Evaluating English Teacher Education Programs in Indonesian Tertiary Education: A Proposed Model

Didin Nuruddin Hidayat


Numerous research studies on language program evaluation in many countries, for instance, Turkey (Uysal, 2012), Taiwan (Chang, 2010), Bangladesh (Rahman, 2007), Saudi Arabia (Liton, 2013) have yielded valuable ideas and insights in improving the quality of language programs. Those research studies have also expanded the plethora of discussion and have tested many ‘untested’ thoughts in the area of language program evaluation. Nonetheless, similar studies have not been researched much far in the Indonesian education context. The present study aims to describe the importance of English teacher education program evaluation. Also, the study aims to explore a suitable evaluation model in evaluating English teacher education programs, particularly in the Indonesian tertiary education context. The findings of the study found Peacock's (2009) model as a potential evaluation model to apply in evaluating English teacher education programs. These are based on at least three following grounds: suitable to the needs and environment of English teacher education in Indonesia, reliable and informative evaluation, and thorough involvement of the inner circle stakeholders. The study concludes that if an evaluation is conducted properly, then it has the potential to improve the quality of English language teachers training programs.


Evaluation; English Teacher Education Programs; Peacock Evaluation Model

Full Text:

Download [PDF]


Chang, Y. (2010). English-medium instruction for subject courses in tertiary education: Reactions from Taiwanese undergraduate students. Taiwan International ESP Journal, 2(1), 55–84.

Couper, M. P. (2000). Web-based surveys: A Review of Issues and Approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464–494.

Davis, E. (1981). Teachers as curriculum evaluators. Allen and Unwin.

Gronlund, E. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Macmillan.

Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (1996). Evaluating training programs. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Liton, H. A. (2013). An assessment of the efficacy of Engineering ESP teachers’ training program in promoting better performance at ESP classroom. English for Specific Purposes World, 37(13), 1–17.

Papineau, D., & Kiely, M. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization: Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(1), 79–93.

Peacock, M. (2009). The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programmes. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 259–278.

Rahman, M. H. (2007). An evaluation of the teaching of reading skills of English in Bangladesh. University of Rajshahi Dhaka.

Rea-Dickins, P., & Germaine, K. P. (1993). The price of everything and the value of nothing: Trends in language programme evaluation. In P. Rea-Dickins & K. P. Germaine (Eds.), Managing evaluation and innovation in language teaching: building bridges (pp. 3–19). Longman.

Rohmah, Z. (2010). English language training for Islamic schools (ELTIS): Trainees’ outlook. Jurnal Bahasa Dan Seni, 38(1), 117–129.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP model for program evaluation. Kluwer-Nijhoff.

Uysal, H. H. (2012). Evaluation of an in-service training program for primary-school language teachers in Turkey. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(7), 14–29.

Wati, H. (2011). The effectiveness of Indonesian English teachers training programs in improving confidence and motivation. International Journal of Instruction, 4(1), 79–104.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31764/ijeca.v1i2.2118


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application) already indexed:




   Creative Commons License
   IJECA (International Journal of Education and Curriculum Application)
   is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 View IJECA Stats


 IJECA Publisher Office: