Increasing the Effectiveness of Caregiver Education Through Program Evaluation Using the CIPP Method
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11111/ujost.v2i1.113Keywords:
Effectiveness ; Caregiver Education , Program Evaluation, CIPPAbstract
This study focuses on evaluating caregiver education in Indonesia using CIPP analysis, namely, Context, Input, Process and Product. In the following discussion, the language is translated into context, input, process and product or CIPP. So that later it is expected to be able to identify several aspects that can be used as input for stakeholders for the development of caregiver education. This evaluation research uses the CIPP approach to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of caregiver programs in Indonesia.The type of research used is descriptive evaluative, in which this research seeks to obtain various information on the implementation of caregiver education programs at SMK Darmawan and SMKN 8 Semarang. In this study the method of collecting data was through 3 ways, namely: 1) interviews, 2) documentation studies, 3) observation. In this research. Researchers use three ways; interviews with informants or resource persons who are considered competent in their field, Observation, in this study on site observation or observation at school by looking directly at all activities that are related to the process of caregiver education in educational units, next is documentation study, namely making validation of what the informants have explained about the program being implemented. In this research interviews were conducted with 5 informants according to their respective capacities according to Context, Input, Process and Product in CIPP sequentially. The need to open family caregivers does not refer to clear documents issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture. There were no definite documents regarding the need for caregivers quantitatively. In general, the vision of education can be properly reviewed. However, if we narrow it down to the opening of family caregivers, it is not specifically clear. It's just that the values of being knowledgeable, capable, creative, and independent are the basic things that must be the goals of family caregiver education, because they have to help the elderly properly. As already stated that the mission is a process that must be carried out to achieve the vision, the mission in opening the Carriver Family Card, although not implicitly mentioned in the educational mission, is to provide knowledge, skills and attitudes that are of global standard because there is indeed a need for caregiver workers. abroad quite a lot.
References
AbdiShahshahani, M. M Ghoreishi, M A Peyman (2015) ‘The Evaluation of Reproductive Health PhD Program in Iran: A CIPP Model Approach’, Procedia - Social and ehavioral Sciences. Elsevier B.V., 197(February), pp. 88–97. doi: /j.sbspro.2015.07.059.
Achmadi, A. N. (2011) ‘Teori Metodologi Penelitian’, Teori Metodologi litian, pp. 1–21.
Agustian, I., Saputra, H. E. Imanda, A. (2019) ‘Pengaruh Sistem Informasi Manajamen Terhadap Peningkatan Kualitas Pelayanan Di Pt. Jasaraharja Putra Cabang Bengkulu’, Profesional: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Administrasi Publik, 6(1), pp. 42–60. doi: 10.37676/professional.v6i1.837.
Ahmad, N. (2015) Pembelajaran Buku Ajar. INTERPENA Yogyakarta
Aliyyah, R. R. Djuanda, U. (2020) ‘Novateur Publication , India’, (October).
Ananda, R. Rafida, T. (2017) Pengantar evaluasi program pendidikan, Perdana Publishing.
Arifin, Z. (2010). Model-Model Evaluasi Program. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
Bhat, B. A. (2019) ‘Formative and Summative Evaluation Techniques for Improvement of Learning Process’, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 7(5), pp. 776–785.
Camilli, S. (2019) ‘Big Shoes to Fill: An Evaluation Journey in the Footsteps of Daniel L. Stufflebeam’, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 15(33), pp. 30–36. Available at: ttps://journals.sfu.ca/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/609/489. Carey, D. P. (2001) ‘Mind myths: exploring popular assumptions about the mind and the brain’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(3), pp. 347–349. doi: 10.1002/acp.736.
Chaldini, R., Cialdini, R. B. Science and Practice. (2001) Fourth edition BOSTON: Pearson Education
Curriculum, A. G. F. O. R. (no date) AND MONITORING AND How will we know what students have.
