Page 78 - JURNAL PENYELIDIKAN AKADEMIK
P. 78

J u r n a l   P e n y e l i d i k a n   A k a d e m i k   I P G M   J i l i d   5 / 2 0 2 0  | 71


               (mean=4.67). Both course content and hand-outs presented to the participants have
               a high mean of 4.73 and 4.67 repectively. These indicated that both course content
               and hand-outs given were very good. Evaluation for time span of the training has a
               mean of 4.73 which indicated that the four-day training was very good. The overall
               evaluation for the course has a mean of 4.73. It can be concluded that the course
               conducted overall was very good. Table 1 shows the mean for each of the evaluation
               item in LAM PUS 01-03.

               Table 1: Data Analysis

                                                      Rating Scale
                        1                 2                 3                 4                 5


                   Very Weak           Weak             Average             Good           Very Good

                         NO.                             Item                             Mean
                         1      Course is relevant to my field of work                    4.67
                         2      Course content presentation                               4.73
                         3      Course hand-outs                                          4.67
                         4      Course time span                                          4.73
                         5      Overall evaluation                                        4.73
                         6      This course has increased my knowledge                    4.73
                         7      This course can increase my skills in doing my work   4.73
                         8      I will practice the knowledge I obtain after the course  4.67
                                                     Mean                                 4.71


               DISCUSSION

               Based on analysis from evaluation data obtained through LAM PUS 01-03, the findings
               showed  that  CT  RBT  training  was  very  good  from  the  aspects  of  course  content
               (mean=4.73), handouts (mean=4.67), time span (mean=4.73), content presentation
               (mean=4.73),  participant  knowledge  gain  (mean=4.73)  and  course  relevance
               (mean=4.73)  to  participant.  There  is  suggestion  that  such  training  should  be
               conducted more often. These findings proved that CT RBT training has achieved the
               intended objectives and should be maintained for future training. Only 15 participants
               were involved in this evaluation so the findings could not be generalized to all other
               IPGs. This can be the pilot findings for future evaluation in which more participants
               could be involved from other 23 IPGs to obtain more valid findings.

                       Based  on  the  mapping  of  CT  RBT  training  to  computational  thinking
               development and assessment framework of Brennan and Reinseck (2012), it shows
               that CT RBT training can be mapped to the three dimensions of the framework as
   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83