Model evaluasi kinerja dosen: pengembangan instrumen untuk mengevaluasi kinerja dosen

Trie Hartiti Retnowati; Djemari Mardapi; Badrun Kartowagiran; Suranto Suranto

doi:10.21831/pep.v21i2.16626

Model evaluasi kinerja dosen: pengembangan instrumen untuk mengevaluasi kinerja dosen

Trie Hartiti Retnowati, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Djemari Mardapi, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Badrun Kartowagiran, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia
Suranto Suranto, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia

10.21831/pep.v21i2.16626

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengembangkan model evaluasi kinerja dosen yang akurat dan terpercaya. Model terdiri atas: instrumen, panduan penskoran, penentuan standar, aplikasi komputer, panduan penilaian, dan panduan pemanfaatan hasil penilaian. Penelitian ini merupakan multy years research selama tiga tahun. Tahun pertama (2017) dilakukan pengembangan instrumen yang akurat dan terpercaya, panduan penskoran, dan penentuan standar. Tahun kedua (2018) dilakukan uji coba penilaian kinerja dosen, produk awal aplikasi komputer, panduan pelaksanaan penilaian, dan panduan pemanfaatan hasil penilaian. Tahun ketiga (2019) dilakukan penilaian kinerja dosen, contoh pemanfaatan hasil penilaian, dan validasi aplikasi komputer. Draf instrumen divalidasi oleh 10 pakar kemudian dihitung validitas isinya dengan formula Aiken V, bukti validitas konstruk menggunakan analisis faktor eksploratori, dan estimasi reliabilitasnya dengan Cronbach Alpha. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (1) semua butir instrumen sudah memenuhi standar validitas isi yakni 0,73, (2) hasil analisis faktor instrumen kinerja dosen dalam bidang pengajaran menunjukkan bahwa terdapat 3 komponen, yaitu persiapan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasi dengan indeks reliabilitas Alpha sebesar 0,844, dan (3) berdasarkan kajian teori, FGD, dan bukti empirik, dapat disimpulkan bahwa kinerja dosen dinilai melalui empat aspek yakni kinerja dalam pengajaran, kinerja dalam penelitian, kinerja dalam PPM, dan kapasitas dosen.

EVALUATION MODEL OF LECTURER’S PERFORMANCE: DEVELOPING INSTRUMENTS FOR EVALUATING LECTURER’S PERFORMANCE

Abstract

The aim of this research is to develop the evaluation model for lercturer performance that is valid and reliable. The model consists of: instruments, scoring manual, act of determining standard, application standard, assessment manual, and utilization manual of the assessment result. This research is a multi-year research. The first year research (2017) focuses on the development of evaluation instruments which is valid and reliable. The second year research (2018) focuses on conducting trial for lecturer performance assessment, initial computer application, the manual of assessment process, and the manual of assessment result utilization. The third year research (2019) focuses on administrating the evaluation for lecturer, the example of assessment result utilization, and validating computer application. The draft of the instrument was validated by 10 experts and analyzed using Aiken V formula. Besides, exploratory factor analysis was also conducted to prove the construct validity. The reliability was estimated by Alpha Cronbach formula. The result of the research shows that: (1) all instrument items have fullfilled the content validity requirement (0.73), (2) the exploratory factor analysis result of lecturer teaching performance consists of 3 components, including preparation, teaching process, and evaluation with reliability index of 0.844, and (3) based on the theoretical study, focus group discussion, and empirical evidence, lecturer performance can be assessed by four aspects, including teaching performance, research performance, social service performance, and lecturer capacity.

Keywords

instrumen; model evaluasi; kinerja dosen

Full Text:

Fulltext PDF

References

Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012

Amin, H. U., & Khan, A. R. (2009). Acquiring knowledge for evaluation of teachers performance in higher education using a questionnaire. Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 2(1), 7. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4663

Armstrong, M. (2000). Performance management. London: Kogan Page.

Bai, S., Rajput, Q., Hussain, S., & Khoja, S. A. (2014). Faculty performance evaluation system: An ontological approach. Proceedings of IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications, AICCSA (Vol. 2014, pp. 117–124). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/AICCSA.2014.7073187.

Barber, M & Mourshed, M. (2012). Profesional development international. New York: Pearson.

Basuki, A. (2004). Implementasi sistem jaminan mutu (quality assurance) proses pembelajaran di perguruan tingggi. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 1(6), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.21831/PEP.V6I1.2042

Berk, A. (1986). Performance assessment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1985). Essential of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Ross.

Depdiknas. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional (2003). Jakarta.

Depdiknas. Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen (2005). Jakarta.

Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34.

Jones, J., Jenkin, M., & Lord, S. (2006). Developing effective teacher performance. California: SAGE Publishing Company.

Kamsinah. (2008). Metode dalam proses pembelajaran: studi tentang ragam dan implementasinya. Lentera Pendidikan, 11(1), 102. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/6806623. /metode_dalam_proses_pembelajaran_kamsinah_101_metode_dalam_proses_pembelajaran_Studi_tentang_Ragam_dan_Implementasinya_Oleh_Kamsinah.

Langen, J. M. (2011). Evaluation of adjunct faculty in higher education institutions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903221501.

Long, C. S., Ibrahim, Z., & Kowang, T. O. (2014). An analysis on the relationship between lecturers competencies and students satisfaction. International Education Studies, 7(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n1p3.

Marzano, R.J. Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision. Alexandria: ASCD.

Muzenda, A. (2013). Lecturers’ competences and students’ academic performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 3(1), 06-13.

Nygaard, C., & Belluigi, D. Z. (2011). A proposed methodology for contextualised evaluation in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003650037.

Peleyeju, J. O. & Ojebiyi, O. A. (2013). Lecturers’ performance appraisal and total quality management of public universities in South-Western Nigeria. British Journal of Education, 1(2), 41-47.

Pramudyo, A. (2010). Analisis faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kinerja dosen negeri pada kopertis Wilayah V Yogyakarta. Jurnal Bisnis Teori & Implementasi, 1(1), 1–11.

Ramli, R., & Jalinus, N. (2013). Evaluasi kinerja guru sekolah menengah kejuruan Sumatera Barat pascasertifikasi. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 17(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.21831/PEP.V17I1.1362.

Ruslan. (2010). Kepuasan mahasiswa terhadap kinerja dosen. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 17, 230–237. https://doi.org/http://dx. doi.org/10.17977/jip.v17i3.2723

Shafa. (2014). Karakteristik proses pembelajaran Kurikulum 2013. Dinamika Ilmu, 14(32), 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117.

Sharko, A. D., Sharko, G, Demi, B, Baholli, I. (2015). Development of E-UETLPE web application (UET online lecturer performance evaluation system). Journal of educational and social research, 5(2).

Sukirno & Siengthai, S. (2011). Does participative decision making affect lecturer performance in higher education? International Journal of Educational Management,25(5), 494 – 508.

Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. (2016). Rencana induk penelitian tahun 2016-2020. Yogyakarta: UNY.

Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessment: Strategies for managing local item dependents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3(3) 187-213.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/pep.v21i2.16626