Evaluating the 2026 Computer-Based Academic Ability Test in Kediri Elementary Schools: Procedural Compliance and Infrastructure Readiness
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The transition of primary education assessment toward Computer-Based Testing (CBT) requires not only student readiness but also procedural compliance, adequate devices, reliable internet connectivity and electricity, and sufficient technical support at the school level. Differences in capacity across educational institutions may result in unequal implementation, particularly among schools located in peripheral areas. Against this background, the research problem concerns the extent of procedural compliance and technical infrastructure readiness among elementary schools in implementing the CBT-based Academic Ability Test (Tes Kemampuan Akademik—TKA) in Kediri Regency in 2026. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of the elementary-level TKA in relation to these two aspects. A descriptive quantitative approach was employed using a structured survey based on a monitoring instrument developed by the Kediri Regency Education Council. The study involved 22 sampled schools across 10 districts, comprising 18 public elementary schools and four private/Islamic elementary schools, with 853 registered participants. The instrument consisted of a 29-item dichotomous checklist and a five-point Likert scale covering the preparation and implementation dimensions. The findings revealed a participant attendance rate of 99.88%; all schools independently administered online CBT; checklist compliance reached 95.5%; and the mean scores for preparation, implementation, and overall performance were 4.503, 4.257, and 4.380, respectively, all of which were classified as excellent. The primary constraint was the absence of an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) or generator in four schools (18%). The study concludes that the initial implementation of the elementary-level TKA was highly successful; however, further improvements are needed in electrical infrastructure, support for schools in peripheral areas, and the institutionalization of annual monitoring.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s).
- The author grants the journal, the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
How to Cite
References
Al-Amri, S. (2007). Computer-based vs. paper-based testing: Does the test administration mode matter? Proceedings of the BAAL Conference 2007, 101–110.
Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620977000
Barrett, P., Treves, A., Shmis, T., Ambasz, D., & Ustinova, M. (2019). The impact of school infrastructure on learning: A synthesis of the evidence. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1378-8
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Davey, T., Pitoniak, M. J., & Eignor, D. R. (2011). Psychometric considerations in computerized testing. In S. Downing & T. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 467–484). Routledge.
Dewan Pendidikan Kabupaten Kediri. (2026). Laporan monitoring dan evaluasi pelaksanaan TKA jenjang SD Kabupaten Kediri Tahun 2026. Dewan Pendidikan Kabupaten Kediri.
Fishbein, B., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (2018). The TIMSS 2019 Item Equivalence Study: Examining mode effects for computer-based assessment and implications for measuring trends. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 6, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0064-z
Godaert, E., Aesaert, K., Voogt, J., & van Braak, J. (2022). Assessment of students’ digital competences in primary school: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 9953–10011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11020-9
Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2022). Educational technology adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 9725–9744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2), 1–49.
Jurāne-Bremane, A. (2023). Digital assessment in technology-enriched education: Thematic review. Education Sciences, 13(5), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050522
Kemendikdasmen. (2026). Pedoman penyelenggaraan Tes Kemampuan Akademik (TKA) jenjang SD Tahun 2026. Kementerian Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Li, M. (2025). Exploring the digital divide in primary education: A comparative study of urban and rural mathematics teachers’ TPACK and attitudes towards technology integration in post-pandemic China. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 1913–1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12890-x
Machusky, J. A., & Herbert-Berger, K. G. (2022). Understanding online learning infrastructure in U.S. K-12 schools: A review of challenges and emerging trends. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 101993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101993
McCarthy, A. M., Maor, D., McConney, A., & Cavanaugh, C. (2023). Digital transformation in education: Critical components for leaders of system change. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100479
Mustafa, F., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Gao, X. (2024). The challenges and solutions of technology integration in rural schools: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 126, 102380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102380
OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
OECD. (2024). PISA 2022 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 75 Tahun 2016 tentang Komite Sekolah.
Perry, K., Meissel, K., & Hill, M. F. (2022). Rebooting assessment: Exploring the challenges and benefits of shifting from pen-and-paper to computer in summative assessment. Educational Research Review, 36, 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100451
Pettersson, F. (2021). Understanding digitalization and educational change in school by means of activity theory and the levels of learning concept. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10239-8
Prasetyo, H., & Hermawan, A. (2022). Disparitas infrastruktur TIK sekolah dan implikasinya terhadap implementasi asesmen berbasis komputer. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, 24(1), 35–52.
Prisacari, A. A., & Danielson, J. (2017). Computer-based versus paper-based testing: Investigating testing mode with cognitive load and scratch paper use. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.044
Sanjaya, R., Mardiyono, & Suprianto, B. (2021). Efektivitas monitoring dan evaluasi berbasis instrumen terstruktur dalam kebijakan pendidikan daerah. Jurnal Administrasi Publik, 19(2), 88–105.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12172
Story, D. A., & Tait, A. R. (2019). Survey research. Anesthesiology, 130(2), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002436
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., Kessenich, E., & Geven, S. (2022). The digital divide in online education: Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100100
Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-sectional studies: Strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations. Chest, 158(1S), S65–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012
World Bank. (2024). Digital pathways for education: Enabling greater impact for all. World Bank.