ICT Grants: Monitoring & Evaluation€¦ · 2 DBE1 ICT GRANTS Monitoring & Evaluation 2008 USAID...

1

Decentralized Basic Education 1: Management and Governance

ICT Grants:

Monitoring & Evaluation

July 2008

This report is one of a series of special reports produced by Research Triangle Institute (RTI),

Implementing Partner for the USAID-funded Improved Quality of Decentralized Basic Education

(IQDBE) program in Indonesia

Special Monitoring Report

2

DBE1

ICT GRANTS

Monitoring & Evaluation

2008 USAID DBE1 – Management and Education Governance Indonesia Stock Exchange Building Tower 1, 29

th Floor

Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53, Phone (62 21) 515 2772 • Fax (62 21) 515 5859

Jakarta 12190, Indonesia http://pdms.dbeindonesia.org

http://www.dbe-usaid.org

http://pdms.dbeindonesia.org/http://www.dbe-usaid.org/

3

DBE1 – ICT Grants Program Monitoring Activity

Outcomes and Recommendations

April/May 2008

Purpose of the Activity The purpose of the DBE1 ICT Grants Program Monitoring Activity is to provide an insight

into the DBE1 ICT Grants Program to date, document lessons learned, provide

recommendations and propose next steps for its implementation, especially in regard to the

feasibility to conduct round II of the program with DBE1 cohort 2 districts, and in regard to

necessary activities to capture and document lessons learned from existing grant programs.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Task Order Requirements:

Grants to support RFP objectives and wider community

Grants to include private sector

Grants to be competitive

Grants to show sustainable models for profit-driven education hotspots (business plans)

Grants to use business and/or tech volunteers

Grants programs of DBE123 to be different from each other to show approaches

2. DBE1 ICT Grants Program – Key Aspects:

One program for both education hotspot (ICT Access Grants) and grants targeting

education management and governance (EMG) (ICT Innovation EMG Grants)

Program objectives:

o Leverage ICT to contribute to more effective management and governance of

education

o Leverage ICT to contribute to more effective information and communication

among education stakeholders and the wider community

Two tier system:

Tier 1 grants range between $2,000 and $4,000 in funding.

Tier 2 grants range between $10,000 and $40,000 in funding.

Consortium requirements: At least one private sector actor and one DEO agency

Cost-sharing requirement

Grant program as an opportunity to broker relationships and build capacity

o Sensibilization and Awareness raising activities,

o Regional forums to broker consortium,

o Assistance (manuals, in-person) in grant application development,

o Program (objective alignment, coherence, M&E) and budget review

assistance (budget integrity, unit estimations, business planning) for short

listed applicants,

o Review and Assistance of applicant financial management practice for grant

management,

o Grantee resource Toolkit.

4

3. Related DBE1 Indicators:

IR 3: Increased use of Information Resources to Enhance Education Management and

Governance:

o IR 3-24: Increased capacity of education stakeholders in target districts to use

ICT in education management and governance.

o IR 3-25: Number of grants awarded to district governments in collaboration

with the private sector to develop and implement activities that increase use

of ICT and are suitable of wider application.

o IR 3-26: Number of grants awarded to district public institutions in

collaboration with the private sector to develop and implement ”education

hotspots” that have sustainable business plans and are suitable of wider

application.

For the purpose of this grants program and internal tracking, IR 3-24 has been further

differentiated into three key aspects:

1. Increased capacity for use of ICT among education stakeholders

2. Increased access to functioning ICT infrastructure for education stakeholders

3. Increased access to education information and services for education stakeholders

4. Grantees to Date (Table 1):

14 Grants.

South Sulawesi (4), West Java (2), Banten (1), Central Java (3), East Java (3), North

Sumatera (1).

USD 246,284 committed.

7 Tier 1; 7 Tier 2 grantees.

7 ICT Innovation EMG Grants and 7 ICT Access Grants (hotspot).

Grantee main activities (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Distribution of Grantee Main Activities

5

Table 1. Grantees and Grantee Main Activities to Date

NO GRANT CATEGORY

GRANTEE NAME

(PRIVATE SECTOR

PARTNER)

LOCATION

GRANTEE MAIN ACTIVITIES

Inte

rnet

Café

(W

arn

et)

Lib

rary

MIS

EM

IS/M

IS

Educa

tion P

ort

al

eR

eso

urc

es

IT C

ente

r/

Connect

ivity/

Netw

ork

IT M

ain

tenance

/ Serv

icin

g

Sch

ool Connect

ivity

Tra

inin

g (

DEO

)

Tra

inin

g (

Oth

ers

)

1. Tier-1 EMG

Turatea Computer Center

Janeponto - South Sulawesi

2. Tier-2 EMG

YPK Amanah Pangkep - South Sulawesi

3. Tier-1 Hotspot

Indo Komputer Soppeng - South Sulawesi

4. Tier-1 Hotspot

PT Rekayasa Teknologi Informasi

Enrekang - South Sulawesi

5. Tier-1 Hotspot

PT Tridata Cakrawala

Tuban - East Java

6. Tier-1 Hotspot

Yayasan Tarbiyah Islamiyah

Sukabumi - West Java

7. Tier-2 EMG

CV Trisatya Pratama

Karawang - West Java

8. Tier-2 Hotspot

CV Almagada Jaya

Tangerang - Banten

9. Tier-2 EMG

PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera

Karanganyar - Central Java

10. Tier-1 Hotspot

PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera

Karanganyar - Central Java

11. Tier-2 EMG

CV Cosmo Jaya Klaten - Central Java

12. Tier-2 EMG

PT ITS Kemitraan Surabaya - East Java

13. Tier-1 EMG

PT ITS Kemitraan Surabaya - East Java

14. Tier-2 Hotspot

PT Indoukm Insis Tapanuli Utara – North Sumatra

Grantees Main Activities 6 5 4 5 2 8 1 3 13 7

5. Problem Statements according to Grant Applications:

Grant applications included the requirement of a problem statement that would drive the

purpose/objectives of the proposed grants program. Problem statements from the 14 grant

proposals are summarized below:

There are inefficiencies in education management and governance (information-based

decision making, financial modeling, planning)

o There is limited capacity of DEO staff to make use of ICT for education

management and governance ( available computers are underutilized)

6

o There are communication gaps between DEO and education stakeholders

(critical information arrives only in part and late)

o There are communication gaps between different DEO agencies

o There are information discrepancies between different DEO agencies

(fragmentation of management information systems, no access to easy and

secure communication and information exchange channels)

o There is underutilization of existing infrastructure (hardware, software or

connectivity limitations/failures)

There is a lack of self-study and/or complementary teaching and learning resources

in “digestible” formats

There is limited capacity among teachers and relevant DEO counterparts in

developing electronic teaching and learning resources to complement existing

materials

There are inefficiencies in DPL management (user registration, collection processing,

cataloguing, retrieval, user transactions and monitoring are done manually, using

paper-based systems)

Education stakeholders lack structured avenues/opportunities to access (education)

information and related services

Community members lack structured avenues/opportunities to access reliable

(education) information/data and services (problem of social inclusion)

II. GRANT IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING FINDINGS

The following are key findings of the April 2008 DBE1 ICT Grants Program monitoring

activity, which included interviews with DBE1 staff managing and administrating the grants,

review of grantee documentation, as well as site visits and interviews to several grantees:

USAID and RTI grant regulations require heavy pre-award determination efforts.

