school seen from the readiness of schools in terms of health
protocols.
Despite the evidence stemming from those studies, evidence gaps identified include:
a. A comprehensive mapping and understanding towards national and local policy regarding
learning recovery intervention, including framework, strategy, workplan, initiatives, and
synergy between national and local policies.
b. Local governance resources mobilisation and initiatives to support primary schools to
implement learning recovery intervention.
c. The state of school’s preparedness and readiness, leadership and management, and initiatives
in implementing learning recovery intervention.
d. The perceptions of parents and children about learning loss and learning recovery, and in what
ways it hinders or supports the implementation of learning recovery intervention.
The above evidence is needed to inform the design of a contextual program to implement learning
recovery based on the readiness of local policy makers and all elements of the school starting from the
principal, teachers, parents/caregivers, school committees and students. Hence, the study will be
focused to fill in the above evidence gaps.

4
4.CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Figure 1 displays a Framework of Learning Recovery in Time of Covid and Post-Covid 19. This
framework will be utilised as a conceptual basis for conducting the proposed assessments in the study.
As can be seen in the figure, the Learning Recovery Intervention is framed based on the government
policies and programs on learning recovery combined with recommendations from international
development agencies on priorities taken to addressing the learning recovery actions (see Figure 2),
and also a quality of learning framework developed by Save The Children (see Figure 3). The
Learning Recovery Intervention will ultimately contribute to improved Foundational Literacy and
Numeracy skills and children Wellbeing.

Figure 1. A Framework of Learning Recovery in Time of Covid and Post-Covid 19

As suggested by the development International Agencies, the Learning Recovery Interventions is
consisted of 3 (three) sub-component priorities: (i) Back-to-School agenda; (ii) Remedial Learning;
and (iii) Teachers Supported. In this regard, the present study will focus on the Remedial Learning
sub-component. This decision on the study focus is by considering time constrained and also based
on the government suggestions as the learning recovery study related to sub-components of Back-to-
School and Teachers supported have been done or being undertaken by different agencies . Thus,
findings of the proposed study will make up the information and policy gaps on the components of
Learning Recovery Policy and Program in Indonesia.

5
 Figure 2. Three Priorities
in the Learning Recovery Program Figure 3. The Quality Learning
(UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank, Framework
2021) (Save the Children International, 2017)
Intervention for Learning Recovery
Remedial Learning is a catch-up intervention intended to compensate for learning lost during the
pandemic (remote learning). To be effective this intervention should be complemented with
improving child well-being, which is focused on school nutrition and health promotion. Well-
nourished and healthy child is a prerequisite for effective learners. Thus, this study combined
Remedial Learning and Nutrition and Health Education actions and added them within the framework
for effective Learning Recovery Intervention. The research team will use the Save The Children’s
quality of learning framework as one of analysis lens. The key activities/initiatives included in this
intervention:
a. Provision of remedial education at schools;
b. Incorporation of social-emotional learning into teaching curricula;
c. Use of digital technology in the teaching and learning process to improve foundational
literacy and numeracy skills;
d. Implementation of ‘Kurikulum Merdeka’ that is part of the essential government policy to
enhance learning recovery; and
e. School nutrition and health education.

The following Figure 4 displays the key activities in the proposed study framework of intervention
for Learning Recovery. (Adapted from the global priorities for Learning recovery and BAPPENAS’s
presentation).

