MODEL EVALUASI PROGRAM TUTORIAL TATAP MUKA UNIVERSITAS TERBUKA

Authors

Adi Suryanto, FKIP-Universitas Terbuka
Abdul Gafur, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta
FX. Sudarsono, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta

Keywords

evaluation model, face-to-face tutorial, instrument, validity and reliability

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan model evaluasi program tutorial tatap muka. Mo-del evaluasi yang dikembangkan dalam penelitian ini menekankan pada evaluasi: perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan hasil program tutorial sehingga model ini disebut model evaluasi P2HT. Model evaluasi P2HT dikembangkan melalui delapan tahap: (1) kajian awal, (2) pengembangan disain, (3) pengembangan model prototype, (4) uji coba terbatas, (5) revisi, (6) uji coba diperluas, (7) model akhir, dan (8) diseminasi. Model prototype diuji coba di UPBJJ-UT Yogyakarta dalam tiga tahap yaitu uji coba tahap 1, 2, dan 3. Validitas model dan perangkat model ditetapkan melalui uji keter-bacaan, validasi isi dan validasi konstruk. Uji keterbacaan dilakukan oleh 15 ahli, 12 praktisi pendi-dikan jarak jauh, dan 55 mahasiswa. Validitas isi dibuktikan dengan mendiskusikan model dan perangkat model dengan para ahli melalui diskusi secara langsung dengan ahli, pendapat ahli melalui email, dan dikusi melalui forum FGD. Validasi konstruk dibuktikan dengan menggunakan Confirmatory Factor Analysis dan Exploratory Factor Analysis. Estimasi reliabilitas dilakukan dengan formula Alpha per dimensi. Path analysis digunakan untuk menguji hubungan kausal antar variabel yang ada dalam model evaluasi P2HT. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa: (1) model evaluasi P2HT merupakan model yang komprehensif, tepat, praktis, mudah digunakan dan mempunyai tingkat keterbacaan yang tinggi, (2) semua instrumen yang dihasilkan memenuhi persyaratan validitas dan reliabilitas, (3) pengelolaan program, kemandirian mahasiswa dalam belajar, tempat/fasilitas, proses tutorial, dan kepuasan mahasiswa berpengaruh terhadap hasil belajar. Dari kelima variabel tersebut, proses tutorial memberikan pengaruh terbesar terhadap hasil belajar mahasiswa dengan total pengaruh sebesar 58%.

Kata kunci: model evaluasi, tutorial tatap muka, instrumen, validitas dan reliabilitas.

______________________________________________________________

AN EVALUATION MODEL OF FACE-TO-FACE TUTORIAL PROGRAM OF THE OPEN UNIVERSITY

Abstract This study aims at developing an evaluation model of the face-to-face tutorial program implemented by the Open University. The model of evaluation developed in this research focuses on evaluation of: planning, processing, and results, so the model is called the P2HT evaluation model. The P2HT evaluation model is developed on eight steps: (1) preliminary research, (2) designing model, (3) developing prototype model, (4) trying-out with limited number of samples, (5) revising, (6) trying-out with larger samples, (7) constructing final model, and (8) disseminating. The prototype model was tried-out at Yogyakarta Open University Regional Center in three stages. The readability was tested to 15 experts, 12 practitioners, and 55 students. The content validity was measured by a series of discussion forum involving evaluation experts and distance education experts, in the form of face-to-face meetings, FGDs, as well as emails. The construct validity was analyzed by using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis, while the reliability was analyzed for each dimension employing the Alpha analysis per dimention. The path analysis was used to analyze the causality relationship among variables in the P2HT evaluation model especially in stage 3 try-out. The results of the study indicate that: (1) the P2HT evaluation model is comprehensive, valid, practical, easy to use, and has a high level of readability, (2) all instruments are valid and reliable, (3) the management of program, self-directed learning, place and facilities of tutorial, tutorial process, and students' satisfaction have an effect on the students' achievement. Among the five variables, the process of tutorial has given the greatest effect 58%.

Keywords: evaluation model, face-to-face tutorial, instrument, validity and reliability

First Page

198

Last Page

214

Issue

2

Volume

17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v17i2.1695

Recommended Citation

Suryanto, Adi; Gafur, Abdul; and Sudarsono, FX. (2013) "MODEL EVALUASI PROGRAM TUTORIAL TATAP MUKA UNIVERSITAS TERBUKA," Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan: Vol. 17: Iss. 2, Article 1.
DOI: 10.21831/pep.v17i2.1695
Available at: https://scholarhub.uny.ac.id/jpep/vol17/iss2/1

References

Adji, Sandra Sukmaning. (2009). Analisis kepuasan mahasiswa pada kegiatan tuto- rial tatap muka mata kuliah praktikum IPA SD. Hasil penelitian, tidak diter- bitkan, Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta.

Amini, Mukti., Mardiana, Ade., & Hanafi. (2009). Efektivitas pelaksanaan pembim- bingan mata kuliah peningkatan kemam- puan mengajar program S1 PGPAUD Universitas Terbuka. Hasil penelitian, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Terbu- ka, Jakarta.

Belawati, Tian. (1997). Understanding and increasing student persistance in distance education: A case of Indonesia. Jurnal Studi Indonesia 7 (1).29-46.

Chandrawati, Titi., Tatminingsih, Sri, & Budiastra, Ketut. (2009). Efektivitas pelaksanaan pembimbingan mata kuliah peningkatan kemampuan profesional program S1 PGPAUD Universitas Terbuka. Hasil penelitian, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta.