Darma, I. K. (2019) ‘The Effectiveness of Teaching Program of CIPP Evaluation Model : Department of Mechanical Engineering , Politeknik Negeri Bali’, International Research Journal of Engineering, 5(3), pp. 1–13.
Darodjat. Wahyudhiana M (2015) ‘Model Evaluasi , Measurement, Assessment, Evaluation’, Islamadina, XIV, pp. 1–28.
Demirbağ, B. C. Çiğdem Gamze Özkan, Betül Bayrak. Yeter Kurt (2018) ‘Caregiver Burden and Responsibilities for Nurses to Reduce Burnout’, Caregiving and Home Care. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.68761.
Dewi, V. P., Ismail, R. I. Kusdhany, M. L. (2018) ‘Training Program To Support Preparedness of Elderly Health Care Services’, ASEAN Journal of Community Engagement, 2(1), p. 120. doi: 10.7454/ajce.v2i1.87.
Divayana, D. G. H. (2017) ‘Evaluasi pelaksanaan blended learning di SMK TI Udayana menggunakan model CSE-UCLA’, Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 7(1), p. 64. doi: 10.21831/jpv.v7i1.12687.
Garcia-Ptacek, S. Beth Dahlrup, Ann-Katrin Edlund, Helle Wijk, Maria Eriksdotter (2019) ‘The caregiving phenomenon and caregiver participation in dementia’, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 33(2), pp. 255–265. doi: 10.1111/scs.12627.
García Reyes, L. E. (2013) 済無No Title No Title, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling.
GISSELLA, M. V. E. (2016) ‘No Title’회선진화법’ 에 관한 보론’, 입법학연구, 제13집 1호, pp. 31–48.
Habe, H. Ahiruddin, A. (2017) ‘Sistem Pendidikan Nasional’, EKOMBIS SAINS: Jurnal Ekonomi, Keuangan dan Bisnis, 2(1), pp. 39–45. doi: 10.24967/ekombis.v2i1.48.
Hanafy, M. S. (2014) ‘Konsep Belajar Dan Pembelajaran’, Lentera Pendidikan : Jurnal Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, 17(1), pp. 66–79. doi: 10.24252/lp.2014v17n1a5.
Hapsari, A. Ritohardoyo, S. (2013) ‘Provus’S Discrepancy Evaluation Model Pada Pendidikan Inklusi’, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), pp. 1689–1699.
Herawati, H. (2018) ‘Memahami proses belajar anak’, jurnal UIN Ar-Raniry Banda Aceh, IV, pp. 27–48.
Hermanns, M. Mastel-smith, B. (2012) ‘Caregiving : A Qualitative Concept Analysis’, 17, pp. 1–18.
Indiran, L. Wan Noorhaslinda Binti Wan Ramli (2013), A Framework For Evaluating The Effectiveness Of Polytechnics Entrepreneurship Programmes, Persidangan Pendidikan (Penyelidikan dan Inovasi) Dalam Pendidikan Dan Latihan Teknikal Dan Vokasional (CiE-TVET 2013)
Isnan, J. (2016) ‘Evaluasi Program Ekstrakurikuler Jurnalistik Menggunakan Model Context, Input, Process dan Product (Cipp) Pada Siswa Madrasah Aliyah Negeri (MAN) 1 Pati’, Skripsi.
Josselin, J.-M. B. Le Maux, (2017) Statistical Tools for Program Evaluation: Introduction and Overview, Statistical Tools for Program Evaluation. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-52827-4_1.
Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2018) ktrum_Perdirjen_06_2018.Pdf’.
Lynch, B. K. (2001) ‘Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective’, Language Testing, 18(4), pp. 351–372. doi: 10.1177/026553220101800403.
Makaria, E. C. (2018) ‘Evaluation Study on Implementation of Home Visit Service through CSE-UCLA Model in SMP Negeri 2 Anjir Muara’, 274, pp. 68–71. doi: 10.2991/iccite-18.2018.16.
Mayssara A. Abo Hassanin Supervised, A. (2014) ‘済無No Title No Title No Title’, Paper Knowledge . Toward a Media History of Documents, pp. 8–38.
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. C. (2014) ‘Educational design research’, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition, (January 2013), pp. 131–140. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11.
Munthe, A. P. (2015) ‘Pentingya Evaluasi Program Di Institusi Pendidikan’, Scholaria : Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 5(2), p. 1.
OECD (2009) ‘OECD DAC Glossary, Guidelines for Project and Programme Evaluations’, Austrian Development Cooperation, 1(July), p. 48. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-glossary.htm.
Patil, Y. and Kalekar, S. (2014) ‘CIPP MODEL FOR SCHOOL EVALUATION Mr. Yogesh Patil, Mr. Sunil Kalekar Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, Aranyeshwar, Pune 9’, Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 2, pp. 2615–2619.
Pauzi, H. M. Saim, N.J., Kusenin, N. S., Kamaluddin, M. R (2017) ‘Evaluation of Children’s Rehabilitation Program by Using the CIPP Model’, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(3), pp. 324–332. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i3/2737.
Putra, Andreas, T. A. (2018) ‘Evaluasi program pendidikan: Pendekatan evaluasi program berorientasi tujuan (Goal-oriented evaluation approach)’, Jurnal IAIN, pp. 55–68.
QUINN, P. M. (2017) ‘Standards of excellence from a leader of excellence...daniel stufflebeam’.
Riadi, A. (2017) ‘Problematika Sistem Evaluasi Pembelajaran’, Ittihad: Jurnal Kopertais Wilayah XI Kalimantan, 15(27), pp. 1–12. Available at: https://jurnal.uin-antasari.ac.id/index.php/ittihad/article/view/1593.
Rijali, A. (2019) ‘Analisis Data Kualitatif’, Alhadharah: Jurnal Ilmu Dakwah, 17(33), p. 81. doi: 10.18592/alhadharah.v17i33.2374.
Riyad, M. M Khafizov, Y Wang, J Pakarinen, (2020) ‘Measuring the professionality of school teachers’ performance: The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model’, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 12(3), pp. 386–399.
Said, M., Madhakomala, R. Idris, F. (2019) ‘Discrepancy evaluation model for human resources health placement evaluation at the Puskesmas’, Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 7(4), pp. 588–594.
Sakarinto, W. (2020) ‘Petunjuk Teknis Bantuan Pemerintah Fasilitasi Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Yang Dikembangkan Menjadi Pusat Keunggulan (Center of Excellence) Prioritas Sektor Hospitality’.
Sataloff, R. T., Johns, M. M. Kost, K. M. (no date) ‘No 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における 健康関連指標に関する共分散構造分析Title’, (X).
Shidiq, U. Choiri, M. (2019) Metode Penelitian Kualitatif di Bidang Pendidikan, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. Available at: http://repository.iainponorogo.ac.id/484/1/METODE PENELITIAN KUALITATIF DI BIDANG PENDIDIKAN.pdf.
Sita, R. Agusta, I. (2011) ‘Evaluasi Efektivitas, Relevansi, Dan Keberlanjutan Dampak Proyek Second Water Sanitation for Low Income Communities (Wslic-2)’, Sodality: Jurnal Sosiologi Pedesaan, 5(2), pp. 217–230. doi: 10.22500/sodality.v5i2.5821.
Siyoto, S., D. Sodik., M. A. (2015) ‘Dasar Metodologi Penelitian Dr. Sandu Siyoto, SKM, M.Kes M. Ali Sodik, M.A. 1’, Dasar Metodologi Penelitian, pp. 1–109.
Spiegel, A. N., Bruning, R. H. Giddings, L. (1999) ‘Using responsive evaluation to evaluate a professional conference’, American Journal of Evaluation, 20(1), pp. 57–67. doi: 10.1177/109821409902000105.
