TUGAS EVALUASI PEMBELAJARAN

EVALUASI PROGRAM MODEL SCRIVEN

NAMA : SABANA ASMI

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

THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SCRIVEN’S GOAL FREE MODEL

As opposed to goal-based evaluation, goal-free evaluation puts a focus on the
outcomes of the educational program, intended and unanticipated. The goal-free-evaluator
does not deal with the rhetoric of the instructional designers regarding what they want to
achieve, but rather pays attention to the results accomplished by the designers’ education
programs (Popham, 1995).
The goal-free evaluation works in the way that it tries to discern what a total effects
of he project are while assiduously avoiding the “false” information coming from the
program or project goals. In this way, the side-effects that may come from the goals of the
projects or educational programs can be reduced. In other words, evaluators are not
influenced by the goals of the projects or programs. However, it does not mean that the
goal-free evaluation is recommended as the replacement of the goal-based evaluation.
Goal-free evaluation is suggested to be used as a supplementary to goal-oriented framework
by Scriven (Popham, 1995).
Youker and Ingraham (2013) suggested a guideline for evaluators to follow when
the conduct a goal-free evaluation. The guideline proposes four main steps that evaluators
should take as follows (p.7):
1. Identify relevant effects to examine without referencing goals and objectives
2. Identify what occurred without the prompting of goals and objectives
3. Determine if what occurred can logically be attributed to the program or intervention
4. Determine the degree to which the effect is positive, negative or neutral
STRENGHTS AND WEEKNESSES OF SCRIVEN’S GOAL FREE MODEL
1. Strenghts
One of the main benefits of the goal-free evaluation model is that it allows
evaluators to be attentive to a wider range of program outcomes rather than just look for the
program results that are stuck to the program aims/goals. In this case, goal-free evaluators
function as internal or external evaluators. For example, in a curriculum development
project, one member of the project can be an internal evaluator who assess the worth of
various project endeavors in terms of their results while another evaluator who is not the
member of the project works as an external evaluator.
The second advantage of goal-free evaluation is that it can be used to supplement
goal-based evaluation (Youker & Ingraham, 2013; Youker, Hunter, Bayer, & Zielinski,
2016). For instance, an evaluator may begin goal-free but later become goal-based using
goal-free data for preliminary investigation purposes while the evaluation is ensured to
examine goal achievement (Sufflebeam & Shinkfield, 1985). In other words, the finding
from GFE can be utilized as baseline information for subsequent GBEs. Moreover, a more
comprehensive review can be accomplished when goal-free evaluation is used to
supplement the findings from goal-based evaluation.
Another advantage of goal-free evaluation is avoiding the rhetoric true goal. “it is
tragic when all resources go to goal-directed evaluation on a program when the stated goal
do not even begin to include all important outcomes.” (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen,
2004, p.85). identifying which goals the evaluator should use is, in fact, a difficulty if the
program has multiple stakeholders with different goals. GFE can avoid this issue by
eliminating the distraction of goals (Youker & Ingraham, 2013).
Finally, goal-free evaluation can be adapter or adjusted to suit the sporadic changes
in customer needs, program resources, and program goals (Scriven, 1991; Davidson, 2005).
Customer needs, program foundation and environment are dynamic and may change over
time; therefore, the goals of the program may not be relevant any more. In this case, the
goal-free evaluator still continues with his task of recognizing and recording the effects
providing that changes in goals or onjectives are refleced in program’s actions and
outcomes.
2. Weekness
Nevertheless, even though goal-free model has a long history, it has remained
conceptually abstract and highly theoretical with very few practitioners and others who
have written about it (Ypuker & Ingraham, 2013). “Goal-free evaluation has been widely
criticized for lack of operations by which to conduct it” (Shadish, Cook, & Levinton, 1991,
p.61). In other words, it is quite hard for evaluators to assess educational programs using
GFE as they just know the model in theory and there is a lack of knowledge of the model in
practice (Irvin, 1979; Mathison, 2005). The lack of knowledge in practice leads evaluators
to the belief that they cannot use GFE in practice (Shadish, Cook, Levinton, 1991). More
researches should be done in order to have a clear methodology and guidance for the GFE
model to be effectively exploited in the world of evaluation.

