EVALUASI KURIKULUM 2013 DAN KURIKULUM MERDEKA PADA PEMBELAJARAN EKONOMI SMA MENGGUNAKAN MODEL CIPP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37058/prospek.v7i1.282Keywords:
CIPP Model, Kurikulum 2013, Kurikulum Merdeka, Pembelajaran ekonomiAbstract
Pelaksanaan evaluasi kurikulum perlu dilakukan pada peralihan kurikulum 2013 ke kurikulum merdeka, mengingat praktik pembelajaran berkembang dengan trial and error. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi kurikulum 2013 pada pembelajaran ekonomi kelas X tahun ajaran 2021/2022 di SMA Negeri 2 Semarang dan mengevaluasi kurikulum merdeka pada pembelajaran ekonomi kelas X tahun 2021/2022 di SMA IT Al-Madinah Bogor. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan adalah mix method. Teknik pengumpulan data menggunakan wawancara mendalam, kuesioner, dan dokumentasi. Lebih lanjut Evaluasi kurikulum menggunakan model context, input, process, product (CIPP). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa evaluasi CIPP pada pembelajaran ekonomi kurikulum 2013 dan kurikulum merdeka di masing-masing sekolah sudah baik berdasarkan Standar Pendidikan Nasional. Pada evaluasi context menunjukkan bahwa 100% siswa (kurikulum 2013) dan 87,5% siswa (kurikulum merdeka) mendorong siswa untuk berpartisipasi dalam kelas. Evaluasi input menunjukkan bahwa fasilitas yang mendukung pembelajaran ekonomi sudah baik. Evaluasi process menunjukkan bahwa model pembelajaran yang bertujuan menciptakan berpikir kritis siswa sudah baik diterapkan. Evaluasi product dilakukan melalui wawancara mendalam dan kuesioner siswa tentang ketuntasan siswa, penugasan portofolio, jenis penilaian, dan feedback guru menunjukkan hasil yang baik dan beberapa hal perlu ada perbaikan.
References
Adawiyah. F. (2021). Variasi metode mengajar guru dalam mengatasi kejenuhan siswa di sekolah menengah pertama. Jurnal Paris Langkis: Jurnal Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan, 2 (1), 68-82.
Amini, M., Kojuri, J., Mahbudi, A., Lotfi, F., Seghatoleslam, A., Karimian, Z., & Sham, M. (2013). Implementation and evolution of the horizontal integration at shiraz medical school, 1(1), 21-7.
Atuhurra, J., & Kaffenberger, M. (2022). Measuring education system coherence:Alignment of curriculum standards, examinations, and teacher instruction in Tanzania and Urganda. International Journal of Educational Development. 92, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102598
Bacquet, J., N. (2020). Implications of summative and formative assesment in Japan – a review of the current literature. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 8(2), 28-35.
Basantes-Andrade, A., Cabezas-González, M., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2020). Digital competences relationship between gender and generation of university professors. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 10(1), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.10.1.10806
Budiani, S., & Sudarmin., & Syamwil, R. (2017). Evaluasi implementasi kurikulum 2013 di sekolah pelaksana mandiri. Innovative Journal Of Curriculum And Educational Technology, 6 (1), 45-57.
Chadha, D., Campbell, J., Maraj, M., Brechtelsbauer, C., Kagelbauer, A., Shah, U., Hale, C., Hellgardt, K. (2022). Engaging students to shape their own learning : Driving curriculum re-design using a theory of change approach. Education of Chemical Engineers. 38. 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2021.10.001.
Darwis, N. A., & Qasim, M. (2016). Quantitative evaluation of flexibility in undergraduate engineering curricula in the United Arab Emirates. European Journal of STEM Education, 1 (1), 9-18.
Duman, S. N., & Akbas, O. (2017). Evaluation of turkish and mathematics curricula according to value-based evaluation model. Cogent Education, 4: 1291174,. https://org.doi/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1291174
Gaybullaevna, D., N. (2021). Formative assessment of students’ knowledge-as a means of improving the quality of education. Scientific Reports of Bukhara State University, 3(85), 144-155.
Kaymakamoglu, S.E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist (learner-centered) teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 7 (1), 29-37.
Ladyshewsky, R., & Taplin, R. (2014) Evaluation of curriculum and student learning needs using 360 degree assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40 (5), 698-711, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.950189
Maipta, I., Dalimunthe, M. B., Sagala, G. H. (2020). The development structure of the merdeka belajar curriculum in the industrial revolution era. Proceedings of the International Conference on Strategic Issues of Economics, Business and, Education (ICoSIEBE 2020), 163, 145-151.
Mearman, A. (2014). How should economics curricula be evaluated?. International Review of Economics Education, 16, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iree.2013.07.001
Miles, S., Swift, L., & Leinster, S., J. (2012). The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM): A review of its adoption and use, 34, e620–e634.
Mogali, S., R., Rotgans, J., I., ferenczi, M., A., & Beer, N., L. (2019). Summative and formative style anatomy practical examinations: do they have impact on students’ performace and drive for learning?. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1931
Reimers, F. M., & Schleicher, A. (2020). Framework_Guide_V1_002_Harward. OECD. 2342.
Rizkia, N., Sabarni., Azhar, Elita., & Fitri, R.D. (2020). Analisis evaluasi kurikulum 2013 revisi 2018 terhadap pembelajaran kimia SMA, Lantinida Journal, 8 (2), 96 -188.
Rooholamini, A., Amini, M., Bazrafkan, L., Dehghani, M., R., Esmaeilzadeh, Z., Nabeiei, P., Rezaee, R., & Kojuri, J. (2017). Program evaluation in shiraz medical school, using CIPP evaluation model. Journal od Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(3), 148-154.
Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., & Malkinson, N. (2018) Fosterung the skills of critical thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment. Thingking Skills and Creativity, 29, 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.001
Scheurs, J., & Dumbraveanu, R. (2014). A shift from teacher centered to learner centered approach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 1 (2).
Serin, H. (2018). A comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in educational settings. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 5 (1), 164-167.
Torres, J., O. (2019). Positive impact of utilizing more formative assessment over summative assessment in the EFL/ESL classroom. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics. 9(1). https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2019.91001
Ubolum, W. J., & Ogwunte, P.C.(2017). Evaluation of Teacher-centered and Learner-centered methods for Instructional Delivery of Senior Secondary Schools Financial Accounting in Rivers State. International Journal of Innovative Finance and Economics Research. 5 (3), 81-88.
Uluyol, Ç., & Şahin, S. (2016). Elementary school teachers’ ICT use in the classroom and their motivators for using ICT. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12220
Yazcayir, N., & Selvi,K. 2020. Curriculum evaluation model-kondem. Ilkogretim Online - Elementary Education Online, 19 (1), 343-356.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 PROSPEK: Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi dan Kewirausahaan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a 