Penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum mata pelajaran sains rumah tangga menggunakan model stake countenance: satu kajian literatur

Nor Asimah Zakaria

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	L Education (General)
Main Author :	Nor Asimah Zakaria
Title :	Penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum mata pelajaran sains rumah tangga menggunakan model stake countenance: satu kajian literatur

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Teknikal dan Vokasional
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Kertas konsep ini adalah bertujuan untuk membincangkan dan menganalisis model penilaian yang digunakan dalam penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum atau program pendidikan. Kertas konsep ini memberi tumpuan kepada Mata Pelajaran Sains Rumah Tangga sekolah menengah yang diajar pada peringkat menengah atas dan Model Stake Countenance. Model ini membincangkan dua matrik iaitu matrik deskripsi dan matrik pertimbangan yang memberi tumpuan kepada kepada kesesuaian antara apakah yang dirancang untuk berlaku dan apakah yang sebenarnya berlaku semasa perlaksanaan dengan melakukan pemerhatian sebelum, semasa, dan selepas pelaksanaan sesuatu kurikulum atau program pendidikan. Model Stake Countenance membincangkan tiga fasa pengumpulan data; masukan, proses dan hasil sebagai teras konsep dalam penilaian pelaksanaan kurikulum atau penilaian program pendidikan. Model Stake menunjukkan keberkesanannya dengan memudahkan penilai membuat pertimbangan menyeluruh dengan menggunakan kaedah penyelidikan kuantitatif atau kualitatif.

References

1. Akta Pendidikan 1996 (akta 550). (1996). Retrieved from http://www.polisas.edu.my/portal/images/stories/Mqa/Akta550.pdf.

2. Cronbach, L. J. (1983). Course Improvement through Evaluation Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (pp. 101-115). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

3. Darusalam, G. (2003). Keberkesanan kursus Pengajian Agama Islam, Diploma Perguruan Malaysia di Maktab-Maktab Perguruan Malaysia. (Tesis Ijazah Kedoktoran Falsafah yang tidak diterbitkan), Universiti Malaya.

4. Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran, Mata Pelajaran Sains Rumah Tangga Tingkatan 4. (2015). Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur.

5. Eisner, E. W. (1967). Instructional and expressive educational objectives: Their formulation and use in curriculum.

6. Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: Some criteria in search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 219-233.

7. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2017). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

8. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 335-397. doi:10.3102/00346543047002335

9. Kassim, N. F., & Jalal, F. H. A. (2015). Kurikulum pendidikan awal kanak-kanak dan Modul pendidikan akhlak: Isu dan cabaran masa kini. . Paper presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan Kebangsaan Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

10. Mamat, I. (1996). Reka bentuk dan pengurusan latihan: Konsep dan amalan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

11. Metfessel, N. S., & W.B., M. (1967). A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 931-943.

12. Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. . (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th ed.). Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon.

13. Pekeliling Ikhtisas Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia bilangan 9 Tahun 2016. Pelaksanaan Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah secara berperingkat-peringkat mulai tahun 2017. (2016). Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur.

14. Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational Evaluation. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

15. Rohana Hamzah, Z. O., Hasnah Hussiin, Zuraina Ali & Nur Qistina Abdullah. (2017). Pembangunan model penilaian kurikulum berteraskan nilai universal bagi program pendidikan berteraskan teknologi & kejuruteraan: Satu Kerangka konseptual. International Journal of Humanities Technology and Civilization, No.1, 50-61.

16. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

17. Scriven, M. (1999). The Fine Line Between Evaluation and Explanation. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(4), 521-524. doi:10.1177/104973159900900407

18. Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation: Citeseer.

19. Stake, R. E. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation Evaluation models (pp. 287-310): Springer.

20. Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation, 2001(89), 7-98.

21. Stufflebeam, D., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2012). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice (Vol. 8): Springer Science & Business Media.

22. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability.

23. Tabori, J. R., & Hermann, J. A. (2001). Project Planning and Evaluation Guidebook: A Manual for Practitioners and Managers of Self Sufficiency Demonstration Projects. Washington DC: Sosiological Practice Association.

24. Tamir, L. (1991). Profesional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), 263-268.

25. Thanabalan, T. V., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2015). Evaluation of a digital story pedagogical module for the indigenous learners using the Stake Countanance model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2.

26. Tyler, R. W. (1942). General Statement on Evaluation. The Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 492-501. doi:10.1080/00220671.1942.10881106

27. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

28. Werner, A. (2004). A guide to implementation research. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

29. Wholey, J. S. (2010). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

30. Wimbush, E., & Watson, J. (2000). An evaluation framework for health promotion: theory, quality and effectiveness. Evaluation, 6(3), 301-321.

31. Worthen, B.R., & Sanders,J.R. (1973). Educational evaluation: theory and practice. . United States of America: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

32. Yahaya, A. (2001). The using of model context, input, process and products (CIPP) in learning programs assessment. Paper presented at the Paper presented at the International Conference on Challenges and Prospects in Teacher Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.

33. Yahaya Azizi, Y. N., Hashim Shahrin & Ramli Jamaluddin. (2007). Sejauh manakah model Stufflebeam (KIPP) boleh membantu dalam penilaian program pembelajaran?.Retrieved from http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/2256/

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page