REFERENCE
Anh, V. T. K. 2018. Evaluation Models in Educational Program: Strenghts and
Weaknesses. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2): 140-150.
 IMPACT OF CHARACTER EDUCATION IMPLEMENTATION: A GOAL-
FREE EVALUATION

TUJUAN EVALUASI
The research aimed to describe the impact of character education implementation as
well as challenges and strategies of teachers in implementing the character education

DESAIN EVALUASI
Research Focus : This research was particularly focused on the overall evaluation (all
aspects involved in the implementation of character education) based on the context of
education in Indonesia. The use of the goal-free evaluation model in this research was
intended to make evaluations “free” from any intervention or interest and the results are
truly objective and independent based on the actual facts.
Participants : This research was conducted at senior high schools in Indonesia that
integrated religious education into learning. There were nine schools involved in this
research; three senior high schools from Special Region of Yogyakarta which represents the
western part of Indonesia, three senior high schools from East Kalimantan which represent
the central part of Indonesia, and three senior high schools from West Nusa Tenggara
which represent the eastern part of Indonesia. The three schools from each province
represented three types of qualifications including high, medium, and low level.

PENGUMPULAN INFORMASI
Instrument and Procedures : The data were collected through Focus Group Discussions
(FGDs) and interviews. The topics for FGD included the impact of character education, the
things occurred in character education; evaluation and coordination in character education;
activities that impacted on character education; prominent characters of students; the
factors for successful character education; and things that needed to be improved in
character education. The interviews were conducted with six students in each school as the
subjects being educated in character education. The topics addressed to the students in the
interview were related to the impact of character education, implementation; activities that
impacted on character education; the factors for successful character education; and the
programs of character education that needed to be improved.

ANALISIS INFORMASI
For the data analysis, a model suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982) was used in
this research to find out the interrelations among themes and generate a detailed
understanding. The analysis model consisted of three stages including data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing. After the data were reduced into a simplified form, they
were grouped based on the similarity of aspects and themes. The next step was to determine
the interrelations among these themes to obtain in-depth understanding. The analysis results
were then used to draw a conclusion of how much the impact of character education, i.e.
positive, neutral or negative impacts. The results of the data analysis were also used to
discuss many relevant topics in the implementation of character education, the
improvement in students’ characters and also to make recommendations related to the
implementation of character education.
PELAPORAN INFORMASI
The implementation of character education in the education system in Indonesia that has
been running for the last two decades has made positive impacts on the development of students’
characters. The character values have been significantly developed in students including
religiosity, personality, social attitude, and competitive attitude. This development is supported by
several factors such as role modelling by the teachers in schools and by parents at home,
character-oriented activities, and moral and material support from the educational stakeholders.
However, the implementation of character education in Indonesia still needs improvement in
terms of training for teachers and operational funding.

REFERENCE
Zurqoni. 2018. Impact of Character Education Implementation: A Goal-Free
Evaluation.Problems of Education in the 21th Century, 76(6).
 JAWABAN PERTANYAAN DALAM FORUM STAKE

Pertanyaan :
“Telah dijelaskan di awal bahwa model stake ini bersifat kualitatif, dan di akhir
penjelasan bahwa implementasi dari model stake ini adalah evaluasi metode atau media.
Yang mau saya tanyakan, apa instrumen penelitian yang cocok untuk evaluasi metode
atau media? Karena dari beberapa penelitian, untuk evaluasi metode atau media
kebanyakan masuk ke dalam penelitian kuantitatif”
Jawaban :
“Biasanya kita kalau mengembangkan media untuk uji kelayakan biasanya pakek ceklist
yang dibagikan kesiswa itu ya, kalau dalam model responsif stake ini untuk mengetahui
kelayakan atau uji coba keterbacaan evaluator menanyakan atau terjadi tanya jawab
dengan peserta didik terkait medianya sehingga data yang diperoleh berupa data kualitatif
jadi data diperoleh dengan mengamati selama menggunaan media dan tanya jawab selama
penggunaan media tersebut”

Pertanyaan :
“Pada kekurangan model stake poin 7 dijelaskan pendekatan tidak begitu efektif jika
seseorang mencoba menemukan jawaban khusus saat mencoba membuktikan daripada
membandingkan. Bagaimana cara meminimalisir kekurangan tersebut? Pada
karakteristik Stake yang pertama Lebih berorientasi secara langsung kepada aktivitas
program daripada tujuan program. Sedangkan pada model tyler yang dibahas kemarin
lebih menekankan pada tujuan program, dapatkan kedua evaluasi tersebut
dikombinasikan?”
Jawaban :
Point ke7 mengenai kelemahan model Stake ini,
Kita kembalikan lagi konsep evaluasi program model stake bahwa model ini lebih
menekankan bahwa proses lebih ditekankan dibanding hasil tujuan. Artinya keberhasilan
suatu program tidak serta merta terbukti hasil nya saja yang mutlak, namun ada sisi yang
dipertimbangkan yaitu proses yang dilewati menuju tujuan program.
Dari referensi yang kami peroleh bahwa, karena adanya beberapa kelemahan pada
program ini, maka dapat dilakukan perpaduan dengan model evaluasi proram yang lain.