Модель оценки расхождений при осуществлении онлайн-обучения (на основе восприятия родителей)

Введение. Оценивание онлайн-обучения – это попытка увидеть масштабы образовательного процесса в Индонезии. Данное оценочное исследование, основанное на восприятии родителей, является новым, ранее подобное не проводилось. Большинство ведущих ученых рассматривают процесс обучения, делая акцент на школе, но мнение родителей не учитывают.

Цель. Настоящая работа направлена на оценку реализации онлайн-обучения на основе восприятия родителей учащихся.

Методология и методы исследования. В исследовании используется метод оценки расхождений, включающий пять этапов: обзор проектов и стандартов; сравнение стратегий реализации; проверка того, приводит ли процесс к целям; сравнение несоответствий с целями; анализ «затраты – выгоды». Объект исследования – 231 родитель, определенный методом простой случайной выборки. Данные были собраны с помощью онлайн-анкет и опросных листов. Таблица критериев оценки и описательный анализ были использованы для обработки данных.

Результаты и научная новизна. Результаты исследования показывают, что внедрение онлайн-обучения может идти успешно, но правительству необходимо подготовить соответствующую политику для поддержания качества образования. В среднем 72,82 % родителей считают, что онлайн-обучения достаточно. По-прежнему существуют психологические препятствия в виде усталости, беспокойства, слишком большого количества заданий и технические препятствия в виде медленной и/или нестабильной работы сети Интернет и отсутствия возможностей для онлайн-обучения, таких как мобильные телефоны, ноутбуки, персональные компьютеры, которые являются необходимыми инструментами для школ, чтобы продолжать работу по улучшению онлайн-образования, повышая эффективность данного формата обучения.

Практическая значимость. Настоящее исследование подразумевает, что оценивание является одним из показателей, который может измерить успех программы. В рамках реализуемой программы, а именно в неполных средних школах Индонезии, при онлайн-обучении необходимо иметь специальную образовательную политику, уделяя внимание сегментации характеристик родителей, особенно групп с низким доходом и уровнем образования.

1. Dewi W. A. F. Dampak COVID-19 terhadap Implementasi Pembelajaran Daring di Sekolah Dasar. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan. 2020; 2 (1): 55–61. DOI: 10.31004/edukatif.v2i1.89 (In Indonesian)

2. Diningrat S. W. M., Nindya M. A., Salwa. Emergency online teaching: Early childhood education lecturers’ perception of barrier and pedagogical competency. Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2020; 39 (3): 705–719. DOI: 10.21831/cp.v39i3.32304

3. Romanov E. V. Efficiency assessment of higher education institutions: Contradictions and paradoxes: Part I. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019; 21 (9): 9–48. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2019-9-9-48 (In Russ.)

4. Adedoyin O. B., Soykan E. COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020; 0 (0): 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180

5. Tobing R. L., Pranowo D. D. Blended learning in French intermediate grammar learning: Is it effective? Roswita. Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2020; 39 (3): 645–649. DOI: 10.21831/cp.v39i3.32035

6. Kataev M. Y., Korikov A. M., Mkrttchian V. S. Concept and structure of automated system for monitoring student learning quality. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2017; 19 (10): 30–46. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2017-10-30-46 (In Russ.)

7. Ferri F., Grifoni P., Guzzo T. Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations. Societies. 2020; 10 (4): 1–18. DOI: 10.3390/soc10040086

8. Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020; 49 (1): 5–22. DOI: 10.1177/0047239520934018

9. Bovermann K., Bastiaens T. J. Towards a motivational design? Connecting gamification user types and online learning activities. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. 2020; 15 (1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s41039-019-0121-4

10. Abuhassna H., Al-Rahmi W. M., Yahya N., Zakaria M. A. Z. M., Kosnin A. B. M., Darwish M. Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020; 17 (1): 1–23. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z

11. de Jong P. G. Impact of moving to online learning on the way educators teach. Medical Science Educator. 2020; 30 (3): 1003–1004. DOI: 10.1007/s40670-020-01027-7

12. Quadrado J. C., Pokholkov Y. P., Zaitseva K. K. ATHENA: Contributing to development of higher education institutions for the digital age. Higher Education in Russia. 2021; 30 (1): 125–131. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-11-125-131

13. Alvarez S., Bampasidou M., Solís D. Evaluating the impact of employing local tax collectors to improve state-level licensing program outcomes in Florida. Evaluation Review. 2019; 43 (1–2): 77–107. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X19865353

14. Aaron P. G., Malatesha Joshi R., Gooden R., Bentum K. E. Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2008; 41 (1): 67–84. DOI: 10.1177/0022219407310838

