Self-evaluation in Distance Education of Biology Program FKIP-Universitas Terbuka
DOI:
10.29303/jppipa.v9i9.4043Published:
2023-09-25Issue:
Vol. 9 No. 9 (2023): SeptemberKeywords:
Biology education, Distance education, Self-evaluation, Study programResearch Articles
Downloads
How to Cite
Downloads
Metrics
Abstract
The purpose of this research is expected to help the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP-UT in improving academic and administrative services for users. In detail, the objectives of this study are: (1) The effectiveness of the services that have been provided by the Biology Education S1 Study Program FKIP-UT to service users; (2) Student services of the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP-UT; (3) Service user satisfaction of the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP-UT; (4) Characteristics of the learning process of the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP –UT; (5) Learning experience of service users of the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP-UT. The research used quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are carried out by surveying all graduates/ students using questionnaires [letters, forms]. While the qualitative method was carried out for limited respondents who were randomly selected proportionally through [online] interviews. The results of this study include data analysis of the effectiveness of services that have been provided by the Biology Education S1 Study Program FKIP-UT to service users, as many as 62.4% are satisfied with the Subject Material Books used, 48.5% are online tutorials, 41.3% Webinars and 56.2% are final exams. As many as 62% of respondents already know the student services of the S1 Biology Education Study Program FKIP-UT regarding reasoning, interests and talents, 60% regarding career guidance and 45.8% regarding welfare and easy access. Satisfaction with the learning experience in the S1 Biology Education Study Program, respondents were satisfied and very satisfied in discussions, tutorial assignments, practices and practicums. With respondents who are dissatisfied with academic and administrative services, it is necessary to improve services and socialization for those who have difficulty accessing services.
References
Adedokun-Shittu, N. A., & Shittu, A. J. K. (2013). ICT impact Assessment Model: An Extension of the CIPP and the Kirkpatrick Models. International HETL Review, 3(12), 1–18. Retrieved from https://rb.gy/u9d66
Arikunto. (2009). Research Procedure A Practice Approach. Revised Edition 6. Rineka Cipta.
Ary, M. (2019). Analisis Model Sistem Antrian Pada Pelayanan Administrasi. Jurnal Tekno Insentif, 13(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.36787/jti.v13i1.102
Auliya, J., Mahayukti, G. A., & Gita, I. N. (2018). Penerapan Penilaian Diri untuk Meningkatkan Efikasi Diri Siswa dalam Pembelajaran Matematika. Jurnal Imiah Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.23887/jipp.v2i2.14022
Brady, A. M. (2016). The Regime of Self-Evaluation: Self-Conception for Teachers and Schools. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(4), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1164829
Dwikurnaningsih, Y., Waruwu, M., & Wardani, K. W. (2022). A Combination of Context Input Process Product and Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model to Determine the Effectiveness of E-Training for Principals During COVID-19 Pandemic. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.4.2087
Eryuni Ramdhayani, Wiwi Noviati, Syafruddin, Linda Deniati, & Erna Kurniati. (2020). Analisis Penilaian Sikap Siswa Selama Pembelajaran Daring Pada Era Tatanan Baru. Jurnal Pendidikan Mipa, 10(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.37630/jpm.v10i2.380
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B . (2011). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4thEdition). Pearson Inc.
Frye, A. W., & Hemmer, P. A. (2012). Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67. Medical Teacher, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668637
Handayani, R., & Wulandari, D. (2021). Modern Assessment dalam Menyongsong Pembelajaran Abad 21 dan Hambatan di Negara Berkembang. Jurnal Pendidikan Edutama, 8(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.30734/jpe.v8i1.1363
Khalid, M., Ashraf, M., & Rehman, C. A. (2012). Exploring the link between Kirkpatrick (KP) and context, input, process and product (CIPP) training evaluation models, and its effect on training evaluation in public organizations of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6(1), 274-279. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm11.2087
Kurniawati, E. W. (2022). Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Pesantren Mahasiswa Model Cipp (Context, Input, Process, Product). GHAITSA : Islamic Education Journal, 6(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.32478/evaluasi.v6i1.848
Mahayukti, G. A., Dewi, P. K., & Yudi Hartawan, I. G. N. (2020). Pengaruh Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah dengan Penilaian Diri terhadap Efikasi Diri dan Hasil Belajar Mahasiswa. ANARGYA: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 3(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.24176/anargya.v3i2.5069
McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2008). The importance of the concept of self-evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.08.001
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning. In US Department of Education.
Muji, A. P., Gistituati, N., Bentri, A., & Falma, F. O. (2021). Evaluation of the implementation of the sekolah penggerak curriculum using the context, input, process and product evaluation model in high schools. JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia), 7(3), 377. https://doi.org/10.29210/020211231
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The “relative selfâ€: Informational and judgmental consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.23
Nurhasan. (2001). Tests and Measurements in Physical Education. Ministry of Education and Culture.
Pantiwati, Y. (2016). Hakekat Asesmen Autentik Dan Penerapannya Dalam Pembelajaran Biologi. Jurnal Edukasi Matematika Dan Sains, 1(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.25273/jems.v1i1.773
Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. A. (2011). Student Self-Evaluation : What Research Says and What Practice Shows. In Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Swaffield, S., & MacBeath, J. (2005). School self-evaluation and the role of a critical friend. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500147037
Tanjung, R. (2022). Sistem Informasi Pelayanan Akademik. CV Widina Media Utama. Retrieved from https://repository.penerbitwidina.com/
Tanjung, R., Arifudin, O., Sofyan, Y., & Hendar. (2020). Pengaruh Penilaian Diri dan Efikasi Diri terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Serta Implikasinya terhadap Kinerja Guru. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, Ekonomi Dan Akuntansi, 4(1), 380–391. https://doi.org/10.31955/mea.v4i1.554
Toosi, M., Modarres, M., Amini, M., & Geranmayeh, M. (2021). Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model in medical Education : A Systematic Review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10(May), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp
Umam, K. A., & Saripah, I. (2018). Using the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model in the Evaluation of Training Programs. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2(July), 19. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v2i0.26086
Uno, H. B. (2013). Assessment Pembelajaran. Bumi Aksara.
Widoyoko, E. P. (2012). Learning Program Evaluation. Learning Library.
Wirawan. (2012). Human Resource Performance Evaluation, Application Theory and Research. Salemba Empat.
Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model (CIPP) as a Comprehensive Framework to Guide the Planning, Implementation, and Assessment of Service-learning Programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57–84. Retrieved from http://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/jheoe/article/view/628
Author Biographies
Leonard Raden Hutasoit, Universitas Terbuka
Anna Ratnaningsih, Universitas Terbuka
Krisna Iryani, Universitas Terbuka
Tri Wahyuningsih, Universitas Terbuka
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Leonard Raden Hutasoit, Anna Ratnaningsih, Krisna Iryani, Tri Wahyuningsih
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
- 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 acknowledgment of its initial publication in Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA.
- 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).
