Evaluation of the implementation of the sekolah penggerak curriculum using the context, input, process and product evaluation model in high schools

  • Anggarda Paramita Muji 
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia
  • Nurhizrah Gistituati
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia
  • Alwen Bentri
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia
  • Fris Okta Falma
    Universitas Negeri Padang
    Indonesia

Abstract

Learning evaluation is to find out how far the progress, development, and success of students after carrying out the learning process within the specified time period is, including the evaluation of the innovative learning curriculum, namely the sekolah penggerak curriculum. The purpose of this study is to describe the evaluation of the school curriculum using the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) evaluation model. Qualitative research designed in the form of case study research. The research subjects were the principal, curriculum representative, and school supervisor. Determination of research subjects was carried out purposively. Data collection techniques using observation sheets and data analysis techniques used are descriptive statistics. Research findings using the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) is seen from the Context, Input, Process and Product aspects that the implementation of the sekolah penggerak curriculum is in accordance with the learning objectives. The implementation of this curriculum innovation is expected to have an impact on the quality of learning outcomes, the quality of the main competencies, the quality of teachers, the acceleration of school digitization and the profile of Pancasila students.
Keywords
  • Curriculum
  • Sekolah Penggerak
  • CIPP Evaluation Model
References
  1. Afdal, HW, & Spernes, K. (2018). Designing and redesigning research-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74(1), 215-228.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.011
  2. Ahmad, M., & Nasution, DP (2018). Qualitative Analysis of Students' Mathematical Communication Ability Given Realistic Mathematics Learning. Bushel Journal, 3(2), 83-95.https://doi.org/10.31629/jg.v3i2.471
  3. Aquilani, B., Piccarozzi, M., Abbate, T., & Codini, A. (2020). The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition from industry 4.0 to society 5.0: Toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability, 12(21), 8943.https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218943
  4. Aziz, S., Mahmood, M., & Rehman, Z. (2018). Implementation of CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation at School Level: A Case Study. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 189-206.https://doi.org/10.22555/JOEED.V5I1.1553
  5. Aziz, A. N., Prastya, D. E., Jubba, H., & Wahyuni, H. (2021). Evaluasi Kurikulum Pendidikan Agama di Sekolah Dasar Muhammadiyah 001 Sebatik Barat. Ideas: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan Budaya, 7(3), 1-10.
  6. Bhakti, Y. (2017). Evaluation of the CIPP Model Program in the Science Learning Process. JIPFRI (Journal of Physics Education Innovation and Scientific Research), 1(2), 75 - 82.https://doi.org/10.30599/jipfri.v1i2.109
  7. Black, P., & William, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575.https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807
  8. Dewantara, JA, Efriani, E., Sulistyarini, S., & Prasetiyo, WH (2020). Optimization of Character Education Through Community Participation Around The School Environment (Case Study in Lab School Junior High School Bandung). JED (Journal of Democratic Ethics), 5(1), 53-66.https://doi.org/10.26618/jed.v5i1.33017
  9. Forey, G., & Cheung, LME (2019). The benefits of explicit teaching of language for curriculum learning in the physical education classroom. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 91-109.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.01.001
  10. Fukuda, K. (2020). Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward society 5.0. International journal of production economics, 220, 107460.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.033
  11. Ganefri, G., Hidayat, H., Yulastri, A., & Yondri, S. (2021). The empirical analysis of production-based entrepreneurship training model, readiness and locus of control towards students' entrepreneurship self-efficacy. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, 5(1), 56-61.https://doi.org/10.24036/00434za0002
  12. Habibi, M., Jumadi, J., Gummah, S., Ahzan, S., & Prasetya, DSB (2020). Project brief effects on creative thinking skills among low-ability pre-service physics teachers. int. J. Eval. & Res. Educ. Vol, 9(2), 415-420.http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20531
  13. Hidayat, H. (2017). How is the Application and Design of a Product-Based Entrepreneurship Learning Tools in Vocational Higher Education?. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volumes 102, 223-228.http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/ictvt-17.2017.38.
  14. Hidayat, H., Herawati, S., Syahmaidi, E., Hidayati, A., & Ardi, Z. (2018). Designing of technopreneurship scientific learning framework in vocational-based higher education in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering and Technology(UAE), 7(4), 123-127.https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.9.20632
  15. Hidayat, H., Tamin, BY, Herawati, S., Khairul, K., & Syahmaidi, E. (2019a). The contribution of technopreneurship scientific learning and learning readiness towards the entrepreneurship learning outcomes in higher vocational education. Journal of Vocational Education, 9(1), 21-32.http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jpv.v9i1.20466
  16. Hidayat, H., Tamin, BY, Herawati, S., Hidayati, A., Muji, AP (2019b). Implementation of technopreneurship scientific learning to produce electronic product prototypes in engineering education. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(11), 2842-2846.http://dx.doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.K2406.0981119
  17. Hidayat, H., Ardi, Z., Yuliana, & Herawati, S. (2019c). Exploration of the need analysis for technopreneurship scientific learning models in higher vocational education. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(3), 356-368.http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2019.102733
  18. Hidayat, H., Tasrif, E., Jaya, P., Anwar, M., Hadi, A., Cultural, K., ... & Asmara, D. (2021). The Empirical Analysis of Industrial Work Challenges in the Industrial Revolution 5.0 Towards a Grade Point Average (GPA) for Electronic Engineering Education Students. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering, 17(9).https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i09.25679
  19. Ma'arif, S. (2018). Education as a Foundation of Humanity: Learning from the Pedagogy of Pesantren in Indonesia . Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9 (2), 104-123. Retrieved fromhttps://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jsser/issue/37944/438286
  20. Maba, W. (2017). Teacher's Perception on the Implementation of the Assessment Process in 2013 Curriculum. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (IJSSH), 1(2), 1-9.https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v1n2.26
  21. Monroe, MC, Plate, RR, Oxarart, A., Bowers, A., & Chaves, WA (2019). Identifying effective climate change education strategies: a systematic review of the research. Environmental Education Research, 25(6), 791-812.https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842
  22. Papadakis, S. (2018). Evaluating pre-service teachers' acceptance of mobile devices with regards to their age and gender: a case study in Greece. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 12(4), 336-352.https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2018.095130
  23. Purnomo, YHP, & Santoso, TB (2020). Evaluation of the Selection Program at the "XM" School With the CIPP Evaluation Method. Journal of Economics, Accounting Management and Taxation (Jemap), 3(2), 227-244.https://doi.org/10.24167/jemap.v3i2.2755
  24. Sabri, T. (2017). Value Based Thematics Learning. Journal Of Education, Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 192-196.https://dx.doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v2i2.285
  25. Sibagariang, D., Sihotang, H., & Murniarti, E. (2021). The Role of Motivating Teachers in Independent Education for Learning in Indonesia. Journal of Educational Dynamics, 14(2), 88-99.https://doi.org/10.51212/jdp.v14i2.53
  26. Sulistyo, A. (2017). EVALUATION OF READING CULTURE PROGRAMS IN STATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Manage: Journal of Educational Management, 4(1), 48-58.https://doi.org/10.24246/j.jk.2017.v4.i1.p48-58
  27. Supriyantoko, I., Jaya, A., Kurnia, V., & Habiba, P. G. S. (2020). Evaluasi Implementasi Kebijakan Teaching Factory Dengan Model Evaluasi Cipp Di SMK Negeri DKI Jakarta. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education (JVTE), 2(2), 1-10.
  28. Tasrif, E., Saputra, HK, Kurniadi, D., Hidayat, H., & Mubai, A. (2021). Designing Website-Based Scholarship Management Application for Teaching of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Decision Support Systems (DSS) Subjects. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(9). https://doi.org/ 10.3991/ijim.v15i09.23513
  29. Umam, KA, & Saripah, I. (2018). Using the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model in the Evaluation of Training Programs. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2, 19-183.https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v2i0.26086
  30. Wijaya, A., Mustofa, MS, & Husain, F. (2020). Socialization of the Independent Learning Program and Motivating Teachers for Middle School 2 Teachers in Maros Regency. Puruhita Journal, 2(1), 46-50.https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/puruhita/article/view/42325/18488.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 1887 times
PDF
: 52 times