English Language Teaching Educational Journal (ELTEJ)

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019, pp. 22-31

E-ISSN: 2621-6485

The CIPP Model-Based Evaluation on Integrated English

Learning (IEL) Program at Language Center

1
Noor Qomaria Agustina, 2Fanni Mukhtaruddin
1Kent State University
2InstitutTeknologi Nasional Yogyakarta,
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract
The challenging situation in the workforce leads the education institution to make suitable programs
which later help the learners to be more competitive in the world of work especially in mastering the
English. Language Training Centre of a university provides service on teaching language skill especially
English. The research purpose is to make an evaluation on the program conducted by the Centre namely
Integrated English Learning (IEL) using the CIPP Model developed by Stufflebeam. The methodology
was the qualitative design with case study at a language centre at a private university in Yogyakarta
Indonesia. The participants were the students from departments that had implemented the IEL in six
semesters. The data collection was from the interview and the data analysis used the qualitative data
analysis software. The steps in analysing the data used the methods in the grounded research. This study
described the IEL program seen from its context, input, process and product (CIPP Evaluation model)
from the students’ experience and perspective. The context was described from the effectivity of the
program, while the input took the point of view from the quality. The process was to reveal the program
implementation and the product described the achievement of the goals.
Keywords: CIPP Model, Evaluation, ELT, language center

How to Cite: Agustina, N.Q., & Mukhtaruddin, F. (2019). The CIPP Model-Based evaluation on
Integrated English Learning (IEL) program at language center. English Language Teaching Educational
Journal, 2 (1), 22-31

INTRODUCTION
Achieving a set of goals and objectives is one of the main reasons why an educational
program is designed in the first place. To ensure that the desired goals are met, an
evaluation to a program is an extremely important step in the entire process of conducting a
program so that the people in authority has the bases whether to continue or bring any
necessary revisions in the program (Bazargan, 2007a; Birjandi, 2009; Piccardo, North &
Maldina, 2019). Staub (2017) stated that “…there is the critical groundwork that must be
laid for a healthy, productive environment that sees evaluation and assurance not as
perfunctory activities, rather opportunities for the organization, or unit, to learn and grow
(p. 75)”, so the evaluation has deeper funtion. The aim of an evaluation program is to focus
on the goals accomplishment for the next alternative in decision making (Bazargan, 1997;
Kusumawati, Darmawan and Latifah, 2018; Stufflebeam, 1971; Sundoyo in Umam and
Saripah, 2018).
An educational program that is really interesting to observe is an English language
program that has been established by Language Training Center (LTC) of Muhammadiyah
University of Yogyakarta (UMY) called Integrated English Learning. The program provides
four complete skills in English language learning i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and
writing. The program is divided into 12 levels that has its own descriptor. Since the first
time the program was established, there has not been any official analysis or evaluation
ELTEJ ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 23

regarding the IEL program although the improvement of the program has already been
made.
There are four reasons to conduct the evaluation on IEL program. First, the program
is unique and interesting. It is different from other general language programs in that it has
distinctive features such as the conduct of pre-test and post-test to determine the students’
level, special method of teaching using mixed teaching methods, and a detailed scoring
system utilizing several components. Second, there has not been any research-based
evaluation on the program. Third, there is curiosity to find out the weaknesses and strengths
of the program. Fourth, a will to describe the implementation of the program in a detailed
form from the project pilot until the last revision of the program. The success of classroom
teaching depends on many factors. As shown by Dunkin and Biddle in Chaudron there are
four classes of variables which show the complexity and interconnectedness of college
teaching (Birjandi, 2009; Kuo in Umam and Saripah, 2018, Oscarson, 2019). This research
was guided by two major research questions which are listed as the following: (1) How do
the students and the teachers perceive the IEL program at the language center? (2) How is
the IEL program implemented?

IEL Program
Integrated English Learning (IEL) program of UMY is an English learning program
that involves all skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) in every single meeting
and uses levelling categorization-based class (Wisniewski, 2017; Piccardo, North &
Maldina, 2019). Before the program is conducted, all the students following the program
join the TOEIC-based English proficiency test consisting of listening, speaking, reading,
and writing skill. The test is conducted by at least 50 English instructors covering
approximately 350 classes in a semester. After the test is graded, the students are
categorized in groups based on students’ department, year, and English proficiency level.
The main purpose of this categorization is to give a good English program based on their
needs and abilities. There are 12 levels of proficiency in the program.

