






































Sebuah Kajian Pustaka:


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 

 
  

1Noor Qomaria Agustina, 2Fanni Mukhtaruddin 
1Kent State University 

2Institut Teknologi Nasional Yogyakarta,  

e-mail: nagustin@kent.edu, fanni@itny.ac.id 

 
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 ◼ 

 

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin  

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 



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 ◼ 

 

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin  

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 



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 ◼ 

 

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin  

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 

http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/


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 ◼ 

 

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin  

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. 



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. 

https://doi.org/10.28945/4293


ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Agustina, Mukhtaruddin  

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. 

 

 

http://www.mich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist

