TUGAS EVALUASI PEMBELAJARAN

EVALUASI PROGRAM MODEL CIPP

NAMA : SABANA ASMI

NIM : 0403519015
PRODI : Pend. FISIKA S2
Dosen Pengampu : Dr. Budi Naini M, M.App.Sc

Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) model is one of the oldest and thoroughly
tested model which was developed by Daniel Stufflebeam in the late 1960s. The model was
first created for helping improve and achieve accountability for the Unites States school
programs. Later on, the model has been widely applied in many fields such as social
programs, health professions, business, even in military and so on. The model is defined as
“a comprehensive framework for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel,
products and evaluation system”.
THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF CIPP MODEL
CIPP model has for different dimensions: Context evaluation, Input Evaluation,
Process evaluation and Product evaluation. Context evaluation deals with assessing needs,
problems and opportunities within a defined environment. Input evaluation is used to
evaluate competing strategies, the work plans, and the budgets for the strategies chosen to
implement programs or projects. Process evaluation is used to monitor and assess
activities carried out during programs or projects’ implementation. Product evaluation
helps to identify and evaluate short term, long term, intended or unintended outcomes of
programs or projects.
The model is based on “learning by doing”. CIPP model is a continuous effort to
identify and correct mistakes made in evaluation practice, and it is also the way to invent
and test needed new procedures for more effective practices. The underlying theme of CIPP
model is that the most important purpose of evaluation is “not to prove but to improve”.
CIPP model underlines both summative and formative evaluations. CIPP
evaluations are formative when keying the collection and reporting information for
improvements while they are considered to be summative when they assess the complete
project or program activities or performances of services. With the summative role, the
evaluations sum up the value meanings of relevant information and put a focus on
accountability. Besides, the model has objectivist orientation based on the theory that
“moral good is objective and independent or personal or merely human feelings”. On other
words, the evaluation applying CIPP model is free from human subjective feeling to
reach a more precise conclusion.
Evaluator can use the whole CIPP model for their evaluation or just select one
dimension of CIPP model for use. Stufflebeam (2000) proposes a specific guideline for
evaluators, which states the objectives, methods and the use of each component of CIPP
model. Based on the guideline, evaluators can decide which component or dimension of
CIPP they should use for their evaluation, and what method they should adopt.
STRENGHTS AND WEEKNESSES OF SCRIVEN’S GOAL FREE MODEL
1. Strenghts
CIPP model has a long history and it has been updated regularly, so it proves to be
extremely beneficial in evaluation. First of all, the model is not designed for any specific
programs or solution in mind; therefore, it is easily applied to multiple evaluation
situations. It is used by “evaluators, program specialists, researchers, developers,
committees or task group, and layer persons”. Zhang from East Carolina University stated
that while she searched for relevant literature on CIPP model, she found about 200 CIPP
related evaluation studies, journal articles, and doctoral dissertations in many nations and in
many fields. The model is also found to be applied in 134 doctoral dissertations at eighty
one universities involving 39 disciplines. CIPP model is employed in such disciplines as
agriculture, aviation, business, communication, distance education, elementary, tertiary,
and secondary religion and sociology.
Secondly, the four different dimensions of CIPP model can be used as the whole
process to evaluate programs or projects or can be applied separately to suit the need of the
evaluation. Context evaluation is used for planning decisions to determine objectives; Input
evaluation helps to structure decisions to design instructional procedures; Process
evaluation is to implement decisions to use, monitor and improve procedures; Product
evaluation is applied for recycling decisions to judge and to react to the outcomes produced
by procedures.
Thirdly, it is easy to apply CIPP model in evaluation as the model has a clear
guidance developed by Daniel Stufflebeam and his colleagues. Stufflebeam provides
evaluators with in depth guidance on when, why and how to use CIPP model. Based on
such guidance, evaluators can decide whether they apply all CIPP model or just choose a
particular dimension to use in their evaluation. A comprehensive framework of CIPP model
is very useful for evaluators during their evaluation. Besides, Stufflebeam (2007) assists
evaluators by a checklist that they can use to figure out what they need to do during
evaluation. The checklist also helps evaluators to know what they should deal with in their
evaluations.
2. Weekness
Despite its being widely used, CIPP has some drawbacks that should be considered
before it is applied for evaluation. First of all, it is said to be similar to the needs
assessment. Context evaluation has some features in common with needs assessment when
it also deals with needs. Secondly, the application of the model takes much time is the
whole model is applied.
REFERENCE
Anh, V. T. K. 2018. Evaluation Models in Educational Program: Strenghts and
Weaknesses. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2): 140-150.