This resulted in considerable delays in grant implementation.

USAID and RTI procurement regulations require significant efforts in procurement.

This resulted in considerable delays in grant implementation for most grantees.

During the rather lengthy pre-award determination and procurement process several

of the private sector consortium leaders changed their status or company name which

required updates to grant application materials and led to even further delays.

Due to the rather lengthy pre-award determination and procurement process, several

grantees had to withdraw their grant applications because of changes in personnel or

regulations that prohibited them to continue the process and participate in the

program.

A final 14 of 22 selected grantees signed a grant award agreement with

DBE1/USAID and are currently in the implementation process.

Grantee consortia interviewed during the field visits show, in all cases, very good

collaboration among partners, that is district public libraries.

7

Current grantees show a wide variety of activities and different approaches, both in

establishing education hotspots (ICT Access Grants), as well as in using technology

to improve management and governance of education (ICT Innovation EMG Grants).

Capacity building is an integral part of most grantees’ programs and activities.

Status of grant implementation is varied. Some grantees have already completed most

of their activities and are now in the ongoing monitoring phase of their grants

program, others are still in the procurement stage for equipment (e.g. to set up an

education hotspot).

Grantee capacity for sound M&E and reporting is very limited.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS

1. Recommendations:

The key recommendation in regard to the DBE1 ICT Grants Program is to capitalize and

focus on the existing 14 grantees, rather than expanding the grants program to more districts

and actors at this stage of the program.

Lessons learned from the program to date highlight challenges DBE1 and grantees were

facing in regard to processes and procedures of grant award pre-determination and equipment

procurement, which affected effective and timely processing and implementation. At the same

time, the 14 existing grants already show a wide variety of activities and in each a number of

different approaches that provide a unique opportunity to identify lessons learned, study best

practices and serve as examples for future programs and activities in this area, which was a

key objective for the overall grants program.

2. Key Questions to Move on:

The recommendation above, therefore, highlights the need for sound and detailed monitoring

and documentation of the existing 14 grants program. In this context, the following two key

questions need to be addressed in planning next steps:

(1) What do we need to do (now and in the coming months/years) in terms

supporting and monitoring grantee activities?

(2) What systems do we need to put in place and what information do we need to

collect (and when) to write a substantial evaluation report of the grants program

in two years time.

3. Proposed Next Steps:

To address these questions, on the basis of the information gathered and the recommendation

made, the following next steps are being proposed:

To confirm lessons learned and findings from the April 2008 site visits:

1. Upon receipt of first progress report from each grantee, review for completeness and

compliance with general reporting requirements.

2. Upon receipt of first progress report from each grantee, carefully review all grantees

elaborations on Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of their grants program:

8

a. Were indicators “customized” on the basis of DBE1 guidance (per DBE1 ICT

Grantee Toolkit and related socialization/grantee briefing activities).

b. Does the grantee indicate understanding on what indicators are and how they

are supposed to provide progress information?

c. Does the grantee demonstrate capacity in implementing appropriate M&E

activities, such as surveys or training evaluations, e.g.?

To address challenges in regard to M&E and reporting:

3. Provide personalized support to each grantee to clarify gaps or aspects that were

found to be unclear, e.g., on

d. Required content for their progress reports (drawing on examples in the grant

implementation toolkit, which all grantee have received upon award).

e. The difference between the requirements to fulfill grant progress payment

milestones and the requirements in regard to monitoring, evaluating and

documenting their progress in achieving grant program objectives.

f. Clarification on the key issues to be addressed by their program (re-iteration

of connection between problem statement and program objectives).

g. Customization of M&E indicators to their individual programs (on the basis

of the examples provided in the grantee toolkit).

To manage and document grantees’ progress and the overall program,

4. Carefully track each grantee’s progress on activity status and reporting to DBE1, as

well as each grantee’s adherence to an appropriate M&E framework, that addresses

information needs for a later overall grants program evaluation.

In this regard, the following tools have been provided, developed together with DBE1 EMIS

& ICT Specialist and M&E Specialist, to support implementation of next steps and its key

task to carefully monitor grantee activities over the next 2 years:

1. A tool to facilitate tracking of grantee milestones and progress payment disbursement,

including an overview on all grantees’ activities, and tools for documentation of grant

program implementation status on monthly or quarterly basis. This is Appendix 1is

attached to this report.

2. An updated ICT Grants Program M&E Framework (on the basis of what had been

developed in July 2007). This is Appendix 2 is attached to this report.

3. A tool to track overall ICT grants program indicators, as well as customized grantee

indicator tracking sheets for each individual grantee. This is Appendix 3 is attached to

this report.

It is anticipated that this support to grantees in areas of M&E and careful tracking and

documentation on grant program activities and grantees progress towards program objectives

will provide DBE1 with the information needed to write a substantial evaluation report of the

grants program in two years time, highlighting different approaches and models on the use of

ICT to strengthen management and governance of education and to benefit the wider

community.

9

APPENDIX 1

Tracking of Grantee Milestones

and Progress Payment

Disbursement

10

INVENTORY OF GRANTS Instructions:

1. Please complete yellow highlighted cells.

Country: 2. Please add specific comments in a footnote

Project Name:

Project Start & End Date

RTI Project Number:

Contract/Agreement Number:

Grant Manager/Email:

PAS:

Number of GrantsTotal Committed

AmountTotal Obligated Amount

$0,00 $0,00

Simplified Cost Reimbursement

Grants (SIGs) Issued

Grantee Name Start

& End Date

Total Grant Amount Obligated Amount as

of 06/30/08

Grantee Name

Start & End Date


of 06/30/08

Grantee Name

Start & End Date


of 06/30/08

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

$0,00 $0,00 $0,00 $0,00 $0,00 $0,00

Through June 30, 2008

Fixed Obligated Grants (FOGs) Issued Standard Cost Reimbursement

Grants (STGs) Issued

Total Grants Budget

(Dollar Value)

11

ICT GRANT RECORDS As of May 31, 2008

NO GRANT USAID GRANTEE NAME LOCATION Grant Period

No APPROVAL IN RP IN USD IN RP IN USD IN RP IN USD

1 0209604-G-07-001 April 2007 Turatea Computer Center Janeponto - South Sulawesi (Apr 17,2007 - Mar 17, 2008) 25.252.500 2.806 18.300.000 2.033 6.952.500 773

2 0209604-G-07-002 April 2007 YPK Amanah Pangkep - South Sulawesi (Apr 30,2007 - Apr 30,2009) 415.152.500 46.128 99.493.375 11.055 315.659.125 35.073

3 0209604-G-07-003 May, 2007 Indo Komputer Soppeng - South Sulawesi (Aug 1,2007 - Aug1, 2008) 31.243.000 3.471 21.730.000 2.414 9.513.000 1.057

4 0209604-G-07-004 May, 2007 PT Rekayasa Teknologi Informasi Enrekang - South Sulawesi (Apr 1, 2007 - Dec 31, 2007) 25.925.000 2.881 7.777.500 864 18.147.500 2.016

5 0209604-G-07-005 June, 2007 PT Tridata Cakrawala Tuban - East Java (June 18, 2007 - Feb 14, 2008) 69.754.000 7.750 61.304.000 6.812 8.450.000 939

6 0209604-G-07-006 June, 2007 Yayasan Tarbiyah Islamiyah Sukabumi - West Java (June 27,2007 - May 28,2008) 60.670.400 6.741 37.430.000 4.159 23.240.400 2.582

7 0209604-G-07-007 06-Sep-07 CV Trisatya Pratama Karawang - West Java (Sept 6, 2007 - Sept 4, 2009) 292.518.451 32.502 21.576.553 2.397 270.941.898 30.105

8 0209604-G-08-008 13-Nov-07 CV Almagada Jaya Tangerang - Banten (August 22,2007 - July 22, 2009) 300.930.000 33.437 119.927.250 13.325 181.002.750 20.111

9 0209604-G-08-009 13-Nov-07 PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera - T2 Karanganyar - Central Java (Oct 10, 2007 - Sept 10, 2009) 258.532.500 28.726 17.270.500 1.919 241.262.000 26.807

10 0209604-G-08-010 13-Nov-07 PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera - T1 Karanganyar - Central Java (Sept 10, 2007 - Aug 19, 2008) 27.377.000 3.042 4.809.300 534 22.567.700 2.508

11 0209604-G-08-011 7-Jan-08 CV Cosmo Jaya Klaten - Central Java (Jan 7,2008 - Jan 7, 2010) 347.461.000 38.607 26.125.000 2.903 321.336.000 35.704

12 0209604-G-08-012 4-Jan-08 PT ITS Kemitraan - T2 Surabaya - East Java (Jan 17, 2008 - Jan 15, 2010) 311.557.100 34.617 - - 311.557.100 34.617

13 0209604-G-08-013 22-Feb-08 PT ITS Kemitraan - T1 Surabaya - East Java (Feb 4, 2008 - Feb 4, 2009) 50.184.000 5.576 - - 50.184.000 5.576

TOTAL 2.216.557.451 246.284 435.743.478 48.416 1.780.813.973 197.868

GRANT AMOUNT REALISATION GRANT Obligated Amount

12

PROVINCE: SOUTH SULAWESI

1. TURATEA COMPUTER CENTER Bank Voucher

NO SCHEDULE AMOUNT REALIZATION REALISATION Balance NOTES

OF PAYMENTS PAYMENTS AMOUNT

1 17-Apr-07 3.800.000 30-Apr-07 3.800.000 - MAK/0000464/BV

17-Apr-07 6.550.000 30-Apr-07 6.200.000 350.000 1 unit Laptop MAK/0000465/BV

2 17-Jul-07 4.500.000 18-Jul-07 4.500.000 - MAK/0000598/BV

3 17-Sep-07 3.800.000 4-Oct-07 3.800.000 - MAK/0000734/BV

4 27-Nov-07 3.800.000 3.800.000

5 17-Mar-08 2.802.500 2.802.500

TOTAL 25.252.500 18.300.000 6.952.500

2. INDO KOMPUTER



1 14-Aug-07 5.280.000 20-Aug-07 5.280.000 - MAK/ 0000644/BV

14-Aug-07 6.520.000 29-Oct-07 7.600.000 (1.080.000) Equipments MAK/ 0000750/BV

2 14-Sep-07 8.850.000 15-Jan-08 8.850.000 - MAK/ 0000852/BV

3 15-Jan-08 6.300.000 6.300.000

4 15-May-07 2.725.000 2.725.000

5 15-Jul-07 1.568.000 1.568.000

TOTAL 31.243.000 21.730.000 9.513.000

3. PT REKAYASA TEKNOLOGI INFORMASI



1 16-May-07 7.777.500 7.777.500 - MAK/ 0001110/BV

2 19-Jul-07 10.370.000 10.370.000

3 18-Dec-07 7.777.500 7.777.500

TOTAL 25.925.000 - 7.777.500 18.147.500

4. YPK AMANAH (SIG with advance)

NO ADVANCES AMOUNT REALIZATION REALISATION OUTSTANDING NOTES

MONTH PAYMENTS AMOUNT ADVANCES

1 July 2007 15.625.000 17-Sep-07 13.525.375 - MAK/000708/BV

13-Feb-08 1.270.000 MAK/000910/BV

2 14-Dec-07 7.700.000 laptop & printer MAK/000798/BV

3 Dec 2007 4.180.000 20-Feb-08 3.634.000 546.000 MAK/000926/BV

4 1-Feb-08 62.500.000 10 unit computer MAK/000893/BV

5 15-May-08 6.264.000 personel fee oct 07 - Mar 08 MAK/001202/BV

6 19-May-08 4.600.000 1 unit generator Yamaha MAK/001208/BV

7

8

TOTAL 19.805.000 99.493.375 546.000

13

APPENDIX 2

Updated ICT Grants Program

M&E Framework

14

DBE1 ICT Grants Program – M&E Framework

I. DBE1 – Existing Results Framework

II. DBE1 – Proposed Results Framework

III. SIR 3-24.1 : Increased capacity for ICT use among Education Stakeholders – Indicators

IV. SIR 3-24.2: Increased Access to Education Information – Indicators

V. SIR 3-24.3: Increased Access to ICT - Indicators Framework explanation: This framework tries to outline a systematic approach of

integrating indicators and results with a focus on the grantee level.

This framework provides a set of suggested indicators for each main grantee activity, such as

training, establishment of a connectivity or network between diknas and depag, development

of a web-based education information system, or establishment of an education hotspot/public

Internet access point.

Each indicator in this framework is presented with an indicator definition, method and

frequency of data collection, method of calculation, data proof, the key person responsible for

tracking it, and with information on who will need to report it to DBE1 how often and in what

format.

The indicator tables below are to be customized for each grantee and used, as appropriate,

for the explanatory note accompanying the grantee indicator tracking sheets developed in

parallel to this framework.

15

I. DBE 1 – EXISTING RESULTS FRAMEWORK

USAID Program Objective: More effective decentralized education management

and governance

USAID IR3: Number of districts using enhanced ICT for data and information reporting,

assessing best practices, and enhanced communication in the field of education

DBE1 IR 3: Increased use of information resources to enhance education management and

governance

DBE1 Intermediate Result 3-24: Increased capacity1 of education stakeholders in target

districts to use1 ICT in education management and governance

DBE1 Intermediate Result 3-25: Number of grants awarded to district governments in

collaboration with the private sector to develop and implement activities that increase use of

ICT and are suitable of wider application

DBE1 Intermediate Result 3-26: Number of grants awarded to district public institutions in

collaboration with the private sector to develop and implement ”education hotspots” that have

sustainable business plans and are suitable of wider application.

