Learning Evaluation Models in Inclusive Education Settings

LEARNING EVALUATION MODELS IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION SETTINGS Background Education is an important need in the development of children, because it can increase potential and form an independent, capable and moral person. The existence of individuals in the education process is inseparable from diversity. In public schools, there are children with special needs who have characteristics that are not so striking or significant. Therefore, the education service model that is currently being implemented is inclusive education. Inclusive education is a child-friendly education service, where every learner has the same rights in getting education in an institution. In its implementation, education is inseparable from evaluation, as well as in inclusive education, especially in learning. Learning evaluation in inclusive education is a way to measure the success of learning that has been done. The existence of evaluation is intended to assist educators in developing various effective learning program plans for each learner. Definition of Evaluation The word evaluation comes from the English evaluation, containing the root word value which means "worth". The word value in evaluation terms relates to the belief that something is good or bad, right or wrong, strong or weak, sufficient or insufficient, and so on. Evaluation can be interpreted as a process of considering an issue or symptom using certain qualitative benchmarks, such as good-not good, strong and weak, adequate-inefficient, high and low, and so on. Suchman (in Ajat. (2018), p. 1) views evaluation as a process of determining the results that have been achieved by several activities planned to support the achievement of goals. Meanwhile, Worthen and Sanders (in p. 1) suggest that evaluation is an activity of looking for something valuable about something: in this search, it also includes looking for information that is useful in assessing the existence of a program, production, procedure, and alternative strategies proposed to achieve predetermined goals. Stufflebeam (in Ajat. (2018), p. 2) explains that evaluation is the process of describing, searching and providing information that is very useful for decision making in determining alternative decisions. From the understanding expressed by the experts above, it can be concluded that evaluation is a process of determining decisions about the quality of an object or activity by involving assessment considerations based on data and information collected, analyzed and interpreted systematically. Learning evaluation is a process to determine the service, value or benefits of learning activities through assessment or measurement activities. Learning evaluation involves making judgments about the services, values or benefits of learning programs, outcomes and processes. Evaluation Objective The purpose of this evaluation in inclusive education is to determine the threats, strengths, opportunities and weaknesses that will be faced in the implementation process. In addition, the evaluation process is carried out to see how the conditions of the implementation are carried out. In inclusive education, the evaluation process is carried out to see the level of success of the activities in inclusive education that have been carried out by comparing the results obtained with the provisions that have been made. In conducting an evaluation of inclusive education, it is carried out transparently and openly, starting from planning, the process, and the results of the evaluation will be provided with information to related parties such as the government, community, educational institutions, etc. who need this information. This means that in the mechanism, assessment, criteria and results there is transparency because it includes other roles to monitor and see the results of the evaluation. In inclusive learning, Hallahan and Kaufman (2006) (in Ni'matuzahroh and Yuni. 2016, p. 48) assert that there are several basic things that must be considered for inclusive learning to work, namely not labeling children with disabilities as something dangerous, changing views and hearts to accept differences, reorientation related to assessment, teaching methods and classroom management including environmental adjustments, redefinition of teacher roles and reallocation of human resources, provision of professional assistance and teacher training, establishment, improvement and development of partnerships between teachers, parents to share experiences, flexible learning curriculum and evaluation. Inclusive Education Curriculum Development Models In education, the curriculum must be adapted to the characteristics of children with special needs, according to the Ministry of National Education, 2010 there are four (4) curriculum development models for children with special needs, They are: 1) duplication model, 2) modification model, 3) substitution model, and 4) comission model. 1) The duplication model, which applies the curriculum for children with special needs to the curriculum used for normal children, namely in the components of objectives, materials, processes and evaluation. This is done if children with special needs are able to undergo the same curriculum as other normal children. 