Evaluation of Leading Education Program on Madrasah Aliyah Negeri Insan Cendekia Serpong Tangerang Selatan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32729/edukasi.v17i2.612Keywords:
Learning achievement, MAN Insan Cendekia Serpong, Sources of learningAbstract
Abstract
This study aimed at evaluating the implementation of education at MAN Insan Cendekia Serpong as a leading school, in the perspective of its antecedents, transactions, and outcomes. This study was using Countenance model of evaluation from Stake as the basis of its methodology. The data were collected from all educational elements at MAN Insan Cendekia Serpong, including the principal, teachers, and students limited into the second and the third year pupils. The data were collected using questionnaires, documentations, observations, and interviews. The result of the research revealed the followings. First, almost all of the aspects of the antecedents, were in ideal conditions. Second, internally, the process of education at MAN Insan Cendekia ran well, and externally, related to its function as a model, the implementation was not optimal yet. And finally the third, the learning achievement of the students of MAN Insan Cendekia, which was indicated by their scores on UN and various level achievements, increased compared to the result of the previous years, and this could be valued as a good achievement of MAN Insan Cendekia in performing the educational process.
Abstrak
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengevaluasi pelaksanaan pendidikan di MAN Insan Cendekia Serpong sebagai sekolah terkemuka, dalam perspektif anteseden, transaksi, dan hasil. Penelitian ini menggunakan model evaluasi Countenance dari Pasak sebagai dasar metodologinya. Data dikumpulkan dari seluruh elemen pendidikan di MAN Insan Cendekia Serpong, termasuk kepala sekolah, guru, dan siswa kelas dua dan tiga. Data dikumpulkan menggunakan kuesioner, dokumentasi, observasi, dan wawancara. Hasil penelitian mengungkapkan berikut ini. Pertama, hampir semua yang aspek anteseden, seperti jumlah siswa dan kualitas input mahasiswa, ketersediaan sumber pendukung pembelajaran, kualitas guru, dalam kondisi ideal. Kedua, Secara internal, proses pendidikan di MAN Insan Cendekia berjalan dengan baik, dan secara eksternal terkait dengan fungsinya sebagai model, implementasinya belum optimal. Para siswa dan guru memandang bahwa implementasi pendidikan di MAN Insan Cendekia berjalan dengan baik, sehubungan dengan fasilitas belajar yang lebih lengkap daripada di sekolah lain. Dan akhirnya yang ketiga, prestasi belajar siswa MAN Insan Cendekia, yang ditunjukkan oleh skor mereka di UN dan berbagai tingkat prestasi, meningkat dibandingkan dengan hasil tahun-tahun sebelumnya, dan ini bisa dinilai sebagai pencapaian yang baik dari MAN Insan Cendekia dalam melakukan proses pendidikan.
References
Asep Sukendar. (2000). Sekolah unggulan berasrama model SMU Taruna Nusantara Magelang Jawa Tengah: evaluasi proses pendidikan dan pembinaannya. Tesis master, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), Yogyakarta.
Azyumardi Azra. (2002). Paradigma baru pendidikan nasional: rekonstruksi dan demokratisasi. Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kompas.
Ballantine, J. H. (1993). The sociology of education: a systematic analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bollen, R. (1996). School effectiveness and school improvement: the intellectual and policy context. Dalam David R. & Nijs L., et al., (Eds.), Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge.
Chesler, M. A. & Cave, W. M. (1981). Sociology of education: access to power and privilege. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.
Creemers, B. (1996). The goals of school effectiveness and school improvement. Dalam David R. & Nijs L., et al., (Eds.), Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 21-35). London: Routledge.
---------------. (1996). The school effectiveness knowledge base. Dalam David R. & Nijs L., et al., (Eds.), Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 36-58). London: Routledge.
Davis, A. G. & Thomas, A. M. (1989). Effective schools and effective teachers. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Dirjen Dikmenum. (1999). Model pembaharuan pada sekolah menengah umum: pengalaman Indonesia. Diambil pada tanggal 25 September 2004, dari https://www.perkembangan.net./changei.html.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows: an advanced techniques for the beginner. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Goodlad, J. I. (1969). Thought, invention, and research in the advancement of education. Dalam Marvin Bower & Sterling M. McMurrin (Eds.), The schools and the challenge of innovation (pp. 91-107). New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Hamzah B. Uno, Herminanto Sofyan, & I Made Candiasa (2001). Pengembangan instrumen untuk penelitian. Jakarta: Delima Press.
Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Gibbon, C. T. (1978). How to measure attitudes. The Regents of The University of California.
Hisyam, D. (1998). Evaluasi pelaksanaan pendidikan Sekolah Menengah Umum (SMU) unggul di SMU Negeri 1 Yogyakarta. Tesis master, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), Yogyakarta.
Hopkins, D., & Lagerweij, N. (1996). The school improvement knowledge base. Dalam David R. & Nijs L., et al., (Eds.), Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 59-93). London: Routledge.
Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. 5thed. London: Oxford University Press.
Isaac, S. dan Michael, B. W. (1981). Handbook in research and evaluation: for education and the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. San Diego: EdITS Publishers.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzo, D. P. (1982). Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Kaufman, R. & Thomas, S. (1980). Evaluation without fear. New York: New Viewpoints.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1988). Asas-asas penelitian behavioral. (3rd ed.). (Terjemahan Gajahmada University Press). Yogyakarta: Gajahmada University Press.