Figure 4. Components of Remedial Learning and

5.SCOPE Child Wellbeing OF
ASSESSMENT
5.1 Purpose and objective
Purpose

6
To provide practical and contextualized recommendations to support the government in developing
strategic directions and strengthening the design of learning recovery intervention which lead to
increased proficient in literacy and numeracy and the overall children's wellbeing.
Objectives
a. To map key policies at national and sub-national levels that correspond to the government
learning recovery initiatives, and analyse in what ways those policies have been
implemented to support inclusive learning recovery interventions. This includes how the
reality of government support for schools/Sekolah Penggerak that implement the Kurikulum
Merdeka.
b. To assess the implementation of learning recovery intervention, including the school’s
readiness, leadership and management, resources available, local initiative, challenges, and
strategies and solutions. The focus is the extent to which initiatives related to the component
of Remedial Learning and Child Wellbeing are undertaken.
c. To understand the perception of each schools’ principals, teachers, parents, school committee,
and students towards learning loss and learning recovery and in what ways it hinders or
supports learning recovery intervention. For example, perceived severity of learning loss and
impact; perceived self-efficacy to overcome learning loss; perceived effectiveness and
benefits of learning recovery intervention.
d. To identify lessons learned e.g., what went well, best practices, what needs improvement,
recommendations and practical solutions based on schools and stakeholder perspectives.

5.2 Scope
a. Policy mapping and analysis:
o Identification of current policies (framework, strategies, decree, technical guidelines)
related to the Learning Recovery initiatives, at both national and sub-national level
o Assess the policy synergy across levels, i.e. how local government translate the
related national policies into the national context
o Identify the gaps in the current policies related to Learning Recovery initiatives
across levels
b. Assessment of the current learning recovery programs implementation
o Understanding local government, school, community and parents collaboration the
collaboration and participation of school elements (children, parents, and community)
o Assessing school readiness, leaderships and management in remedial education
implementation
o Understanding the challenges faced by local government, school supervisors, and
school elements (principal, teachers, parents, and students) in education remedial
o Identifying the strategies implemented in addressing the challenges being faced in
education remedial, including the existing local initiatives at school/community level.
o School health and nutrition education, focusing on the education materials related to
health and nutrition in the teaching material.
c. Understanding school’s element perception, knowledge and opinion towards the learning
recovery programs, especially the education remedial.
o Obtain parents and students’ perception and opinion towards learning loss, and their
action to address it during the pandemic. This includes parents' support for children's
education before and during school re-opening.
o Obtain school’s element (principal, teacher, school committee, parents and students)
opinion towards supports received during education remedial, including the
collaboration among the elements
o Obtain the knowledge, opinion and perception of schools’ principals, teachers,
students, parents, school committee, and school supervisors on the inclusive aspect of
the current school learning recovery program across different context (urban, rural,
public, private, and Islamic schools)

7
 d. Proposing a contextual learning recovery strategies for all children
o Identify best practices and propose a contextual quality learning recovery strategy for
all children, by involving all school elements and stakeholders
o Identify the priority target and potential types of intervention for learning recovery
program (e.g. for school, parents, students, etc)

6.RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order for this research to be directed, the following research questions are presented:
a. What are the learning recovery policies and initiatives which are promoted/encouraged by
government to be implemented by primary schools in the Country?
b. In what ways the existing national and local government policies and resource allocation
support those learning recovery initiatives?
c. In what ways the existing national and local government policies ensure inclusive learning
recovery interventions e.g., accommodating gender equality, disability, and social inclusion?
d. What is the learning recovery initiative carried out in school and what is the role of school
management and the school community in supporting the learning recovery in schools?
e. To what extent are the government efforts to support the implementation of Kurikulum
Merdeka?
f. What is the initial indication of the benefits of implementing 'Kurikulum Merdeka' especially
at Sekolah Penggerak? What are the barriers and enabling factors?
g. What is the actual learning recovery initiative implemented in schools?
h. To what extent have the learning recovery, especially remedial learning and child wellbeing
approaches been implemented in schools?
i. The extent to which teachers are prepared to carry out learning recovery activities, including
pedagogical approaches that are adapted to hybrid learning during the pandemic?
j. To what extent is the use of digital technology applied in the teaching and learning process?
k. What are the problems faced by schools, teachers, and students in implementing learning
recovery, including the use of digital technology? Are there any local solutions to address the
problems?
l. What is the perception of the school community (principals, teachers, students and school
committees) about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the efforts needed to overcome
learning lost?
m. To what extent are social-emotional, nutrition and health teaching materials and/or sessions
provided in schools? Is there any necessity for integration of socio-emotional teaching,
nutrition and health education into school curricula and/or extra-curricular?
The detailed description of research questions by each of the study objectives is outlined in ANNEX
A. Description of methodology applied in data collection and analysis (Getting to Answer Matrix) is
outlined in ANNEX B.

