•  
  •  
 

Keywords

models of evaluation, teaching supervision, five domains of science

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah: 1) mengembangkan model evaluasi diri dan teman sejawat (EDTS) dalam supervisi pembelajaran IPA berbasis lima domain sains (5 DS); 2) mengevaluasi pembelajaran IPA berbasis 5 DS dalam supervisi melalui model EDTS; 3) menguji keefektifan model.Objek penelitian ini adalah SMP Negeri 7, 11, 14, 15, 19, 29, dan 32. Model EDTS dikembangkan melalui penelitian dan pengembangan (R&D). Subjeknya adalah guru sendiri, gurusejawat, dan kepala sekolah. Alur pelaksanaan evaluasinya adalah: guru sendiri dan guru sejawat mengobservasi kegiatan pra pembelajaran dan proses pembelajaran. Data observasi divalidasi oleh kepala sekolah, ditindaklanjuti dengan diskusi, dan dilanjutkan dengan kegiatan feedback dan evaluasi diri. Penelitian ini menghasilkan: 1) model EDTS melalui pendekatan ANTRANINPRO (Antacedent, Transaction, Interim Product), dikembangkan dengan metode R&D; 2) Model EDTS disusun untuk memperkuat pelaksanaan supervisi di sekolah, melalui dukungan informasi yang diberikan guru kepada kepala sekolah; 3) berdasarkan hasil evaluasi, diperoleh penilaian kurang baik pada item yang terkait dengan 5DS, terutama domain kreativitas dan aplikasi sains; 4) model EDTS efektif untuk digunakan, berdasarkan data: validitas model (sangat baik), validitas konten (96% relevan), reliabilitas (kriteria baik), model memberi kemudahan user untuk menggunakan, serta memberi dampak positif terhadap perbaikan pembelajaran.

Kata kunci: model evaluasi, supervisi pembelajaran, lima domain sains

______________________________________________________________

EVALUATION MODEL IN THE TEACHING SUPERVISION OF NATURAL SCIENCES BASED ON FIVE DOMAINS OF SCIENCE

Abstract The purposes of this study are: 1. deeveloping a self and peer evaluation model (EDTS model) in the teaching supervision of natural sciences based on five domains of science (DS 5); 2. evaluating the teaching in supervision of natural sciences based on five domains of science (DS 5) through EDTS model; 3. measuring the effectiveness of this model. The objects of this research are SMPN 7, 11, 14, 15, 19, 29, and 32. The EDTS model was developed through research and development (R&D). The subjects are teachers, teacher's peers and headmasters. The steps of the evaluation were: teachers and teacher's peers observed pre learning activities and learning processes. Observation data were validated by the headmasters, followed by discussion and feedback and self-evaluation. The results of this research are: 1) EDTS models through ANTRANINPRO approach (Antecedent, Transaction, Interim Product) is developed by the R & D method; 2) EDTS model is designed to strengthen the implementation of supervision in schools, through the support of information provided by the teacher to the headmaster; 3) Based on the evaluation, items associated with 5DS are considered not so good, especially the domain of creativity and scientific applications; 4) EDTS model is effective to be used, based on the data: the validity of the model (very good), content validity (96% relevant), reliability (good criteria), the model gives the user easiness to use, and gives a positive impact on learning improvement.

Keywords: models of evaluation, teaching supervision, five domains of science.

First Page

241

Last Page

258

Issue

2

Volume

17

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.21831/pep.v17i2.1698

References

Akker, J.V.D. (2007). Curriculum Design Research dalam an introduction to educational design research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted atthe East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26. P. 37-52.

Cooper, N., & Forrest, K. (2009). Essential guide to educational supervision in post- graduate medical education. Chennal, India: Wiley-Blackwell. Macmillan Publishing Solutions.

Diat Prasojo, L. (2011). Supervisi pen-didikan.Yogyakarta: Gova Media.