2) The modification model means a way of developing the curriculum by modifying the general curriculum that applies to regular students, changed to suit the abilities of students with special needs. Thus, students with special needs undergo a curriculum that suits their needs and abilities. Modifications can be applied to four learning components such as: a. modification of objectives, meaning that the learning objectives in the curriculum are changed to suit the conditions of children with special needs. Both related to SKL, SK, KD, and indicators; b. material modifications can be related to breadth, depth and / or level of difficulty. This means that children with special needs get learning materials with a different (lower) level of depth, breadth and difficulty than regular children's materials; c. process modification means that there are differences in the learning activities undertaken by children with special needs and regular children. Process modifications can include the use of teaching methods, learning environments/settings, learning time, learning media, learning resources, and others. So children with special needs have special learning strategies and media that are tailored to their abilities; d. modification of evaluation means changes in the assessment system to suit the conditions of children with special needs. Evaluation Changes can be in the form of exam questions, exam time, exam techniques / methods, or exam venues and others. 3) The substitution model, which replaces something in the curriculum with something else. Replacement is done because it is impossible to apply to children with special needs, but it can be replaced with something equivalent (having approximately the same value). Substitutions can include learning objectives, materials, processes and evaluation. 4) The omissions model, which eliminates something (part or all) from the general curriculum, because it is impossible to give to children with special needs. This means that something in the general curriculum is not delivered or given to children with special needs, because it is too difficult or not in accordance with the child's condition. The difference with substitution is that if the substitution is commensurate replacement material, while the omissions model has no replacement material. (Irdamurni. 2020, pp. 112-113). Models of Inclusive Learning Evaluation In the world of education, there are many models of learning program evaluation. Seven commonly used program evaluation models are as follows (Arikunto and Jabar, 2009: 41): 1. Goal oriented evaluation model The object of observation in this model is the objectives of the learning program that have been set long before the program begins. Evaluation is conducted on an ongoing basis. Evaluators constantly check how far the objectives have been implemented in the process of program implementation. This model was developed by Tyler. 2. Goal free evaluation model This evaluation model was developed by Michael Scriven. This model can be said to contradict the goal oriented evaluation model. In the goal oriented evaluation model, the evaluator constantly monitors the goals, that is, from the beginning of the process continues to see how far the goals have been achieved. While in the goal free evaluation model, the evaluator turns away from the goal. According to Michael Scriven, in conducting learning evaluations evaluators do not need to pay attention to what the program objectives are. What needs to be considered in the program is how the program works, by identifying the performances that have been achieved. happen, both positive things (things that are expected) and negative things (things that are not expected). The reason why program objectives should not be considered is because there is a possibility that the evaluator may look too closely at each specific objective. If each specific objective is achieved, meaning that it is fulfilled in performance, but the evaluator forgets to pay attention to how far each of these performances supports the final performance expected by the general objective, then the result is that the number of specific performances is of little use. 3. Formative-summative evaluation model In addition to the goal-directed evaluation model, Michael Scriven also developed another model, the formative-summative model. This model shows the stages and scope of the object being evaluated, namely the evaluation carried out when the learning program is still running (called formative evaluation) and when the program has been completed or ended (called summative evaluation). Unlike the first model developed, in this second model, when carrying out evaluations evaluators cannot escape from the objectives. The purpose of formative evaluation is different from the purpose of summative evaluation. Thus, the model proposed by Michael Scriven indicates the "what, when, and purpose" of the evaluation. Educational evaluators, including teachers, are familiar with formative and summative evaluations. Almost every month teachers conduct formative evaluations in the form of daily tests. These evaluations are carried out to determine the level of achievement or goal attainment for each subject matter. Because the breadth or narrowness of the material covered in the subject matter of each subject is not the same, it is not possible to determine exactly when formative evaluations are carried out and how many times for each subject. In principle, formative evaluation is an evaluation that is carried out while the program is still ongoing or when the program is still close to the beginning of the activity. The purpose of the formative evaluation is to determine how far the designed program can take place, as well as to identify obstacles. By knowing the obstacles and things that cause the program to not run smoothly, decision makers can make early improvements that support the smooth running of learning objectives. Summative evaluation is conducted after the program ends. The purpose of summative evaluation is to measure program achievement. The function of summative evaluation in learning evaluation programs is intended as a means to determine the position or position of individuals in their groups. 