Summative and Formative Evaluation

Scriven (1991) introduced two different kinds of evaluation namely Formative and
Summative. Formative evaluation needs collecting and sharing information to improve the
program. The formative evaluators provide the program planners and staff with information,
make adustment to the setting and improve it (Dressler, 1997; Bazargan, 2007b; Dixson &
Worrel, 2019; Mahshanian, Shoghi & Bahrami, 2109; English & English, 2019). Formative
evaluation takes place usually during the development or improvement of a program,
product or person and it is held more than once (Scriven, 1991). The purpose is to validate
or ensure that the goals of the instruction whether they are being achieved. Else, it is to
improve the instruction giving identification and remediation to the problematic aspects
(Boon, 1987; Cheng, 1996; Brence & Rivza, 2012).
On the other hand, the formative evaluation provides data to made necessary changes
during the program (Xiao & Yang, 2019). Learning activities is possible to be changed in
the range and depth of instructional activities, and curriculum can be revised in ongoing
process (Tylor-Powell, Steele & Douglan, 1996; Dressel, 1997). The changes are possible
to both course improvement and students’ growth (Doll, 1992; Sowell, 2004; Darusslam,
2010). In sum, the formative evaluation is operated during the program to provide direct
input for the program directors.
Summative evaluation is implemented after a program ends to provide the strength
and challenging factors after the curriculum is completely designed (Houston & Thompson,
2017). A summative evaluation might be conducted to determine how effective the

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin
24 ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485

curriculum is (Boon, 1987; Tyler, 1990; Doll, 1992; Sowell, 2004). The summative
evaluator’s function is to obtain the data and write report to describe the program and its
achievements. It figures out the information about the product’s efficacy, such as the
learners’ satisfaction and what kind of learning that learners have achieved. Summative
evaluation usually uses numeric scores or letter grades to assess learner achievement

CIPP Evaluation Model

There are various evaluation approaches and models, but the researcher should
choose the most appropriate one according to the objectives and conditions. Stufflebeam’s
CIPP model (Stufflebeam, 1971; Tunc, 2010; Ulumi, 2016; Halimah and Hadjar; 2018) can
be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in general and the quality of input,
process and product. CIPP, the abbreviation of Context, Input, Process, and Product, is a
program evaluation model useful for evaluating educational programs. As the name
suggests, it is the evaluation of context, input, process, and product of an educational
program.
Context evaluation comprises examining and describing the context of the program,
performing a needs and goals assessment, deciding the program objectives, and verifying
whether the proposed objectives are sufficiently responsive to the identified needs.
Stufflebeam (2000) suggests that it helps in program-planning decisions making, as he said
that “Context evaluations assess needs, problems, and opportunities as bases for defining
goals and priorities, and judging the significance of outcomes”.
In the input evaluation, the activities are the program inputs and resources
description, the comparison of the program performance compared to other program, a
prospective benefit/cost assessment, an evaluation of the proposed design of the program,
and an examination of the recommendations for the alternative strategies and procedures
that should be considered as recommended. According to Stufflebeam (2000), “input
evaluations assess alternative approaches to meeting needs as a means of planning programs
all allocating resources”.
Process evaluation involves examining the implementation of the program,
monitoring how the program performance, auditing the program to be in line with the
required legal and ethical guidelines, and identifying defects in the design or
implementation. Evaluators require feedback to program personnel because it can be helpful
in making decisions for formative evaluation, as Stufflebeam said “Process evaluations
assess the implementation of plans to guide activities and later to help explain outcomes
(ibid)”.
Product evaluation includes determining and examining the general and specific
outcomes of the program, measuring anticipated outcomes, attempting to identify
unanticipated outcomes, assessing the merit of the program, conducting a retrospective
benefit/cost assessment, and conducting a cost effectiveness assessment (to determine if the
program is cost effective compared to other similar programs). Product evaluation is very
helpful in making summative evaluation decisions; “Process evaluations identify intended
and unintended outcomes both to help keep the process on track and determine
effectiveness (ibid)”.