15. Manfredi R., Guazzini A., Roos C. A., Postmes T., Koudenburg N. Private-public opinion discrepancy. PLoS One. 2020; 15 (11): 1–24. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242148

16. Ponnusamy P., de Boor J., Müller E. Discrepancy between constant properties model and temperature-dependent material properties for performance estimation of thermoelectric generators. Entropy. 2020; 22 (10): 1–18. DOI: 10.3390/e22101128

17. Cranfield D., Tick A., Venter I. M., Blignaut R. J., Renaud K. Higher education students’ perceptions of online learning during COVID-19 – A comparative study. Education Sciences. 2021; 11 (8): 1–17. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11080403

18. Feistauer D., Richter T. How reliable are students’ evaluations of teaching quality? A variance components approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017; 42 (8): 1263–1279. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

19. Johnson E. S., Zheng Y., Crawford A. R., Moylan L. A. Developing an explicit instruction special education teacher observation rubric. Journal of Special Education. 2019; 53 (1): 28–40. DOI: 10.1177/0022466918796224

20. Syzdykbayeva A. D., Izmagambetova R. K., Amirova A. S., Bainazarova T. B., Sadykova M. K. Formation of primary school children self esteem on the basis of criteria-based assessment. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (7): 147–169. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-7-147-169

21. Li K. C., Chang M, Wu K. H. Developing a task-based dialogue system for English language learning. Education Sciences. 2020; 10 (11): 1–20. DOI: 10.3390/educsci10110306

22. Divayana D. G. H., Sappaile B. I., Pujawan I. G. N., Dibia I. K., Artaningsih L., Sundayana I. M. An evaluation of instructional process of expert system course program by using mobile technology-based CSE-UCLA model. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. 2017; 11 (6): 18–31. DOI: 10.3991/ijim.v11i6.6697

23. Kallio H., Virta K., Kallio M. Modelling the components of metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 7 (2): 94–122. DOI: 10.17583/ijep.2018.2789

24. Maison D., Darmaji D., Astalini, Kurniawan D. A., Sumaryanti., Perdana R. Supporting assessment in education: E-assessment interest in physics. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8 (1): 89–97. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080110

25. Zantsi R. The evaluative role of legislatures in creating a responsive executive. African Evaluation Journal. 2020; 8 (1): 1–6. DOI: 10.4102/AEJ.V8I1.432

26. Kicherova M. N., Semenov M. Y., Zyuban E. V. Qualification assessment practices: New possibilities and constraints. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (7): 71–98. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-7-71-98 (In Russ.)

27. Leeds D. M., Mokher C. G. Improving indicators of college readiness: Methods for optimally placing students into multiple levels of postsecondary coursework. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2020; 42 (1): 87–109. DOI: 10.3102/0162373719885648

28. Tat O., Koyuncu İ., Gelbal S. The influence of using plausible values and survey weights on multiple regression and hierarchical linear model parameters. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2019; 10 (3): 235–248. DOI: 10.21031/epod.486999

29. Vokasi J. P., Gede D., Divayana H., Ganesha U. P., Adiarta A., Ganesha U. P. Development of CSE-UCLA evaluation model modified by using weighted product in order to optimize digital library services in higher education of computer in Bali. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi. 2018; 7 (3): 275–287. DOI: 10.21831/jpv.v7i3.13370

30. La Velle J., Dighe S. A transdisciplinary model of program outcomes for enhanced evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2020; 35 (1): 92–103. DOI: 10.3138/CJPE.61660

31. Supriyadi E., Indro H. Y., Priyanto E., Surwi F. Students’ evaluation on teaching in vocational and technical schools. International Journal of Instruction. 2020; 13 (2): 621–636. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2020.13242a

32. Martínez-Muñoz M., Arnau L., Sabaté M. Evaluation of a parenting training program, “limits”, in a juvenile justice service: Results and challenges. Psychosocial Intervention. 2019; 28 (1): 1–10. DOI: 10.5093/pi2018a14

33. Abma T. A., Visse M., Hanberger A., Simons H., Greene J. C. Enriching evaluation practice through care ethics. Evaluation. 2020; 26 (2): 131–146. DOI: 10.1177/1356389019893402

34. Tembo M. J., Studsrød I., Young S. Governing the family: Immigrant parents’ perceptions of the controlling power of the Norwegian welfare system. European Journal of Social Work. 2021; 24 (3): 492–503. DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2020.1738349