II. DBE1 – PROPOSED RESULTS FRAMEWORK Below are DBE1 Sub-Intermediate Results (SIR) that are being proposed to differentiate

critical aspects of Indicator 3-24 for the purpose of the ICT Grants Program:

SIR 3-24.1: Increased capacity for ICT use among education stakeholders

SIR 3-24.2: Increased access to education information

SIR 3-24.3: Increased access to ICT

The following are proposed indicators to track progress in achieving each of the three

proposed SIRs.

1 We understand the capacity to “use” ICT as a function of having access to ICT infrastructure, the

skills to make use of the infrastructure and access to appropriate content (education information).

16

III. SIR 3-24.1: INCREASED CAPACITY FOR ICT UE AMONG EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS –

INDICATORS

A. ICT-RELATED TRAINING

The indicators below are for those grantees that organize ICT-related training in some form for a variety/specific group of education stakeholders.

# Indicator Indicator Definition Data Collection Method

Method of Calculation Data Proof Who How often

When

Data reported to DBE1

By whom

How often When Format

3-24.1.a

# of education stakeholders attending an ICT-related training course

“Education stakeholders” are defined as members of the following 5 user groups: education administrators (from diknas, Kandepag, or DEB), school administrators (school principal, vice-principal, other school administration staff), teachers, students, and parents.

a. Capture number of trainees attending at least one training session, disaggregated by user groups

Count number of people that attended the training.

a. Training participants log

e.g. Training Manager

based on training schedule/ work plan

after every training session

e.g. Project Manager

Quarterly (or by progress reporting period) if a training had been started in that quarter

Based on start of training program

Progress Report including summary on the training program carried out during the last reporting period and a summary on the indicator calculation, including copies of the training manuals and participant lists.

“ICT-related” training is any training that teaches basic computer or Internet skills, computer networking, servicing, and maintenance skills, electronic resource production and evaluation skills or general data entry and management skills.

Disaggregate by gender and user group2

A “training course” is considered a course that constitutes at least 4 contact hours.

2 For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators

(diknas [incl. DPL staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and

parents each are separate user groups as well.

17



When


By whom


3-24.1.b

% of education stakeholders successfully completing an ICT-related training course


a. Record training participation at every training session.

Divide number of education stakeholders that successfully completed the course, by number of education stakeholders that signed up for the course. Move decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 15 of 75 training participants signed up for the course AND passed the exam: 15/75=0.2 or 20%).

a. Participant training log


a. based on training schedule

a. after every training session


Quarterly (or by progress reporting period) if a training had been completed in that quarter


Progress Report including summary on training program carried through and outcome of the indicator calculation, in the last reporting period, with copies of training logs, and testparticipation logs

“Successful” completion entails regular attendance and passing of an end-of-course test (either internationally, nationally, or institutionally standardized)

b. Record names of training participants that sit for the test and pass the test


b. Test participation log

b. once b. after every course





parents each are separate user groups as well.

18



When


By whom


3-24.1.c

% of education stakeholders continuing on to another ICT-related training course.

This indicator captures the percentage of education stakeholders that successfully completed a paid or free ICT-related training course of at least 4 contact hours, and are taking an additional paid or free ICT-related training course of at least 4 contact hours.

Compare log of trainees that start a new training course with the test log from previous courses.

Divide number of education stakeholders continuing with another training course, by number of education stakeholders successfully completing training. Move decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 85 of 280 training participants continue on to another training: 85/280=0.31 or 31%)4

a. Training logs


once At the beginning of each training course.


Quarterly (or by progress reporting period)


Progress Report including summary on training program carried through during last reporting period, summary on indicator calculation, accompanied by copies of training logs, and test participation logs



b. Test logs



4 Rounded for 2 decimals

19



When


By whom


3-24.1.d

% of stakeholders reporting to have medium or advanced level computer and(/or) Internet skills

This indicator tracks education stakeholders that respond to a survey, indicating that they have at least medium level, if not advanced level computer and/or Internet skills. The survey will provide adequate explanation on the skills each level entails to facilitate the self-assessment5

Carry out a separate baseline and a training impact evaluation, e.g., by providing questionnaires to a representative sample of education stakeholders.

Divide the number of education stakeholders that were surveyed and that responded to this question, indicating at least medium or advanced level computer and Internet skills, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 65 of 250 respondents report at least medium level computer and Internet skills: 65/250=0.26 or 26%).

Filled-in questionnaires, and summary on data analysis; focus group guides and notes from focus group discussions if applicable

e.g., Project Manager

Twice Once at project inception, once at the end of the grants program

e.g .Project Manager

twice Based on grant implementation schedule

First progress report and final report with summary on evaluation procedure and instruments, summary on baseline results, disaggregated by user group and gender, accompanied by copies of original filled-in questionnaires from education stakeholders, and a summary on each focus group discussion if applicable.


Questionnaire-based surveying may be complemented with focus groups with different education stakeholders to find out in more detail about their current ICT use, skills, knowledge and needs.


5 We still need to define the specific criteria defining basic, medium and advanced level computer and Internet skills. Maybe Tita has something that is used in an Indonesian

context already, if not, I may have some international examples

20



When


By whom


3-24.1.e

% of education stakeholders reporting that the training has provided them with critical skills for their work or studies

This indicator tracks the impact of the training in terms of education stakeholders’ work or studies. It tracks education stakeholders responding to a questionnaire and indicating that the ICT-related training they received was “very critical” or “somewhat critical” for their work and studies.

Capture data with the help of a self-assessment questionnaire given to a representative sample of education stakeholders that participated in an ICT-related training, conducted as part of the grants program.

Divide the number of education stakeholders that were surveyed and that responded to this question, indicating that the training has provided them with “very critical”, or “somewhat critical” skills for their work and studies, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 160 of 250 respondents report that the training has provided them with critical skills: 160/250=0.64 or 64%).

Filled-in questionnaires and summary on data analysis; focus group guides and notes from focus group discussion if applicable.


once Once at the end of the grants program


once Based on grant implementation schedule

Final report with summary on evaluation procedure and instruments, summary on evaluation results, disaggregated by user group and gender, accompanied by copies of original filled-in questionnaires from education stakeholders, and a summary on each focus group discussion if applicable.



Analyze open ended question on what skills and how they are employed applying qualitative data analysis methods.

As part of the evaluation, inquire from education stakeholders which specific skills they learned are critical and have changed their every day work or studies.


21



When


By whom


3-24.1.f

% of education stakeholders reporting that after the training, they have used ICT more frequently in their work than before


Carry out a separate baseline and a training impact evaluation, e.g., providing questionnaires to a sample of education stakeholders.

Divide the number of education stakeholders that were surveyed and that responded to this question, indicating that they use ICT more often for their work or studies than before their participation in grantee-organized training, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 134 of 250 respondents report using ICT regularly: 134/250=0.54 or 54%)6

Filled-in questionnaires, and summary on data analysis; focus group guides and notes from focus group discussion if applicable.


