Main Article Content
Program Evaluation, Stake Model, Training Spa (Solus Per Aqua), SKKNI, Spa educators
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the components of preparation (antecedents), the components of the transaction (transaction) and the components of learning outcomes (outcomes).
Methodology: This research is evaluation research using a qualitative approach supported by a quantitative approach. The data of this study were collected using documentation, observations, and interviews, analyzed by the Stake Model analysis technique, which compares the results obtained with predetermined standards.
Results: The results of the study shows the Compensation for the identification of needs analysis, vision mission, and program implementation objectives are appropriate, the curriculum used is a competency-based curriculum with SKKNI standards, the educational qualifications requirements of instructors have not fulfilled the requirements as Level II Spa educators, infrastructure facilities are well met , the financing requirements are well fulfilled, the transaction component of mastery of facilitators and instructors in preparing learning materials is not good enough, and the components of learning outcomes (outcomes) in Spa training on good cognitive aspects, on psychomotor aspects are very good, and test results all Spa training program participants are good.
Implications: This research contributes to the form of development of competency test assessment instruments that have not previously been available at the BP-PAUD and Dikmas NTB Lab site.
2. Creswell. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (Second Edition). London: Sage Publication, Inc.
3. Daniel L. Stufflebeam & Anthony J. Shinkfield. (1981). Evaluation Theory, Models & Applications (Vol. 00). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
4. Duke D Obonyo, Prof Chen Bin, G. F. M. (2018). Is Teacher Education Level and Experience Impetus for Student Achievement? Evidence from Public Secondary Schools in Kenya. American Journal of Educational Research and Reviews, 3(21), 14. https://doi.org/10.28933/ajerr-2018-04-0101
5. Hasan, H. (2008). Evaluasi Kurikulum. Bandung: PT Rosdakarya.
6. Jody L. Fitzpatrick, James R. Sanders, B. R. W. (2004). Program Evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Boston: Pearson Education.
7. Kirzpatrick, K. and. (2005). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, Third Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
8. Permendiknas. (2010). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia.
9. Rosana, D., Kadarisman, N., Maryanto, A., & Sugiharsono, A. (2017). The evaluation of science learning program, technology and society application of Audio Bio Harmonic System with solar energy to improve crop productivity. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 6(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.28933/ajerr-2018-04-0101
10. Russel, J. E. dan H. J. B. (1998). Human Resources Management an Expehental Approach. New York: Mc Graw Hill.
11. Statistik, B. P. (2014). Badan Pusat Statistik, Nusa Tenggara Barat dalam Angka 2014.
12. Sugiyono. (2012). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan:Pendekatan kualitatif,kualitatis, dan R&D. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta,bandung.
13. Tarchouna, A. A. H. A. and N. (2017). The Role of an Aligned Curriculum Design in the Achievement of Learning Outcomes. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 4(3), 81–91. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2017.43.81.91
14. Thomas., K. R. dan S. (1980). Evaluation Without Pear. New York: New Viewpoint.