Related Research
The CIPP evaluation model invented by Stufflebeam can be used to evaluate the
program from the Context, Input, Process and Product. The evaluation model gives the
comprehensive way to view in the holistic manner. There are many areas that use its system
in evaluation, and some researches have been conducted in the topic. Aziz, Mahmood and
Rehman (2018) conducted a research to in quality evaluation in the school level. The
ELTEJ ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 25

purpose of this research is to evaluate the educational quality at school level. The
participants are the principles, division heads, and teachers. There are two different
perspectives on the success of education, from the stakeholders and teachers. The
stakeholders’ point of view was more on how to build different strategies to facilitate the
success of learning. On the other hand, teachers saw from the theoretical point of view and
fall to apply the root learning, that turned out to burden the students and put the learning in
more on the uncomfortable situation.
Tootian used the CIPP Model to evaluate succession planning training program for
human capital management. The aims of the research are to know the whether the training
meet the objective and it is being successful and effective. The result of the research also
provides with the feedback and guide for the decision making. Ulum used the model of
CIPP to evaluate an English language program at state schools in Turkey from students’
perspective to see the effectiveness of the program. There are four aspects of the program
that should be highlighted. The first was the textbook that was too hard, the second was the
tests that were hard, the third was the topic that needed to be improved and the last was the
time that was too much for the students. Another research that used the CIPP Model is the
evaluation of the Arabic language learning program at a higher education to seek the quality
assurance of the learning system. The evaluation is very comprehensive from the very
beginning of the program until it is completed from the context that comprises the purpose
and background of the learning process, the input that examine the implementation process
of the curriculum, students, lecturers and infrastructure, and the evaluation process that
viewed the curriculum, teaching materials, and media in the classroom activities. The
product viewed the outputs and outcomes of the language learning.

RESEARCH METHOD
The objective of this study was to gain the experience of IEL program from the
perspectives of the students, instructors, staffs and stake holders. The CIPP (context, input,
process, and product) evaluation model developed by Stufflebeam (1971) is utilized in the
study. This research used the qualitative research methodology. Qualitative data were
gathered through interviews with the UMY students who joined in the IEL program.
Written documents were used of to obtain more detailed information.
The target participants were the third-year students of Agriculture and International
Relation Department, 15 English instructors who has been teaching the programs since the
first time, and the head of the two departments of Agriculture and International Relation of
the department. The researcher invited them to participate in the current research by
interview.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The program evaluated is the Integrated English Learning; it is an English levelled
program based on the CEFR levelling using integrated learning which combine four skills
of English namely listening, reading, speaking, and writing. There are two departments
involved for the pilot projects which is conducted in six semesters, and the length of
learning per semester is 48.5 hours or 291 hours altogether. The intuition plan to prepare 12
levels, but so far there are only 9 levels are used. The institution develops the program’s
curriculum and syllabus on their own empowering the English Instructors to collaborate in
establishing the programs.
The participants of this research the sixth semester werr the students of batch 2012
from 2 departments that are selected to be used as the pilot project. The data were gathered
from the in-depth interview and focus group discussion (FGD) from 25 students consisted

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin
26 ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485

of 9 females and 15 males. For the data triangulation, the interview was also conducted to
the LTC’s management and instructors of 7 participants consist of 5 females and 2 males.

Context Evaluations
It is important to define the needs of the learners in designing a program. Stufflebeam
(2000) stated that “Context evaluations assess needs, problems, and opportunities as bases
for defining goals and priorities, and judging the significance of outcomes”. In this section,
there is exploration on the need based on the participant point of view and supported by the
questionnaire result.
Integrated English Learning (IEL) is designed to teach the general English using
integrated learning that integrates four skills namely listening, reading, writing, and
speaking and the students are levelled based on the CEFR levelling system (Winiewski,
2107; Oscarson, 2019). To some extends, general levelled English is still acceptable,
however, there are also needs to have very specific English to increase specific skills like
grammar, vocabulary, public speaking, English proficiency and so forth.
“I think it is vocabulary and grammar. Why grammar? Because when we want to
speak English…some people do not understand what we said, one wrong word can change
the meaning (Jodi).”
Another interesting thing in this need analysis is about the levelling system, whether
it is appropriate or not. There are also arguments on the appropriateness of the levelling
system at this center. There are some problems arise regarding this system.
“In my opinion, appropriateness and suitability depend on what is their level, if they
are fresh graduate from Senior High School, for one semester or two they will be
happy…but if they are in the higher semester, they will need something else like academic
English…(Sekar)”
Some agree with the levelling system, but there is a need to improve the system so
that the mechanism of the levelling system is clear. There is also problem of the students
who stay at the same level for some semesters that make them feel bored and get nothing
from the teaching learning process.

