The discrepancy evaluation model in the implementation of online learning (on the basis of parents’ perceptions)

Introduction. The evaluation of online learning is an attempt to see the extent of the education process in Indonesia. This evaluation study seen from parents’ perception is a new study that has not been carried out. Most dominant researchers evaluate the learning process by emphasising the school, but it has not been touched from the parent’s side.

Aim. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of online learning based on the perceptions of parents of students.

Research methodology and methods. A discrepancy evaluation model method is used in the present research. The discrepancy evaluation model embodies five stages of evaluation: reviewing designs and standards, comparing implementation strategies, reviewing whether the process produces goals, comparing discrepancies with objectives, and cost and benefit analysis. The research subjects were 231 parents, who were involved using a simple random sampling technique. Data were collected using online questionnaires and interview sheets. A table of evaluation criteria and descriptive analysis were employed to analyse the data.

Results and scientific novelty. The study results show that the implementation of online learning can run well, but the government needs to prepare appropriate policies to maintain the quality of learning. On average, 72.82% of parents think that the online learning process is sufficient. There are still psychological obstacles in the form of fatigue, anxiety, too many tasks, and technical obstacles in the form of a slow Internet network and the lack of availability of online learning facilities such as cellphones, laptops, personal computers, which are input and follow-up devices for schools, so that online learning is expected to continue to be improved increasing its effectiveness.

Practical significance. This research implies that evaluation is one of the indicators that can measure the success of a programme. To implement the online learning programme, namely in junior high schools in Indonesia, it is necessary to have a special education policy by paying attention to the segmentation of the characteristics of parents, especially groups of low-income parents and education level.

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