Once Onceat the end of the grants program

e.g, Project Manager

Once Based on grant implementation schedule

Final report with summary on evaluation procedure and instruments, summary on baseline results, disaggregated by user group and gender, accompanied by copies of original filled-in questionnaires from education stakeholders, and a summary on each focus group discussion if applicable.

“Use” is defined as using computers for any work-related activity, using the Intranet or Internet, or using any education information system or portal for work or studies.



6 Rounded for two decimals



parents each are separate user groups as well

22

B. ELECTRONIC EDUCATION RESOURCES

The proposed indicators below are for grantees that build capacity among education stakeholders to develop and evaluate electronic education resources (and in parallel build

general computer skills among process participants and improve collaboration).

# Indicator Indicator Definition Data Collection

Method Method of Calculation Data Proof Who

How often

When


By whom

How often

When Format

3-24.1.g

# of education institutions (schools and/or DEO/Kandepag/DEB sections) involved in the e-resources development process

“Education institutions” are the institutions from which education stakeholders come, that is: diknas, depag, DEB, DPL, universities, schools, school committees, district public libraries, teacher unions, etc.

Make inventory of people that are engaged in the resource development process, track name and education institution affiliation of each person

Count the number of different institutions represented in the resource development process.

List of participants that explicitly highlights their position and institutional affiliation;

signed participant’s list


once Based on project work plan, e.g. within month 1 of the project inception


once Based on project work plan, e.g. within 30 days of grant award

Initial or first process report with summary on participants of the resource development process

3-24.1.h

# of resource development meetings held

This indicator tracks the number of meetings held during resource development.

Collect meeting invitations and meeting participant lists

Count number of meetings held within one reporting period.

Meeting invitations; signed participant’s lists


Regularly by reporting period

Based on project work plan



Based on grant implementation schedule

Initial report,, and each progress report and final report, with summary on activities carried out in the last quarter, highlight number of resource development meetings held; copies of signed meeting participants lists

3-24.1.i

% of resource development meetings attended by members of

Trying to assess the level of activity of diknas and depag staff in the resource development process, this indicator intents to track the percentage of resource development

Ensure that at every meeting participants sign a participant list, including

Divide number of meetings at which all depag and diknas representatives, who are involved in the process, were present by the total number of

Signed participant’s lists after every meeting


Regularly by reporting period

Based on project work plan




Progress reports and final report with summary of meetings held

23



How often

When


By whom

How often

When Format

all institutions involved

group meetings, at which all depag, diknas and DPK participants were in attendance.

providing their name, position and affiliation with an education institution, such as diknas, depag, university, etc.

resource development group meetings held in the last quarter.

Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. at 3 of 6 meetings, all participants that are part of the process were present: 3/6 = 0.5 or 50%).

and at what date during the last reporting period, accompanied with copies of the originally signed participant lists

3-24.1.j

% of participants in the resource development process reporting to have acquired critical skills and knowledge for their work

This indicator tracks the extent to which being involved in the resource development process has increased skills and knowledge among participants. In detail, it will track what percentage of the participants explicitly express that involvement in the project has provided them with “very critical “ or “somewhat critical” skills and knowledge for their work.

Conduct a survey and/or interviews among the resource development participants

Divide the number of resource development participants that expressed having acquired “very critical” or “critical” skills in the process, by the total number of participants involved in the process.

Disaggregate by user group8 and gender

Survey questionnaires; interview guides and notes


once Based on project work plan, at the end of the grants program



Final report with summary on survey outcomes on skills, knowledge and attitude of resource development participants; with copies of original, filled-in questionnaires.

3-24.1.k

# of education institutions to which final resources have been distributed

This indicator tracks the extent to which the e-resource developed have been distributed to other education institutions.


Track which institutions the resources have been shared with, or sent to.

Count the number of institutions.

Tracking list of resource package recipients


Once Based on project work plan, at the end of the grants program



Final report with list of institutions that have received the resource package(s).

8 For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators (diknas [incl. DPL

staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and parents each are separate user groups as

well.

24



How often

When


By whom

How often

When Format

3-24.1.l

% of respondents in education institutions having received the resources reporting them useful for their teaching or self-study

This indicator tracks how users value the resources for their teaching or self-study.


Conduct questionnaire survey among members of those education institutions that have received the resources.

Questionnaire-based surveying may be complemented with focus groups

Divide the number of respondents that were surveyed and that responded to this question, indicating that the they find the resources “very valuable”, or “valuable” for their teaching or self-study, by the total number of respondents to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 160 of 250 respondents report that the resources are useful: 160/250=0.64 or 64%).

Survey questionnaires; focus group guides and notes if applicable


Once Based on project work plan, at the end of the grants program



Final report with summary on evaluation procedure and instruments, summary on evaluation results, disaggregated by user group and gender, accompanied by copies of original filled-in questionnaires from education stakeholders, and a summary on each focus group discussion if applicable.

25

IV. SIR 3-24.2: INCREASED ACCESS TO EDUCATION INFORMATION – INDICATORS

A. EDUCATION PORTAL/SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The proposed indicators below are for grantees that develop a publicly accessible electronic management information system, such as a web-

based education information system or library research system, SMS-supported education or library information system/gateway/center, or an

education portal of some kind.


Method Method of calculation Data Proof Who

How often

When


By whom


3-24.2.a

# of times public system /portal has been accessed

This indicator tracks the frequency of system/portal use on a daily basis.

“Accessed” is defined by a registered user logging in to the system/portal, or, in an open system/portal, by a successful request to the server.

Use of system /portal tracking statistics software. Where use statistics should disaggregate by user group and gender, if individual user profiles are being tracked through registration before use.

Based on system/portal , statistical analysis on use, extract the number of times the system has been access per day.

Calculate average of daily access per reporting period.

Print-out, summary graphics of the statistics on system/portal use


Tracked daily

End of every day


Every reporting period, starting with launch of system


Progress report with summary on system statistics, e.g. via graphics, charts or statistical tables

3-24.2.b

% of education stakeholders reporting use of the system/portal

This indicator tracks the percentage of education stakeholders who respond to a survey and who report using the system/portal.


“Use of the system/portal” is defined as accessing the system/portal (

Survey questionnaire send to a sample of education stakeholders (representative of every user group).

Divide the number of education stakeholders that state that they use the system/portal, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 20 of 50 respondents use the system: 20/50=0.4 or 40%).

Report on frequency of use by asking respondents that report

Actual surveys (questionnaire) sent back by users and analyzed


Once per year

Once after 6 months of system/ portal existence, from then on every 12 months


Twice or three times based on grant timeline


Progress and/or Final report including an analysis of the survey, and samples of filled-in survey questionnaire

26



How often

When


By whom


online or offline) for at least 5 minutes to either acquire or upload education information of any kind

using the system to indicate at what level of frequency (once, daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.)

Disaggregate by user group9 and gender.

3-24.2.c

% of education stakeholders reporting that the system/portal as increased ease of access to education information

This indicators tracks the percentage of education stakeholders who respond to a survey and report that the system as has made it easier for them to access education information.