Input Evaluation
To accomplish the goals, an institution needs an input evaluation where there should
be description of program as well as planning and allocating the resources to accomplish the
programs. There is also a need to find comparison to find out the effectiveness of the
programs. In Stufflebeam’s (2000) point of view, “input evaluations assess alternative
approaches to meeting needs as a means of planning programs all allocating resources”.
There are two aspects that will be discussed in this section, they are program development
and teacher quality control.
Program Development. Integrated English Learning is the general levelled English
program run to serve the students in learning English. Because it is levelled, this program
needs placement test to place the students according to their level. The test used to put the
students into different level using one of the English Proficiency Test.
“The Aims of Integrated English Learning is to make students grouping based on
their English competency level…the second intention is to make the class more homogeny;
for example, the students’ ability in one class is almost the same, therefore, the teaching
learning process is easier (Agus).”
In comparison to non IEL classes, there is no placement test, so the students’
competency level will vary from one student to another to make the class more heterogenic.
ELTEJ ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 27

The teachers usually have difficulties in doing the teaching learning process since they
should carefully prepare the material which is suitable for all.
“…in my opinion, IEL program tries to place the students based on their competency,
and this will make the instructor easier to handle the class if there are not many differences
among the students in a class…there will not be any big gap among them (Ari)”
Another aspect that also needs attention is the program development. There are four
steps to develop the program, they are defining the standard, determine the descriptors,
make syllabus and material development and for the testing, design the Term of
Specification (TOS) and develop the test. The first step is determining the standards. The
standard used is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to
measure language mastery (www.cambridgeenglish.org).
“…They know well from the very beginning, from the descriptors, then they make
the syllabus…after that process they will get feedback…and after the feedback they usually
revised either syllabus, module or term of specification, TOS is to make the
test…(Bambang)”
From the CEFR that is modified into descriptors, the centre plans to provide 12
levels. However, not all levels are made and used. There are 9 levels available, but only 8
levels are used.
“Based on the project in general, there are 12 levels, but for this semester there are
only 9 levels. The highest level is the eighth level (Dewi).”
The process to make the descriptors until the module and test is a project that
involves many instructors and management that also function as the professional
development since the teachers will learn a lot about developing a program that hopefully
this understanding will lead to better teaching.
“…IEL, if I am not mistaken, has 12 levels but only 8 levels are used, level 9 is
already made but it has not been used yet. So, each level has its own coordinator… Each
coordinator will be responsible to the Academic manager as the project leader. After the
modules and syllabuses are done, they submit them to me…Each level has coordinator, and
these coordinators are led by the academic manager (Wafa).”
The explanation above is the process of program making that is a collaboration
process that involved many teachers. The function of the management here is the
coordinator of the project. For the evaluation and quality control, there is feedback session
that is done either per level group or for all levels that is called grand review.
Teacher development is a process to make evaluation and quality control process.
There are two kinds of evaluation for the teachers. The first is the end of the semester
evaluation and monitoring during the semester.
“We already have the SOP. So, the first is the one who should handle the problems is
the PIC of the sharing group…The PIC of the sharing group should handle the problem
first. If he or she cannot handle the problems, the Academic manager will handle it, and at
last if the problems are very serious, then it must be handled by the centre’s head (Alia).”
To ensure the teacher performance, at least there are three kinds of evaluation, they
are end-session feedback from the students in the form of questionnaire, peer sharing or
sharing group as the media to share the problems and ideas, and the at last, the students can
contact personally to the centre management by phone or face to face.

Process Evaluation
The evaluation on the implementation of a program is important for the institution to
monitor how the program is carried out to see whether the program has already been
conducted in line with its standard operating procedures. In this section, from the data