Kleinbaum, D. G., & Kupper, L. L. (1978). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Boston: PWS Publishers.
Koster, W. (2000). Pengaruh input sekolah terhadap outcome sekolah; survai di SLTP Negeri DKI Jakarta. Dalam Jurnal pendidikan dan kebudayaanNo. 025, halaman 358-368
Linn, R. L. (1989). Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. New York: Holts Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Mortimore, P. (1991). The Nature and findings of research on school effectiveness in primary sector. Dalam Sheila Riddell & Sally Brown (Eds.), School effectiveness research: its messages for school improvement (pp. 9-19). Education Departement The Scottish Office, Scotland.
Nunnaly, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Inc.
Nurul Imtihan. (2005). Kultur sekolah dan kinerja siswa di MAN Yogyakarta III. Tesis master, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), Yogyakarta.
Pohlmann, J. T. (2004). Factor analysis glossary. Diambil pada tanggal 8 November 2004, dari https://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/Factor_Analysis_Glossary.htm.
Preedy, M. (1993). Managing the effective school. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Reynolds, D., & Stoll, L. (1996). Merging school effectiveness and school improvement. Dalam David R. & Nijs L., et al., (Eds.), Making good schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 94-112). London: Routledge.
Reynolds, D. (1991). School Effectiveness in Secondary Schools: Research and Its Policy Implications. Dalam Sheila Riddell & Sally Brown (Eds.), School effectiveness research: its messages for school improvement (pp. 21-33). Education Departement The Scottish Office, Scotland.
Riddell, S., & Brown, S. (1991). School effectiveness: establishing the link with research. Dalam Sheila Riddel & Sally Brown (Eds.), School effectiveness research: its messages for school improvement (pp. 1-7). Education Departement The Scottish Office, Scotland.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Saefuddin Azwar. (2003). Reliabilitas dan validitas. Cetakan IV. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
------------. (2004). Penyusunan skala psikologi. Cetakan VI. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Scheaffer, C. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1986). Elementary Survey Sampling. Boston: Duxbury Press.
Sri Hartini. (2002). Evaluasi program Madrasah Aliyah Keagamaan (studi kasus di Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 1 Surakarta). Tesis master, tidak diterbitkan, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY), Yogyakarta.
Squires, D. A., Huitt, W. G. & Segars, J. K. (1983). Effective schools and classrooms: a research-based perspective. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Stake, R. E. (1973). The countenance model of educational evaluation. Dalam Worthen, R., B. dan Sanders, R., J. (Eds.). Educational evaluation: theory and practice (pp. 106-125). Worthington: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.
Sudjana, N. (1992). Metoda statistika. Bandung: Tarsito.
Sugiarto & Deny Oetomo, et al. (2001). Teknik sampling. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Sugiyono. (2002). Metode penelitian bisnis. Cetakan keempat. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suharsimi Arikunto. (1988). Penilaian program pendidikan. Cetakan pertama. Jakarta: PT Bina Aksara.
Sumarno. (Agustus 2000). Sifat, syarat, dan manajemen perubahan menuju madrasah unggulan. Makalah disajikan dalam lokakarya intern tanggal 19 Agustus 2000, di Madrasah Aliyah Negeri 3 Yogyakarta.
Suryanto. (1988). Metode statistika multivariat. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Thomas, J. A. (1969). Governmental cooperation to improve efficiency in education. Dalam Marvin Bower & Sterling M. McMurrin (Eds.), The schools and the challenge of innovation (pp. 30-56). New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Thompson, B. & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: a historical overview and some guidelines [Versi elektronik]. Educational and psychological measurement (pp. 197-208), Vol 56 No. 2, April 1996. Ditampilkan di internet, diambil pada tanggal 8 November 2004, dari situs https://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/article1.
Thorndike, R. L. & Hagen, E. P. (1969). Measurement and evaluating in psychology and education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inch.
Townsend, T. (1994). Effective schooling for the community: core-plus education. London: Routledge.
Tyler, R. W. (1969). The problems and possibilities of educational evaluation. Dalam Marvin Bower & Sterling M. McMurrin (Eds.), The schools and the challenge of innovation (pp. 76-90). New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Umaedi. (1999). Manajemen peningkatan mutu berbasis sekolah: sebuah pendekatan baru dalam pengelolaan sekolah untuk peningkatan mutu.. Diambil pada tanggal 25 September 2004, dari https://www.dikmenum.org.id/directori.html.
Wiersma, W. (1986). Research methods in education: an introduction.4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Worthen, R., B. dan Sanders, R., J. (1973). Educational evaluation: theory and practice. Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Notice
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 (See The Effect of Open Access).
EDUKASI Â have CC-BY-SA or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work.
In developing strategy and setting priorities, EDUKASI Â recognize that free access is better than priced access, libre access is better than free access, and libre under CC-BY-SA or the equivalent is better than libre under more restrictive open licenses. We should achieve what we can when we can. We should not delay achieving free in order to achieve libre, and we should not stop with free when we can achieve libre.
 EDUKASI  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 International License
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