8
7.METHODOLOGY
7.1 Research design
The assessment will apply a mixed method approach, comprises of policy analysis, quantitative and
qualitative study. The method aims to provide a better understanding of the problems and study
questions in a holistic manner. The design used in this study is the explanatory sequential design.
The main focus of this study is policy analysis and implementation both at the district and school
levels. Policy analysis will be conducted through literature review and qualitative study. Literature
included in desk review includes written policies developed and enacted by national and local
governments related to learning recovery. This covers frameworks, national/local strategies, action
plan, decree, and others. Assessment of the implementation of the learning recovery program will be
conducted based on the school’s readiness, leadership and management, resources available, local
initiative, challenges, and strategies and solutions.
In addition, this study also examines the school’s element perception both from teachers, parents and
childrens, and identifying the support needed in different contexts to generate contextual learning
recovery strategies.

Qualitative + Development
Combine and of Learning
Desk Quantitative Holistic
Interpret Recovery
Review Study Reports
Result
Model

Following this, a holistic interpretation will be carried out to propose recommendation for contextual
learning recovery program for all children by involving all elements of the school and stakeholders.

Development of
Finalization Instrument Data Data Holistic Learning
of Study Development Collection Analysis Reports Recovery
Framework Model

Desk Review,
Desk Review Desk Review Qualitative and
Qualitative Identification Quantitative
Interview Mapping Analysis to
Guides Analysis Obtain a
Focus Group Qualitative Comprehensive
Discussion Interview Picture
Guide Focus Group
Quantitative Discussion
Quetionnaire Quantitative
Survey
(internet-
based)

7.2 Sampling Strategy

Desk Review – Policy Analysis
The sample is determined by purposive sampling with the provisions of the province that has urban
and rural representation by Districts.

Province District
Nusa Tenggara Timur Kab. Belu, Kab. Kupang

9
 Jawa Barat Kota Bandung, Kota Sukabumi

Qualitative (KIIs) – Local Government Supports

The sample was determined by purposive sampling by selecting 2 districts/cities in each province
with the criteria of districts having the most and the fewest regulations/policies.

Number of Regional Number of

Province education office Religious Affairs BAPPEDA
(Districts) Office (Districts)
Nusa Tenggara Timur 2 2 2
Jawa Barat 2 2 2

Qualitative (Focus Group Discussion) – Implementation in leadership and management

The principals are taken from schools that represent public, private, religion-based schools and
sekolah penggerak in two provinces as representatives of urban and rural areas.

Number of School
NO Province religion-based
Public Private Penggerak*
schools
1 Nusa Tenggara Timur 5 5 1 5
2 Jawa Barat 5 5 1 5
* In this section, data collection was carried out through KII with the consideration that only a very
few elementary school levels had become Sekolah Penggerak.
Qualitative (Focus Group Discussion) - Implementation of learning recovery in the
school community and perceptions
The determination of informants in the qualitative study was carried out purposively based on the
survey data. Schools are taken from schools that represent urban, rural, public, private, religion-based
schools and sekolah penggerak in each province. The complete number of schools in each province is
as follows:
Number of Schools
N
Province Religion-based
O Public Private Penggerak
schools
1 Nusa Tenggara Timur 3 3 1 3
2 Jawa Barat 3 3 1 3
Then the number of informants in collecting qualitative data per school level is as follows:
Informants Note Number of Informants
Grade 1-3 1
Teacher Grade 4-6 1
Total 2
Grade 1-3 1
Parents Grade 4-6 1
Total 2
School committee Total 2
Grade 1-3 1
Student Grade 4-6 1
Total 2
Quantitative (Survey) - Implementation of learning recovery in the school community
and perceptions

