SINTA

2.5

Impact

Google Scholar

10

h-index

Indonesian Journal of Education Research (IJoER)

Open Access Journal

Student-Based Evaluation of an Events Management Textbook for Instructional Material Quality Assurance

Glory Ann Karen C Caldingon
Kalinga State University ROR
Philippines
g.caldingon@yahoo.com
Nollie Boy D Jerson
Kalinga State University ROR
Philippines
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study evaluated a faculty-prepared Events Management textbook as an instructional material and identified evidence-based priorities for revision. The main objective was to generate practical revision directions that can improve the textbook’s instructional value in hospitality and tourism education.

    Methodology: A quantitative descriptive evaluation design was used among 152 Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management and Bachelor of Science in Tourism Management students of Kalinga State University who had completed the course and used the textbook. Data were gathered through an adapted instructional material evaluation questionnaire with Likert-scale indicators and a revision recommendation checklist. Weighted mean, frequency, percentage, ranking, and a maintain-improve priority matrix were used to analyze the data.

    Main Findings: Students evaluated the textbook positively in physical features (M = 3.47), textbook parts (M = 3.48), overall evaluation (M = 3.49), and satisfaction (M = 3.52). The strongest areas suggest that the textbook is generally usable, organized, and engaging, particularly in lesson overview, readability, content quality, and relevance to learning. However, the lower-scoring indicators show clear revision needs in conversational tone, activity manageability, industry alignment, user instructions, visual appeal, delivery mode, and digital learning support. Educationally, the findings indicate that the textbook should be retained as a core learning resource but revised through a quality assurance cycle that connects student feedback with instructional design improvement.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: The study contributes a localized instructional material evaluation of an Events Management textbook and converts student assessment into a structured decision tool for revision. Its originality lies in combining textbook evaluation, student feedback, CIPP-informed quality assurance, ADDIE evaluation, ARCS satisfaction, and a priority matrix for instructional material improvement.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    G. A. K. C. Caldingon and N. B. D. Jerson, “Student-Based Evaluation of an Events Management Textbook for Instructional Material Quality Assurance”, Ind. Jou. Edu. Rsc, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 381–391, Jun. 2026, doi: 10.37251/ijoer.v7i3.3030.