Stake, R. E. (2014) ‘Information science and responsive evaluation’, E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(5), pp. 443–450. doi: 10.2304/elea.2014.11.5.443.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003) ‘The CIPP Model for Evaluation’, International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, pp. 31–62. doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4.
Suarga, S. (2019) ‘Hakikat, Tujuan Dan Fungsi Evaluasi Dalam Pengembangan Pembelajaran’, Inspiratif Pendidikan, 8(1), pp. 327–338. doi: 10.24252/ip.v8i1.7844.
Suyasa, P. W. A. Kurniawan, P. S. (2018) ‘Pemberdayaan Model CSE-UCLA Dalam Pelaksanaan Evaluasi Program Blended Learning di SMA Negeri 1 Ubud’, WACANA AKADEMIKA: Majalah Ilmiah Kependidikan, 2(2), p. 137. doi: 10.30738/wa.v2i2.2627.
Tan, S., Lee, N. Hall, D. (2010) ‘CIPP as a model for evaluating learning spaces’, Evaluation of Learning Spaces Project, (April), pp. 1–9.
Tokmak, H. S., Baturay, H. M. Fadde, P. (2013) ‘Applying the context, input, process, product evaluation model for evaluation, research, and redesign of an online master’s program’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), pp. 273–293. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1485.
Tompong, B. N. K. J. Jailani, J. (2019) ‘An evaluation of mathematics learning program at primary education using Countenance Stake Evaluation model’, Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 23(2), pp. 156–169. doi: 10.21831/pep.v23i2.16473.
Tripathi, R. (2018) ‘Importance and Improvements in Teaching-Learning process through Effective Evaluation Methodologies’, ESSENCE International Journal for Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation, 9(2), pp. 7–16. doi: 10.31786/09756272.18.9.2.202.
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), p. 19. doi: 10.20961/ijpte.v2i0.26086.
University of Pretoria (2008) ‘Chapter 3: The Research Objective and Research Approach’.
Warju, (2016), Educational Program Evaluation using CIPP Model, academic press pp 39. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia
Visse, M., Abma, T. A. Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2012) ‘Relational responsibilities in responsive evaluation’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(1), pp. 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.08.003.
Wasistiono, S., Indrayani, E. Pitono, A. (2020) Document Title/, Quality.
Wiliam, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment: Getting the focus right’, Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), pp. 283–289. doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_7.
Yambi, T. de A. C. (2018) ‘Assessment and evaluation in education’, Academic Press, (July), pp. 1–9.
Yusup, F. (2018) ‘Uji Validitas dan Reliabilitas Instrumen Penelitian Kuantitatif’, Jurnal Tarbiyah : Jurnal Ilmiah Kependidikan, 7(1), pp. 17–23. doi: 10.18592/tarbiyah.v7i1.2100.
Zamili, M. (2015) ‘MENGHINDAR DARI BIAS: Praktik Triangulasi Dan Kesahihan Riset Kualitatif’, LISAN AL-HAL: Jurnal Pengembangan Pemikiran dan Kebudayaan, 9(2), pp. 283–304. doi: 10.35316/lisanalhal.v9i2.97.
Mira Safitri. “Indonesia Masuki Periode Aging Population” https://www.kemkes.go.id/article/view/19070500004/indonesia-masuki-periode-aging-population.html. Dikutip 08 Maret 2021
programme. https://evaluationstandards.org/ Dikutip 11 Maret 2021
model https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/models/WhatIsAModel.html dikutip tanggal 16 Maret 2021
Anwar hidayat. www.statistikian.com/2012/05/desain-penelitian-pengantar.html Di unduh tanggal 2 April 2021
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 UJoST- Universal Journal of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Scientiae Mundi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles in this journal are Open Access articles published under the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA License This license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work and source is properly cited.
Any derivative of the original must be distributed under the same license as the original.