EVALUATION OF SCHOOL OPERATIONAL ASSISTANCE BY USING

CIPP MODEL IN INDONESIA PRIVATE ISLAMIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

TUJUAN EVALUASI
 The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the implementation
of the School Operational Assistance on Private Islamic Elementary School in the city of
Jambi, Indonesia.
DESAIN EVALUASI
This study used a descriptive qualitative approach with a concept of a
comprehensive evaluation program that includes context, input, process, and product
(CIPP).
CONTEXT INPUT PROCESS PRODUCT
Assessing the BOS Assessing the readiness of Assess the effectiveness and Assessing
program objectives implementing the program efficiency of BOS program the results
are oriented to the include action plans, implementation to see the accuracy of the
needs of schools procedures, and of program action plans, procedures, program in
and students, the mechanisms, and mechanisms, organizational the form of
terms formulation of organizational structure, structure, monitoring, and control. In results and
objectives, goals, monitoring and controlling, addition, the support of benefits
and policies that human resources support, implementation in human resources, BOS
underlie the BOS infrastructure, and budget infrastructure, and budget. program
program
PENGUMPULAN INFORMASI
Data were collected through observation, interviews, documentation, Focus Group
Discussion and triangulation. The 4 key informants were asked to assess the successfulness
of program implementation by giving rank 1 to 5 indicating 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 =
pretty good, 4 = good, 5 = very good. Documents are verified by interviews by using the
same rating to indicate the readiness.
ANALISIS INFORMASI
1. Context
No Component Averag * In the goal setting componet, informants and
. e documentation study results provide an assessment of an
1 Goal setting 4.6 average value of 4.6 out of 5 meaning that goal setting
2 Objective 4.8 has been acomplished excellently.
setting *Similarly in the objective setting component,
3 Policy 4.8 informants and documentation study result provide an
assessment of an average value of 4.8 out of 5 meaning
that goal setting has been accomplished excelently as
well
*Finally, the same things also happen in policy
components where average value generated is 4.8 out of
5 meaning that goal setting has been accomplished
excellently also
2. Input
No Component Averag The score indicates that the management team
. e has made preparation in aspects of input
1 Action plans 4.8 reflected in good scores of the action plan,
2 Procedures and mechanism 4.3 procedures, and mechanism, organizational
 3 Organizational structure 4.3 structure, monitoring and controlling,
4 Monitoring and controlling 4.0 infrastructure as well as budget. Only in
5 Human resources 3.8 human resources aspects the average score
6 Infrastructure 4.0 below 4 (good) that requires attention to
7 budget 4.2 obtain full support for achieving the objective
3. Process
No Component Averag The score reveals that the management teas has
. e successfully implemented steps necessary in
1 Action plans 4.4 process aspects reflected in good scores of an
2 Procedures and mechanism 3.5 action plan, organizational structure, monitoring
3 Organizational structure 4.1 and controlling, human resources, infrastructure
4 Monitoring and controlling 4.0 as well as budget. Only in aspects the procedures
5 Human resources 4.0 and mechanisms average score below 4 meaning
6 Infrastructure 4.3 that effort must be made to make this component
7 budget 4.1
achieves the expected level.
4. Product
No Component Averag The score revelas that the management team
. e has successfully achieved the excellent level
1 Result Achievement 4.5 in product aspects reflected in good scores of
2 Benefit Achievement 4.9 achievement and benefits result component as
the average score is 4.7 (very good).

PELAPORAN INFORMASI
First, the results of the evaluation aspects of the context of the BOS program falls in a very
good category. Second, the results of the evaluation aspects of input activities of the program fall
under good categories. Third, the results of the evaluation process aspect also fall in good
categories. Finally and the most important, the results of the evaluation aspects of the product
activity of BOS program fall into the very good category.

REFERENCE
Setyoko, A., B. Tunas., W. Sunaryo. 2016. Evaluation of School Operational Assisstance
by Using CIPP Model in Indonesia Private Islamic Elementary School.
International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research (IJMSR), 4(3): 44-49.