•  
  •  
 

Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan

Keywords

development model, evaluation model, teaching process

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian adalah mengembangkan model evaluasi pembelajaran yang hasilnya dapat digunakan untuk mendeteksi kekeliruan dan melakukan koreksi sendiri, serta sistem informasi-nya. Pengembangan dilakukan melalui pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif dalam empat tahap, yaitu penelitian, penciptaan dan desain, rekayasa dan pengemasan, tahap pengujian dan evaluasi. Konstruk model evaluasi dimodifikasi dari model Marzano dan divalidasi melalui focus group discussion dan teknik Delphi. Subjek penelitian terdiri dari guru dan siswa di enam SMAN dan satu SMA swasta di Malang. Hasil penelitian: 1) model evaluasi didukung oleh instrumen evaluasi diri guru, evaluasi teman sejawat, dan evaluasi siswa; 2) karakteristik instrumen evaluasi mencakup validitas, reliabilitas, dan kepraktisan telah teruji; 3) sistem informasi hasil evaluasi disajikan dalam bentuk bar chart yang memuat informasi kelebihan dan kekurangan guru, rencana perbaikan guru, dan saran perbaikan untuk guru dan sekolah; 4) instrumen evaluasi berbentuk software disertai manualnya.

Kata kunci: model evaluasi, kaizen, pembelajaran, sekolah menengah atas

______________________________________________________________

A TEACHING EVALUATION MODEL BASED ON KAIZEN AT SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Abstract This study aimed at developing an evaluation model to find out problems in the teaching process in order to prevent mistakes and to make a self-correction for assuring a continuous teaching improvement, and to deliver its information system. This was a development study which used quantitative and qualitative approaches carried out in four phases, namely initial research, invention and design, engineering and packaging, and test and evaluation. The construct of this evaluation model was adapted from Marzano's evaluation model and had been validated by a focus group discussion and Delphi technique. The subjects of this study were senior high school teachers and students from six public senior high schools (SMAN) and a private senior high school in Malang. This study shows the following conclusions: 1) The evaluation model based on kaizen has been equipped by self-evaluation instrument, evaluation instrument by colleagues and students; 2) The characteristics of the evaluation model based on kaizen for quality assurance of teaching at senior high school consisted of validity, reliability, and practicability which had been verified. The validity evidence had been obtained through focus group discussion and Delphi techniques, and had been analyzed using content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) proposed by Lawshe. The construct validity was elaborated through the structural equation modeling based on component; 3) The results of model fit test using GesCA-program developed by Heungsun Hwang indicate that the model is supported by the data shown by the value of GFI 0,997, and SRMR 0.076; 4) The information system of the evaluation results is presented in bar chart which accommodates teachers' strengths and weaknesses, teachers' planning of improvement, and suggestion of improvement for teachers and school.

Keywords: development model, evaluation model, teaching process

First Page

318

Last Page

332

Issue

2

Volume

17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v17i2.1703

References

Accomplished California Teachers. (2010). A quality teacher in every classroom: Crea- ting a teacher evaluation system that works for California. Stanford, CA.: National Board Resource Center, Stanford University.

Al-Abbadi, Ibrahim., Alkhateeb, Fadi., Khanfar, Nile, et al. (2009). Pharmacy students’ perceptions of the teaching evaluation process in Jordan. [Versi Elektronik]. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 2 (3), 181-190.

Antonioni, D. (1996). Desigining an effec- tive 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 24-31.

Berliner, D.C. (2005). The near impossi- bility of testing for teacher quality [Versi Elektronik]. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (3), 205-213.

Blasdale, S. (2004). From theory to practice: Kaizen and the Academy of the Pacific Rim. Journal of Education, 185 (2), 1-9.

Bracken, D.W., Dalton, M.A., Jako, R.A. et al. (1997). Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership

Business Council of Australia. (2008). Review of the National Innovation System.

Cahyana, Ade. (2007). Upaya peningkatan m- utu sekolah melalui otonomi satuan pendi- dikan. Retrieved at July 7 2010 from ade.psp.depdiknas.go.id/.../Revised3_penin gkatan_mutu_pendidikan_mellotonomisasi 220220101.doc

Chappelow, C. T. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In McCauley, C. D., Moxley, R., & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). The center for creative leadership handbook of lea- dership development (pp. 29-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deepwell, F. (2007). Embedding quality in e-learning implementation through evaluation [Versi elektronik]. Educatio- nal Technology & Society, 10 (2), 34-43.

Dinham, S., Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2008). How we can raise the quality of school education so that every student bene- fits? Teaching talent the best teacher for Australia’s classroom. Australia: The Business Council of Australia.

Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan. (2008). Penilaian kinerja guru. Jakarta: Depar- temen Pendidikan Nasional.

Douglas, J. & Douglas, A. (2006). Evalua- ting teaching quality. Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 12 (1), 3-13.

Emiliani, M.L. (2005). Using kaizen to im- prove graduate business school de- gree programs [Versi elektronik]. Qua- lity Assurance in Education, 13 (1), 37-52.

Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Diambil pada tanggal 28 Oktober 2004 dari http://www.byu.edu/fc/ pages/tchlrnpages/fink/fink1.doc.

Fleenor, J.W. & Prince, J.M. (1997). Using 360-feedback in organizations. An anno- tated bibliography. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leader- ship

Freddano, M. & Siri, A. (2012).Teacher trai- ning for school self-evaluation. Proce- dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 69, 1142 – 1149.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educatio- nal change. New York, N.Y.: Teacher College, Columbia University.

Hansmann, K.W. & Ringle, C.M. (2004). SmartPLS Manual. Hamburg, Germa- ny: Förderverein Industrielles Mana- gement an der Universität Hamburg.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Po- wer of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.

Havelock, R.G. (1969). Planning for innova- tion. A comparative study of the literature on the dissemination and utilization of scien- tific knowledge. Ann Arbor – Michigan: University of Michigan.

Helterbran, V.R. (2008). The ideal profes- sor: Student perceptions of effective instructor practices. Education, 129 (1),

-138.

Heungsun Hwang. (2011). GesCA user’s ma- nual. Diambil dari www.sem-gesca.org pada tanggal 15 April 2013.

Imai, Masaaki. (2008). The kaizen power. (Translation Sigit Prawato). Yogya- karta: Think.

. (1998). Gemba kaizen. pendekatan akal sehat, berbiaya rendah pada mana- jemen. (Translation Kristianto Jahja). Jakarta: Yayasan Toyota-Astra dan Divisi Penerbitan Lembaga PPM. (The original book was published in 1997)

. (1996). Kaizen: The key to japan’s competitive success. New York, N.Y.: Random House, Inc.

Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Econo- mic Journal: Applied Economics 1 (4) 85-108.

Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative ap- proach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575.

Liker, J.K & Hoseus, M. (2008). Toyota culture, budaya Toyota, jantung dan jiwa Toyota way. (Translation Dian Rahad- yanto Basuki). New York: McGraw- Hill. (Buku asli diterbitkan tahun 2008).

Limbach, B., Duron, R., & Waugh, W. (2008). Become a better teacher: Five steps in the direction of critical think- ing. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1, 1 – 13.

Marlow, M. (2009). Supporting teacher pro- fessional identity through mentoring activities. Research in Higher Education Journal, 2, 1-9.

Marzano, R.J. et al. (2012). Becoming a reflec- tive teacher. The classroom strategies series. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Marzano, R.J., Frontier, T. & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision. Supporting the art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Menpan. (2009). Peraturan Menteri Negara Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara Dan Re- formasi Birokrasi (Permennegpan & RB)Nomor 16 Tahun 2009, tentang Jabatan Fungsional Guru dan Angka Kreditnya.

Miles, B.M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publication.

Multon, K.D. (2012). Interrater reliability. Encyclopedia of research design. Ed. Neil J. Salkind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010 pp. 627-629. Sage reference On- line.

Ochuba, V.O. (2009). Improving the quality of education in Nigeria through effec- tive inspection of schools [Versi elek- tronik]. Education, 129 (4), 734-741.

Olive, M., Mathers, C. & Laine, S. (2009). Effective evaluation. Principal leader- ship. Research Library, 9 (7), 16 – 21.

Pang, N.S.K. (2006). Managing school change through self-evaluation in the era of globali- zation. Paper to be reviewed for the 19th Annual World ICSEI Congress Fort Lauderdale, Florida January 3-6, 2006.

Sallis, E. (2007). Total quality management in education. Manajemen mutu pendidikan. (Translation Ahmad Ali Riyadi & Fahrurrozi). London: Kogan Page Limited. (The original book was published in 2002).

Schumacker, R.E. & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginners,s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, New Jersey: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Stronge, J.H. & Hindman, J.L. (2006). The teacher quality index: A protocol for teacher selection. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Surya, Mohamad. (2007). Mendidik guru berkualitas untuk pendidikan berkualitas. Paper presented in general course at Graduate Program and PGSD of PGRI University in Yogyakarta.

Wolbring, T. (2012). Class attendance and students” evaluations of teaching: Do no-shows bias course ratings and ran- kings? [Versi online]. Evaluation Re- view, 36(1), 72-96.

Download

Share

COinS