Evaluation of Learning Programs at Elementary School Level of “Sekolah Alam Indonesia (SAI)”. (Evaluative Research Using Countenance Stake’s Model)

Rina Harjanti^1, , Yetty Supriyati¹ and Wardani Rahayu¹

¹Research and Evaluation of Education, State University of Jakarta, Indonesia

Cite this paper:
Rina Harjanti, Yetty Supriyati and Wardani Rahayu. Evaluation of Learning Programs at Elementary School Level of “Sekolah Alam Indonesia (SAI)”. (Evaluative Research Using Countenance Stake’s Model). American Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 7(2):125-132. doi: 10.12691/education-7-2-2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate learning programs at the primary school level of SAI using countenance Stake’s evaluation model. Data is obtained through the results of observations, interviews, and documentation with several stakeholders. The results revealed that: in congrruency, evaluation at the stage of antecedents obtained a percentage of 76% which means that education planning at SAI in the category is in accordance with the applicable education planning standards, at the stage of transactions it gets a percentage of 93%, which means that the process of implementing learning at SAI has been very in accordance with the standards of the learning process in the Minister of Education and Culture Regulation No. 22 of 2016, and at the stages of outcomes, it still must be a concern of the school especially in preparation for facing USBN. In contingency, the learning program in the "School of Nature Indonesia" in the category is in accordance with the learning standards in the national curriculum starting from planning, implementation, and school evaluation.

Keywords:
countenance stake’s evaluation model learning program ‘SAI’

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), Human Development Indicators and Indices: 2018 Statistical Update (New York: United Nations Development Programme) 2018.
[2]	Yayasan Perspektif Baru, Sekolah Alam, 2009, http://www.perspektifbaru.com/wawancara/695.
[3]	Suhendi, Belajar Bersama Alam, (Bogor: SoU Publisher), 2008.
[4]	Rohinah, “Sekolah Alam, Paradigma Baru Pendidikan Islam Humanis”, Jurnal Nadwa, Semarang, Vol.8 (2), 2014.
[5]	Barrett, W. Gordon. Educational Evaluation: Two Theoretical Models in a Corporate Based Application, A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Department of Language Education), 1999.
[6]	Frye, Ann W. & Paul A. Hemmer, “Program Evaluation Model and Related Theories”, Journal Medical Teacher, Vol. 34 (62), 2012.
[7]	Fitzpatrick, J.L., J.R. Sanders, & Worthen, Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (Boston: Pearson), 2004.
[8]	M, Sara Steele. Contemporary Approaches to Program Evaluation, Implication for Evaluating Program for Disadvantage Adults (Washington DC: Capitol Publication Inc), 1977.
[9]	Curran, Vernon, Jeanette Christopher, Francine Lemire, Alice Collins, & Brendan Barrett, “Application of a Responsive Evaluation Approach in Medical Education”, Medical Education Journal, Vol. 37 (3), 2003.
[10]	A. Abma, Tineke. “Responsive Evaluation: ts Meaning and Special Contribution to Health Promotion”, Journal Evaluation and Program Planning Vol. 28, 2005.
[11]	Dewantara, I Putu Mas, “Stake Evaluation Model (Countenance Model) in Learning Process Bahasa Indonesia at Ganesha University of Educational”, ResearchGate, Vol.1 (1), 2017.
[12]	Lukum, Astin. “Evaluasi Program Pembelajaran IPA SMP Menggunakan Model Countenance Stake”, Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, Vol.19 (1), 2015.
[13]	Siswanto, “Penerapan Model Evaluasi Stake (Countenance) untuk Mengevaluasi Pembelajaran Dasar-Dasar Akuntas”, Jurnal Pendidikan Akutansi, Vol.8 (1), 2009.
[14]	Stake, Robert. International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (Springer Netherlands: Kluwer International Handbooks of Education), 2003.
[15]	Stake, Robert. Standards-Based & Responsive Evaluation (California: Sage Publications), 2004.
[16]	Stake, Robert. The Countenance of Educational Evaluation (Berkeley.CA McCutchen), 1977.
[17]	Stufflebeam, Daniel L., dkk, Evaluation Models, Viewpoints on Educational and Human Service Evaluation (USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 2002.
[18]	Sundoyo, Harto, Totok Aumaryanto, dan Dwijanto, “Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Sistem Ganda Berdasarkan Stake Countenance Model” Innovative Journal of Curriculum and Educational Technology. Vol.1 (2), 2012.
[19]	Atmaja, RM. Teguh Eko, Cut Zahri Harun, Sakdiah Ibrahim. “Analisis Penetapan Standar Pembiayaan Sekolah” Jurnal Administrasi Pendidikan Pascasarjana Universitas Syiah Kuala, Vol. 4 (1), 2016.
[20]	Daulay, Musnar Indra. “Kepuasan Orangtua Terhadap Layanan Pendidikan Lembaga PAUD di TK Qurrota Ayun Pekanbaru” Journal of Islamic Early Childhood Education, Vol.1 (1), 2018.
[21]	Puspayanti, Amelia. “Evaluasi Pembelajaran Diklat Menggunakan Model Countenance Stake”, Jurnal Diklat Teknis, Vol.6 (1), 2018.
[22]	Stufflebeam, Daniel. L. and Anthony J. Shinkfield. Evaluation Theory, Model and Application (San Fransisko: Jossey-Bass), 2007.