Survey, questionnaire

Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the system/portal is “easier access to education information”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the system/portal increased ease of access to information: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).



e.g Project Manager

Once per year






3-24.2.d

% of education administrators (DEO, Kandepag,

This indicator tracks the percent of education administrators that report the system/portal having improved communication among each other.

“Education Administrators” are


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the system/portal is “improved

Actual surveys (questionnaire) sent back by

e.g Project Manager

Once per year

Once after 6 months of system/


Twice or three times based on grant


Progress and/or Final report including an analysis of the survey, and

9 For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators (diknas [incl.

DPL staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and parents each are separate user

groups as well. 10

For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators (diknas [incl. DPL staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and parents each are separate user

groups as well.

27



How often

When


By whom


DEB) reporting that the system/portal has improved communication among each other

representatives from the following institutions: DEO, Kandepag, and District Education Board (DEB).

communication”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the system/portal improved communication: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).

Disaggregate by gender.

users and analyzed

portal existence, from then on every 12 months

timeline

samples of filled-in survey questionnaire

3-24.2.e

% of education administrators (DEP, Kandepag, DEB) reporting that the system/portal has improved time-efficiency in their work

This indicator tracks the percent of education administrators that report the system/portal having improved time-efficiency in their work.

“Education Administrators” are representatives from the following institutions: DEO, Kandepag, and District Education Board (DEB).


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the system/portal is “improved time-efficiency”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the system/portal improved time-efficiency: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).




Once per year






3-24.2.f

% of education administrators (DEP, Kandepag, DEB) reporting that the system/portal has facilitated reporting

This indicator tracks the percent of education administrators that report the system/portal has facilitated reporting of education data

“Education Administrators” are representatives from the following institutions: DEO, Kandepag, and District Education Board (DEB).


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the system/portal is “facilitated reporting of education data”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage



Once per year

Once after 6 months of system/ portal existence, from then on every 12





28



How often

When


By whom


education data

sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the system/portal facilitated education data reporting: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).


months

B. INTERNET CONNECTIVITY/LOCAL AREA NETWORK

The proposed indicators below are for grantees that focus activities on connecting education stakeholders either via Internet connectivity or

Local Area Networks (IT centers) of some kind.

# Indicator Indicator Definition

Data Collection Method


When

Data reported to DBE1 By

whom How often When Format

3-24.2.g

% of DEO and Kandepag sections and/or sub-district offices and/or schools connected

This indicator captures the percentage of DEO and Kandepag sections and/or sub-district offices and/or schools that have been connected under this grants program.

“connected” defines a functioning, dedicated internet or intranet (LAN, WAN) connection between two or more sections/offices/schools

Conduct site observations or a short survey.

Survey should capture whether the section/offices/school had been connected as part of the grants program or had previously been connected.

Divide the number of sections/offices/schools that are connected (either by the DBE grants program or otherwise) by the total number of sections/offices/schools in the district.

Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 31 of 96 sections/offices/schools are connected: 31/96=0.32 or 32%)11.

Site observation notes or survey questionnaire


once Based on project work plan, after connectivity has been established

Project Manager

once Based on grant implementation schedule, after connectivity has been established, e.g. in quarterly report July 07

Progress or final report including summary of survey analysis, sample of original questionnaires filled out or copies of original site observation notes.

3-24.2.h

% of education stakeholders reporting to exchange

This indicator tracks the percentage of education stakeholders that report to use the network/connectivity established by the DBE1 grantee, and exchange information with other


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that they use the connectivity/network for information exchange with

Actual surveys (questionnaire) sent back by


Once per year

Once after 6 months of system/


Twice or three times based on grant


Progress and/or Final report including an analysis of the

11

Rounded for two decimals.

29




When



information with other education stakeholders

education stakeholders.


“Exchanging information” include activities, such as sending an email, sharing files, saving a document in a shared folder, accessing documents and files from somebody else in shared folders.

other education stakeholders by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that they use the connectivity/ network for information exchange : 30/50=0.6 or 60%).

Report on frequency of information exchange by asking respondents that report using the connectivity/network for information exchange to indicate at what level of frequency (once, daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.)

Disaggregate by gender and user group12.

users and analyzed

portal existence, from then on every 12 months

timeline

survey, and samples of filled-in survey questionnaire

3-24.2.i

% of education stakeholders reporting easy access to critical information

This indicator tracks the percentage of education stakeholders who respond to a survey and report that the connectivity/network established by the DBE1 grantee as has made it easier for them to access critical information.

“Education stakeholders” are defined as members of the following 5 user groups: education administrators (from diknas, Kandepag, or DEB), school administrators (school principal, vice-principal, other school administration staff), teachers,


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the connectivity/network is “easier access to critical information”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the connectivity/network increased



Once per year






12

For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators (diknas [incl. DPL staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and parents each are separate user groups as

well.

30




When



students, and parents.

“critical” information is defined as information relevant to respondents’ work.

ease of access to information: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).


3-24.2.j

% of education stakeholders reporting easy access to ICT

This indicator tracks the percentage of education stakeholders who respond to a survey and report that the connectivity/network established by the DBE1 grantee as has made it easier for them to access ICT in general.


“critical” information is defined as information relevant to respondents’ work.


Divide the number of education stakeholders that respond that one of the benefits of the connectivity/network is “easier to access ICT”, by the total number of education stakeholders that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the connectivity/network increased ease of access to ICT: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).




Once per year






C. LIBRARY INFORMATION SYSTEM

The proposed indicators below are for grantees that develop an electronic Library Information System solely for the purpose of increasing

efficiency of library services, such as membership management, library resource management or library transaction management.

13


groups as well. 14

For the purpose of this M&E framework, 5 different user groups have been identified and are made up of different education stakeholders, that is, education administrators (diknas [incl. DPL staff], depag, DEB) are one user group, school administrators (principal, vice-principal, other school admin staff) are another, teachers, students and parents each are separate user groups as

well.

31



How often

When


By whom


3-24.2.k

% of library staff reporting use of the system

This indicator tracks the percentage library who respond to a survey and who report using the system.

“Use of the system/” is defined as accessing the system (online or offline) for at least 5 minutes to manage library information of any kind

Survey questionnaire send to all library staff.

Divide the number of library that state that they use the system, by the total number of library staff that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 20 of 50 respondents use the system: 20/50=0.4 or 40%).

Report on frequency of use by asking respondents that report using the system to indicate at what level of frequency (once, daily, weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.)




Once per year






3-24.2.l

% of library staff reporting that the system has improved time-efficiency in their work

This indicator tracks the percent of library staff that report the system has having improved time-efficiency in their work.


Divide the number of library staff that respond that one of the benefits of the system is “improved time-efficiency”, by the total number of library staff that responded to this question. Move the decimal two places to the right and add a percentage sign (e.g. 30 of 50 respondents report that the system/portal improved time-efficiency: 30/50=0.6 or 60%).




Once per year






V. SIR 3-24.3: INCREASED ACCESS TO ICT – INDICATORS

A. INTERNET ACCESS POINT

32

The proposed indicators below are for grantees that establish public Internet access points of some kind (Warnet, hotspot, internet café).



