PENILAIAN PELAKSANAAN KURIKULUM MATA PELAJARAN SAINS RUMAH TANGGA MENGGUNAKAN MODEL STAKE COUNTENANCE: SATU KAJIAN LITERATUR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/joves.v2i1.647Keywords:
Kurikulum, Model Stake Countenance, Pendidikan Sains Rumah TanggaAbstract
The purpose of this concept paper was to discuss and analysis evaluation models using in the curriculum implementation or educational program evaluation. This paper focused on secondry school home science education subject and Stake Countenance Model. This model focused on congruence between what was intended to occur and what was actually observed to occur before, during, and after curriculum implementation. The Stake Countenance Model used antecedents, transactions and outcomes as a core concepts to structure the view of the curriculum implementation evaluation or an educational program evaluation. The Stake model demonstrated its effectiveness by facilitating a thorough examination of both quantitative and qualitative research method.
Kertas konsep ini adalah bertujuan untuk membincangkan dan menganalisis model penilaian yang digunakan dalam penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum atau program pendidikan. Kertas konsep ini memberi tumpuan kepada Mata Pelajaran Sains Rumah Tangga sekolah menengah yang diajar pada peringkat menengah atas dan Model Stake Countenance. Model ini membincangkan dua matrik iaitu matrik deskripsi dan matrik pertimbangan yang memberi tumpuan kepada kepada kesesuaian antara apa yang dirancang untuk berlaku dan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku semasa perlaksanaan dengan melakukan pemerhatian sebelum, semasa, dan selepas pelaksanaan seseuatu kurikulum atau program pendidikan. Model Stake Countenance membincangkan tiga fasa pengumpulan data; masukan, proses dan hasil sebagai teras konsep dalam penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum atau penilaian program pendidikan. Model Stake menunjukkan keberkesanannya dengan memudahkan penilai membuat pertimbangan menyeluruh dengan menggunakan kaedah penyelidikan kuantitatif atau kualitatif.
References
Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Course Improvement through Evaluation Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 101-115). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Darusalam, G. (2003). Keberkesanan kursus Pengajian Agama Islam, Diploma Perguruan Malaysia di Maktab-Maktab Perguruan Malaysia. (Tesis Ijazah Kedoktoran Falsafah yang tidak diterbitkan), Universiti Malaya.
Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran, Mata Pelajaran Sains Rumah Tangga Tingkatan 4. (2015). Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Eisner, E. W. (1967). Instructional and expressive educational objectives: Their formulation and use in curriculum.
Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: Some criteria in search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 219-233.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2017). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic Modeling Methods In Program Evaluation. San Fransisco: John Wiley.
Frechtling, J. A. (2010). The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation United States: Division of Research and Learning in Formal and Informal Settings National Science Foundation.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397. doi:10.3102/00346543047002335
Kassim, N. F., & Jalal, F. H. A. (2015). Kurikulum pendidikan awal kanak-kanak dan Modul pendidikan akhlak: Isu dan cabaran masa kini. . Paper presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan Kebangsaan Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.
Mamat, I. (1996). Reka bentuk dan pengurusan latihan: Konsep dan amalan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Metfessel, N. S., & W.B., M. (1967). A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 931-943.
Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. . (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.
Pekeliling Ikhtisas Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia bilangan 9 Tahun 2016. Pelaksanaan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah secara berperingkat-peringkat mulai tahun 2017. (2016). Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational Evaluation. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Raman, G. (2014). Penilaian pelaksanaan mata pelajaran vokasional-landskap dan nurseri (MPV-LN) di peringkat sekolah menengah di semenanjung Malaysia. Universiti Malaya.
Rohana Hamzah, Z. O., Hasnah Hussiin, Zuraina Ali & Nur Qistina Abdullah. (2017). Pembangunan model penilaian kurikulum berteraskan nilai universal bagi program pendidikan berteraskan teknologi & kejuruteraan: Satu Kerangka konseptual. International Journal of Humanities Technology and Civilization, No.1, 50-61.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Scriven, M. (1999). The Fine Line Between Evaluation and Explanation. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(4), 521-524. doi:10.1177/104973159900900407
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation: Citeseer.
Stake, R. E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation Evaluation models (pp. 287-310): Springer.
Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation, 2001(89), 7-98.
Stufflebeam, D., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2012). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice (Vol. 8): Springer Science & Business Media.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability.
Tabori, J. R., & Hermann, J. A. (2001). Project Planning and Evaluation Guidebook: A Manual for Practitioners and Managers of Self Sufficiency Demonstration Projects. Washington DC: Sosiological Practice Association.
Tamir, L. (1991). Profesional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), 263-268.
Thanabalan, T. V., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2015). Evaluation of a digital story pedagogical module for the indigenous learners using the Stake Countanance model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2.
Tyler, R. W. (1942). General Statement on Evaluation. The Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 492-501. doi:10.1080/00220671.1942.10881106
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Werner, A. (2004). A guide to implementation research. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Wholey, J. S. (2010). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wimbush, E., & Watson, J. (2000). An evaluation framework for health promotion: theory, quality and effectiveness. Evaluation, 6(3), 301-321.
Worthen, B.R., & Sanders,J.R. (1973). Educational evaluation: theory and practice. . United States of America: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Yahaya, A. (2001). The using of model context, input, process and products (CIPP) in learning programs assessment. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the International Conference on Challenges and Prospects in Teacher Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
Yahaya Azizi, Y. N., Hashim Shahrin & Ramli Jamaluddin. (2007). Sejauh manakah model Stufflebeam (KIPP) boleh membantu dalam penilaian program pembelajaran?.Retrieved from http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/2256/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with Journal of Vocational Education Studies (JOVES) agree to the following terms: Authors retain the copyright and grant the Universitas Ahmad Dahlan 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 (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. 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 acknowledgement of its initial publication in Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. 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).
.png)
