Cipp Evaluation Model

CIPP EVALUATION MODEL CIPP Model This evaluation model was developed by a research team led by Daniel Stuffleabem in 1967 at Ohio State University. The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) model is an evaluation model in which evaluation is carried out as a whole as a system. The CIPP model evaluation is a concept offered by Stufflebeam with the view that the important purpose of evaluation is not to prove but to improve. The CIPP evaluation model in its implementation is more widely used by evaluators, this is because this evaluation model is more comprehensive when compared to other evaluation models. (Stufflebeam, H McKee and B McKee, 2003:118). According to the MKDK Kurpem Development Team (2002, p. 40) the CIPP Model is based on the view that the success of an Education program is influenced by various factors: a. Characteristics of students and the environment b. The objectives of the program and the equipment used c. Procedures and mechanisms for implementing the program itself. In his book entitled Educational Evaluation and Decision Making (1971), Stufflebeam classifies his Education program into four dimensions, namely Context, Input, Process, and Product, and proposes an evaluation model known as CIPP, which is an abbreviation of the names of the four dimensions above. According to the CIPP model, the four dimensions of the program in question need to be evaluated before, during, and after the Education program is developed. An explanation of the meaning of each dimension is as follows: Context: Evaluating the status of the object as a whole, identifying deficiencies, strengths, diagnosing problems, and providing solutions, testing whether the goals and priorities are adjusted to the needs to be implemented. Such as the situation or background that influences the types of educational objectives and strategies that will be developed in the program concerned, such as: • The policy of the department or work unit concerned • The targets to be achieved by the work unit within a certain period of time • The human resources problems faced in the work unit concerned 1) Input: Helps organize decisions, helps organize existing resources or materials/equipment/facilities prepared for educational purposes, such as: • Curriculum documents and teaching materials developed • Teaching staff on duty • Available facilities and infrastructure • Educational media used 2) Process: Detecting or predicting the design of procedures or implementation designs during the implementation stage, providing information for program decisions, and as a record or archive of procedures that have occurred. The actual implementation of the educational program in the classroom or in the field which includes: • Implementation of the teaching and learning process • Implementation of evaluations carried out by teachers • Program management 3) Product: Assessments carried out to measure success in achieving predetermined goals. The data produced will greatly determine whether the program is continued, modified or stopped. includes what is achieved in: • Short-term Education Plan • Longer-term Education Plan While there are four other curriculum evaluation models, namely: 1. Measurement Model This model places the position of each student in their group through the development of group norms in evaluating learning outcomes. Comparing learning outcomes between two or more groups that use different teaching programs/methods through quantitative analysis. The evaluation techniques used are mainly tests that are arranged in objective form, which are continuously developed to produce reliable and valid evaluation tools. (MKDK Kurpem Lecturer Team, slide 11). 2. Congruence Model Using pre-and-post-assessment procedures by taking the following main steps: affirmation of objectives, development of evaluation tools, and use of evaluation results. Analysis of evaluation results is carried out part by part. Evaluation techniques include tests and other evaluation techniques that are suitable for assessing various types of behavior contained in the objectives Less agrees with the holding of comparative evaluations between two or more programs. (MKDK Kurpem Lecturer Team, slide 12). 3. Illumination Model This model was initially introduced by Hanley in 1969, but was further developed by Parlett and Hamilton in their writing entitled Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovative programs. In the end, these two figures are known as evaluation figures who gave birth to the illuminative model. Many other evaluation figures refer to Parlett and Hamilton when using this model, including Stenhouse and Scrimshaw (Hassan, 2012, p. 233). Parlett and Hamilton (in Brady, 1983, p. 182) said that this model does not limit itself in collecting data like in traditional evaluation. This model focuses on description rather than interpretation of numbers in predicting research. Parlett and Hamilton said that this model aims to: • Examine situational influences on the curriculum • Distinguish and discuss important features of a curriculum, and critical processes in involving curriculum implementation • Identify all the desired parts of a curriculum. According to Orstein and Hunkins (2009, p. 335) there are three stages and methods in collecting data using the illuminative model, namely: a) Observation; at this stage the evaluator observes the entire education program including school objectives, teaching and learning methods, materials used, and evaluation techniques used by teachers b) Inquiry; at this stage the evaluator will separate important and unimportant data for analysis. At this stage the evaluator not only "knows" that the program is running but why the program can run. To find the answer, the evaluator must spend time in the field to research. c) Explanation; at this stage the evaluator not only provides considerations and decisions on the results of his research, but enriches the data by explaining what happened and why it could happen. From these steps, an important factor in the evaluation of the illuminative model is the need for direct contact between the evaluator and the party being evaluated. This is because the illuminative model emphasizes the importance of establishing closeness with the people and situations being evaluated in order to personally understand the reality and details of the program or system being developed. 4. Educational System Evaluation Model Comparing the performance of each dimension of the program with internal criteria, and comparing program performance using external criteria, namely other performance. Evaluation techniques include tests, observations, interviews, questionnaires and document analysis. Overall, this model is relevant to the role of evaluation in the curriculum development process and can overcome the weaknesses contained in the previous concept. (Ibrahim, & Masitoh, p. 13)