Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)
Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

SINTA

1.6519

Impact

GScholar

16

H-Index

Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE)

an Open Access Journal

Designing Innovative Evaluation Instruments for Elementary Teacher Professional Education: A Learning Condition Theory Approach

Syahrial Syahrial ORCID
Jambi University ROR
Indonesia
syahrial.karea@gmail.com
Asrial Asrial ORCID
Jambi University ROR
Indonesia
Husni Sabil ORCID
Jambi University ROR
Indonesia
Rahmi Rahmi
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sumatera Barat ROR
Indonesia
Miftahul Zannah Azzahra ORCID
Jambi University ROR
Indonesia
Ahmad Mansur Nawahdani ORCID
Jambi University ROR
Indonesia
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to develop a valid, reliable, and culturally relevant evaluation instrument for assessing the pedagogical competencies of teacher candidates in the Professional Teacher Education Program (PPG) at the elementary school level, based on the Condition of Learning theory.

    Methodology: The study employed a quantitative approach with validation by six experts and field testing involving 100 teacher candidates. Data analysis included Cronbach's Alpha for reliability measurement. The instrument design adhered to Condition of Learning principles, integrating cultural relevance and pedagogical evaluation.

    Main Findings: Validation scores ranged from 4.3 to 5.0 across aspects, with a reliability score of 0.72 (Cronbach's Alpha). Evaluation results showed mean scores of 85.05 for cognitive, 80.07 for affective, and 81.14 for psychomotor competencies, indicating strong preparedness among teacher candidates.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study integrates Condition of Learning principles with cultural elements, creating a comprehensive evaluation instrument that reflects Indonesia's educational context. It provides a significant tool for improving pedagogical assessments and aligns evaluation with local values and national education standards. This research has an impact on the creation of more effective and relevant evaluation instruments, so that it can improve the quality of professional education of elementary school teachers through the application of learning conditions theory.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    “Designing Innovative Evaluation Instruments for Elementary Teacher Professional Education: A Learning Condition Theory Approach”, Jor. Eva. Edu, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 537–544, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.37251/jee.v6i2.1225.

    More Citation Formats

  • 429
    Abstract views
    219
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. A. Abbas, S. Amaliawati, N. Aulia, and T. Agustiningrum, “PPG students’ perception of ppg program in developing their teaching ability,” Glob. Synth. Educ. J., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 54–63, 2023, doi: 10.61667/9y6ksm24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61667/9y6ksm24
    2. B. A. Loeneto, Z. Alwi, E. Ernalida, E. Eryansyah, and S. Oktarina, “Teacher education research and development in Indonesia: Preparing educators for the twenty-first century,” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Innovations and Practices in Asia, Springer, 2022, pp. 173–204. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-9785-2_10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9785-2_10
    3. B. Basikin, “The contribution of inservice teacher education program (ppg) on teachers’ professionalism,” English Lang. Teach. Educ. J., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 124–136, 2023, doi: 10.12928/eltej.v6i2.10076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v6i2.10076
    4. C. Novella-García and A. Cloquell-Lozano, “The ethical dimension of digital competence in teacher training,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 3529–3541, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10436-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10436-z
    5. L. I. González‐pérez and M. S. Ramírez‐montoya, “Components of education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks: Systematic review,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1–31, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
    6. A. Rofi’i, E. Nurhidayat, and H. Firharmawan, “Teachers’ professional competence in integrating technology: A case study at english teacher forum in majalengka,” Ijlecr - Int. J. Lang. Educ. Cult. Rev., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–73, 2023, doi: 10.21009/ijlecr.v9i1.37683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21009/ijlecr.v9i1.37683
    7. M. Muhammadiah, A. Hamsiah, A. Muzakki, N. Nuramila, and Z. A. Fauzi, “The role of the professional teacher as the agent of change for students,” AL-ISHLAH J. Pendidik., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 6887–6896, 2022, doi: 10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.1372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.1372
    8. M. Nurtanto, P. Sudira, H. Sofyan, N. Kholifah, and T. Triyanto, “Professional identity of vocational teachers in the 21st century in Indonesia,” J. Eng. Educ. Transform., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 30–36, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2022/v35i3/22085
    9. T. Rasul et al., “The role of ChatGPT in higher education: Benefits, challenges, and future research directions,” J. Appl. Learn. Teach., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 41–56, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.29
    10. M. Liu, Y. Ren, L. M. Nyagoga, F. Stonier, Z. Wu, and L. Yu, “Future of education in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Consensus among Chinese scholars on applications of ChatGPT in schools,” Futur. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 72–101, 2023, doi: 10.1002/fer3.10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.10
    11. T. Teo, S. Unwin, R. Scherer, and V. Gardiner, “Initial teacher training for twenty-first century skills in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR 4.0): A scoping review,” Comput. Educ., vol. 170, no. May, p. 104223, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104223. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104223
    12. R. Rugaiyah, M. E. Putri, K. Khulaifiyah, A. Idayani, and A. Mulyani, “Field experience challenges: exploring the difficulties of ppg english education students at FKIP UIR, PEKANBAR,” English Rev. J. English Educ., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1107–1118, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v12i3.9405
    13. A. Ruhendi and N. Kosim, “Developing arabic language teachers’ competence and performance through teacher profession education,” J. Pendidik. Islam, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15575/jpi.v8i1.18243
    14. B. Hertz et al., “A pedagogical model for effective online teacher professional development—findings from the Teacher Academy initiative of the European Commission,” Eur. J. Educ., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 142–159, 2022, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12486
    15. N. A. M. Noor, N. M. Saim, R. Alias, and S. H. Rosli, “Students’ performance on cognitive, psychomotor and affective domain in the course outcome for embedded course,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 3469–3474, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080821
    16. S. Arsita and A. Askar, “Educational Evaluation Instruments,” in Proceeding of International Conference on Islamic and Interdisciplinary Studies (ICIIS), 2024, pp. 401–407.
    17. A. Wijaya, R. T. Andriani, M. W. Ismady, W. Septria, D. Suwarni, and R. Ahzim, “The implementation of affective and psychomotor assessment in Islamic religious education learning,” TARBAWY Indones. J. Islam. Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 195–206, 2023.
    18. E. J. Argüello-Prada and R. D. M. Valencia, “On the use of indexes derived from photoplethysmographic (PPG) signals for postoperative pain assessment: A narrative review,” Biomed. Signal Process. Control, vol. 80, p. 104335, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2022.104335
    19. T. Nazaretsky, M. Ariely, M. Cukurova, and G. Alexandron, “Teachers’ trust in AI-powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 914–931, 2022, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232
    20. L. A. T. Nguyen and A. Habók, Tools for assessing teacher digital literacy: a review, vol. 11, no. 1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5
    21. Y. Ramma, A. Bholoa, and M. Watts, “Guided discovery—robert Gagné,” Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. An Introd. Guid. to Learn. Theory, pp. 191–208, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_14
    22. G. Sim et al., “Interactive online modules for dental education : A practical example of gagne’s nine events of instruction,” Educ. Med. J., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 173–184, 2024, doi: 10.21315/eimj2024.16.3.13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2024.16.3.13
    23. J. Y. Low, “The design and development of a teacher training module on the game-based learning approach in teaching physics: A conceptual framework based on design and development research (ddr) approach,” J. Educ. Soc. Sci., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 73–82, 2024.
    24. D. Yulinda, A. Yundayani, and J. Juhana, “Students’ perspective on the implementation of gagne’s nine instructional events in collaborative project-based english language teaching,” Lect. J. Pendidik., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 64–82, 2024, doi: 10.31849/lectura.v15i1.17249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31849/lectura.v15i1.17249
    25. L. McNeill and D. Fitch, “Microlearning through the lens of gagne’s nine events of instruction: A qualitative study,” TechTrends, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 521–533, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00805-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00805-x
    26. E. W. Anietimfon, S. A.I., and A. Abdullah, “Mediterranean publication and research international,” Int. J. Assess. Eval. EDU, vol. 05, no. 8, pp. 191–206, 2021.
    27. M. S. Ramírez-Montoya, L. Andrade-Vargas, D. Rivera-Rogel, and M. Portuguez-Castro, “Trends for the future of education programs for professional development,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 13, pp. 1–17, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13137244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137244
    28. K. Juuti, J. Lavonen, V. Salonen, K. Salmela-Aro, B. Schneider, and J. Krajcik, “A teacher–researcher partnership for professional learning: Co-Designing project-based learning units to increase student engagement in science classes,” J. Sci. Teacher Educ., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 625–641, 2021, doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2021.1872207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1872207
    29. L. A. Bragg, C. Walsh, and M. Heyeres, “Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature,” Comput. Educ., vol. 166, no. February, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104158
    30. J. Boeve-de Pauw, D. Olsson, T. Berglund, and N. Gericke, “Teachers’ ESD self-efficacy and practices: a longitudinal study on the impact of teacher professional development,” Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 867–885, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2022.2042206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2042206
    31. S. Hennessy et al., “Technology use for teacher professional development in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review,” Comput. Educ. Open, vol. 3, no. February, p. 100080, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100080
    32. T. S. Alrajeh, “Project-based learning to enhance pre-service teachers’ teaching skills in science education,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 271–279, 2021, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2021.090202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2021.090202
    33. S. Melindawati, E. K. E. Santono, W. Wuryandani, and F. Fatimah, “Towards a pancasila student profile : Implementation of multicultural education in shaping the character of tolerance and gotong royong in learning natural and social sciences in elementary schools,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 10152–10160, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i12.9621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i12.9621
    34. R. Lahay, Z. Ngiu, M. Ahmad, and P. Civics, “Implementation of cognitive and non-cognitive based diagnostic assessments on pancasila and citizenship education subjects,” Edueksos J. Pendidik. Sos. dan Ekon., vol. XIII, no. 02, pp. 456–474, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24235/edueksos.v13i02.19280
    35. S. C. Izah, L. Sylva, and M. Hait, “Cronbach’s Alpha: A cornerstone in ensuring reliability and validity in environmental health assessment,” ES Energy Environ., vol. 23, pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.30919/esee1057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30919/esee1057
    36. M. Istyadji and Sauqina, “Conception of scientific literacy in the development of scientific literacy assessment tools: a systematic theoretical review,” J. Turkish Sci. Educ., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 281–308, 2023, doi: 10.36681/tused.2023.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.016
    37. M. T. Kalkbrenner, “A practical guide to instrument development and score validation in the social sciences: The measure approach,” Pract. Assessment, Res. Eval., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2021.
    38. L. S. Lambert and D. A. Newman, “Construct development and validation in three practical steps: recommendations for reviewers, editors, and authors,” Organ. Res. Methods, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 574–607, 2023, doi: 10.1177/10944281221115374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281221115374
    39. H. Abuhassna, M. A. B. M. Adnan, and F. Awae, “Exploring the synergy between instructional design models and learning theories: A systematic literature review,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 16, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/14289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/14289
    40. M. H. A. Al-Jarshawi and A. Al-Imam, “A thousand words about modern medical education: A Mini-Review concerning the theory of education,” J. Med. Sci., vol. 91, no. 2, p. e636, 2022, doi: 10.20883/medical.e636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20883/medical.e636
    41. H. A. El-Sabagh, “Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students’ engagement,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00289-4
    42. S. Mulyani, D. Darmansyah, Z. Zen, and F. Y. J, “Development of video learning media based on robert gagne’ s theory ( nine events of instruction ) in informatics subjects at junior high school,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 7588–7596, 2024, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v10i10.8776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i10.8776
    43. N. Elangovan and E. Sundaravel, “Method of preparing a document for survey instrument validation by experts,” MethodsX, vol. 8, no. July 2020, p. 101326, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101326
    44. I. Setiawati, S. Wardani, and W. Lestari, “Development of Wordwall-based Indonesian geographical condition assessment instrument in Modipaskogo E-Book for Elementary School Students,” Riwayat Educ. J. Hist. Humanit., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 48–65, 2024, doi: 10.24815/jr.v7i1.36597. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/jr.v7i1.36597
    45. L. H. Sillat, K. Tammets, and M. Laanpere, “Digital competence assessment methods in higher education: A systematic literature review,” Educ. Sci., vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.3390/educsci11080402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080402
    46. M. Pueyo-Garrigues et al., “Nurses’ knowledge, skills and personal attributes for competent health education practice: An instrument development and psychometric validation study,” J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 715–728, 2021, doi: 10.1111/jan.14632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14632
    47. M. Soori, B. Arezoo, and R. Dastres, “Internet of things for smart factories in industry 4.0, a review,” Internet Things Cyber-Physical Syst., vol. 3, no. March, pp. 192–204, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.006
    48. M. Javaid, A. Haleem, and R. Suman, “Digital Twin applications toward Industry 4.0: A Review,” Cogn. Robot., vol. 3, 2022, pp. 71–92, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cogr.2023.04.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogr.2023.04.003
    49. M. A. Alam, “Connectivism learning theory and connectivist approach in teaching and learning: a review of literature,” BHARTIYAM Int. J. Educ. Res. A Q. peer Rev. Int. J. Res. Educ., vol. 12, pp. 2277–1255, 2023.