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin
28 ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485

gathered, the implementation of the teaching learning process in the classroom can be seen
from three aspects, they are material used, teacher and teaching method and the assessment.
In relation to the material, the centre provides the syllabus and module for all levels.
Both the syllabus and the module are reviewed every year. Teachers have different opinion
about the module. Some of them follow the module in giving the material, but some make
modification on the module.
“Mmm we get the module from the centre…last semester was wonderful, because the
book was new, and the students are happy… (Jodi)”
“…the lecturer has done her best…the lecturer always takes the material from the
book (Dewi).”
However, the module is not always appropriate for the teaching learning process.
Therefore, the lecturers then make adjustment and find additional material.
“Mmm because I am not module base, what I mean by module base is that I don’t ask
the students to do the exercise exactly like what it is in the book, so I have to
modify…(Antok)”
Except modifying the module, the teachers also find other resources to teach. The
resources can be in the form of books, novel, games, interesting activities, games blog, as
well as employ the other persons like friends, teachers, and colleagues.
“The teacher can adjust the material so that the material can be more effective
(Dedi).”
“…my class is full of games…(Mawar).”
“…for the assignment I gave homework for the students to read the
book…(Bambang).”
It can be concluded that the centre provides the materials, but it is often that the
module need adjustment to make it suitable to be used for the classroom activities. To make
the class more engaging, the teachers also use additional materials such as games, books,
blog and interesting activities.
About the teacher and teaching method, the teachers at the centre possess various
ways to teach in the classroom to provide good learning atmosphere. The teaching method
is not only to convey the materials, but also to build relationship with the students.
Including in the teaching method is the teacher talk during the class, and the language use in
the classroom. Another important consideration is to engage the students to the activities
and ask them to think on the material.
Assessment is one of the important aspects in the teaching learning process. There
are different kinds of assessment used in the centre. The centre has already provided official
assessment that is the same for all classes and the assessments are stated in the syllabus.
There are five categories to do the assessment, they are attendance, in class assessment,
home assignment, and progress test.
Besides the official assignment, the teachers also use different kinds of assessment.
They use the exercise in the book to look the student’s mastery on the material. The
assessment can also be in the form of review before the mid and final tests. Book review
and reading activities become alternatives of the assessment.

Product Evaluation
Product evaluation is related to the examining the outcomes of the program. The
outcomes can be traced back to the aims of the program to determine whether the aims are
already achieved. There were four aspects highlighted for the evaluation. They are IEL
program, the levelling system, module, and the teacher.
Integrated English Learning (IEL) as its name suggests is the English language
program which integrates the teaching learning of the four skills to be taught together in a
ELTEJ ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 29

level. This program is also general English in the sense that the material is not intended for
the specific purposes that are in line with department. Levelled classes are used to place the
students based on their proficiency level.
Because IEL is levelling class, it is very important that there is levelling system. One
of the weaknesses of this program is the test design to place the students that are suitable for
their level. There are many cases that the students are put in the wrong level they stay at the
same level for several semesters.
Another important aspect is the module. There has not been yet the research study
whether the modules used are effective or not. However, some attempts have already been
taken to review the module. The centre already created 9 modules for 9 different levels
along with the syllabuses, TOS, and testing. The centre also continuously provided
feedback for the development of the module in the form of module review and feedback.
The feedback was gathered from the group discussion, teacher meeting and grand review
module that was conducted special to review the module.
The last feedback is on the teacher. There are differences in the teacher quality in
conducting the teaching learning process. There was feedback that there should be
benchmarking and careful system in recruiting the teachers so that the teacher quality can
be guaranteed. The teacher should also engage and have good communication with the
students; that is the one who will promote learning in the classroom.

CONCLUSION
Educational program is intended to conduct teaching learning process to create
quality human resource. It is a kind of difficult task, so to make sure that the program can
run well, there must be a kind of goals and objectives as the guidance for the
implementation of the program. There must be a way to make sure the objectives and goals
are met. Therefore, there is a need to make evaluation and assessment. To do the evaluation
and assessment needs tools. CIPP model promoted by Stufflebeam is one of the models that
can be used.
Integrated English Learning is one of the language programs conducted by a centre
of a well-known university in Yogyakarta. The research design was the qualitative method.
The participants of this research are the students from two different departments who take
the English at the centre and they have already joined the program for six semesters. The
result was divided into four research questions asking about the context, input, process, and
product evaluation of the IEL program. The explanation is about the description of the
program which picture the implementation of the program at the centre.
The research gave useful input for the betterment of the program to know how the
possible solution if there is any problem. The teacher who engaged in this program and for
the teacher in general, it is to portray on how a language program should be conducted, then
the information given in this research may inspire the teachers to do better and more in the
teaching learning process.

