Assessing TVET programmes in fulfilling industry requirements: A CIPP conceptual analysis
List of Authors
  • Ahmad Zamri Khairani , Massitah Kipli

Keyword
  • TVET Programmes, industry requirements, CIPP, Programme Evaluation

Abstract
  • TVET is generally known to supply skilled workers particularly in developing and middle-income countries including Malaysia. This concept paper pivots its concern on TVET roles in fulfilling this need. The literature review brings attention to TVET reforms and the importance of industry intervention in TVET policy and decision-making. Evaluation models in education are discussed while programme evaluation indicators are deliberated as well. This research suggests the use of Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model in evaluating the TVET programmes and subsequently ascertains its potential in addressing the lacuna between the supply and demand issue of TVET and the industry requirements. The model was chosen due to its exhaustive and systematic dimensions in identifying the needs of the industry, the strategies and resources requirement, feedbacks assessments and the outcomes of the programme. The findings presented a conceptual framework that can be applied in the TVET programme evaluation process. This paper also suggests that TVET stakeholders, specifically the industry, should play a more active role in shaping the TVET programmes

Reference
  • 1. Adiviso, B. (2011). EMERGING TRENDS AND CHALLENGES OF TVET IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION. In S. Majumdar (Ed.), Emerging Challenges and Trends in TVET in the Asia-Pacific Region (pp. 27–35). Sense Publishers. 2. Bachenheimer, B. A. (2011). A Management-based CIPP Evaluation of a Northern New Jersey School District’s Digital Backpack Program [University of Florida]. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0043160/bachenheimer_b.pdf 3. Ball, S. (2011). Evaluating Educational Programs ETS R&D Scientific and Policy Contributions Series. http://www.ets.org/research/contact.html 4. Chapleo, C., & Simms, C. (2010). Stakeholder analysis in higher education a case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 14(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603100903458034 5. Cheong, K.-C., & Lee, K.-H. (2016). Malaysia’s Education Crisis – Can TVET Help ? Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 53(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1787/888933003668 6. Derya, K., & Bulent, A. (2016). Application of context input process and product model in curriculum evaluation: Case study of a call centre. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(17), 1659–1669. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2911 7. English, F. W., & Kaufman, R. A. (1975). Needs Assessment: a focus for curriculum development. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED107619.pdf 8. Finch, C. R., & Crunkilton, J. R. (1979). Curriculum Development in Vocational and Technical Education (R. Mead (ed.)). Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 9. Gandomkar, R. (2018). Comparing Kirkpatrick’s original and new model with CIPP evaluation model. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 6, 94. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5856911/pdf/JAMP-6-94.pdf 10. Glatthorn, A. a., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2012). Curriculum Evaluation. In Curriculum Leadership: Strategies for Development and Implementation (Issue 1981, pp. 356–381). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1789-3_6 11. Guba, E. G., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1970). Evaluation: The Process of Stimulating, Aiding, and Abetting Insightful Action. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED055733.pdf 12. Hakan, K., & Seval, F. (2011). CIPP evaluation model scale: development, reliability and validity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.146 13. Horng, J.-S., Teng, C.-C., & Baum, T. (2009). Evaluating the quality of undergraduate hospitality, tourism and leisure programmes. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 8(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.81.200 14. International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. (2003). In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers (6th ed., Issue 1). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004 15. Jailani, M. Y., Sern, L. C., & Nor Hidayah, H. (2017). Sustainability of TVET TE programme: An exploratory sequential mixed method design. Advanced Science Letters. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7138 16. Majumdar, S. (2011). Emerging Challenges and Trends in TVET in the Asia-Pacific Region. In S. Majumdar (Ed.), Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Education (pp. 119–132). Sense Publishers. 17. Metz, A. J. R. (2007). WHY CONDUCT A PROGRAM EVALUATION? FIVE REASONS WHY EVALUATION CAN HELP AN OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAM Part 1 in a Series on Practical Evaluation Methods. https://cyfar.org/sites/default/files/Child_Trends-2007_10_01_RB_WhyProgEval.pdf 18. Mohamad Fadzil, C. A., & Abdul Jaleel, A. H. (2013). Menilai Keberkesanan Pelaksanaan Program Diploma Perguruan Lepas Ijazah Pendidikan Sejarah Sekolah Rendah Di Institut Pendidikan Guru Kampus Pulau Pinang. Seminar Pendidikan Sejarah Dan Geografi (UMS, 29–30. 19. Mohamed Najib, A. G. (2016). Prinsip Asas Penilaian Program Pendidikan (H. Nurul Julia Alani (ed.); First Edit). Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 20. Molope, M., & Oduaran, A. (2020). Evaluation of the community development practitioners’ professional development programme: CIPP model application. Development in Practice, 30(2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2019.1650894 21. Nor Aida, A. R., Suhaila, A. K., Mohammad Fakhrulnizam, M., & Mohamed Idrus, A. M. (2017). Higher Tvet Education in Aviation : Teaching Quality and a Master Key To Industry 4.0. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counseling, 2(5), 44–53. 22. Palys, T. (2008). Purposive Sampling. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, 2, 697–698. 23. Patrinos, H. A. (2005). Education Contracting: Scope of Future Research. https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/MPSPE/PEPG-05-23patrinos.pdf 24. Policy Coordination Division. (2018). M A L AY S I A H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N : POLICY DIRECTION (Issue November). 25. Pramono, R., Sarliyani, S., & Purwanto, A. (2020). The Evaluation of Narada Cup School Sport Program Using CIPP Evaluation Model. Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani Dan Olahraga, 5(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.17509/jpjo.v5i1.23516 26. Puckett, J., Davidson, J., & Lee, E. (2012). Vocational education: The missing link in economic development. https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/education_public_sector_vocational_education/ 27. Raizen, S. A., & Rossi, P. (1981). Program Evaluation in Education: When? How? To What Ends? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED205614.pdf 28. Rathy. G.A., D. (2007). Models of Curriculum Evaluation. http://talc.ukzn.ac.za/Libraries/Curriculum/models_of_curriculum_evaluation.sflb.ashx 29. Stake, R. E. (1967). THE COUNTENANCE OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b07e/5b61cde550bfb0b64e895674a236c9003335.pdf 30. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model for Program Evaluation. Evaluation Models, 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6675-8_7 31. The World Bank. (2013). Malaysia WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SABER Country Report 2013 Dimensions Status. http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/CountryReports/WFD/SABER_WfD_Malaysia_CR_Final_2013.pdf 32. Tokmak, H. S., Meltem Baturay, H., & Fadde, P. (2013). Applying the Context, Input, Process, Product Evaluation Model for Evaluation, Research, and Redesign of an Online Master’s Program. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017470.pdf 33. Tse, T., Esposito, M., & Chatzimarkakis, J. (2013). Demystifying Youth Unemployment. World Economics, 14(3), 1–10. 34. Wong, P. K. P. (2002). Assessing the Effectiveness of the Programme, Higher Diploma in Computer Studies Offered by the City University of Hong Kong: An Application of the “CIPP” Evaluation Model. University of Hull. 35. Yastibas, A. E., & Erdal, T. (2020). Evaluating English for Academic Purposes II Course through the CIPP Model. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 11(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.36362/GUMUS.615998