Evaluation of PAUD (Early Childhood Education) Accreditation Program in Serang City
Keywords:PAUD accreditation; CIPP model; Program evaluation; National education standards.
This research is aimed to increase the effectiveness of Early Childhood Education through evaluation of accreditation programs. By evaluating the PAUD accreditation program, it can be seen the overall phenomena of the evaluation which is principally for improvement in early childhood education, as well as to determine the success rate of the PAUD accreditation program in Serang City. This research approach is an Evaluation Research approach, the approach used descriptive approach. The qualitative approach creates a complex picture, examines the words, detailed reports and views of the respondents and conducts studies on natural situations. Evaluative research are the evaluative programs with using case studies method, this research are program evaluation with using CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) model which developed by Stufflebeam. The results shows that (1) evaluation on the context evaluation to good category, (2) the implementation of process evaluation are in the category enough (3)evaluation on the program preparation (input evaluation) part of most of them are at the Good category leveland (4) evaluation of the results and benefits of program activity implementation (Product Evaluation) is at the Good category level. Evaluation of PAUD Accreditation Program using the CIPP method, Based on the results of the previous evaluation, this study concluded that there are 14 (fourteen) aspects that have a "Good" value, namely aspects of facilities and infrastructure resources, human resource support, support for facilities and infrastructure, identification of scheduling programs, assessments, program outputs, and program outcomes of PAUD accreditation results are proposed, maintained and implemented.
Alkin, M. C. (2010). Evaluation Theory Development, Evaluation Comment. McMillan Publishing Company.
Alwasilah, A. C. (2008). Politik Bahasa dan Pendidikan. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ansyar, M. (1989). Dasar-Dasar Pengembangan Kurikulum. Depdikbud.
Arikunto, S. (1988). Penilaian Program Pendidikan. Bina Aksara.
Arikunto, S., & Jabar, C. S. A. (2010). Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Pedoman Teoritis Praktis Bagi Praktisi Pendidikan. Bumi Aksara.
Asmani, J. M. (2011). Tips Praktis Membangun dan Mengolah Administrasi Sekolah. Diva Press.
Boruch, R. F., Cordray, D. S., Pion, G. M., & Leviton, L. C. (1983). Recommendations to congress and their rationale: The holtzman project. Evaluation Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8300700102
Brinkerhoff, R. O., Brethower, D. M., & Hluchyj, T. (2008). Program evaluation: A practitioner’s guide for trainers and educators. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Doran, T. G. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review.
Eleanor, C. (1978). Differing perspectives of evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th Edition). Pearson Education Inc.
Guttentag, M. (1976). Evaluation and Society. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727600300103
Hasan, S. H. (2009). Evaluasi Kurikulum. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Kementerian Agama RI. (2008). Pedoman Akreditasi Madrasah. Direktorat Jendral Kelembagaan Agama Islam.
Kumano, Y. (2001). Authentic Assessment and Portfolio Assessment-Its Theory and Practice. Shizuoka University.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif (terjemahan). Bumi Aksara.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2010). Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Prihatin, E. (2011). Teori Administrasi Pendidikan. Alfabeta.
Sathe, V. (2003). Culture and Related Corporate Realities. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Speer, D. C., & Tapp, J. C. (1976). Evaluation Of Mental Health Service Effectiveness: A “Start Up” Model for Established Programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1976.tb00922.x
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002). Evaluation models : viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation: Localizador. In Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Corin, C. L. . (2014). Evaluation Theory, Models, & Applications. Jossey Bass.
Stufflebeam, D. L., McKee, H., & McKee, B. (2003). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. The 2003 Annual Conference of the Oregon Program Evaluation Network (OPEN).
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation : a self-instructional guide to theory and practice. In Evaluation in education and human services.
Sudjana, N., & Ibrahim. (2004). Penelitian dan Penilaian Pendidikan. Sinar Baru Algesindo.
Suharto, E. (2007). Kebijakan Sosial sebagai Kebijakan Publik. Alfabeta.
Sukardi. (2011). Evaluasi Pendidikan, Prinsip dan Operasionalnya. Bumi Aksara.
Walbesser, H. H., Tyler, R. W., Gagné, R. M., Scriven, M., & Gagne, R. M. (1968). Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161709
Zainul, A., & Nasution, N. (2001). Penilaian Hasil belajar. Dirjen Dikti.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Yayah Rukhiyah; Didik Notosudjono; Widodo Sunaryo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) 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 acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) 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.