10
The main unit of analysis in this review is the elementary school level in two Provinces. The
minimum sample size was calculated using The Slovin’s formula with a confidence level of 90% in
each province. The number of samples in data collection through surveys is as much as the sample
size in this study, which is as many as 198 schools which are divided into 2 provinces proportionally.
The sampling method uses a stratified multistage cluster with a probability proportional to the sample
size. The technique of determining respondents and/or informants is differentiated based on the type
of data collection.
No Province Number of schools
1 Nusa Tenggara Timur 98
2 Jawa Barat 100
Total 198

Determination of respondents for the survey is shown in the figure below,

The strategy for determining respondents for quantitative via survey uses systematic random sampling
with probability proportional per schools. Unit of analysis must be representative of urban, rural,
public, private, religion-based schools, and sekolah penggerak. Then at the participant level it is also
necessary to represent gender equality, disability, social inclusion.
So the number of respondents of teachers and students in the collection of quantitative data through
surveys each amounted to 792 people.
7.3 Data collection method
Data will be collected quantitatively, qualitatively and desk review. Quantitative data collection was
carried out through internet-based surveys. Qualitatively collected through interviews, focus group
discussions and observations. Both methods are collected and maintained by enumerators. To
maintain data quality, prior to data collection, training for enumerators will be conducted to let the
enumerators be familiar with the tools and understand the questions (including the terminologies, and
definitions used). Desk review will be conducted on regulatory and policy documents on learning
recovery issued by local governments.
Desk Review
Desk review of regulatory and policy documents on learning recovery issued by local governments
No Province Districts Domain
1 Nusa Tenggara Timur 2 Education governance and
support
2 Jawa Barat 2

11
 No Province Districts Domain

Qualitative (KIIs) - Local Government Supports

Interviews with regional education offices, regional MoRA, and BAPPEDA
Number of Informant

No Province Regional Domain

Regional
education BAPPEDA
MoRA
offices**
Nusa Tenggara
1 2 2 2 Education governance and
Timur
stewardship
2 Jawa Barat 2 2 2
*Informant units from local government (by districts) must be representative of urban and rural
districts, each two people in each category.
**person in charge of primary school education and curriculum
***Schools were taken from schools representing urban, rural, public, private, religious, and
penggerak schools in each province were one school.
Qualitative (Focus Group Discussion) - Implementation in leadership and management
Data collected from school principals through FGD representing public, private, religion-based
schools and sekolah penggerak in two provinces as representatives of urban and rural areas.
Number of Principals
NO Province Religion - Domain
Public Private Penggerak* based
schools
Nusa Tenggara Local Government
1 5 5 1 5 support; School
Timur
Jawa Barat management and
leadership;
2 5 5 1 5 Learning remedial
implementation; School
resources
* In this section, data collection was carried out through KII with the consideration that only a very
few elementary school levels had become Sekolah Penggerak
Qualitative (Focus Group Discussion) - Implementation of learning recovery in the
school community and perceptions
Focus group discussions with school elements which include teachers, parents, school committees and
students
Group of Total groups per
Inclusion criteria Domain
participants Province
Teachers - 4 groups per - Participate in implement and Learning loss
province (public, readiness survey perception; access to
private, penggerak, digital technology;
- 6 Teachers each group (3
and religious technology literacy;
lower grade teachers and 3
school) learning remedial
upper grade teachers)
curriculum (ie
- Per group type of
- Participants necessary to Kurikulum Merdeka)
school comes from
represent gender equality, and implementation;
3 schools
disability, and social School management
- 2 teachers per inclusion and leadership; teacher

