Explore tweets about pricealerts.

The Evaluation of Science Module Implementation of Teaching for Change Community Project

Crispina Gregory K Han

Abstract


ABSTRACT: This community development project was carried out at a Primary School located at Kota Belud, Sabah, Malaysia. The aim is to construct and implement these modules for Year 1 to Year 6 students to master the skills in English, Mathematics, and Science. The purpose of the process evaluation is to identify and monitor continuously various elements of project operation. The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) Model of D.L. Stufflebeam (1985) was used to evaluate the implementation of the project. This study focuses on the process evaluation of the Science module implementation. A qualitative study was conducted. A purposive sample of twelve informants participated in the study. Data was garnered using a focus group discussion interview. Several themes were identified from the final findings of this study. Emerging themes were development and enhancement of the teaching and learning skills. Development and enhancement of teaching focuses on module construction and application, creativity application, SCL (Student Centered Learning) strategy, multimedia approach, class control skill, confidence level, peers learning, teacher responsibility, time organization, lesson plan preparation, and evaluation focused on the design illuminating the procedures and strengths weaknesses. Overall, the module for Science has shown positive outcomes.

KEY WORD: Process evaluation, CIPP model, science module, community development project, and positive outcomes.

RESUME: Penilaian Pelaksanaan Modul Sains dalam Projek Komuniti Mengajar untuk Perubahan”. Projek pembangunan masyarakat ini telah dijalankan di sebuah Sekolah Rendah yang terletak di Kota Belud, Sabah, Malaysia. Tujuannya adalah untuk membina dan melaksanakan modul untuk pelajar Tahun 1 hingga Tahun 6 bagi menguasai kemahiran dalam Bahasa Inggeris, Matematik, dan Sains. Tujuan penilaian proses ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti dan memantau secara berterusan pelbagai elemen operasi projek. Model KIPP (Konteks, Input, Proses, dan Produk) daripada D.L. Stufflebeam (1985) telah digunakan untuk menilai pelaksanaan projek. Kajian ini memberi tumpuan kepada penilaian proses bagi pelaksanaan modul Sains. Kajian telah dilaksanakan dengan menggunakan kaedah kualitatif. Persampelan bertujuan digunakan ke atas dua belas peserta yang telah mengambil bahagian dalam kajian ini. Data diperolehi dengan menggunakan perbincangan temubual kumpulan berfokus. Beberapa tema dikenal pasti daripada dapatan kajian. Tema utama ialah pembangunan dan peningkatan kemahiran pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Pembangunan dan peningkatan pengajaran memberi tumpuan kepada pembinaan modul dan aplikasi, aplikasi kreativiti, strategi PBP (Pembelajaran Berpusatkan Pelajar), pendekatan multimedia, kemahiran mengawal kelas, tahap keyakinan, pembelajaran sesama rakan, tanggungjawab guru, organisasi masa, penyediaan rancangan pengajaran, dan penilaian yang memberi tumpuan kepada kekuatan dan kelemahan pembangunan modul. Secara keseluruhan, modul Sains telah menunjukkan hasil yang positif.

KATA KUNCI: Proses penilaian, model CIPP, modul sains, projek pembangunan masyarakat, dan hasil yang positif.

About the Author: Crispina Gregory K. Han is a Lecturer at the Science and Mathematics Education Program, Faculty of Psychology and Education UMS (Malaysia University of Sabah), Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. For academic interests, the author is able to be contacted via mobile phone at: +60128666176 or e-mail at: crispinagregory@gmail.com

How to cite this article? Han, Crispina Gregory K. (2015). “The Evaluation of Science Module Implementation of Teaching for Change Community Project” in SOSIOHUMANIKA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan, Vol.8(2) November, pp.267-280. Bandung, Indonesia: Minda Masagi Press and UNIPA Surabaya, ISSN 1979-0112.

Chronicle of the article: Accepted (October 20, 2015); Revised (October 30, 2015); and Published (November 30, 2015).


Keywords


process evaluation; CIPP model; science module; community development project; positive outcomes

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ad, G.M., L.C. Egan & K.V. Thompson. (2015). A Discipline-Based Teaching and Learning Center: A Model for Professional Development. London: Springer.

Alam, F. (2014). Using Technology Tools to Innovate Assessment: Reporting and Teaching Practices in Engineering Education. USA [United States of America]: IGI Global.