How often

When


By whom


3-24.3.a

# of education stakeholders using the public access point

This indicator tracks the number of education stakeholders using the public access point.


“Using” is defined as entering the public access point facilities at least once and purchasing and/or consume a specific service (e.g. Internet access) or attend a training course or workshop.

Track visits of education stakeholders with the help of a daily user log;

Track number of users via user logs.

Calculate average of daily access per reporting period.

Disaggregate data by gender and user group15.

User logs e.g. Project Manager

Tracked daily

End of every day


Every reporting period, starting with launch of public access point


Progress report with overview on public access point use, e.g. attached user logs or print outs thereof

3-24.3.b

# of education stakeholders reporting access to ICT via the public access point to be critical for their work or studies

This indicators tracks the number of education stakeholder that use the public access point and responding to a questionnaire, indicate, that access to computers and/or the Internet via this access point is “very critical” or “somewhat critical” for their work and studies.

“Education stakeholders” are defined as members of the following 5 user groups: education administrators

Capture data with the help of a questionnaire given to public access point users.

Count number of users that respond to this question and say that they find access to ICT (computer/Internet) via the public access point “very critical” or “somewhat critical” to their work and/or studies.


Filled-in questionnaire

Project Manager

Twice in year one, then yearly

After month 6 and 9 of operation, then yearly

Project Manager

Twice in year one, then yearly

After month 6 and 9 of operation, then yearly

Progress and final report including an analysis of the survey, and samples of filled-in survey questionnaire

15


groups as well. 16


groups as well.

33



How often

When


By whom


(from diknas, Kandepag, or DEB), school administrators (school principal, vice-principal, other school administration staff), teachers, students, and parents.

3-24.3.c

% of months in operation, where revenue exceeds ongoing costs

This indicator requires that the monthly revenue exceeds ongoing costs.

“Monthly revenue” includes all income generated by services offered at the public access point, such as internet access, training courses, information research services, printing, etc.

“Ongoing costs” include all costs required to keep the public access point running, including salaries, rents, communication expenses, stationary expenses, minor repair expense on both, building and equipment, all applicable taxes and fees.

Diligently manage accounting records and do a monthly analysis of ongoing costs and revenue cash flows.

Count the number of months, in the last quarter, in which monthly revenue has exceeded on-going costs.

Accounting records


Monthly After every calendar month

e.g., Project manager

Quarterly (or by reporting period)


Progress and Final Report including detailed overview on on-going costs and revenue generated each month in the past reporting period from selling services such as connectivity, bandwidth, training, computer repair, computer equipment trading, communication services for non-(computer) literate community

34

APPENDIX 3

ICT Grants Program Indicators

and Customized Grantee

Indicator Tracking Sheets

35

ICT GRANT PROGRAM INDICATOR

KEGIATAN INDIKATOR PETUNJUK

PUBLIC INTERNET ACCESS POINT (Hotspot/Warnet/

Internet Café)

# stakeholder pendidikan yang menggunakan hotspot Mohon didata berapa orang stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) yang menggunakan hotspot/Warnet/Internet Café dalam satu bulan

# stakeholder pendidikan yang yang menyatakan bahwa akses ICT sangat penting bagi pekerjaan atau pendidikan mereka

Dalam periode satu bulan, edarkan questioner secara sederhana kepada stakekholder pendidikan, apakah akses terhadap hotpost/warnet/internet café tersebut (1) tidak penting; (2) kurang penting; (3) penting; (4) sangat penting dalam pekerjaan atau pendidikan mereka. Kemudian buatlah rekapitulasi berapa orang atau persen yang menyatakan tidak, cukup, dan sangat penting

% bulan beroperasi dimana pendapatan melebihi biaya berjalan

Cukup dicatat berapa pengeluaran yang diperlukan untuk mengelola hotpsot/warnet/internet café dan berapa pendapatan yang diperoleh setiap bulanya. Catat mulai bulan keberapa pendapatan melebihi pengeluaran

MIS (LIBRARY, EMIS, SMS Gateway or Education

Portal)

Berapa kali dalam satu bulan public system/portal diakses

Untuk mengisi data ini, cukup didata setiap hari orang-orang yang mengakses portal dan buatlah rekapitulasi dalam satu bulan

% stakeholder pendidikan yang melaporkan penggunaan system/portal

Secara acak (bukan hanya pengguna saja) lakukan wawancara dengan stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) masing-masing sebanyak sebanyak 2) orang, dan buat rekapitulasi berapa di antara mereka yang menggunakan portal yang didanai oleh DBE1.

% stakeholder pendidikan yang melaporkan bahwa system/portal memudahkan akses informasi pendidikan

Dalam tempo satu bulan, edarkan questioner secara sederhana kepada setiap pengunjung, apakah keuntungan dengan adanya system/portal: (1) tidak ada pengaruhnya, (2) tidak tersedia alat bantu, (3) memudahkan; (4) sangat memudahkan dalam mengakses informasi pendidikan.

% administrator pendidikan yang menyatakan bahwa system/portal telah memperbaiki komunikasi diantara mereka

Mohon ditanyakan kepada (masing-masing 2 orang) staf Dinas Pendidikan, perpustakaan daerah, kandepag, dewan pendidikan. Bappeda, kesra pertanyaan sbb: Dibandingkan sebelum ada portal yang didanai DBE1, apakah komunikasi di antara mereka saat ini (1) menjadi lebih baik; (2) tetap sama/tidak ada perubahan.

% administrator pendidikan yang menyatakan bahwa system/portal telah membuat waktu lebih efisien

Mohon ditanyakan kepada (masing-masing 2 orang) staf Dinas Pendidikan, perpustakaan daerah, kandepag, dewan pendidikan. Bappeda, kesra pertanyaan sbb: Dibandingkan sebelum ada portal yang didanai DBE1, apakah keuntungan yang didapat? (1) waktu menjadi efisien; (2) komunikasi dengan institusi lain menjadi efektif; (3) lebih sering mengakses system/portal dibanding sebelumnya

36


% administrator pendidikan yang melaporkan bahwa system/portal telah menfasilitasi mereka dengan data pendidikan

Mohon ditanyakan kepada (masing-masing 2 orang) staf Dinas Pendidikan, perpustakaan daerah, kandepag, dewan pendidikan. Bappeda, kesra pertanyaan sbb: Apakah system/portal telah menfasilitasi mereka dengan data pendidikan? (1) Ya; (2) Tidak. Kemudian buatlah rekapitulasi berapa orang/persen yang menyatakan "tidak" dan berapa "ya"

eRESOURCES (electronic

teaching and learning

materials)

# institusi pendidikan (sekolah, Disdik, Kandepag, Dewan Pendidikan) yang terlibat dalam pengembangan eResources

Mohon dicatat jumlah institusi pendidikan yang terlibat dalam pengembangan eResources

# pertemuan pengembangan eResources Mohon dicatat berapa kali dalam satu bulan pertemuan diadakan

% pertemuan pengembangan eResources yang dihadiri oleh seluruh anggota dari institusi yang terlibat

Mohon dicatat berapa kali dalam satu bulan pertemuan yang dihadiri oleh seluruh institusi pendidikan diadakan

% peserta pengembangan eResources yang melaporkan bahwa mereka telah mendapatkan keterampilan dan pengetahuan yang sangat berharga untuk pekerjaan mereka

Mohon ditanyakan kepada peserta pengembangan eResources pertanyaan sbb: Apakah electronic teaching dan learning material itu meningkatkan ketrampilan dan pengetahuan yang sangat membantu dalam pekerjaan mereka? (1) Ya; (2) tidak. Mohon direkap berapa yang menyatakan "ya" dan berapa yang menyatakan "tidak"

# institusi pendidikan dimana eResources yang final telah didistribusikan

Mohon dicatat jumlah institusi pendidikan yang telah mendapatkan eResources yang telah final (sekolah, dinas pendidikan, Dewan pendidikan, dsb.)