12
 Group of Total groups per
Inclusion criteria Domain
participants Province
schools - at the sekolah penggerak support related to
there are only 2 teachers learning remedial;
- The number of
because they come from pedagogical
teachers who
only 1 school approaches; teachers
participated in the
wellbeing
FGD per group
type of school was
6 persons

Parents - 4 groups per - Participants are parents Learning loss

province (public, whose children are perception; access to
private, penggerak, respondents in the survey digital technology;
and religious technology literacy;
- 6 parents each group (3
school) parents experience in
parents of lower class
supporting children
- Per group type of students and 3 parents of
prior and during back to
school comes from upper class students)
school (including
3 schools
- Participants necessary to challenges and
- 2 parents per represent gender equality, barriers);
schools disability, and social
inclusion
- The number of
parents who - at the sekolah penggerak
participated in the there are only 2 parents
FGD per group because they come from
type of school was only 1 school
6 persons

School - 4 groups per - School committees who are Local Government

Committees province (public, participants come from support; School
private, penggerak, schools that are the unit of management and
and religious analysis in the survey leadership
school)
- Participants necessary to Learning remedial
- Per group type of represent gender equality, implementation; School
school comes from disability, and social resources
3 schools inclusion
- 2 School - at the sekolah penggerak
Committees per there are only 2 School
schools Committees because they
come from only 1 school
- The number of
School Committees
who participated in
the FGD per group
type of school was
6 persons

Students - 4 groups per - Participate in implement Learning loss

province (public, and readiness survey perception; access to
private, penggerak, digital technology;
- 6 Students each school (3
and religious technology literacy;
lower grade student and 3
school) children experience
upper grade student)
related to back to
- Per group type of
- Participants necessary to school (including
school comes from

13
 Group of Total groups per
Inclusion criteria Domain
participants Province
3 schools represent gender equality, challenges and
disability, and social barriers); Students
- 2 students per
inclusion wellbeing
schools
- at the sekolah penggerak
- The number of
there are only 2 parents
students who
because they come from
participated in the
only 1 school
FGD per group
type of school was
6 persons

Quantitative (Survey) - Implementation of learning recovery in the school community

and perceptions
Survey of school elements which includes Students and teachers
Number of participants Domain
N
Province Teachers*
o Students* Students Teachers
*
Nusa Tenggara Learning loss
1 196 196
Timur perception; access to
Learning loss digital technology;
2 Jawa Barat 200 200 perception; access to technology literacy;
digital technology; learning remedial
Kalimantan
3 196 196 technology literacy; curriculum (ie
Barat
children experience Kurikulum Merdeka)
Sumatera related to back to and implementation;
4 196 196
Barat school (including School management
challenges and and leadership; teacher
Sulawesi barriers); support related to
5 194 194
Tengah
learning remedial;
Total 982 982 pedagogical approaches
*2 Students per School (1 lower grade and 1 upper grade students) represent gender equality,
disability, social inclusion
**2 Teachers per School (1 lower grade teachers and 1 upper grade teachers) represent gender
equality, disability, social inclusion
7.4 Analysis Plan
- Desk Review: Identification and mapping of related policies and programs endorsed by
Government of Indonesia and sub-national authorities – the Regional Education and Religious
Affairs Office - strategy learning recovery refer to policy and/or programs designed for supporting
the implementation of learning recovery, especially related to Remedial Education and Child
Wellbeing
- Each interview and FGD will be recorded and transcribed. The transcript, annotated with the
interviewer's note – will be coded separately. A mixed of deductive and inductive content analysis
will be used. Once all the individual transcript is coded, similar coded will be collated into topic,
and triangulated with desk review.
- Survey: A descriptive analysis will be performed to calculate the rates of indicators as listed in an
aggregate analysis, rates calculation will also be disaggregated by urban, rural, public, private,
religion-based school, and sekolah penggerak. Then at the participant level it is also necessary to

