•  
  •  
 

Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan

Keywords

developing model of curriculum evaluation, national character

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan model evaluasi reflektif kurikulum rumpun mata kuliah keahlian pendidikan bahasa Inggris untuk memotret penuangan nilai-nilai karakter bangsa di dalam kelas. Penelitian pengembangan ini menggunakan pendekatan campuran dalam lima tahap, yaitu studi awal, pendefinisian, perancangan, peragaan, dan pengembangan. Penetapan konstuk dilakukan melalui penilaian pakar, dengan subyek penelitian dosen dan mahasiswa di Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris yang ada di DIY. Penentuan koefisien reliabilitas instrumen evaluasi menggunakan program SmartPLS Versi 2.0.M3 dan uji kelayakan model dengan program GeSCA. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan: (1) model evaluasi yang dikembangkan didukung oleh lima instrumen evaluasi; (2) validitas, reliabilitas, dan kepraktisan instrumen evaluasi telah teruji melalui kegiatan FGD, teknik Delphi, dan analisis faktor konfirmatori non-parametrik; (3) koefisien reliabilitas komposit kelima instrumen adalah sebesar 0,93; 0,91; 0,95; 0,95; dan 0,86; (4) hasil uji kelayakan model menunjukkan model didukung oleh data ditunjukkan oleh nilai GFI 0,99 dan SRMR 0,06; 5) Pedoman penggunaan model dalam bentuk panduan evaluasi.

Kata kunci: pengembangan model evaluasi kurikulum, karakter bangsa

______________________________________________________________

MODEL OF REFLECTIVE CURRICULUM EVALUATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING NATIONAL CHARACTER Abstract This study aimed to develop a model of reflective curriculum evaluation at the English Education Study Program that portrayed the delivery of the values of national character in the classroom. This development study used mixed approach carried out in five phases: initial study, defining, designing, demonstrating, and developing. The constructs of instruments were developed based on expert judgments; the subjects were lecturers and students of English Language Education Study Program in four universities in Yogyakarta Special Territory. The composite reliability coefficient of the instruments was analyzed by SEM program of SmartPLS Version 2.0.M3 and test of fit model by GeSCA. The result of the study concluded: 1) the developed model evaluation was supported by five instruments of evaluation; 2) validity, reliability, and its implementation had been verified through FGD, Delphy techniques, and non-parametric confirmatory factor analysis; 3) the composite reliability coefficient of the five instruments was 0.93, 0.91, 0.95, 0.95, and 0.86; 4) the result of the test of fit model indicated that model was supported by the data with GFI 0.99 and SRMR 0.06; 5) The guidelines of using the developed model consisted of background, rational, components of assessment, guidelines, and application sample.

Keywords: developing model of curriculum evaluation, national character

First Page

72

Last Page

88

Issue

1

Volume

18

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v18i1.2125

References

Apple, M.W. & Beyer, L.E. (1983). Social evaluation of curriculum. American Educational Research Association, 5 (4), 425-434.

Azwar, S. (2012). Penyusunan skala psikologis, Edisi 2. Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR.

Bath, D. Smith, C. Stein, S. & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embed- ding graduate attributes: bringing together quality assurancae and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23 (3), 313-328.

Beane, J.A. Toepfer, C.F. Jr. & Alessi, S.j. (2004). Curriculum planning and develop- ment Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M.C. (2004). Research-based character education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591 (1), 72-85.

Cennamo, K. & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Davis, E. (1980). Teachers as curriculum evalu- atiors. North Sydney: GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN.

Hamilton, D. (1977). Making sense of curri- culum evaluation: continuities and discontinuities in an educational ideas. Review of Research in Education, 5, 318-347.

Heungsun Hwang. (2011). GeSCA user’s manual. Diakses tanggal 15 Juni 2013 dari www.sem-gesca.org

Jackson, P.W. (Ed.).(1992). Handbook of research on curriculum: a project of the American Educational Research Associa- tion. New York: MACMILLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY.

Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pusat Kurikulum. (2010). Bahan pelatihan pe- nguatan metodologi pembelajaran berdasar- kan nilai-nilai budaya untuk membentuk daya saing dan karakter bangsa: pengem- bangan pendidikan budaya dan karakter. Diakses tanggal 27 April 2011 dari http://www.puskur.net/files/1_%20Pendi dikan%20Budaya%20dan%20Karakter% 20Bangsa.pdf

Ketetapan MPR RI No. VII/MPR/1978.

Ki Hadjar Dewantara. (2004). Karya Ki Hadjar Dewantara bagian pertama: pen- didikan. Yogyakarta: Majelis Luhur Persatuan Taman Siswa.

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

Leming, J.S. (2000). Tell me a story: an evaluation of literature-based charac- ter education program. Journal of Moral Education, 29 (4), 413-426.

Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understand- ing curriculum. London: Routledge.

Martone, A. & Sireci, S.G. (2009). Eva- luating alignment between curricu- lum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1332-

Meadows, B. (2008). Co-constructing theFamiliar Exotic‟ in second language learner discourse. Texas Linguistic Forus, 52, 117-130.

Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D.K. (2006). Teaching moral character: two stra- tegis for teacher education. In Press,

Nunan. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Language Teaching Library

Orstein, A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2009). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues. (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson International Edition.

Parkay, F.W., Hass, G.J., & Anctil, E.J. (2010). Curriculum leadership: readings for developing quality educational programs. PEARSON.

Parmenter, L. (1999). Constructing national identity in a changing world: perspec- tive in Japanese education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20 (4), 453-463.

Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. (2010). Kebijakan nasional pembangunan karakter bangsa tahun 2010-2025. Diakses tanggal 11 Pebruari 2013 dari http:// www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&o utput=search&sclient=psy- ab&q=kebijakan+nasional+pembang unan+karakter+bangsa+tahun

+2010-2025&gs

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York: Cam- bridge Language Education.

Ringle, C.M. Wende, S. & Will, S. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3). Beta, Hamburg. Diakses tanggal 10 Juli 2013 dari http://www.smartpls.de

Saifuddin, A.F., & Karim, M. (2008). Refleksi karakter bangsa. Jakarta: Penerbit Forum Kajian Antropologi Indonesia.

Sari, M, & Doğanay, A. (2009). Hidden curriculum on gaining the value of respect for human dignity: a qua- litative study in two elementary schools in Adana. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 9 (2), 925-940.

Sumarno. (2011). Peran pendidikan nonfor- mal dan informal dalam pendidikan karakter bangsa. Cakrawala Pendidikan Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, Mei, Th. XXX, Edisi Khusus Dies Natalis UNY, 73-84.

Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L., & Henert, E. (2003). Enhancing program performance with logic models. Diakses tanggal 1 Maret 2011 dari http://www.uwex. edu/ces/Imcourse/

Winarno. (2010). Implementasi Pancasila me- lalui pendidikan kewarganegaraan (civic education). Makalah disajikan dalam Seminar Pengalaman Indonesia dan Malaysia dalam hal pembinaan warga Negara yang cerdas dan baik, di Universitas Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

Worthen, B.R., & Sanders, J.R. (1984). Educational evaluation: theory and practice. Worthington, OH: Charles A Jones Publishing Company.

Undang-Undang RI Nomor 20, Tahun 2003, tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.

Download

Share

COinS