Evaluation of Blended Learning Implementation which is Conditioned to Optimize the Mastery of Student Knowledge and Skills
Keywords:Evaluation of mastery, knowledge, skills, conditioned, learning process, blended learning.
Learning process is part of the E-Procurement courses curriculum in Information Systems Study Program at Widyatama University. All this time, in the face-to-face method of learning process, students have not been able to optimize the mastery of knowledge and skills as expected. One of the things that the Information Systems Study Program did to optimize said mastery is applying the blended learning program in e-Procurement courses. This study uses mixed method evaluation approach in evaluating various stages of the process to implement a blended learning program. Meanwhile, the evaluation method used consists of 2 parts of the model namely 1) CIPP, an evaluation carried out on context, input, process, and product, 2) The Flashlight Triad, an evaluation of activities that utilize information technology online. As the final result of evaluating the implementation of blended learning based on observations and research that has been done, there is an optimization of the increase in mastery of students' knowledge and skills, after conducting various activities that are conditioned on face-to-face activities combined with online ones. The results of this evaluation mean that a well-conditioned blended learning program can influence students in terms of motivation, therefore mastering the knowledge and skills of a course can be optimized through the student learning experience.
 Zuppo, C. M. (2012). Defining ICT in a boundaryless world: The development of a working hierarchy. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 4(3), 13â€“22.
 Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302-327.
 Tshabalala, M., Ndeya-Ndereya, C., & van der Merwe, T. (2014). Implementing blended learning at a developing university: Obstacles in the way. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 12(1), 101-110.
 Maarop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41-52.
 Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51-54.
 Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2005). Enhancing the classroom learning experience with Web lectures: A quasi-experiment. Technical report, Georgia Institute of Technology.
 Thorn, K. (2003). Blended learning: How to integrate online and traditional. Kogan Page Limited.
 Hastings, J. T. (1966). Curriculum evaluation: The why of the outcomes. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3(1), 27-32.
 Krikas, V. (2009). Curriculum Evaluation in Greece. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 177-191.
 Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist. https://www.wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u350/2014/cippchecklist_mar07.pdf.
 Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57-84.
 Farsi, M., & Sharif, M. (2014). Stufflebeamâ€™s CIPP model & program theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistic World, 6(3), 400-406.
 Ehrmann, S. (2000). Studying and improving the use of technology to support collaborative learning: An illustration of flashlight methods and tools. http://www.tltreoup.org/resources/F_illustrative_1.htm.
 Andrews, T., & Schwarz, G. (2002). Preparing students for the virtual organisation: An evaluation of learning with virtual learning technologies. Educational Technology and Society, 5(3), 54-65.
 Tan, O. S. (2007). Problem-based learning pedagogies: psychological processes and enhancement of intelligences. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(2), 101-114.
 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Drawing and verying conclusions. In M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, & J. Saldana (Eds.), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. California: Sage Publications, pp. 275-322.