35. Puccioni J., Froiland J. M., Moeyaert M. Preschool teachers’ transition practices and parents’ perceptions as predictors of involvement and children’s school readiness. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 109 (March 2019): 104742. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104742

36. Bell C. “Maybe if they let us tell the story I wouldn’t have gotten suspended”: Understanding Black students’ and parents’ perceptions of school discipline. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020; 110. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104757

37. Fatchurahman M., Setiawan M. A., Karyanti K. The development of group healing storytelling model in multicultural counselling services in Indonesian schools: Examination of disciplinary cases. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (4): 157–180. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-4-157-180

38. Nurdin. Pengaruh Motivasi Belajar Dan Persepsi Atas Lingkungan Sekolah Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2016; 35 (1): 98–105. DOI: 10.21831/cp.v35i1.28269 (In Indonesian)

39. Sayin A., Kahraman N. A measurement tool for repeated measurement of assessment of university students’ writing skill: Development and evaluation. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi. 2020; 11 (2): 1–18. DOI: 10.21031/epod.639148

40. Mansouri F. Cultural, religious and political contestations: The multicultural challenge. New York, Cham: Springer; 2015. 230 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16003-0

41. Kinefuchi E. ‘Nature is healing’: Environmental infodemic and the pitfall of dualism. Journal of Environmental Media. 2020; 1 (2): 31-38. DOI: 10.1386/jem_00024_1

42. Garcia G. L., Stevahn L. Situational awareness and interpersonal competence as evaluator competencies. American Journal of Evaluation. 2020; 41 (1): 107–124. DOI: 10.1177/1098214018814941

43. Yang P. Humanities education reform exploration and practice under outcomesbased Education (OBE). Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (2): 78–97. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-2-78-97

44. Bonacini L., Gallo G., Scicchitano S. Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. Journal of Population Economics. 2020; 34: 303–360. DOI: 10.1007/s00148-020-00800-7

45. Usol’tsev P. A., Shamalo N. Т., Аntipovа P. Е. Diagnostic purposes of education: Problems, strategies and solutions. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (8): 11–40. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-20208-11-40 (In Russ.)

46. Poerwanti J. I. S., Istiyati S. Context-based evaluation materials in elementary teacher education program: A developmental research. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2019; 16 (3): 325–335. DOI: 10.12973/tused.10285a

47. Zachary C., Jones D. J., McKee L. G., Baucom D. H., Forehand R. L. The role of emotion regulation and socialization in behavioral parent training: A proof-of-concept study. Behavior Modification. 2019; 43 (1): 3–25. DOI: 10.1177/0145445517735492

48. Busacca L. A., Rehfuss M. C. Postmodern career counseling: A new perspective for the 21st century. Alexandria: American Counseling Association; 2017. 471 p.

49. Manzanares M. C. S., Arribas S. R., Aguilar C. P., Queiruga-Dios M. Á. Effectiveness of self-regulation and serious games for learning stem knowledge in primary education. Psicothema. 2020; 32 (4): 516–524. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2020.30

50. Romanov E. V. Institutional traps in the scientific and educational sphere: Nature and mechanism of elimination. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (9): 107–147. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-9-107-147 (In Russ.)

51. Patton M. Q. Evaluation criteria for evaluating transformation: Implications for the Coronavirus Pandemic and the global climate emergency. American Journal of Evaluation. 2021; 42 (1): 53–89. DOI: 10.1177/1098214020933689

52. Wen W., Kawabata H. Impact of navon-induced global and local processing biases on the acquisition of spatial knowledge. SAGE Open. 2018; 8 (2): 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/2158244018769131

53. Suwarto S., Fajri H. Persepsi Orang Tua Terhadap Proses Bimbingan Belajar. Jurnal SAP. 2018; 3 (1): 41–46. DOI: 10.30998/sap.v3i1.2735 (In Indonesian)

54. Hyndman B., Harvey S. Health and physical education teacher education 2.0: Preservice teachers’ perceptions on developing digital twitter skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2019; 44 (2): 34–50. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2018v44n2.3

55. Lee J. F. K. Experiential teacher education – Preparing preservice teachers to teach English grammar through an experiential learning project. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2019; 44 (1): 1–20. DOI: 10.14221/ajte.2018v44n1.1

56. Lin T. C., Sun Y. S., Chang S. C., Chu S. I., Chou Y. T., Li M. W. Management of abusive and unfair Internet access by quota-based priority control. Computer Networks. 2004; 44 (4): 441–462. DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2003.12.003

57. Budiman E., Hairah U. Decision making analysis for free internet quota assistance online learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2021; 1071 (1): 12–23. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/1071/1/012023