% responden dari institusi pendidikan yang telah memperoleh eResources yang menyatakan bahwa eResources tersebut sangat bermanfaat untuk mengajar atau belajar sendiri

Mohon ditanyakan kepada anggota institusi pendidikan (minimal masing-masing 2 orang) pertanyaan sbb: Apakah eResources tersebut bermanfaat bagi proses belajar mengajar? (1) Ya; (2) Tidak. Rekap jawaban responden dan nyatakan berapa yang menyatakan "Ya" (bermanfaat) dan berapa yang "tidak" (tidak bermanfaat.

IT CENTER/ CONNECTIVITY/ NETWORK

% Seksi dari Diknas/UPTD/Kancam atau sekolah yang telah tersambung

Harap didata, dari kabupaten/kota yang bersangkutan, berapa yang telah mempunyai sambungan internet (untuk melihat % sekolah, bandingkan proporsi sekolah yang punya internet dengan yang belum, % seksi dari diknas, bandingkan jumlah seksi yang punya internet dan yang tidak; demikian selanjutnya untuk KCD/UPTD.

% stakeholder pendidikan yg melaporkan terjadinya pertukaran informasi dengan stakeholder pendidikan lainnya

Mohon ditanyakan kepada staf Diknas/ UPTD/KCD/sekolah (masing-masing 2 orang) yang mempunyai jaringan ICT yang didanai oleg DBE1 : Apakah mereka melakukan pertukaran informasi dengan stakeholder lainya? (1) Ya; (2) Tidak. Jika "ya" berapa kali dalam satu bulan?

37


% stakeholder pendidikan yang melaporkan kemudahan akses informasi yang sangat dibutuhkan

Harap ditanyakan kepada staf diknas/UPTD/KCD atau guru (masing-masing 2 orang) pertanyaan sbb: apakah keuntungan dengan adanya jaringan internet bagi saudara? (1) memudahkan akses informasi yang saya butuhkan dalam bekerja; (2) memudahkan pertukaran informasi; (3) memudahkan berubungan dengan institusi lain (Catatan: Jawaban boleh lebih dari 1).

% stakeholder pendidikan yang melaporkan akses ke ICT secara mudah

Harap ditanyakan kepada staf diknas/UPTD/KCD atau guru (masing-masing 2 orang) pertanyaan sbb: Dibandingkan dengan saat sebelum ada jaringan ICT yang dibangun DBE1, bagaimana akses ke ICT pada saat ini? (1) lebih mudah; (2) sama saja.

TRAINING

# stakeholder pendidikan yang menghadiri pelatihan ICT atau program sejenisnya

Mohon didata berapa orang stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) yang mengikuti pelatihan ICT atau sejenisnya. (Bisa dibandingkan sebelum ada bantuan DBE1 untuk baseline dan sesudah ada bantuan DBE1)

% stakeholder pendidikan yang sukses mengikuti kursus ICT atau program sejenisnya

Mohon didata berapa orang stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) yang mengikuti pelatihan ICT atau sejenisnya sampai selesai dan memperoleh sertifikat dan berapa yang tidak selesai/tidak memperoleh sertifikat.

% stakeholder pendidikan yang melanjutkan kursus ICT atau program sejenisnya

Mohon didata berapa orang stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) yang mengikuti pelatihan ICT atau sejenisnya sampai selesai dan berapa orang yang kemudian melanjutkan kursus lain yang sejenis.

% stakeholder pendidikan yag mempunyai ketrampilan komputer/internet tingkat menengah (medium) atau lanjutan (advanced)

Mohon didata berapa orang stakeholder pendidikan (pegawai administrasi sekolah/kec/kab/kota, guru, murid, orangtua, dsb) yang mengikuti pelatihan ICT atau sejenisnya dan apakah mereka bisa mengoperasikan program berikut ini: (1) Word Processing; (2) Spreadsheet; (3) Power point; (4) Browsing internet; (5) internet/emal; (6) download file; (7) SIM. Categori: menguasi 4 program = Medium; 5 atau lebih

program=advanced

% stakeholder pendidikan yang menyatakan bahwa pelatihan telah meningkatkan skill yang amat penting diperlukan dalam pekerjaan atau studi mereka

Secara acak, tanyakan kepada peserta pelatihan (masing-masing stakeholder 2 orang) pertanyaan sbb: Apakah pelatihan yang mereka ikuti berhasil meningkatkan skill yang diperlukan dalam pekerjaan dan pendidikan mereka? (1) Ya; (2) Tidak. Mohon direkapitulasi berapa persen yang menyatakan "ya" dan berapa yang "tidak"

% stakeholder pendidikan yang menyatakan bahwa setelah training, mereka telah menggunakan ICT lebih sering dibandingkan sebelumnya

Secara acak, tanyakan kepada peserta pelatihan (masing-masing stakeholder 2 orang) pertanyaan sbb: Dibandingkan dengan saat sebelum mengikuti pelatihan, seberapa sering sdr menggunakan ICT? (1) Sama; (2) lebih sering. Mohon direkap berapa persen yang mengatakan "sama" dan berapa yang mengatakan "lebih sering"

38


Education Stakeholders: 1. Education Administrators (Administrator Pendidikan),

2. School Administrators

3. Teachers

4. Students

5. Parents

6. others

Administrator Pendidikan: 1. Dinas Pendidikan

2. Perpustakaan Daerah

3. Kandepag

4. Dewan Pendidikan

5. Bappeda

6. Bagian Kesra

39

CUSTOMIZED GRANTEE INDICATOR TRACKING SHEET

JENEPONTO

MAIN ACTIVITY I. LAN NETWORK IN KANDEPAG

Pertanyaan-pertanyaan pokok : Apakah ada peningkatan akses terhadap ICT bagi para

ICT Grants: Monitoring & Evaluation€¦ · 2 DBE1 ICT GRANTS Monitoring & Evaluation 2008 USAID...

Documents

Transcript of ICT Grants: Monitoring & Evaluation€¦ · 2 DBE1 ICT GRANTS Monitoring & Evaluation 2008 USAID...