REFERENCES

Aziz, S., Mahmood, M., & Rehman, Z. (2018). Implementation of CIPP model for
quality evaluation at school level: A case study. Journal of Education and
Educational Development, 5 (1), June 2018, pp. 189-205
Bazargan, A. (1997). Quality and its evaluation in higher education: A look at national
and international experiences. Quarterly Journal of Rahyaft, 4,155-163.
Bazargan, A. (2007a). Educational evaluation. Tehran: SAMT publisher press.

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin
30 ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485

Bazargan, A. (2007b). Higher Education in Iran. In James J. I. Forest and P.G. Altbach
(Eds.); International Handbook of Higher Education; Dordercht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Birjandi, P., &Nosratinia, M. (2009). The qualitative program evaluation of the
postgraduate English Translation major in Iran. The Journal of Modern
Thoughts in Education, 4, 37-5
Boon, K.B. (1987). Effectiveness of the diploma in education program: perceptions of
former Bahasa Malaysia methods student. Kuala Lumpur: University of
Malaya.
Brence, I. & Rivza, B. (2012). Quality evaluation of higher education programs: process
and challenges in Latvia. Proceeding of International Conference of
Management, knowledge and learning international, Celje, Slovenia (pp.
787-79).
Cheng, V.C. (1996). School effectiveness and school-based management: A mechanism
for development. London: The Fulnmer Press.
Dixson, D.D., & Worrell, F.C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the
classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55:153–159, 2016. DOI:
10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Doll, R. C. (1992). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
English, J., & English, T. (2019). Combining summative and formative evaluation using
automated assessment. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology,
16, 143-151. https://doi.org/10.28945/4293
Halimah, U. S. & Hadjar, I. (2018). Arabic language learning evaluation in higher
education with context input process product (CIPP) model. Alsinatuna-
Journal of Arabic Linguistics and Education, 4 (1), December 2018, pp. 33-
47. P-ISSN: 2477-5371; E-ISSN: 2503-2690.
Houston, D., & Thompson, J. N., (2017). Blending formative and summative assessment in
a capstone subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’, Journal of
University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(3), 2017. Available
at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss3/2.
Mahshanian, A., Shoghi, R., & Bahrami, M. (2019). Investigating the differential effects of
formative and summative assessment on EFL learners’ end-of-term achievement.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 1055-1066, September
2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1005.19.
Oscarson, M. (2019). Framing modern language education – A european approach.
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 27 (2): 773 – 786 (2019).
Piccardo, E., North, B., & Maldina, E. (2019). Innovation and reform in course planning,
teaching, and assessment: The CEFR in Canada and Switzerland, a comparative
study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Special Issue: 22, 1 (2019): 103-
128.
Sowell, E. J. (2004). Curriculum development: An integrative approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ELTEJ ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 31

Staub, D. F. (2017). Quality assurance and foreign language programme evaluation in S.

Hidri and C. Coombe (eds.), Evaluation in Foreign Language Education in the
Middle East and North Africa. Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-43234-2_16 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland
2017
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational
accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5, 14-28.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2002). CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist. Retrieved on October 19,
2006. From http://www.mich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist
Tootian, S. (2019). Evaluation of training courses applied in succession planning in
organizations using the CIPP model. International Journal of Human Capital
in Urban Management (IJHCUM), 4(2):111-118, Spring 2019. Homepage:
http://www.ijhcum.net/
Tunc, F. (2010). Evaluation of an English language Teaching program at a public
university using CIPP model. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East
Technical University, Turkey. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.etd.libmetu.edu.tr/upload/12611570/index
Tyler, R. (1990). Reporting evaluation of learning outcomes. Oxford: Pergamum.
Ulumi, G. O. (2016). Evaluation of english as a foreign Language program - using CIPP
(context, input, process and product) model. European Journal of English
Language Teaching, 1 (2), 2016, pp. 114-137.
www.oapub.org/edu105281/zenodo.203077.
Umam, K. A. I. & Saripah, I. (2018). Using the Context, Input, Process and Product
(CIPP) Model in the Evaluation of Training Programs. International Journal
of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (IJPTE), 2, July 2018), pp.183-194.
DOI: 10.20961/ijpte.v%vi%i.26086.
Wisniewski, K. (2017). Empirical learner language and the levels of the common European
framework of reference. Language Learning, 67(S1), 232-253.
Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How
formative assessment supports students' self-regulation in English language
learning. System, 81, 39-49.

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin