META ANALISI MODEL EVALUASI KURIKULUM (CIPP, STAKE, SCRIVEN) UNTUK PENINGKATAN KUALITAS PEMBELAJARAN: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS
Abstract
Failure in curriculum implementation across various countries highlights the need for more effective and contextsensitive evaluation approaches. This research aims to analyze the effectiveness of three major curriculum evaluation models CIPP, Stake, and Scriven in enhancing the quality of learning. The method employed is meta analysis using a systematic literature review approach on publications from 2018 to 2024. The analysis results of 42 studies indicates that the CIPP model is the most dominant due to its systematic structure, though it lacks responsiveness to local contexts. The Stake model excels in participatory and contextual aspects, while the Scriven model emphasizes the unexpected impacts of the curriculum. This research recommends a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of all three models to produce more comprehensive and adaptive evaluations. These findings have significant implications for policymakers, evaluators, and education practitioners in designing curriculum evaluations that are relevant in the modern educational era.
Downloads
References
Alvarez, R., & Mendez, G. (2022). Stakeholder Involvement in Curriculum Evaluation: Lessons from Latin America. International Journal of Educational Development, 88, 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102115
Aziz, A. N., Prastya, D. E., Jubba, H., & Wahyuni, H. (2021). Evaluasi Kurikulum Pendidikan Agama di Sekolah Dasar Muhammadiyah 001 Sebatik Barat. Ideas: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan Budaya, 7(3), 1-10.
CASP UK. (2023). Critical Appraisal Tools for Systematic Reviews. CASP.
Chen, H. T. (2022). Meta-Analysis of Curriculum Evaluation Models for Learning Improvement. Educational Research Review, 38, 100-115.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (2023). Goal-Free Evaluation in Practice: A Meta-Analysis of Alternative Approaches. American Journal of Evaluation, 44(1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821402211234
Cooper, H. (2017). Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Garcia, M., & Lee, S. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Curriculum Evaluation Models: CIPP, Stake, and Scriven. Educational Assessment Review, 12(3), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.123456
Hansen, J. (2021). The Challenges of Responsive Evaluation: Balancing Subjectivity and Rigor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(4), 512-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.189567
Kemdikbud. (2023). Laporan Evaluasi Implementasi Kurikulum Merdeka Tahun 2023. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan RI.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University.
Lee, K., & Wong, P. (2024). Beyond Bureaucracy: Reforming CIPP for Agile Curriculum Evaluation. Journal of Educational Change, 25(1), 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09499-1
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Nurhidayah, D., Santoso, A., & Wijaya, H. (2023). Evaluasi Kurikulum Prototipe di Indonesia: Antara Harapan dan Realita. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 14(2), 145-160.
OECD. (2024). Education Policy Outlook 2024: Rethinking Curriculum Evaluation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963785
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Systematic Reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Sari, D. P., Rahayu, S., & Fauzi, A. (2023). Evaluasi Kurikulum Merdeka di Daerah 3T: Perspektif Model Stake. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia, 14(1), 33-48.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage.
Scriven, M. (2020). The Limits of Goal-Based Evaluation in Education. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(2), 198-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821401988765
Stake, R. E. (1975). Program Evaluation, Particularly Responsive Evaluation. Occasional Paper Series, Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The Relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for Educational Accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3), 19-25.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2019). CIPP Evaluation Model: A 50-Year Retrospective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 75, 101-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101119
Thompson, E. (2024). Goal-Free Evaluation in STEM Education: Unintended Outcomes and Innovations. Science Education Journal, 108(3), 621-640. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21789
UNESCO. (2023). Teacher Training for Critical Curriculum Evaluation. UNESCO Policy Brief. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387899
Zhang, L., Wang, H., & Chen, Y. (2023). The Dominance of CIPP Model in Global Curriculum Evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2023.123456
Zuber, S. K. (2022). Hybrid Evaluation Models: Integrating CIPP and Stake for Adaptive Curricula. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 30(120), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6789
