Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Articles
Submitted: 26-11-2025
Published: 16-12-2025

EVALUATION OF THE CIPPO-BASED ONE TEACHER ONE INNOVATION PROGRAM AT SLB DHARMA WANITA KEBONSARI AND SLB PUTRA IDHATA IN MADIUN REGENCY

Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
program evaluation, CIPPO model, teacher innovation, special education, SLB

Abstract

Inclusive education requires teachers to design learning activities that meet the needs of students with special needs. The One Teacher One Innovation Program at SLB Dharma Wanita Kebonsari and SLB Putra Idhata in Madiun Regency was implemented to improve teacher competencies while producing contextual learning innovations. This study evaluated the program using the CIPPO model with a qualitative multi–case study approach through in-depth interviews, observations, and documentation, analyzed using the interactive model of Miles and Huberman. The results show that the program aligns with the need to enhance teacher competencies and is supported by adequate learning facilities and school leadership. Implementation took place systematically through planning, execution, and continuous supervision. The resulting learning innovations succeeded in increasing student interest and engagement. In addition, the outcomes of the study indicate increased self-confidence and professional appreciation among teachers. Another significant impact was observed in graduates with special needs who were involved in the innovation products. They demonstrated real improvements in skills such as self-care, literacy, communication, and vocational abilities, making them better prepared for everyday life after graduation and able to apply these skills independently outside of school. These findings affirm that the program not only improves the quality of learning but also provides long-term benefits for the development of competencies among students with special needs.

References

  1. Agung, S., Khoirunisa, A. N., & Suryaningsih, S. (2022). Tantangan Guru Sekolah Luar Biasa Pada Pembelajaran Ipa Di Abad 21. Alotrop, 6(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.33369/alo.v6i1.21089
  2. Ambiyar, F., dkk. (2019). Evaluasi proses dalam pendidikan. Jurnal Pendidikan, 19.
  3. Anas, S. (2003). Pengantar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara
  4. Arikunto, S. (2012). Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan (edisi revisi). Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  5. Aziz, A., Suryadi, D., & Herman. (2018). Evaluasi pendidikan: Konsep, model, dan aplikasinya dalam konteks pendidikan Islam. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
  6. Bennet, C. (2003). Evaluating educational programs: The responsive approach. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
  7. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Foundations of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Research in Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods, 1, 48.
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Riset pendidikan: Perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasi riset kualitatif & kuantitatif (Edisi kelima, diterjemahkan oleh Achmad Fawaid). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
  9. Divayana, D. G., dkk. (2005). Evaluasi konteks dan input dalam program pendidikan. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 11(2).
  10. Djaali, & Mulyono. (2000). Pengukuran dalam pendidikan. Jakarta: Grasindo.
  11. Hamalik, O. (2019). Proses belajar mengajar. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  12. Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi. (2023). Profil pendidikan guru pendidikan khusus di Indonesia: Laporan tahunan Direktorat Guru Pendidikan Khusus. Direktorat Jenderal Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan. https://gtk.kemdikbud.go.id
  13. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  14. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  15. Moleong, L. J. (2012). Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif (Edisi Revisi). Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
  16. Mubarokah, L., Azizah, U. N., Riyanti, A., Nugroho, B. N., & Sandy, T. A. (2021). Pentingnya Inovasi Pendidik untuk Meningkatkan Kualitas Pendidikan. JIRA: Jurnal Inovasi Dan Riset Akademik, 2(9), 1349–1358. https://doi.org/10.47387/jira.v2i9.224
  17. Mulyatiningsih, E. (2011). [Riset Terapan Bidang Pendidikan]. Yogyakarta: UNY Press.
  18. Munthe, B. (2006). Desain pembelajaran. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Insan Madani.
  19. Muryadi. (2017). Evaluasi produk dalam pendidikan. Jurnal Pendidikan, 10(1).
  20. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030 – The future we want. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/
  21. Patil, D. B., & Kalekar, A. V. (2014). Evaluation of teaching and learning process. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 1(6), 1078–1083.
  22. Riyanto, Y. (2007). Paradigma baru pembelajaran: Sebagai referensi bagi pendidik dalam implementasi pembelajaran yang efektif dan berkualitas. Jakarta: Kencana.
  23. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
  24. Sakdiyah, H., Palupi, P. R., Saputri, I., Wetan, J. L., & Lakarsantri, K. (2024). Efektivitas Akreditasi Sekolah sebagai Upaya Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan Universitas Negeri Surabaya , Indonesia Universitas Negeri Padang , Indonesia beberapa langkah serta peraturan yang tepat . Sehingga dibutuhkan berupa panduan. 4.
  25. Saparuddin. (2022). Inovasi Pembelajaran. CV Jejak (Jejak Publisher). https://books.google.co.id/books?id=B1OmEAAAQBAJ
  26. Sari, Marlynda Happy Nurmala, dkk. (2022). Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan. Jakarta: Pustaka Akademika.
  27. Scriven, M. (1972). Goal-free evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 81–116). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  28. Setyawan, B. (2019). Pengembangan Media Google Site dalam Bimbingan Klasikal di SMAN 1 Sampung. Nusantara of Research : Jurnal Hasil-Hasil Penelitian Universitas Nusantara PGRI Kediri, 6(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.29407/nor.v6i2.13797
  29. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP Evaluation Model: How to Evaluate for Improvement and Accountability. Guilford Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=Y1LgDQAAQBAJ
  30. Sudjana, N., & Ibrahim. (2004). Penilaian hasil dan proses belajar mengajar. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
  31. Suharsimi Arikunto & Safruddin. (2018). Evaluasi Program Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  32. Sukardi. (2009). Evaluasi program pendidikan: teori, prosedur, dan aplikasinya. Jakarta: PT RajaGrafindo Persada.
  33. Supiana, N (2014), Evaluasi Implementasi Program Pembinaan Karir Jabatan Struktural Pegawai Negeri Sipil Pada Kantor Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Tangerang
  34. Tayibnapis, M. (2000). Model evaluasi program: konsep dan aplikasi. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
  35. Tiantong, M., & Tongchin, P. (2013). Evaluation of educational input resources. International Journal of Education, 8(1).
  36. Tim Pengembang MKDP. (2015). Inovasi pendidikan. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  37. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
  38. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education – A tool on whose terms? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  39. Warsita, B. (2011). Evaluasi program pembelajaran. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
  40. Widianto, A., Supriatna, N., & Sutrisno. (2018). Evaluasi pembelajaran. Bandung: CV Alfabeta.
  41. Wijayati, D. T. (2010). Manajemen strategi pendidikan. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

How to Cite

Sahara, Y., Sholeh, M., Hariyati, N., Khamidi, A., Rifqi, A., & Fitri, R. (2025). EVALUATION OF THE CIPPO-BASED ONE TEACHER ONE INNOVATION PROGRAM AT SLB DHARMA WANITA KEBONSARI AND SLB PUTRA IDHATA IN MADIUN REGENCY . Jurnal Konseling Pendidikan Islam, 7(1), 276–285. Retrieved from https://jurnalalkhairat.org/ojs/index.php/jkpi/article/view/1295