Improving Outcome Assessment in
Information
Technology Program Accreditation
Nama :
Aufa Ashfahani
NIM :
0104517008
Program Studi : Kurikulum dan Teknologi Pembelajaran
Tugas :
Kajian Jurnal
|
a.
Pertanyaan
1.
Bagaimana
peran penting dari penilaian hasil pembelajaran siswa ?
2.
Bagaimana
penilaian formatif dan sumatif ?
3.
Bagaimana
hasil dari penilaian tersebut ?
4.
Bagaimana
hasil dan tujuan lembar kerja ?
5.
Apa saja
keterbatasan dalam penelitian ini ?.
6.
Apa
kesimpulan dalam penelitian ini ?.
|
|
|
Penelitian
Sebelumnya:
Barnetson, B., & Cutright, M. (2000). Performance indicators as
conceptual technologies. Higher Education, 40(3), 277-292.
Gibralter, J., & Cepriano, L. (2006). General education assessment
at Farmingdale State University: Creating a central core of educational
values. Assessment Update, 18(1), 8-9.
|
|
|
1.
Pendahuluan
|
|
|
Tujuan
Penelitian
|
Penilaian belajar dan membahas perkembangan
peserta didik pada waktu tertentu.
|
|
Landasan
Teori
|
Schools that are not accredited may not be eligible for Federal
funding. Most importantly, prospective employers and graduate schools may not
recognize a non-accredited program (Articlesbase, 2009).
The Program Criteria includes coverage of several topics specific to
IT curricula. In 2009, the ABET Computing Accreditation Committee (CAC)
reported that only 51% of 95 computing programs visited in 2008-2009 received
favorable ratings (Kelly, Parrish, & Price, 2009).
Assessment of student learning outcomes plays an important role in
educational effectiveness, improvement, and sustainability that is
increasingly being recognized and required by accrediting bodies”
(Buzzetto-More & Alade, 2006, p.1).
Assessment is an integral part of assuring that an educational
institution meets necessary standards, as well as a crucial means of
providing the evidence necessary for seeking and maintaining accreditation
(Love & Cooper, 2004).
One of the first exercises done at accreditation training is the creation
of a list of program outcomes. This list must logically map to the generic
and IT program outcomes (a) – (n) (ABET Inc. CAC 2009).
|
|
2.
Metodologi
|
|
|
Design
|
Penelitian tindakan kelas
|
|
Karakteristik
Responden
|
College student
|
|
Variabel
Utama
|
Penilaian hasil
|
|
Alat
Ukur
|
survei, wawancara, dan ujian yang dikembangkan oleh
asesor selain instruktur.
|
|
Prosedur
Penelitian
|
Survey, penelitian, hasil penelitian
|
|
3.
Hasil
|
|
|
1
|
melakukan
penilaian terhadap tingkat pencapaian hasil program.
|
|
2
|
Menampilkan
ABET
Evaluator
lembar kerja untuk setiap hasil program
|
|
3
|
memudahkan
untuk menunjukkan data yang telah ada
dikumpulkan,
dampak data, dan tindakan apa yang telah diambil
|
|
4.
Pembahasan
|
Penilaian formatif dan sumatif, program teknologi informasi, program
teknik dan komputer
|
|
5.
Kekurangan
Paper
|
Pembahasan penelitian masih kurang detail dan valid
|
|
6.
Keunggulan
Paper
|
Bahan ajar untuk penelitian baik dan lengkap
|
|
7.
Saran
|
Lumayan bagus dan harus diperbaiki lagi tentang
pembahasannya
|
Daftar
Pustaka:
-
ABET
Inc. (2009). Accredited program search. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.abet.org/AccredProgramSearch/AccreditationSearch.aspx
- ABET Inc. CAC (2009). Criteria for accrediting computing programs. Effective for evaluations
during the 2009- 2010 Accreditation Cycle. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/C001%2009
10%20CAC%20Criteria%2012-01-08.pdf
-
ABET
Inc. EAC (2008). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved March 4,
2010, from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2007-
08%20EAC%20Criteria%2011-15-06.pdf
-
Articlesbase.
(2009). Why is accreditation important while selecting a college? Retrieved March 3, 2010,
from http://www.articlesbase.com/college-and-university-articles/why-is-accreditation-importantwhile-
selecting-a-college-964141.html
-
Barnetson,
B., & Cutright, M. (2000). Performance indicators as conceptual
technologies. Higher Education, 40(3), 277-292.
- Bloom, B., Mesia, B.
& Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay Publishing Company.
- Buzzetto-More, N., &
Alade, A. (2006). Best practices in e-assessment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 251-269. Retrieved
from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p251-
269Buzzetto152.pdf
-
Gibralter,
J., & Cepriano, L. (2006). General education assessment at Farmingdale
State University: Creating a central core of educational values. Assessment Update, 18(1), 8-9.
- Kellough, R. D., &
Kellough, N. G. (1999). Secondary school teaching: A guide to
methods and resources: Planning for competence. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Goda
& Reynolds IIP-59
-
Kelly,
D., Parrish, A., & Price, A. (2009). Computing Accreditation Commission Plenary
Session.
Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Presentations/09-
CAC%20Commission%20Summit.pdf
- Lawson, E., Lidtke, D.
K., & Price, B. (2007). Information technology accreditation
activities. Outcome worksheets. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from
-
Love,
T. & Cooper, T. (2004). Designing online information systems for portfolio-based
assessment: Design criteria and heuristics. Journal of
Information Technology Education, 3, 65-81. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http://jite.org/documents/Vol3/v3p065-081-127.pdf
- Lunt, B., Ekstrom, J.,
Gorka, S., Kmali, R., Lawson, E., LeBlanc, R., et al. (2008). ACM computing curricula, Information technology volume. Retrieved March 2,
2010, from
-
Marzano,
R. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
- Middle States Commission
on Higher Education. (2010). Institutional responsibilities in the
accreditation
-
Princeton
Review. (2010). College majors. Retrieved 3/10/10 from:
- Strivens, J., Baume, D.,
Grant, S., Owen, C., Ward, R., & Nicol, D. (2009). The role of e-portfolios in formative and summative assessment. Retrieved March 5, 2010,
from
Komentar
Posting Komentar