Caroline, D. & M. Claudette. (2005). “Implicit Theories of Intelligence, Goal Orientation, Cognitive Engagement, and Achievement: A Test of Dweck’s Model with Returning to School Adults” in Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), pp.43-59.

Daniel Jr., F. (2000-2001). “Education and Creativity” in Creativity Research Journal, Vol.13, Nos.3 & 4, pp.317-327, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.

Feldhusen, J.F. & D.J. Treffinger. (1980). Creative Thinking and Problem Solving in Gifted Education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Griffin, P.E. (1994). Program Development and Evaluation: An Overview of Evaluation. Parkville, Australia: University of Melbourne.

Huberman, A.M. & M.B. Miles. (1998). “Data Management and Analysis Methods” in N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln [eds]. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Jackson, T.H. et al. (2011). “Effectiveness of Web-Based Teaching Module: Test-Enhanced Learning in Dental Education” in Journal of Dental Education, 75(6), pp.775-781, PMID: 21642523.

Kamil, Kamdi. (1999). Effectiveness of Enrichment Program and Human Nature in the Modular for High Achievement of Year 5 Students, Kuala Lumpur: JPG [Jabatan Pendidikan Guru], Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia.

Karnes, M.B. et al. (1961). Factors Associated with Under-Achievement and Over-Achievement of Intellectually Gifted Children. Champaign, IL: Champaign Community Unit Schools.

Lane, C. (1996). “Evaluation Summary of TEAMS, 1992-1996”. Available online also at: http://www.wested.org/tie/dlrn/aeralane1.html [accessed in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: May 10, 2015].

Lia, M.D. et al. (2007). “Individual Differences in Achievement Goals: A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive, Emotional, and Achievement Outcomes” in Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, pp.42-48.

Martella, R.C., R. Nelson & N.E. Marchand-Martella. (1999). Research Methods: Learning to Become a Critical Research Consumer. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miri, B., B.C. David & Z. Uri. (2007). “Research in Science Education [Electronic Version]” in Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking. New York: Springer Science Business Media, Inc.

Ohara, T. & K. Pickard. (1985). “Computerized Evaluation Simulator Based on the CIPP Model” in Proceedings of the 1985 Winter Simulation Conference. Long Beach, CA: California State University.

Othman, Normala & Maimunah Abdul Kadir. (2004). “The Problems with Problem-Based Learning in the Language Classroom”. Paper presented in the 5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-based Learning: Pursuit of Excellence in Education, in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, on 15-17 March.

Patton, M.Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. USA [United States of America]: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rahman, Roslita binti Ab. (2008). Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Menggunakan Modul Permainan bagi Topik Enzim dalam Subjek Biologi. Tanjong Malim, Malaysia: Penerbit UPSI [Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris]. Available online also at: http://pustaka.upsi.edu.my/mom/cm/content/view/view.jsp?key=u9KxcJgzN2nyTDzGVwwycw3vQK5HOiKx20090908125429240 [accessed in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: December 7, 2014].

Rossi, P.H., H.E. Freeman & M.W. Lipsey. (1999). EVALUATION: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salleh, Seman. (2005). “Pelaksanaan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Bahasa Melayu: Kajian Kes di sebuah Sekolah Rendah di Daerah Jerantut, Pahang Darul Makmur” in Journal IPB, 3(2), pp.27-44.

Stake, R.K. (2010). Qualitative Research: How Things Work. New York: Guilford Press.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (1984). “Improvement Oriented Evaluation”. Paper presented at the Evaluation of Educational and Training Programs Workshop, Canberra, Australia, on 2-5 September.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (1985). “Stufflebeam’s Improvement-Oriented Evaluation” in D.L. Stufflebeam & A.J. Shinkfield [eds]. Systematic Evaluation. Boston: KLUWER-Nijhoff. Available online also at: http://www.iastate.edu/~vision2020/Phase1/backgroundkellogg/changingcourse/eval.html [accessed in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: 3rd May 2015].

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). “The CIPP Model for Evaluation” in D.L. Stufflebeam, G.F. Madaus & T. Kellaghan [eds]. Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2003). “The CIPP Model for Evaluation”. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network, Portland, Oregon. Available online also at: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/CIPP-ModelOregon10-03.pdf [accessed in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: 10th March 2015].

Taraban, R. et al. (2007). “Learning Experience on Achievement, Attitudes, and Behaviors in High School Biology” in Science Teaching, 44(7), pp.960-979.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications, Inc., second edition.




SOSIOHUMANIKA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan is published by Minda Masagi Press. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0.