Inclusive Learning Evaluation Models

Inclusive Learning Evaluation Models In the world of education, there are many models of learning program evaluation. The 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 goal of the learning program that has been set long before the program begins. Evaluation is carried out continuously. The evaluator continuously checks how far the goal has been implemented in the program implementation process. 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 be in conflict with the goal oriented evaluation model. In the goal oriented evaluation model, the evaluator continuously monitors the goal, namely from the beginning of the process, he continues to see how far the goal has been achieved. Meanwhile, in the goal free evaluation model (evaluation free from goals) the evaluator actually looks away from the goal. According to Michael Scriven, in carrying out learning evaluations, the evaluator does not need to pay attention to what the program goals are. What needs to be considered in the program is how the program works, by identifying the appearances that occur, both positive things (expected things) and negative things (unexpected things). The reason why the program objectives do not need to be considered is because there is a possibility that the evaluator is observing each specific objective in too much detail. If each specific objective is achieved, it means that it is fulfilled in the performance, but the evaluator forgets to pay attention to how far each of these appearances supports the final appearance expected by the general objective, then as a result the number of these specific appearances is not very useful. 3. Formative-summative evaluation model In addition to the evaluation model free from objectives, Michael Scriven also developed another model, namely the formative-summative model. This model shows the stages and scope of the objects being evaluated, namely evaluations carried out while the learning program is still running (called formative evaluation) and when the program is finished or ends (called summative evaluation). Unlike the first model developed, in this second model, when carrying out the evaluation the evaluator cannot separate themselves from the objectives. The objectives of formative evaluation are indeed different from the objectives of summative evaluation. Thus, the model proposed by Michael Scriven shows the "what, when, and objectives" of the evaluation. Educational evaluators, including teachers, are certainly familiar with what is meant by formative and summative evaluation. Almost every month teachers carry out formative evaluations in the form of daily tests. The evaluation is carried out to determine the extent to which the level of achievement or attainment of objectives for each topic. Because the breadth or narrowness of the material covered in the subject matter of each subject is not the same, it cannot be determined with certainty when formative evaluation is carried out and how many times for each subject. Formative evaluation is in principle an evaluation carried out when the program is still ongoing or when the program is still close to the start of activities. The purpose of the formative evaluation is to find out how far the designed program can run. as well as identifying obstacles By knowing the obstacles and things that cause the program to not run smoothly, decision makers can make improvements early on that support the smooth running of learning objectives. Summative evaluation is carried out after the program ends. The purpose of summative evaluation is to measure the achievement of the program. The function of summative evaluation in the learning evaluation program is intended as a means to find out the position or standing of individuals in their groups. 4. Countenance Evaluation Model This model was developed by Stake. According to Stake, when evaluators are considering an education program, they inevitably have to make comparisons, namely: a) comparing the evaluation conditions of a particular program with those that occur in other programs, with the same target object; b) comparing the conditions of program implementation results 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 words Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angeles. The characteristics of the CSE-UCLA model are the five stages carried out in the evaluation, namely 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 assessor asks questions such as: • What things need to be considered in relation to the existence of the program? • What needs are met by the implementation of the learning program? 2) CSE Model: Program planning In the second stage of the CSE model, the evaluator collects data that is directly related to learning and leads to the fulfillment of needs that have been identified in the first stage. In this planning stage, the PBM program is carefully evaluated to determine whether the learning plan has been prepared based on the results of the needs analysis. The evaluation of this stage 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 truly involved in the program because he must collect data and various information from the developer program. 4) CSE Model: Summative evaluation In the fourth stage, the evaluator is expected to be able to collect all data on the results and impacts of the program. Through this summative evaluation, it is hoped that it can be known whether the objectives formulated for the program have been achieved, and if not, which part has not been found and what the cause is. 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 context • Input evaluation: evaluation of input • Process evaluation: evaluation of process • Product evaluation: evaluation of results. The four words in the abbreviation CIPP are evaluation targets, which are none other than components of the process of a program activity. In other words, the CIPP model is an evaluation model that views the program being evaluated as a system. Thus, if the evaluation team has determined the CIPP model as the model to be used to evaluate the assigned program, then they must analyze the program based on its components. 6) Discrepancy model The word discrepancy is an English term, which means "gap". This model developed by Malcolm Provus is a model that emphasizes the existence of gaps in program implementation. Program evaluation conducted by evaluators measures the magnitude of the gap/difference in each component, between what should be achieved and what has actually been achieved. From the seven explanations of the learning evaluation models above, we can see several models that seem to "overlap". For example, the formative-summative model is also in the CSE-UCLA evaluation model. The discrepancy model is actually a model that consciously or unconsciously becomes a standard model implied in each evaluation model, as long as the evaluation still compares the results achieved with the expected goals. Teachers are expected not to be confused by these seemingly overlapping models, because these models were actually created to achieve perfection in evaluating learning programs. In practice, even though the evaluator has chosen one of the main models for the learning evaluation that will be carried out, the involvement of other evaluation models is not a mistake. Educational evaluators are expected to be flexible in implementing learning program evaluation programs. The program evaluation models above are not designed to be completely separate from each other. (Lecturer Team 2015, pp. 310-314).