Contributor: Supriyono | Photo: Virda Lalitya Umam 

Have you ever sat in a group where everyone laughed at a joke you didn’t understand? Or tried to explain something repeatedly, only to be met with blank stares until you finally said, “Forget it”? Most people, when caught in such moments, feel annoyed, embarrassed, or even left out. But what if this wasn’t an occasional slip in communication—what if this was your everyday reality? For many autistic individuals, it is.

This was the entry point Afifah Muharikah, PhD, Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII), used to open LunchTalk #45 on September 23, 2025. Her presentation, titled “Cross-Neurotype Interactions in an English Classroom: Building Shared Understanding,” moved from that familiar sting of miscommunication to a much broader and deeper conversation about inclusion, empathy, and education.

At the heart of her talk was the story of “Beeni,” one of her former students at the Jakarta State Polytechnic. Beeni, an autistic learner, often faced the exhaustion of being misunderstood—even when he used the “right” words. Instead of retreating, however, he worked out strategies: clarifying, prompting, repeating, and offering concrete examples until the message got across.

Through Beeni’s experiences, Dr. Afifah introduced the concept of cross-neurotype communication—interactions between neurotypical (conventional mind) and neurodivergent individuals (autism, ADHD, dyslexia etc). Misunderstandings here are not about incompetence or lack of effort; they emerge from differences in processing, timing, and expectations.

“Imagine waiting not just two or three seconds for someone to respond,” she explained, “but 15 or even 20. For autistic students, that’s perfectly normal. For neurotypical peers, it often feels like a problem. But what if we shifted our expectations?”

Her argument was anchored in the double empathy theory, which counters the outdated notion that autistic people alone are responsible for failed communication. Instead, it frames communication breakdowns as a two-way street: both sides must adapt, negotiate, and build understanding together.

To ground the discussion, she also mapped the evolving history of inclusive education in Indonesia—from charity-based practices before independence, to the 1977 presidential instruction that formalized “special schools,” to today’s movement toward inclusive, rights-based models. The shift, she argued, is not yet complete, but it reflects a growing recognition that disability is not a deficit—it is a dimension of human diversity.

Practical classroom strategies gave her talk a tangible impact. She suggested designing learning activities that tap into students’ passions, setting aside “quiet corners” to reduce sensory overload, and promoting explicit, clear communication. These measures, she stressed, don’t just support autistic learners—they create richer, more respectful classrooms for everyone.

By the end of the talk, the audience was left with a pressing question: whose norms define “good communication”? Is it those of native English speakers, second-language learners, neurotypical students, or neurodivergent ones? Dr. Afifah’s answer was neither simple nor one-sided. Instead, she invited the audience to see communication as a shared responsibility—an achievement that depends not on conformity, but on mutual patience and openness.

Her closing reminder was as practical as it was profound: building inclusive classrooms, and by extension more inclusive societies, requires more than technical competence. It requires empathy, flexibility, and the willingness to see differences not as barriers, but as bridges toward deeper understanding.

source: https://uiii.ac.id/uiii-lunchtalk-explores-cross-neurotype-interactions-in-english-classrooms-with-dr-afifah-muharikah/

Contributor & Photo by: Virda Lalitya Umam 

The UIII’s Faculty of Education hosted its 44th LunchTalk on August 19, 2025, featuring Dr. R. Alpha Amirrachman, a distinguished lecturer at the Faculty with a presentation titled “Is America’s Education Empire Crumbling in the Shadow of China’s Rise? An In-Depth Analysis for Global South Opportunities.” His talk explored how shifting USA–China dynamics shape the global education landscape, with particular implications for the Global South.

Dr. Amirrachman began by comparing the two economic giants. In 2025, the US remains the world’s largest economy with a GDP of $28.5 trillion, though its growth has slowed to 2.3% (down from 2.5% in 2024). China follows with $19 trillion, posting a stronger 4.8% growth, largely driven by industrial and export strategies. In terms of research and development (R&D), the US currently allocates 3.5% of GDP while China invests 2.4%—yet projections suggest China will surpass the US by 2030.

These foundations, he explained, directly influence education. The US still dominates global higher education, with 197 institutions listed in QS rankings and a longstanding reputation for creativity and innovation. By contrast, China produces scale: 77,000 STEM PhDs annually compared to the US’s 40,000, and it files more patents overall, although the US leads in “high-impact” patents and Nobel Prizes (over 150 since 2000). At the secondary level, however, China outperforms: 2025 projections show Chinese students leading in PISA scores (1605), far ahead of the US average (1454), which remains below OECD standards in math and science.

These economic foundations, Dr. Amirrachman explained, in turn, influence the respective nations’ educational approaches and metrics. The US still holds the lead in the global higher education scene, boasting 197 institutions in the QS rankings with many well-established names. For outputs, China produces approximately 77,000 STEM PhDs annually, compared to the US’s 40,000, and files more patents overall, though the US still leads in filing high-impact patents and has even amassed more than 150 Nobel Prizes since 2000.

On the contrary, secondary education metrics show otherwise. The 2025 projection for PISA scores shows that China leads with a score of 1605, reflecting a rigorous exam-based system, while the US falls behind with 1454, math and science components respectively below the OECD standards.

On the implications for aspiring global South students, Dr. Amirrachman reported that even in turmoil, opportunities in the US are still very much in demand. Unfortunately, current economic and political pressures have cut aid and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies that have long constituted America’s education sphere, notably marked by the recent dissolution of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

On the other hand, China’s BRI provides a significant opportunity for studies, more so in the absence of USAID, emphasizing agriculture, infrastructure, and medical studies. Nevertheless, its lack of transparency and dependency risks have been widely criticized.

Additionally, Dr. Amirrachman advises that global South nations must be careful not to take sides, but rather take advantage of this competition for their own educational growth. He proposes five feasible steps for global South institutions to ride the wave of this rivalry, including diversifying partnerships through trilateral agreements with both powers, allocating budgets to local research, advocating non-alignment through expanded networks (e.g., ASEAN), boosting regional mobility to reduce dependency, and establishing a rivalry watch group.

Dr. Amirrachman’s presentation serves as a reality check that these two nations still possess immense power in global-scale strategic sectors. While US higher education leads in output quality amid uncertainty, China is currently surging in scale, leaving the global South with the question: how can we take the fullest advantage of this tug-of-war, whilst avoiding overreliance, as a catalyst to build resilient educational growth?

The answers, of course, are unique to each nation, and we are the ones to determine them. Through this LunchTalk, Dr. Amirrachman hopes to spark critical conversations on how Indonesia, including UIII, should position itself in the wake of these shifting superpowers.

source: https://uiii.ac.id/the-turning-tides-of-usa-china-dynamics-prospects-for-the-global-souths-education-outlook/

Contributor & Photo by: Virda Lalitya Umam

Two years post-enactment of the Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Regulation No. 53/2023 on Quality Assurance of Higher Education, whether to retain the hierarchical system entirely or to shift to a binary classification remains an ongoing discourse in Indonesia.

To shed some light on this topic, the Faculty of Education at Universitas Islam Internasional Indonesia (UIII) hosted a seminar titled Rethinking Accreditation Policy in Higher Education, moderated by R. Alpha Amirrachman, PhD, lecturer at the Faculty of Education. This seminar, part of a two-session event under the same title, aims to draw lessons and best practices in higher education accreditation from our neighboring nations.

The first speaker to present was Jen Bahen, Regulatory Operations Executive Director at the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) in Australia. Ms. Bahen, who joined this session via Zoom, explained that Australian higher education providers must be registered under TEQSA as the national regulator and have this registration renewed every seven years. While certain providers, mainly universities, can self-accredit their courses, others without such authority must have their courses accredited by TEQSA instead. That being said, Australia assigns a binary system for both provider registration and course accreditation.

As stated by Ms. Bahen, the primary goal of Australia’s accreditation is more to ensure providers’ compliance than to drive improvement. Nonetheless, the criteria for their assessment are more student-centric—if students and graduates are satisfied and achieve good outcomes, then the provider would be considered successful in their education, despite not holding any hierarchical accreditation title. Ms. Bahen also detailed TEQSA’s stance as a risk-based regulator, utilizing risk to balance a rigorous accreditation process with the administrative burdens placed on providers. TEQSA emphasizes assessing a provider’s high-risk aspects compared to those with significantly lower risks.

The following speaker was Kamal Khurana, Acting Director of the Jawaharlal Nehru Indian Cultural Center (JNICC), part of the Embassy of India in Indonesia, who gave an overview of India’s higher education accreditation practices. In India, accreditation for higher education providers is primarily handled by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), an autonomous body under the University Grants Commission (UGC). They follow a three-step process of self-study, peer review, and grading, emphasizing criteria such as curriculum, teaching and learning, research, student support, governance, and institutional values. Recently, India has shifted to a binary accreditation system of Accredited and Not Accredited to increase transparency and simplify administrative processes.

Another aspect Mr. Khurana highlighted is how India accommodates the right to education as a whole. India has a broad selection of higher education providers, such as central and state public universities, deemed universities, institutions of national importance, autonomous colleges, and standalone institutions, to name a few. This diverse range ensures a wide array of options for students, catering to various interests and specializations. Additionally, since many students in India come from economically disadvantaged families, the government provides significant subsidies to support their education journey, among them for books, reading materials, and scholarships.

From the two speakers, we can reflect on a few things that their respective countries have implemented in higher education accrediting: putting more attention to areas that each institution struggles with, using assessment criteria that center more on the outcomes of students and graduates, and providing equitable financial support for teaching and learning activities. This seminar, alongside the prior Focus Group Discussion (FGD), affirms UIII’s support in formulating accreditation policies as not mere shows of force but tangible, data-driven efforts to reform Indonesia’s education system.

source: https://uiii.ac.id/a-comparative-lens-on-higher-education-accrediting-lessons-from-australia-and-india/

Contributor & Photo by: Virda Lalitya Umam 

In 2023, Indonesian government through the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology issued a Regulation No. 53/2023 on Quality Assurance of Higher Education, introducing a binary accreditation system of higher education study programs to fall into either ‘Accredited’ or ‘Unaccredited.’

This new accreditation scheme is said to be more inclusive, contrasting the previous hierarchical system which categorized universities and study programs into ‘Unaccredited’, ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’, and ‘Excellent’. However, two years after the enactment, its implementation remained mainly unknown, causing confusion among higher education institutions (HEIs).

As a response, the UIII Faculty of Education hosted a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) on August 20, 2025, under the title ‘Rethinking Accreditation Policy in Higher Education’. Moderated by lecturer Dr. Lukman Nul Hakim, the FGD brought together government representatives and higher education leaders, public and private, within and beyond Java, to share experiences and perspectives to address the issue.

Prof. Dr. H. Muchlas Samani, Chair of the Accreditation Council for Education (LAMDIK) started by clarifying the 2023 regulation’s status quo: “The revision is still underway” he said, whilst also acknowledging that the now-retracted legislation carried several risks, such as social problems due to the termination of unaccredited programs, resistance from HEIs, and eroding international trust.

“These consequences do not fully reflect the vision of Accreditation Councils (LAM), since they also promote the improvement of education quality instead of only measuring it,” Prof Samani said.

In response to the problem, Prof. H. Iwan Jazadi, Ph.D., from STKIP Paracendekia NW Sumbawa, West Nusa Tenggara, highlighted the plights of rural education institutions in underdeveloped areas—such as those located outside Java—which mostly lack essential government support. This vacuum, in turn, creates layers of burdens for basic academic activities, more so in accreditation.

Though also hailing from outside Java region, Prof. Dr. H. Mujiburrahman from Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Antasari Banjarmasin, South Kalimantan found the hierarchical system more appropriate, citing that accrediting is a multifaceted process. Nonetheless, he also stated that the current accreditation system still has many aspects to evaluate, particularly regarding data validity, administrative burdens, and over-generalized criteria.

Meanwhile, Representing HEIs from Java, Prof. Dr. drg. Lindawati S. Kusdhany, Sp.Pros, Subsp.PKIKG, Director of Academic Quality Assurance at Universitas Indonesia (UI) detailed UI’s experiences and challenges in the face of accreditation. Despite being a long-standing university with extensive networks and support, they, too, are now pushed to become increasingly independent.

Similarly, Tatum Syarifah Adiningrum, Ph.D., Academic Development Senior Manager from Bina Nusantara (BINUS) University gave a behind-the-scenes of BINUS’s adaptation process to recent policy shifts as well as her own two cents on Indonesia’s accreditation scene, criticizing its constantly-changing standards.

During a moderated discussion session, Prof. Jazadi and Dr. Adiningrum argued that continuing the hierarchical system in current conditions would only deepen discrimination, the former stating desperate HEIs would even resort to cheating the system. Meanwhile, Dr. Adiningrum, came up with a harsher statement saying that Indonesians have a “fetish for inequality”, made apparent by the public penchant for rankings over substance, including accreditation.

On the other hand, Prof. Mujib and Prof. Kusdhany shared doubts that a binary system could truly take quality into consideration. Prof. Kusdhany expressed that hierarchical accreditation encourages continuous improvement, while Prof. Mujiburrahman viewed the discourse surrounding accreditation akin to the readiness for democracy—instead of waiting for everyone to be prepared enough, it is better to implement an ideal system from the get-go.

Despite being split on the ideal practices for today, all speakers agree that there is much to improve in the current accreditation system. The discussion also highlighted how accreditation, like many policies in Indonesia, is still unsustainable and overly leader-centric—regulations can be swayed, but the implications toward HEIs are drastic.

Recalibrating public perception is equally important to reduce discrimination towards institutions and programs without specific statuses. Through this FGD, UIII hopes to contribute meaningful groundwork in reforming Indonesia’s accreditation policies, to ensure students and institutions alike can pursue a version of excellence that best suits them.

source: https://uiii.ac.id/accreditation-in-a-new-light-perspectives-from-indonesian-higher-education-leaders/