Evans, C.S. (2009). Essential guide to edu- cational supervision in postgraduate medical education edited by N. Cooper and K. Forrest.Blackwell Publish- ing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17071-0.

Fernandes, H.J.X. (1984). Evaluation of educa- tional program. Jakarta: National Edu- cation Planning Evaluation and Curri- culum Development.

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (Edisi kedua). New York: John Wiley.

Gwet, K.L. (2012). Handbook, Inter-Rater Re- liability. 3th Ed. USA: Gaithersbourg.

Hamm, R.W. (1985). A systematic evaluation of an environmental invertigation course. (Doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University). ERIC Document. Repro- duction Service No. ED-256-622.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W.B. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation. 2th Ed. San Diego, California: EdiTS Publisher.

Kaufman, R. (2006). Defining and delive- ring measurable value: A mega Think- ing and planning primer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(3) pp. 6-16. Florida State University.

Kaufman, R., & Thomas, S. (1980). Eva- luation without fear. New York. Lon- don: New Viewpoints

Middendorf, J., &Kalish, K. (1995). Peer eva- luation of teaching. TRC Newsletter: Campus international consulting.

McCormack, A.J. (1999). Trends & issues in science curriculum. Scienece curriculumv resourcpbook: a practical guide for K-12 science curriculum. New York: Kraus International.

McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2002). Computer Support for curriculum developers CASCA- DE. ETR&D, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 25–35 ISSN 1042–1629

Nieveen, N. (2007). Formative evaluation in educational design research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26. Hal. 89-102.

Owston, R. (2008). Models and methods for evaluation. York University, Toronto, Canada.

Ozogul, G., Olina, Z.,& Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Education Tech Research Dev 56:181–201.

Provus, M., Malcolm. (1969). The discrepancy evaluation models. An approach to local program improvement and development. Pittaburgh Public School.

Savoie. (2010). A Guidebook for peer evaluation. College of the Arts. Valdosta State University

Sibbald, T. (2009). The relationship bet- ween lesson study and self-efficacy. (Report). Thames Vallery District School Board. School Science and Mathematics: Gale Cengage Learning. Diunduh 10 Oktober 2010.

Stake, RE. (1967). The countenance of edu- cational evaluation. Teacher’s Coolege Record. Vol. 68, no:7.

Stinson. (2000). “Quality supervision.”, “The quality of supervisor-provider interactions in zimbabwe,” Operations Research Results vol. 1, no. 5 (Bethesda, MD: Quality Assurance Project).

Stufflebeam, D.L., & Shinkfield, A.J. (1984). Systematic evaluation a self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publsing.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (1973). Educational eva- luation: theory and practice. In B. R. Worthen & J. R. Sanders (Eds.), Eva- luation as Enlightenment for Decision Making. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Pu- blishing

Tim IKIP Bandung. (1999). Supervisi aka- demik. Bahan Sajian untuk Pelatihan Pengawas SLTP dan SMU.

Wiles, K., & Lovell, J.T (1975). Supervision for better schools. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.

Winaryati, E. (2011a). Kompetensi kepala sekolah sebagai supervisor pada pem- belajaran IPA SMP di kota Semarang. Univ Muhammadiyah Semarang (UNI- MUS).

Winaryati, E. (2011b). Peran guru IPA SMP dalam supervisi akademik untuk mewujudkan pemebalajran bermakna di kota semarang. Univ Muhammadiyah Semarang (UNIMUS).

Yonnie Chyung. (2001). Improve the moti- vationalappeal of online instruction for adult learners: what’s in it for me?. The American Journal of Distance Educa- tion (AJDE).Volume 15; Issue 3, p.36-49.

Yonnie Chyung., Winiecki, D., & Fenner,J.A. (2006). Evaluation of effective interventions to solve the dropout problem in adult distance education. Instructional & Performance Technology. College of Engineering Boise State University.

Download

Share

COinS