4. Countenance Evaluation Model This model was developed by Stake. According to Stake, when evaluators are considering educational programs, they inevitably have to make comparisons, namely: a) comparing the evaluation conditions of a particular program with those of other programs, with the same target objects; b) comparing the condition of the results of program implementation with the standards intended for the learning program and based on the objectives to be achieved. 5. CSE-UCLA Evaluation Model CSE-UCLA comes from the Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles. The CSE-UCLA model is characterized by five stages of evaluation: planning, development, implementation, results and impact. Fernando (Arikunto and Jabar, 2009: 44) 'summarized' the stages of the CSE-UCLA model into 4 (four stages), namely: 1) CSE-Model: Needs assessment In this stage the evaluator focuses on determining the problem. The evaluator asks questions such as: a) What things need to be considered in relation to the existence of the program? b) What needs are met by the implementation of the learning program? 2) CSE model: Program planning In this second stage of the CSE model, the evaluator collects data that is directly related to learning and leads to the fulfillment of the needs identified in the first stage. In this planning stage, the PBM program is carefully evaluated to determine whether the lesson plan has been prepared based on the results of the needs analysis. This stage of evaluation cannot be separated from the objectives that have been formulated. 3) CSE model: Formative evaluation In this third stage, the evaluator focuses on the implementation of the program, thus, the evaluator is expected to be fully involved in the program because they have to collect data and various information from program developers. 4) CSE model: Summative evaluation In the fourth stage, evaluators are expected to collect all the data on the outcomes and impacts of the program. Through this summative evaluation, it is expected to know whether the objectives formulated for the program have been achieved, and if not, which parts have not been achieved and what causes them. 5) CIPP Evaluation Model This evaluation model is the most widely applied model by evaluators. The CIPP model was developed by Stufflebeam et al. (1967) at Ohio State University. CIPP stands for Context, Input, Process and Product which means. ● Context evaluation: evaluation of the context ● Input evaluation: evaluation of inputs ● Process evaluation: evaluation of the process ● Product evaluation: evaluation of results. The four words in the abbreviation CIPP are the targets of evaluation, which are none other than the components of the process of an activity program. In other words, the CIPP model is an evaluation model that views the program being evaluated as a system. Thus, if the evaluator team has determined the CIPP model as the model to use to evaluate the assigned program, they will inevitably have to analyze the program based on its components. 6) Discrepancy model The word discrepancy is an English term, which means "gap". The model developed by Malcolm Provus is a model that emphasizes the existence of gaps in program implementation. The program evaluation conducted by the evaluator measures the magnitude of the gap/difference that exists in each component, between what should be achieved and what has actually been achieved. From the seven descriptions of learning evaluation models above, we can see some models that seem to "overlap". For example, the formativesummative model also exists in the CSE-UCLA evaluation model. The discrepancy model is actually a model that consciously or unconsciously becomes the standard model implied in every evaluation model, as long as the evaluation still compares the results achieved with the expected goals. Teachers should not be confused by these overlapping models, as they were created to achieve excellence in learning program evaluation. In practice, even though the evaluator has chosen one of the main models for the learning evaluation he/she will conduct, the involvement of other evaluation models is not a mistake. Educational evaluators are expected to be flexible in carrying out learning program evaluation. The above program evaluation models are not designed to be completely separate from each other. (Lecturer Team 2015, pp. 310-314). Conclusion The GPK (special education teacher) is responsible for creating the program, monitoring the implementation of the program and evaluating the results of program implementation. In addition, the provision of individualized services tailored to the needs, abilities and idiosyncrasies is modified, meaning that children with special needs learn together in a diverse community under the guidance of class teachers, subject teachers and other teachers, while special education teachers play a role in guiding certain activities that children with special needs cannot participate in using individualized learning programs (PPI). Basically, the evaluation aspects developed for students with special needs include cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects in a balanced and proportional manner according to the demands of the Basic Competencies and content standards of the regular curriculum. Children with special needs (ABK) receive learning and evaluation services with grids made by their accompanying teachers. The issue of learning evaluation in primary schools that organize inclusive education is a very important thing to study more deeply, because learning evaluation is one of the keys to the success of primary schools that organize inclusive education in helping children with special needs who study at school.