The Evaluation of Internal Quality Assurance System Implementation Program at Bali School Model In 2018
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v8i1.16605Keywords:
Internal Quality Assurance System, school model, context, input, process, productAbstract
This study aims to measure the effectiveness of the implementation of SPMI in the LPMP Bali school model using the CIPP model (context, input, process, product). The study began with the measurement of the level of conformity between the results of the initial school evaluation model and the achievement of the 2017 school model SNP quality report. The results of the initial evaluation on 11 target schools showed that the level of achievement of the initial evaluation of the SPMI school in 2018 was not comparable with the SNP school quality report card for SPMI in Bali Province in 2017. This is indicated by insignificant correlation values. This means that the model school has not been able to run SPMI properly, even though the model school program at the school has been running in the third year. Furthermore, from these results, an appropriate mentoring strategy was made in accordance with the weaknesses of each school and six months of assistance was provided for the school model. The results of the final evaluation after assistance were divided into five categories, namely very effective, effective, quite effective, ineffective and very ineffective. Evaluation in the context component shows effective results, the input component results are very effective, while in the mapping process, quality planning, and implementation of effective quality fulfillment, monitoring and evaluation is quite effective. The results component also shows the average achievement in the effective category. The recommendation given from the results of this study is that it is necessary to develop appropriate assistance strategies according to the needs of each school based on the results of the initial school evaluation, and need to carry out measurements of the results of the final evaluation after being given assistance.
References
Almadani, Khaled. 2011. Quality assurance: a pressing problem for education In the 21st century. Problems of education in the 21st century. [Internet]. [diunduh 2018 April 2; Volume 32, 2011. Tersedia pada: http://www.scientiasocialis. lt/pec/files/pdf/vol32/9-22.Almadani_Vol.32.pdf
Arikunto, Suharsimi dan Jabar CSA, 2008. Evaluasi Program Pendidikan, Jakarta : Bumi Aksara
Belas, Olga. et.al. 2015. Research on University Education Quality Assurance: methodologyand results of stakeholders’ satisfaction monitoring. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. [Internet]. [diunduh 2018 April 2; Volume 214:344 – 358. Tersedia pada: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Darmawan. Jumlah sampel minimum?Analisis Korelasi Sederhana. Diakses Tanggal 2 April 2018. https://www.scribd.com/doc/136225933/Jumlah-Sampel-Minimum
Dewi. 2011. Analisis Korelasi Sederhan. Diakses Tanggal 2 April 2018. http://duwiconsultant.blogspot.co.id/2011/11/analisis-korelasi-sederhana.html
D Royce Sadler. 2012. Assessment, evaluation and quality assurance: Implications for integrity in reporting academic achievement in higher education. Education Inquiry Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2012, pp.201–216. [Internet]. [diunduh 5 Mei 2019. Tersedia pada: www.researchgate.net/publication/26673]
De Grauwe, A., & Naidoo J. P. 2004. School evaluation for quality improvement. International Institute for Educational Planning: UNESCO.
European Union. 2015. Comparative Study on Quality in EU School Education Systems – Policies, procedures and practices. Final report DG EAC Order 12 Lot 3 DG EAC Framework Contract 4 June 2015[Internet]. [diunduh 2018 April 2. Tersedia pada:http://europa.eu
Haruthai Ajprua, et.al. 2014. Design of Educational Quality Assurance System for Driving Policy of Educational Reform in Thailand: Theory-based Evaluation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences ( 2014 ) 1416 – 1422. [Internet]. [diunduh 5 Mei 2019. Tersedia pada: www.sciencedirect.com]
Issac, Stephen and William B Michael. 1983. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. 2nd edition, San Diego: California, Edits Publisher.
Kaufman, Roger. and Susan Thomas, 1980. Evaluation Without Fear, London
Kemdikbud. 2017. Buku Pedoman 3 Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan: Jakarta
Koontz, Harold & Heinz Weilrich. Management. Ninth Edition. Singapore: Irwin Mc Grow Hill International Edition, 1988.
Madaus, G.F., Scriven, M.S., & Stufflebeam, D.L. (1993). Evaluation models,viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston:Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.). School evaluation (pp. 319-328). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Shamsa Aziz, et.al. 2018. Implementation of CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation at School Level: A Case Study. Journal of Education and Educational Development Vol. 5 No. 1. [Internet]. [diunduh 5 Mei 2019. Tersedia pada: https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ EJ1180614.pdf]
Stake, Robert E. 2006. The Countenance of Educational Evaluation, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, Paper University of Illinois.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1969). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision making improving educational assessment & an inventory of measures of affective behavior, edited by Walcott H. Beatty (pp. 41-73).Washington, D.C: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA.
Stufflebeam, Daniel L & Antohony J. Shinkfield. Systematic Evaluation, A Self-Instructional Guide to Theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, 1986.
Stufflebeam, D.L., & Shinfield, A.J. 1985. Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhof Publishing.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In Stufflebeam, D.L., Madaus, G.F. Kellaghan, T. (Eds). Evaluation models. Viewpoints on educational and human service evaluation. (pp. 279-317). (2nd ed). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002a). CIPP evaluation checklist. A tool for applying the fifth installment of the CIPP model to assess long-term enterprises. Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.htm
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002b). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D.L. Stufflebeam, C.F. Madam & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 279-317). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vol. 5 No. 1 (June 2018) CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation 206.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), The international handbook of educational evaluation (Chapter 2). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, & applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Thorndike, R. L., (1969); Perspectives in educational and psychological measurement. New York: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Undang-Undang RI Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., & Williams, J. (2011). Using the context, input, process and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation and assessment of service-learning. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4) 57.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with the Jurnal Pendidikan Indnesia agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) 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. (See The Effect of Open Access)
