Burhan Nurgiyantoro, Scopus ID: 57194585402; Orcid ID:; Sinta ID: 19043; Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Beniati Lestyarini, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Dwi Hanti Rahayu, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia


Literacy issues have probably been a special concern of many countries. In Indonesia, there have also been several surveys regarding the literacy of school students. This study aims to map the functional literacy of junior high school (JHS) students by focusing on various types of literacy and how each of them contributes to the overall functional literacy. This is quantitative survey research whose subjects were JHS students in four regencies and one municipality of the Special Region of Yogyakarta, with a total sample member of 246 students. The research instrument was an extension of the National Assessment for Adult Literacy (NAAL) with some additions of functional literacy types suggested in the FGD. Data were collected by using a test and analyzed through descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis using the structural equation model with the Lisrel program. The results reveal that the functional literacy of the JHS students is mostly in the “medium” (83.3%), “low” (15.4%), and “high” (1.2%) category. Of the 15 types of literacy, two of them (13.33%), namely prose and cultural literacy make “high” contribution to the functional literacy as a whole, and two others (document and environmental literacy) also support to a “medium” extent (13.33%), while the rest (60%) are categorized as having “low” contribution. This likely implies the importance of fostering various types of functional literacy at school for students to have the ability to develop their personal and social functions.


functional literacy; functional literacy mapping; types of literacy; junior high school student

Full Text:



Azwar, S. (2012). Reliabilitas dan validitas. [Reliability and validity]. Yogyakarta: Pustaka pelajar.

Bohannon, J. L. (2015). Not a stitch out of place: Assessing students’ attitudes towards multimodal composition. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching Language & Literature, 8(2), 33-47.

Cocchiarella, C. (2018, 30 December). What is functional literacy, and why does our high-tech society need it? Mindful Technics, a Technology Education Site and Blog for Geeks.

Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills. (2012). The 2011 skills for life survey: A survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT levels in England. London: Author.

Dolenc, K., Aberšek, B., & Aberšek, M. K. (2015). Online functional literacy, intelligent tutoring systems and science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(2), 162-171.

Fraire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum.

Ghozali, I. (2017). Structural equation model: Metode alternatif dengan Partal Least Squares (PLS). [Structural equation model: An alternative method with Partal Least Squares (PLS)]. Semarang: BP UNDIP.

Grotlüschen, A., Riekmann, W., & Buddeberg, K. (2015). Stereotypes versus research results regarding functionally illiterate adults: Conclusions from the first German level-one survey and the learner panel study. In A. Grotlüschen & D. Zimper (Eds.). Literalitäts- und Grundlagenforschung. Münster, Germany: Waxmann, pp. 105-122.

Grotlüschen, A., Mallows, D., Reder, S., & Sabatini, J. (2016). Adults with low proficiency in literacy or numeracy (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 131). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Handley, F. J. L. (2018). Developing digital skills and literacies in UK Higher Education: Recent developments and a case study of the digital literacies framework at the University of Brighton. Publicaciones, 48(1), 97-109.

Harsiati, T. (2018). Karakteristik soal literasi membaca pada program PISA. [The characteristics of literacy test items in PISA]. Litera, Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 17(1), 90-106.

Hauser, R. M. (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance level for adult. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Janjic-Watrich, V. (2009). “The Cambridge handbook of literacy” by Olson, D. R. & Torrance, R. Books Review. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(Winter), 4. http://www.proquest/umi/pqd.web.

Kirsch, I., Yamamoto, K., Norris, N., Rock, D., Jungeblut, A., O’Reilly, … & Baldi, S. (2001). Technical report and data file user’s manual for the 1992 national adult literacy survey (NCES No. 2001-457.) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Laksono, K., & Retnaningdyah, P. (2018). Literacy infrastructure, access to books, and the implementation of the school literacy movement in primary schools in Indonesia. IOP Publishing IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 296 (2018) 012045, 1-9.

Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mallows, D., & Litster, J. (2016). Literacy as supply and demand. Zeitschrift für Weiterbildungsforschung, 39, 171-182.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (Eds.). (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2018). PIRLS 2016 International results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Musfiroh, T. & Listyorini, B. (2016). Konstruk kompetensi literasi untuk siswa sekolah dasar. [The constructs of literacy competence for elementary school students]. Litera, Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 15(1), 1-12.

OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What students knows and can do - student performance Mathematics, Reading and Science (vol. I). Paris, France: Author.

OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris, France: Author.

OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (vol. I): What students know and can do. Paris, France: Author.

Olaniran, S. O. (2020). Literacy library and the functional literacy skills of the 21st Century adult learners. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 3573, 1-12.

Ostini, R., & Nering, M. (2006). Polytomus item response theory models. New York, NY: SAGE Publication.

Park, Y. (2008). Patterns and predictors of elementary students’ reading performance: Evidence from the data of the progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). (Dissertation, Michigan State University). http://www.proquest/umi/pqd.web.

Pelettari, C. (2016). Imagination and literacy instruction: A content analysis of literature within literacy-related publications. Language and Literacy, 18(3), 106-122.

Rabušicová, M., & Oplatková, P. (2010). Functional literacy in people’s lives. Journal of Pedagogy, 1(2), 29-51.

Shepherd, R., & Goggin, P. (2012). Reclaiming “old” literacies in the new literacy information age: The functional literacies of the mediated workstation. Composition Studies, 40(2), 66-91.

Solihin, L., Utama, B., Pratiwi, I., & Novirina. (2019). Indeks aktivitas literasi membaca 34 provinsi. [Reading literacy activity index for 34 provinces]. Jakarta: Research Center for Education and Cultural Policy, Research and Development Agency, Ministry of Education and Culture.

Suryaman, M. (2015). Analisis hasil belajar peserta didik dalam literasi membaca melalui studi internasional (Pirls) 2011. [An analysis of students’ learning outcomes of reading literacy through an international study (PIRLS) 2011]. Litera, Jurnal Penelitian Bahasa, Sastra, dan Pengajarannya, 14(1), 170-186.

The New London Group. (2005). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantziz (Eds). Multiliteracies: Literary learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra: Macmillan, pp. 9-38.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93.

van Blerkom, M. L. (2009). Measurement and statistics for teacher. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Wright, B. D., & Master, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. Chicago: Mesa Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.


Social Media:



 Creative Commons License
Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan by Lembaga Pengembangan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan UNY is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at

View Our Stats

Flag Counter