Transformasi Asesmen Pembelajaran Lintas Negara: Studi Komparatif Menuju Pendidikan yang Berkeadilan

Grendi Hendrastomo; Nur Endah Januarti

doi:10.24832/jpnk.v10i2.6870

Transformasi Asesmen Pembelajaran Lintas Negara: Studi Komparatif Menuju Pendidikan yang Berkeadilan

Grendi Hendrastomo

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta - Indonesia

Nur Endah Januarti

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta - Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24832/jpnk.v10i2.6870

Submitted

Nov 22, 2025

Published

Dec 30, 2025

PDF

Citation

Hendrastomo, G., & Januarti, N. E. (2025). Transformasi Asesmen Pembelajaran Lintas Negara: Studi Komparatif Menuju Pendidikan yang Berkeadilan. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 10(2), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.24832/jpnk.v10i2.6870

Abstract

Perdebatan global mengenai peran asesmen nasional, antara berorientasi kelulusan atau pembelajaran menjadi isu penting dalam reformasi pendidikan di berbagai negara, termasuk Indonesia. Studi ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan membandingkan kebijakan, struktur materi, model, metode dan konsekuensi asesmen nasional lintas negara untuk memberikan wawasan bagi pengembangan asesmen yang kontekstual dan inklusif di Indonesia. Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan studi komparatif dengan menganalisis dokumen kebijakan pendidikan, laporan asesmen nasional, dan artikel jurnal dari sembilan negara melalui pendekatan analisis tematik komparatif. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa asesmen nasional dipengaruhi oleh konteks sosial, budaya, geografis, dan politik setiap negara sehingga menghasilkan model asesmen yang beragam. Mulai dari asesmen high-stakes di Tiongkok dan Korea Selatan, hingga asesmen low-stakes seperti Finlandia dan Australia. Analisis lintas negara memperlihatkan bahwa asesmen yang berorientasi pembelajaran memberikan dampak lebih positif terhadap kualitas belajar dan kesehatan mental psikologis bagi siswa dibandingkan dengan asesmen untuk kelulusan. Temuan ini menjadi rujukan penting bagi Indonesia yang saat ini sedang mengembangkan Tes Kemampuan Akademik (TKA) sebagai asesmen non high-stakes untuk memetakan capaian akademik. Kajian ini menegaskan bahwa desain TKA perlu mempertimbangkan keberagaman wilayah, ketimpangan infrastruktur, dan memperkuat fungsi diagnostik dan keadilan sosial dalam pembelajaran. Dengan demikian, TKA berpotensi menjadi asesmen nasional yang inklusif dan berkeadilan.

Keywords

Tes Kemampuan Akademik pembelajaran berbasis asesmen high-stakes assesment low-stakes assessment keadilan pendidikan

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Read Counter : 54

Downloads : 47

References

ACARA. (2025). NAPLAN Technical Report 2024.

Anghel, E., Khorramdel, L., & von Davier, M. (2024). The use of process data in large-scale assessments: a literature review. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 12(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-024-00202-1

Bennett, R.E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678

Berman, A., Haertel, E., & Pellegrino, J. (Eds.). (2020). Comparability of LargeScale Educational Assessments: Issues and Recommendations. National Academy of Education. https://doi.org/10.31094/2020/1

Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., Smith, K., Timperley, H., Volante, L., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210314566733

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807

BPS. (2024). Statistik Pendidikan. Badan Pusat Statistik.

BPS. (2025). Rata-Rata Lama Sekolah Penduduk Umur 15 Tahun ke Atas Menurut Klasifikasi Desa. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2007). Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Springer Science & Business Media. Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597608247359

Brookhart, S. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2019). Classroom Assessment and Educational Measurement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507533

Carrasco, D., Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2023). The advantages of regional large-scale assessments: Evidence from the ERCE learning survey. International Journal of Educational Development, 102, 102867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102867

Cheng, Y., & Hamid, M. O. (2025). Social impact of Gaokao in China: a critical review of research. Language Testing in Asia, 15(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00355-y

Cranley, L., Robinson, C., Hine, G., & O’Connor, D. (2022). The desks have changed; it must be NAPLAN time: How NAPLAN affects teaching and learning of mathematics. Issues in Educational Research, 32(4), 1306–1320.

Cresswell, J., Schwantner, U., & Waters, C. (2015). A Review of International Large-Scale Assessments in Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264248373-en

Darling Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2015). Beyond the Bubble Test. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119210863

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Denzin, N.K. dan Y.S.L. (2009). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Pustaka Pelajar.

FINEEC. (2022). National Education Evaluation Plan. https://www.karvi.fi/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/documents/National-Education-Plan_2022-2023_updated-S2022_web.pdf

Fischman, G.E., Topper, A.M., Silova, I., Goebel, J., & Holloway, J.L. (2019). Examining the influence of international large-scale assessments on national education policies. Journal of Education Policy, 34(4), 470–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2018.1460493

Guo, L., Huang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Education Development in China: Education Return, Quality, and Equity. Sustainability, 11(13), 3750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133750

Heissel, J.A., Adam, E.K., Doleac, J.L., Figlio, D.N., & Meer, J. (2021). Testing, Stress, and Performance: How Students Respond Physiologically to High-Stakes Testing. Education Finance and Policy, 16(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00306

Jerrim, J. (2023). Test anxiety: Is it associated with performance in high-stakes examinations? Oxford Review of Education, 49(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2079616

Johnson, S., & Johnson, R. (2010). Component reliability in GCSE and GCE.

