Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model for The Implementation of Industrial Standard GTAW Welding in Vocational Teacher Training Center
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17977/um068v3i42023p182-190Keywords:
pelatihan standar industri, evaluasi kirkpatrick, pusat pelatihan, kepuasan pelatihan, pelatihan pengelasanAbstract
The Vocational Teacher Training Center held industrial-based training by applying project-based learning to train Industrial Standard GTAW Welding. Then, this study was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of training implementation of Industrial Standard GTAW Welding. This study used the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model in reaction and learning levels. A questionnaire and interview were chosen to collect data. The data were analyzed by using descriptive technique, t-test, and qualitative data analysis with NVivo. The findings indicated that the participants' satisfaction scores in reaction and learning levels were very high. The assessment of the participants at the reaction level was seen from three perspectives: instructors’ reaction, reaction to the training delivery, and reaction to the training environment. Assessment of participants at the learning level was viewed from the impact of learning and knowledge training. The training proved that the program has been successful in developing the trainees’ skills. This also showed that the program has been running effectively. However, the final products from trainees did not meet the industry's standards. Optimizing this training requires additional time and standardization of participants' abilities using portfolios from training candidates.
Balai Diklat Guru SMK menyelenggarakan pelatihan berbasis industri dengan menerapkan pembelajaran berbasis proyek untuk melatih Pengelasan GTAW Standar Industri. Kemudian penelitian ini dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi efektivitas pelaksanaan pelatihan Pengelasan GTAW Standar Industri. Penelitian ini menggunakan Model Evaluasi Kirkpatrick pada tingkat reaksi dan pembelajaran. Kuesioner dan wawancara dipilih untuk mengumpulkan data. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan teknik deskriptif, uji-t, dan analisis data kualitatif dengan NVivo. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa skor kepuasan peserta pada tingkat reaksi dan pembelajaran sangat tinggi. Penilaian peserta pada tingkat reaksi dilihat dari tiga sudut pandang yaitu reaksi instruktur, reaksi terhadap penyampaian pelatihan, dan reaksi terhadap lingkungan pelatihan. Penilaian peserta pada tingkat pembelajaran dilihat dari dampak pembelajaran dan pelatihan pengetahuan. Pelatihan tersebut membuktikan bahwa program ini berhasil mengembangkan keterampilan peserta pelatihan. Hal ini juga menunjukkan bahwa program tersebut telah berjalan efektif. Namun, produk akhir dari peserta pelatihan tidak memenuhi standar industri. Dalam mengoptimalkan pelatihan ini memerlukan tambahan waktu dan standarisasi kemampuan peserta dengan menggunakan portofolio dari calon peserta pelatihan.
References
E. Ginting, “Studi Kinerja Mengajar Guru Produktif SMK,” J. Pendidik. Tambusai, vol. 6, pp. 2342–2356, 2022.
Kemdikbud, “Kemendikbud Gunakan Rumus 8+i Guna Capai Tujuan SMK Pusat Keunggulan,” 2021.
C. Hofmeister and M. Pilz, “Using E-learning to Deliver In-service Teacher Training in the Vocational Education Sector: Perception and Acceptance in Poland, Italy and Germany,” Educ. Sci., vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1–17, 2020, doi: 10.3390/educsci10070182.
Y. Sopian, “Pengaruh Penerapan Kombinasi Model Flip Classroom dan Project- Based Learning pada Pelatihan Upskilling Guru Kejuruan Berstandar Industri,” Oase Nusant., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59–68, 2022.
R. Belwal, S. Belwal, A. B. Sufian, and A. Al Badi, “Project-based learning (PBL): outcomes of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman,” Educ. Train., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 336–359, 2020, doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2020-0006.
Asman, M. Kumaro, and M. S. Barliana, “Integration of 4Cs Skills into Learning by Using the Project Based Learning (PjBL) Model to Face the Challenges of the 21st Century,” Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Innov. Eng. Vocat. Educ. (ICIEVE 2021), vol. 651, no. Icieve 2021, pp. 88–93, 2022, doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.220305.018.
M. Cahapay, “Kirkpatrick Model: Its Limitations as Used in Higher Education Evaluation,” Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 135–144, 2021, doi: 10.21449/ijate.856143.
A. Alsalamah and C. Callinan, “Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of training criteria to evaluate training programmes for head teachers,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 3, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11030116.
P. Tamkin, J. Yarnall, and M. Kerrin, Kirkpatrick and Beyond: A Review of Models of Training Evaluation. United Kingdom: Institure for Employment Studies, 2002.
[V. Aryadoust, “Adapting Levels 1 and 2 of Kirkpatrick’s model of training evaluation to examine the effectiveness of a tertiary-level writing course,” Pedagogies, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–28, 2016, doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2016.1242426.
H. Asyari, T. Rusman N, and A. Riyana, “Evaluasi Program Pelatihan Guru di Pusdiklat Tenaga Teknis Pendidikan dan Keagamaan Kementerian Agama Republik Indonesia,” Tadbir J. Stud. Manaj. Pendidik., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 67–86, 2020, doi: 10.29240/jsmp.v4i1.1441.
R. Hermawan, “Tingkat Kompetensi Guru Pasca Pelatihan Substantif Pengelolaan Penilaian Hasil Belajar Siswa,” Perspektif, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 269–282, 2021.
J. Lestyowati and I. Rahmi, “Evaluasi Pelatihan Jarak Jauh Model Kirkpatrick: Studi Kasus Pjj Communication Skills Angkatan Ii Pada Balai Diklat Keuangan …,” J. Transform. Adm., no. April 2021, pp. 1–19, 2021.