Darmayanti, Tri. (1993). Readiness for self- directed learning and achivement of the students of Universitas Terbuka. Tesis master, tidak diterbitkan, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Depdikbud. (2012). Peraturan Menteri Pendi- dikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor: 24 Tahun2012 tentang penyelenggaraan pendidikan jarak jauh pada perguruan tinggi.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R. & Worthen,B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alter- native approaches and practical guide- lines(3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P. & Borg, W.R. (2003).Educational research: An introduction.Boston: Pearson Education. Inc.

Gerson, R.,F. (1993). Mengukur kepuasan pelanggan (Terjemahan Hesty Widya- ningrum). New York: Crisp Publications, Inc.

Ghozali, Imam & Fuad (2005). Strcture equation modelling: teori, konsep dan apli- kasi dengan program lisrel 8.54. Sema- rang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro Semarang.

Grow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to be self- directed. Diambil tanggal 11 Januari 2013 dari http://www.longleaf.net/ ggrow/SSDL/model.html.

Hair J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., et.al. (2010). Multivariate data analisys. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Islam, Samsul. (2000). Prestasi belajar, ke- siapan belajar mandiri dan konsep diri mahasiswa pada sistem pendidik- an terbuka dan jarak jauh: Suatu studi korelasional di Universitas Terbuka. Tesis magister, tidak diterbit- kan, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta.

Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E., & Rosenzweig,

J.E. (1973). The theory and management of systems. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Ko- gakusha.Ltd.

Kadarko, Wahyuni. (2000). Kemampuan belajar mandiri dan faktor-faktor psikososial yang mempengaruhinya: Kasus Universitas Terbuka. Jurnal Pendidikan Terbuka dan Jarak Jauh, vol 1 (1).

Kaufman, R. & Thomas, S. (1980). Evaluation without fear. New York: New Viewpoints.

Kirkpatrick, D,L. & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating training programs:the four levels 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Long, D., G. (1990). Learner managed learning. London: Kogan Page.

Mahasiswa UT dituntut belajar mandiri. (4 November 2010). Kedaulatan Rakyat, hal. 18.

Melton, R.F. (2002). Planning and developing open and distance Learning: A quality assurance approach. London: Routledge Falmer.

Nunnally, J., C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Ormond, S. (2000). Supporting students in open and distance learning. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Panagiotis, A. & Chrysoula, I. (2010). Communication between tutors-stu- dent in DL: A case study of the Hellenic Open University. European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-learning. Diambil pada tanggal 15 November 2010 dari http://www.eurodl.org/ materials/contrib/2010/Panagiotis_ Chrysoula.pdf

Peffers, et.al. (2007). A design science re- search methodology for information systems research. Journal of Manage- ment Information Systems, vol. 24 issue 3, winter 2007-8, pp. 45-78.

Reigeluth, C.M. & Carr-Chellman, A.A. (2009). Instructional design theories and models vol III. New York: Taylor and Francis, Publishers.

Samarawikrama, R.,G. (2005). Determi- nants of student readiness for flexi- ble learning: Some preliminary find- ings. Distance Education. Melbourne: May 2005, vol. 26: 48-67.

Sarwono, Jonathan. (2012). Path analysis: Teori, prosedur analisis untuk riset skripsi, tesis dan disertasi (menggunakan SPSS). Jakarta: PT Elex Media Komputindo.

Subagja. (2001). Pelembagaan upaya pe- ngendalian mutuakademik di perguruan tinggi. Dalam Pannen, dkk. (Ed.). Cakrawala Pendidikan. Jakarta: Pusat Penerbitan Universitas Terbuka

Sudilah, Astuti., Diah., & Zuhriyah, Siti. (2009). Studi tentang pengelolaan tutorial tatap muka (TTM) mahasiswa program pendidikan dasar (pendas) di UPBJJ-UT Yogyakarta. Hasil penelitian, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta.

Suharno, Supoyo, & Suparno. (2009). Kajian faktor-faktor pelaksanaan program tutorial mahasiswa S1 PGSD UPBJJ- UT Bandar Lampung. Hasil penelitian, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Terbuka, Jakarta.

Suparman, Atwi & Zuhairi, Aminudin. (2009). Pendidikan jarak jauh: Teori dan praktek. Jakarta: Pusat Penerbitan Universitas Terbuka.

Tahar, Irsan & Enceng (2006). Hubungan kemandirian dan hasil belajar pada pendidikan jarak jauh. Jurnal Pendidik- an Terbuka dan Jarak Jauh, vol. 7 (2).

Wardani, I.G.A.K.. (2000). Program tutori- al dalam sistem pendidikan tinggi ter- buka dan jarak jauh. Jurnal Pendidikan Terbuka dan Jarak Jauh, vol. 1 (2).

Zhang, S. and Fulford, C. P. (1994), “Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television room?” Education Technology, vol. 34, no. 6,

pp. 58-64.

Zirkle, C. (2004). Access barriers expe- rienced by adults in distance education courses and programms: A review of the research literature. Midwest Research-to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Diambil pada tanggal 18 November 2010 dari: https://scho larworks.ipui.edu/bitsream/handle/ 1805/273/zirkle.pdf? sequence=1.

Zirkin, B. G. and Sumler, D. E. (1995), “Interactive or non-interactive? that is the question!!! an annotated biblio- graphy.” Journal of Distance Education, vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 95-112.