Kamens, D.H., & Benavot, A. (2011). National, regional and international learning assessments: trends among developing countries, 1960–2009. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.577337

Kemendikdasmen. (2025a). Tes Kemampuan Akademik (TKA). Pusat Asesmen Pendidikan, Badan Standar, Kurikulum, dan Asesmen Pendidikan, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi.

Kemendikdasmen. (2025b, 22 Desember). Kemendikdasmen tekankan TKA jadi instrumen pemetaan capaian akademik nasional. Kemendikdasmen. https://www.kemendikdasmen.go.id/siaran-pers/14445-kemendikdasmentekankan-tka-jadi-instrumen-pemetaan-capaian

KICE. (2022). National Assessment of Educational Achievement Overview.

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative Assessment: A Meta-Analysis and a Call for Research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x

Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: the Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.592972

Koretz, D. (2017). The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better. University of Chicago Press.

Kwon, S. K., Lee, M., & Shin, D. (2017). Educational assessment in the Republic of Korea: lights and shadows of high-stake exam-based education system. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1074540

Lee, Y.-J., & Ho, J. (2022). Basic Education in Singapore (pp. 1–25). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8136-3_6-1

Liu, Y. (2013). Meritocracy and the Gaokao/ : a survey study of higher education selection and socio-economic participation in East China. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(5–6), 868–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.816237

Liu, Y. (2016). Higher Education, Meritocracy and Inequality in China. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1588-5

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741

MEXT. (2023). National Assessment of Academic Ability Report 2023. MOE Singapore. (2022). PSLE Scoring (Achievement Levels). Ministry of Education Singapore.

MOET. (2019). ANLAS Vietnam: Country Report - Analysis of National Learning Assessment Systems.

Moss, P. A., Girard, B. J., & Haniford, L. C. (2006). Chapter 4: Validity in Educational Assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 109–162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001109

Mostafa, T. (2017). Is too much testing bad for student performance and wellbeing? https://doi.org/10.1787/2109a667-en

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Davier, M. von. (2023). TIMSS 2023 Assessment Frameworks. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

NCES. (2019). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading and Mathematics 2019.

Niemi, H. (2021). Education Reforms for Equity and Quality: An Analysis from an Educational Ecosystem Perspective with Reference to Finnish Educational Transformations. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11(2), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1100

OECD. (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. https://doi.org/10.1787/236405667766

OECD. (2018). Equity in Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

OECD. (2024). Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). OECD Publishing.https://doi.org/10.1787/b1c0b194-en

OECD. (2025). Education Policy Outlook 2025. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c3f402ba-en

Pellegrino, J. W. (2014). Assessment as a positive influence on 21st century teaching and learning: A systems approach to progress. Psicología Educativa, 20(2),65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.002

Putwain, D., & Daly, A. L. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a sample of English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2014.953914

Ræder, H. G., Andersson, B., & Olsen, R. V. (2022). Numeracy across grades – vertically scaling the Norwegian national numeracy tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(6), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2147483

Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. Russell Sage Foundation Press.

Ronksley-Pavia, M. (2023). The Fallacy of Using the National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) Data to Identify Australian High-Potential Gifted Students. Education Sciences, 13(4), 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13040421

Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish Lessons 3.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Teachers College Press.

Sarv, E.-S., & Rõuk, V. (2020). Estonian Curriculum: Becoming Independent. In Pedagogy and Educational Sciences in the Post-Soviet Baltic States, 1990–2004: Changes and Challenges (pp. 84–101). University of Latvia Press. https://doi.org/10.22364/bahp-pes.1990-2004.05

Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G. J., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D. J., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101094

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Standards and Testing Agency. (2024). Key stage 2: assessment and reporting arrangements (ARA). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/keystage-2-assessment-and-reporting-arrangements-ara

Steiner-Khamsi, G., Martens, K., & Ydesen, C. (2024). Governance by numbers 2.0: policy brokerage as an instrument of global governance in the era of information overload. Comparative Education, 60(4), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2024.2308348

van Rijn, P., Por, H.-H., McCaffrey, D. F., Bhaduri, I., & Bertling, J. (2024). A framework for comparing large-scale survey assessments: contrasting India’s NAS, United States’ NAEP, and OECD’s PISA. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1422030

World Bank. (2020). Vietnam - High quality education for all by 2020 (Vol. 1 of2)/ : Overview/policy report (English).

World Bank. (2024). Indonesia Learning Poverty Brief. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099082924151529593/pdf/P179209-8b1c2fc9-3312-46f6-abb4-e1a5d85e5dd2.pdf

Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Yu, J. (2023). Exam Culture and Formative Assessment in China: The Gaokao Reform and I ts Sociocultural Hindrance.Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 23, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v23i.12900

Yuan, A. (2024). The Impact of New Gaokao Reform on the Implementation of High School Teaching in the Context of Educational Objectives (pp. 500–508). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-291-0_62