R. Ritonga, A. Saepudin, and U. Wahyudin, “Penerapan Model Evaluasi Kirkpatrick Empat Level Dalam Mengevaluasi Program Diklat Di Balai Besar Pelatihan Pertanian (BBPP) Lembang,” J. Pendidik. Nonform., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 12, 2019, doi: 10.17977/um041v14i1p12-21.
T. Suhartati, “Evaluasi Program Pendidikan Pelatihan Pembinaan Ideologi Pancasila Bagi Guru Menggunakan Model Kirkpatrick,” ETJ Educ. Technol. J., vol. 2, no. April, pp. 45–55, 2022.
Y. Supriyati and I. Abraham, “Model Pengembangan Kirkpatrick Plus Level 5 ( Return on Training Invesment ) (Kirkpatrick Plus Level 5 Development Model),” J. Ilm. Mandala Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 134–143, 2021, doi: 10.36312/jime.v7i1.1712.
B. Gómez-Pablos, Verónica, M. Martín del Pozo, and A. García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, “Project-based learning (PBL) through the incorporation of digital technologies: An evaluation based on the experience of serving teachers,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 68, p. 501, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.056.
S. Palmer and W. Hall, “An Evaluation of a Project-based learning Initiative in Engineering Education,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 357–365, 2011, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2011.593095.
G. Pan, V. Shankararaman, K. Koh, and S. Gan, “Students’ evaluation of teaching in the project-based learning programme: An instrument and a development process,” Int. J. Manag. Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, p. 100501, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100501.
D. E. Ritonga, R. Pohan, R. Sianturi, G. R. Hutagalung, and G. H. Purba, “Pengaruh Pengalaman Mengajar, Etos Kerja Dan Motivasi Mengajar Terhadap Kinerja Guru SMK Negeri 1 Sibolga,” JEKKP (Jurnal Ekon. Keuang. dan Kebijak. Publik), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 126–138, 2021, doi: 10.30743/jekkp.v2i2.3388.
J. Y. Triyadi, “Pengaruh Latar Belakang Pendidikan dan Pengalaman Kerja Terhadap Kualitas Potongan Logam Menggunakan Las Gas di Sentra Industri Logam Desa Ngingas Kecamatan Waru Kabupaten Sidoarjo,” JTM, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 63–74, 2014.
Hiryanto, “Pedagogi, Andragogi dan Heutagogi Serta Implikasinya dalam Pemberdayaan Masyarakat,” Din. Pendidik., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65–71, 2017.
Sunhaji, “Konsep Pendidikan Orang Dewasa,” J. Kependidikan IAIN Purwokerto, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2013.
Y. Yusri, “Strategi Pembelajaran Andragogi,” Al-Fikra J. Ilm. Keislam., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 25, 2017, doi: 10.24014/af.v12i1.3861.
S. Sugito, Y. Suyitno, and K. Kuntoro, “Pengaruh Masa Kerja Dan Motivasi Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Guru Sekolah Dasar Di Desa Samudra Dan Samudra Kulon,” Din. J. Ilm. Pendidik. Dasar, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1, 2019, doi: 10.30595/dinamika.v11i1.5980.
M. Rakib, A. Rombe, and M. Yunus, “Pengaruh Pelatihan Dan Pengalaman Mengajar Terhadap Profesionalitas Guru,” J. Ad’ministrare, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 137–148, 2017.
M. H. S. Park, “We Knew It All Along! Using Cognitive Science to Explain How Andragogy Works,” Eur. J. Train. Dev., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 171–190, 2016, doi: 10.1108/EJTD-10-2015-0081.
H. A. M. Sayuti, T. G. Ann, W. M. S. A. Saimi, M. A. B. Bakar, S. N. A. Dawawi, and M. Mohamad, “Using Gold Standard Project Based Learning for Intermediate Year Three Pupils to Enhance English Speaking Skill: A Conceptual Paper,” Creat. Educ., vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 1873–1889, 2020, doi: 10.4236/ce.2020.1110137.
J. Larmer, J. Mergendoller, and S. Boss, “Gold standard PBL: Essential project design elements,” Buck Inst. Educ., pp. 1–4, 2019.
S. Aldabbus, “Project-Based Learning: Implementation & Challenges,” Int. J. Educ. Learn. Dev., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 71–79, 2018.
K. J. Chua and M. R. Islam, “The hybrid Project-Based Learning–Flipped Classroom: A design project module redesigned to foster learning and engagement,” Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 289–315, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0306419019838335.
L. Moreno-Ruiz et al., “Combining flipped classroom, project-based learning, and formative assessment strategies in engineering studies,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 35, no. 6 A, pp. 1673–1683, 2019.
B. Wang, H. Li, and X. Wang, “The Implementation of Network Big Data on Vocational College Teacher Training Strategy,” vol. 2022, 2022.
Mendikbud, “Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia Nomor 33 Tahun 2017.” pp. 39–69, 2017.
T. A. Sutikno, “Indikator produktivitas kerja guru sekolah menengah kejuruan,” J. Teknol. dan Kejuru., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 107–119, 2009.
I. B. Muktyas, M. Amin, and F. Fajarudin, “Pelatihan (Pengimbasan Master Trainer) Keterampilan Berpikir Tingkat Tinggi Guru Mata Pelajaran Matematika SMP Kabupaten Bogor,” J. Pengabdi. Pada Masy., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 308–317, 2022, doi: 10.30653/002.202272.78.
I. Agung, Yufridawati, F. D. Sulistyo, A. B. Susanto, and L. Efaria, “Strategi pengimbasan Pembelajaran Kreatif Guru Penggerak,” Risalah Kebijakan. Pusat Penelitian Kebijakan Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan dan Perbukuan Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Jakarta, pp. 1–10, 2020.
3.png)
1.png)
1.png)
