Evaluation of Learning through Work Practices Industry Program at University with the CIPP Model Approach
Abstract
Evaluation in a program is an important series that intends to evaluate the implementation of industrial practices. This study is an evaluation study with the CIPP evaluation model developed by Stufflebeam, analyzed quantitatively. Respondents in this study consisted of 5 Head of Department, 27 supervisors, 20 industrial supervisors, and 134 students who had carried out industrial practice class 2017. The results showed that 1) the context aspect had obtained categories according to the average value of 131.02. Significant in the context evaluation is that in the management of information systems supervisor respondents, the category is less following the percentage of 37.03 percent, so information systems need to be developed. 2) the input aspect in industrial practice management is in the category according to the average value of 57.08, which indicates the readiness of the management and students is appropriate, 3) the process aspect is in the category according to the average of 93.84. The category is not suitable for the role of supervisors who need improvement in student services and adequate guidance so that students can be directed, 4) product aspects with an average score of 85.30; this is shown by the changes that occur by students from personality, responsibility, and skill improvement.
References
D. Gillies, “Human capital, education, and sustainability,” Sisyphus—Journal Educ., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 78–99, 2014.
T. Kellaghan and V. Greaney, Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Unesco, International Institute for Educational Planning, 2001.
T. W. Schultz, “Investment in human capital,” Am. Econ. Rev., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1961.
M. Rieckmann, “Learning to transform the world: Key competencies in Education for Sustainable Development,” Issues trends Educ. Sustain. Dev., vol. 39, pp. 39–59, 2018.
P. L. Maki, Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Stylus Publishing, LLC., 2012.
S. Pavlin, “The role of higher education in supporting graduates’ early labour market careers,” Int. J. Manpow., 2014.
R. A. Noe and A. D. Kodwani, Employee training and development, 7e. McGraw-Hill Education, 2018.
C. Patrick, D. Peach, C. Pocknee, F. Webb, M. Fletcher, and G. Pretto, The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study. Queensland University of Technology, 2008.
S. Dietze et al., “Interlinking educational resources and the web of data: A survey of challenges and approaches,” Program, 2013.
M. Porter, A. Warner, and J. Sachs, Global Competitiveness Report 2000. McGraw-Hill, 2000.
P. H. Rossi, M. W. Lipsey, and G. T. Henry, Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage publications, 2018.
D. L. Stufflebeam and G. Zhang, The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Publications, 2017.
R. R. Sims, Organizational success through effective human resources management. Greenwood publishing group, 2002.
T. K. Bikson and S. A. Law, “Global Preparedness and Human Resources: College and Corporate Perspectives.,” 1994.
D. B. Curtis, J. J. Floyd, and J. L. Winsor, Business and professional communication. Harpercollins College Division, 1992.
R. M. Thorndike, G. K. Cunningham, R. L. Thorndike, and E. P. Hagen, Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc, 1991.
R. Kiely and P. Rea-Dickins, Program evaluation in language education. Springer, 2005.
D. L. Stufflebeam, “A depth study of the evaluation requirement,” Theory Pract., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 121–133, 1966.
L. Ross and L. J. Cronbach, “Handbook of evaluation research,” Educ. Res., vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 9–19, 1976.
D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, and T. Kellaghan, Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation, vol. 49. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
M. C. Alkin, Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences. Sage Publications, 2012.
M. M. Provus, “The Discrepancy Evaluation Model: An Approach to Local Program Improvement and Development.,” 1969.
M. Provus, Discrepancy evaluation: for educational program improvement and assessment. McCutchan, 1971.
B. R. Worthen, J. R. Sanders, and J. L. Fitzpatrick, “Program evaluation,” Altern. approaches Pract. Guidel., vol. 2, 1997.
J. L. Fitzpatrick, “An introduction to context and its role in evaluation practice,” New Dir. Eval., vol. 2012, no. 135, pp. 7–24, 2012.
R. O. Brinkerhoff, D. M. Brethower, J. Nowakowski, and T. Hluchyj, Program evaluation: A practitioner’s guide for trainers and educators, vol. 2. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
M. D. Miller, R. Linn, and N. Gronlund, “Measurement and evaluation in teaching.” New York: Merrill Press Edu Inc, 2009.
L. B. Mohr, Impact analysis for program evaluation. Sage, 1995.
S. Isaac and W. Michael, “Handbook for research method in social sciences.” San Diego, CA: EDITS, 1984.
S. L. Caudle, “Qualitative data analysis,” Handb. Pract. Progr. Eval., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 417–438, 2004.
D. L. Stufflebeam, H. McKee, and B. McKee, “The CIPP model for evaluation: An update, a review of the model’s development, a checklist to guide implementation,” 2003.
G. Sax, Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997.
D. L. Stufflebeam and A. J. Shinkfield, Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice, vol. 8. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Copyright of the published article belongs to the authors and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY SA) International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- 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 this journal.
- 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).