14
 represent gender equality, disability, social inclusion. Pearson estimation will be performed to
assess the statistical significance of the disparities between groups.
- Following the findings of desk review (policy mapping), qualitative and quantitative data, an
integrative analysis will be done by also taking account the findings from scoping review. This
would act as method triangulation to ensure the rigor of this review.
- Proposed a contextual quality learning recovery strategy for all children, by involving all school
elements and stakeholders.
7.5 Ethical considerations
It is expected that the Assessment will adhere to ethical guidelines as outlined in Assessment
association (e.g., the American Assessment Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators). A
summary of these guidelines is provided below, and a more detailed description can be found at
www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesPrintable.asp .
It is expected that this Assessment will be:
▪ Child participatory. Children should be meaningfully involved in the Assessment as a holistic
process and not only as informants. Refer to the Practice Standards in Children’s Participation
(International Save the Children Alliance 2005); and Global Indicator technical guidance (SCI
M&E handouts Package, Volume 2).
▪ Inclusive. Ensure that children from different ethnic, social and religious backgrounds have the
chance to participate, as well as children with disabilities and children who may be excluded or
discriminated against in their community.
▪ Ethical: The Assessment must be guided by the following ethical considerations:
o Respect for People - evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents,
project participants, clients, and other Assessment stakeholders.
o Informed Consent - all participants are expected to provide informed consent following
standard and pre-agreed upon consent protocols. This is to ensure that they can decide in a
conscious, deliberate way whether they want to participate.
o Child safeguarding – demonstrating the highest standards of behaviour towards children
o Sensitive – to child rights, gender, inclusion, and cultural contexts
o Openness - of information given to the highest possible degree to all involved parties
o Confidentiality and data protection - measures will be put in place to protect the identity of
all participants and any other information that may put them or others at risk.
o Public access - to the results when there are not special considerations against this
o Broad participation - the relevant parties should be involved where possible
o Reliability and independence - the Assessment should be conducted so that findings and
conclusions are correct and trustworthy
o Systematic Inquiry - evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries.
o Competence - evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders.
o Integrity/honesty - evaluators display honesty and integrity in their own behavior and attempt
to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire Assessment process.
o Responsibilities for general and public welfare - evaluators articulate and consider the
diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to the Assessment.
It is expected that:
▪ Data collection methods will be age and gender appropriate.
▪ Assessment activities will provide a safe, creative space where children feel that their thoughts
and ideas are important.
▪ A risk assessment will be conducted that includes any risks related to children or young people’s
participation.
▪ Informed consent will be used where possible.

15
8.EXPECTED ACTIVITIES AND
DELIVERABLES
The Assessment deliverables and due dates (subject to the commencement date of the Assessment)
are outlined below. The Assessment team lead will advise CERDAS Unit immediately of any risks or
issues that may impact on their ability to provide the deliverables by these due dates.
8.1 Expected Activities
The following is a plan of expected activities.
Activities Number of days Expected timeline
Finalising ToR
Develop and submit inception report for approval
Develop data collection instruments
Develop and facilitate data collection training
Field data collection
Report on completion of data collection
Clean and analyse data
Prepare and submit draft report
Development of Learning Recovery Model
Finalize holistic report in line with SC feedback
Present findings to SC Indonesia staff and office
representative as relevant
Total expected workdays:

16
ANNEX A: Description of Research Questions by Each of Research Objectives
Research Objective Research Question Remark
1. To map key policies at national and 1.1 What are the learning recovery Governments (central and
sub national levels that correspond policies and initiatives which are district) learning recovery
to the government learning recovery promoted/encouraged by government policy and initiative related
initiatives, and analyse in what ways to be implemented by primary schools to:
those policies have been in the country?
● Remedial learning
implemented to support inclusive
learning recovery interventions. ● Socio-emotional
learning
● Digital technology in
teaching and learning
● Nutrition and health
education at schools
1.2 In what ways the existing national and Policy and resource
local government policies and allocations at national and
resource allocation support those sub-national levels.
learning recovery initiatives *
1.3 In what ways the the existing national Mainstreaming GEDSI
and sub-national governments policies
ensure inclusive learning recovery
interventions, e.g, accommodating
gender equality, disability and social
inclusion? *
1.4 What is the learning recovery initiative ● Range of learning
carried out in school and what is the recovery initiatives
role of school management and the carried out in school
school community in supporting the (based on the principal’s
learning recovery in schools? * perception).
● Role of school
management (teachers,
principal) and school
supervisor in supporting
learning recovery.
● Perception of principal
on the roles of school
community in
supporting learning
recovery.
1.5 To what extent are the government The reality of supports
efforts to support the implementation provided
of Kurikulum Merdeka?*
1.6 What is the initial indication of the Perceived benefits in term of
benefits of implementing Kurikulum speeding up learning
Merdeka especially at Sekolah recovery
Penggerak? What are the barriers and
enabling factors?
2. To assess the implementation of 2.1 What is the actual learning recovery The practice of Learning
learning recovery intervention, implemented in schools. recovery:
including the school readiness,
(a) the existing learning
leadership and management,
recovery practices from

17
 Research Objective Research Question Remark
resources available, local initiative, what the school doing;
challenges, and strategies and
(b) the practice from the lens
solutions. The focus is the extent to
of Remedial Learning and
which initiatives related to the
Child Wellbeing as
component of remedial learning and
described in the research
child wellbeing are undertaken.
conceptual framework.

2.2 To what extent have the learning Range of remedial learning

recovery, especially remedial learning and child wellbeing
and child wellbeing approaches been activities practised in school.
implemented in schools?
2.3 The extent to which teachers are Teacher professional
prepared to carry out learning recovery development/training to
activities, including pedagogical enhance teacher capacity,
approaches that are adapted to hybrid such as through KKG or any
learning during the pandemic? other mechanism.

2.4 To what extent is the use of digital Digital technology and

technology applied in the teaching and infrastructure utilized in
learning process? teaching and learning
process.
2.5 What are the problems faced by - Problems encountered
schools, teachers, and students in during the
implementing learning recovery, implementation of
including the use of digital hybrid learning
technology? Are there any local - Use of digital
solutions to address the problems? technology
- Local solutions that
found to be effective.
3. To understand the perception of 3.1 What is the perception of the school ● Awareness of learning
each schools’ principals, teachers, community (principals*, teachers, lost due to Covid
parents, school committee, and students and school committees) about pandemic
the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic
students towards learning loss and ● Why is it important to
on student learning and the efforts
learning recovery and in what ways compensate for the
needed to overcome learning loss?
it hinders or supports learning learning loss?
recovery intervention. For example,
perceived severity of learning loss 3.2 To what extent are social-emotional, - How to deliver social-
and impact; perceived self-efficacy nutrition and health teaching materials emotional, nutrition
to overcome learning loss; and/or sessions provided in schools? and health teaching
perceived effectiveness and benefits materials into current
Is there any necessity for integration primary school
of learning recovery intervention. of socio-emotional teaching, nutrition curriculum.
and health education into school
- Who is supposed to
curricula and/or extra-curricular? teach all of the
subjects?
- Any necessity to
integrate the subjects
into school curricula?

18
ANNEX B: Research Questions and Methodology - Getting to Answer Matrix

Data Collection
Research Question Data Source Data Analysis Method
Methods

1. What are the learning  Relevant policy Key informant  Document analysis
recovery policies and documents interviews and FGD at  Analysis of qualitative data,
initiatives which are  Results of Key central and district including triangulation.
promoted/encouraged by informant interviews levels.
government to be (KII) and FGD.
implemented by primary National level:
schools in the country? KII with relevant key
informants from
MOECRT, MORA and
BAPPENAS.

District level:

KII and FGD. The

respondent for KII and
participant for FGD
are from Dinas
Pendidikan
Kabupaten, Kanwil
Agama Kabupaten,
and BAPPEDA.

2. In what ways the existing  Relevant policy Key informant  Document analysis
national and local documents interviews and FGD at  Analysis of qualitative data,
government policies and  Results of Key central and district including triangulation.
resource allocation informant interviews levels.
support those learning (KII) and FGD
recovery initiatives * National level:
· KII with relevant
key informants
from MOECRT,
MORA and
BAPPENAS.

District level:

KII and FGD. The

respondent for KII and
participant for FGD
are from Dinas
Pendidikan
Kabupaten, Kanwil
Agama Kabupaten,
and BAPPEDA.

19
 Data Collection
Research Question Data Source Data Analysis Method
Methods

3. In what ways the the  Relevant policy Key informant  Document analysis
existing national and documents interviews and FGD at  Analysis of qualitative data,
sub-national  Results of Key district level. The including triangulation.
governments policies informant interviews respondent for KII and
ensure inclusive learning (KII) and FGD. participant for FGD
recovery interventions, are from Dinas
e.g, accommodating Pendidikan
gender equality, Kabupaten, Kanwil
disability and social Agama Kabupaten,
inclusion? * and BAPPEDA.

4. What is the learning  Results of Key Key informant  Analysis of qualitative data,
recovery initiative informant interviews interviews and FGD in including triangulation.
carried out in school and (KII) and FGD. school.. The
what is the role of school respondent for KII.
management and the The respondent would
school community in be the principals
supporting the learning
recovery in schools?

5 To what extent are the  Results of FGD with FGD and KII. The  Analysis of qualitative data,
government efforts to teachers and KII respondent for the including triangulation.
support the with principal of FGD is teachers, and
implementation of Sekolah Penggerak the respondent for KII
Kurikulum Merdeka?* is principal.

6. What is the initial  Results of FGD and FGD and KII with  Analysis of qualitative data
indication of the benefits KII Sekolah Penggerak.
of implementing The respondents
Kurikulum Merdeka, include teachers and
especially in Sekolah principal.
Penggerak?

7. What is the actual  Results of KII and KII and FGD with  Analysis of qualitative data
learning recovery FGD with teachers teachers and principal.
implemented in schools? and principal

8 To what extent have the  Results of KII and KII and FGD with  Analysis of qualitative data
learning recovery FGD with teachers teachers and principal.
initiatives, especially on and principal
remedial learning and
child wellbeing
approached been
implemented in schools?

9 The extent to which  Results of KII with KII with teachers,  Analysis of KII data
teachers are prepared to teachers, principal principal and school
carry out learning and school supervisor.
recovery activities, supervisor
including pedagogical
approaches that are
adapted to hybrid
learning during the
pandemic?

10 To what extent is the use  Results of FGD with FGD with teachers,  Analysis of FGD and KII
of digital technology teachers,and KII and KII principal data

20
 Data Collection
Research Question Data Source Data Analysis Method
Methods

applied in the teaching with principal

and learning process?

11 What are the problems  Results of FGD with FGD with teachers,  Analysis of FGD and KII
faced by schools, teachers,and KII and KII principal data
teachers, and students in with principal
implementing learning
recovery, including the
use of digital
technology? Are there
any local solutions to
address the problems?

12 What is the perception of  Results of FGD with FGD with principal,  Analysis of FGD data
the school community principal, teachers,students and
(principals*, teachers, teachers,students and school committee.l
students and school school committee.
committees) about the
impact of the Covid-19
pandemic on student
learning and the efforts
needed to overcome
learning loss?

13 To what extent are  Results of FGD with FGD with teachers,  Analysis of FGD and KII
social-emotional, teachers,and KII and KII principal data
nutrition and health with principal
teaching materials and/or
sessions provided in
schools? Is there any
necessity for integration
of socio-emotional
teaching, nutrition and
health education into
school curricula and/or
extra-curricular?

21