    More Citation Formats

  • 26
    Abstract views
    11
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. D. L. Stufflebeam and C. L. S. Coryn, Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2014.
    2. D. L. Stufflebeam and G. Zhang, The CIPP Evaluation Model: How to Evaluate for Improvement and Accountability. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press, 2017.
    3. R. M. Branch, Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2009.
    4. J. M. Keller, Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2010.
    5. C. M. Reigeluth and Y.-J. An, Merging the Instructional Design Process with Learner-Centered Theory: The Holistic 4D Model. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2021.
    6. OECD, Digital Higher Education: Emerging Quality Standards, Practices and Supports, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, no. 66. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2022.
    7. UNESCO, Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education: A Tool on Whose Terms? Paris, France: UNESCO, 2023.
    8. OECD, Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2024.
    9. UNESCO, Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2021.
    10. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Brussels, Belgium: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2015.
    11. F. A. Puerta-Guardo, A. S. Cantillo-Orozco, J. L. Castillo-Loaiza, J. A. Narváez-Grisales, and C. J. Molina-Guerrero, “Quality in higher education institutions as a transversal tool in institutional accreditation: A bibliometric review,” Eur. J. Educ. Res., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 19–38, 2026, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.15.1.19.
    12. N. T. Bui and P. Yasri, “Optimizing quality approaches and investigating lecturers’ perception for course quality assurance in higher education,” Eur. J. Educ. Manag., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 91–108, 2024, doi: 10.12973/eujem.7.2.91.
    13. S. E. Pramono, “Quality assurance in higher education: Trends and insights from global research,” Educ. Inf. Technol. Stud., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 6579–6588, 2024.
    14. L. Harvey, “What have we learned from 30 years of quality in higher education?,” Qual. High. Educ., 2024, doi: 10.1080/13538322.2024.2385793.
    15. C. A. Tran, “Research in higher education quality assurance worldwide: Trends, countries, and collaboration,” Cogent Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, 2025, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2479405.
    16. N. J. K. Abdullahi, “Quality assurance mechanisms and the sustainability of globalized higher education,” Front. Educ., 2026, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1810032.
    17. A. Williams, “Delivering effective student feedback in higher education: An evaluation of the challenges and best practice,” Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 473–501, 2024, doi: 10.46328/ijres.3404.
    18. D. Sullivan, “Student motivations, perceptions and opinions about the value of student evaluation of teaching,” Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 2024, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2199486.
    19. K. Bell and C. Brooks, “Increasing undergraduate student satisfaction in higher education: The importance of relational pedagogy,” J. Further High. Educ., 2022, doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2021.1985980.
    20. M. Ikram, M. Kenayathulla, and A. Abolhasani, “Education quality and student satisfaction nexus using instructional materials, support, classroom facilities and growth,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1140971.
    21. D. P. Sari, M. N. Farih, D. C. Ardhi, D. Rimbano, Jumroh, and M. N. Arifin, “Higher education student satisfaction with online learning: The role of teaching material and infrastructure,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1273–1283, 2023, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.8.1929.
    22. H. T. T. Ta, T. T. M. Nguyen, and T. H. Pham, “Survey dataset on student perceptions and experiences of quality assurance in Vietnamese higher education institutions,” Data Brief, vol. 49, 2023.
    23. K. H. Tan, C. P. Chan, and M. Mohamad, “Higher education students’ online instruction perceptions: A scoping review,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 19, Art. no. 10840, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131910840.
    24. I. Y. Alyoussef, “Investigating student satisfaction and adoption of technology-enhanced learning,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 19, Art. no. 14617, 2023, doi: 10.3390/su151914617.
    25. Y. B. Limbu, M. Markos, and S. Pham, “Impact of e-learning service quality on student satisfaction in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., 2023.
    26. A. Alruthaya, T.-T. Nguyen, and S. Lokuge, “The application of digital technology and the learning characteristics of Generation Z in higher education,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05991, 2021.
    27. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 3rd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
    28. R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer, e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2023.
    29. R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 3rd ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
    30. F. Li, “A study on textbook use and its effects on students’ academic achievements,” Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res., vol. 6, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s43031-023-00094-1.
    31. S. Handayani, “A meta-analysis of students’ perceptions on the readability of learning materials in TEFL classes: Are original textbooks effective?,” Int. J. Educ. Humanit., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 266–273, 2024.
    32. L. A. Hamora, M. B. Rabaya, J. T. Pentang, A. D. Pizaña, and M. D. Gamozo, “Students’ evaluation of faculty-prepared instructional modules: Inferences for instructional materials review and revision,” J. Educ. Manag. Dev. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, 2022.
    33. T. Supiani, N. Ayuningtyas, and T. Fadhilah, “Development of event management learning e-module using Articulate Storyline 3,” in Proc. 4th Annu. Conf. Eng. Implement. Vocat. Educ., 2023.
    34. Y. Susilawati, B. Wibawa, and R. Situmorang, “Blended learning models event management,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Learn. Innov. Qual. Educ., 2024, pp. 884–893.
    35. E. D. Olson and E. Brown, “Perceptions of students in an event program of annotation systems and their influence on student learning,” J. Hosp. Tour. Educ., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 118–126, 2018.
    36. O. Junek, L. Lockstone, and L. Osti, “Event management education: The students’ perspective,” in Proc. Fourth Int. Event Res. Conf., 2007, pp. 11–12.
    37. J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2023.
    38. A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, 6th ed. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2021.
    39. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC, USA: AERA, 2014.
    40. L. R. Aiken, “Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 131–142, 1985, doi: 10.1177/0013164485451012.
    41. D. F. Polit, C. T. Beck, and S. V. Owen, “Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations,” Res. Nurs. Health, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 459–467, 2007, doi: 10.1002/nur.20199.
    42. M. S. B. Yusoff, “ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation,” Educ. Med. J., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 49–54, 2019, doi: 10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6.
    43. H. Taherdoost, “Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 28–36, 2016.
    44. L. J. Cronbach, “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,” Psychometrika, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 297–334, 1951.
    45. A. Roebianto, S. I. Savitri, A. Suciyana, and L. Mubarokah, “Content validity in psychological research,” TPM-Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol., vol. 30, no. 1, 2023.
    46. B. A. Putra, “Evaluation of learning management system implementation using the CIPP model,” Glob. Sci. Educ. J., 2024.
    47. S. Zhang, Y. Li, and H. Hu, “Mixed teaching quality evaluation of organizational behavior based on the CIPP model,” Front. Educ., 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1538539.
    48. W. Y. Silviariza, S. Sumarmi, and B. Handoyo, “The CIPP evaluation framework as a comprehensive tool for educational program evaluation,” Int. J. Instr., 2023.