Evaluation of Learning Outcome: The Comparison Between the Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP) and the 2013 Curriculum

This study aimed to describe the comparative implementation of learning outcome evaluations applied at MTsN 1 Medan by using the 2013 KTSP and Curriculum 2013. The method used in this study was qualitative methodology. Data collection techniques consisted of observation, interviews, and documentation. The research findings indicated that the differences in the assessment of learning outcomes between the KTSP curriculum and 2013 curriculum include aspects of the application in the classroom, assessment aspects, aspects of the assessment system, aspects of assessment instruments, aspects of portfolio assessment concepts, aspects of report card format, aspects of value list format, aspects of competency achievement indicators, aspects of competency achievement indicators, aspects graduate competency standards, standard aspects of assessment and aspects of value ranges.


A. Introduction
The implementation of evaluation of learning outcomes plays an important role in motivating and learning achievement of students. Therefore, every teaching and learning process must be carried out in the evaluation activities, to see how the progress that has been achieved by students and how effective the teaching is done by the teacher in the class. Therefore the competencies inherent in teachers according to the Teacher and Lecturer Law Number 14 of 2005 are pedagogical competencies, in this competency explained in article 3 paragraph 4, that teachers must be able to design and carry out the evaluation of learning outcomes for students following the applicable curriculum in the educational institutions that they have taken, namely the 2013 curriculum and KTSP because at the moment several educational institutions apply the two curricula including this MTsN 1 Medan.
Evaluation of learning outcomes conducted in educational institutions includes the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains, known as the Bloom tax, namely: (1) the dimension of the cognitive process consists of remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. (2) the dimension of knowledge consists of four levels, namely: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Learning outcomes evaluation that applies in the Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP) is based on basic competencies (BC) and competency standards (SK), KTSP learning outcomes assessment can be done in the following ways: class assessment, basic ability test, final unit assessment education, and certification, benchmarking, and program evaluation, with instruments in the form of written tests (objective and non-objective), oral tests, portfolios, performance observations, attitude measurements, measurement of work in the form of project or product tasks, and self-assessment.
Evaluation of 2013 curriculum learning outcomes includes authentic assessments of core competencies (CC) and assessment instruments as follows: CC1 (spiritual attitude competence, self-assessment instruments), CC2 (social attitude competencies with assessment instruments among friends), CC3 (knowledge competency with written test instruments and oral tests), and CC4 (skills competency, with practice, project, and portfolio test assessment instruments). Thoha (2001) describes evaluation as a planned activity to determine the state of an object by using instruments and results, compared with benchmarks to obtain conclusions. Then learning is a modification or strengthening behavior through experience. Meanwhile, Hamalik (2014) explains that learning outcomes are changes in behavior rather than mastery of the results of training carried out through the overall measurement activities (data collection and information, processing, interpretation, and consideration to make decisions about learning outcomes achieved by students after conducting learning activities in efforts to achieve the set learning goals. KTSP is a curriculum that gives the education unit the flexibility to streamline the learning process. Kunandar (2007) emphasized that: (1) KTSP places more emphasis on aspects of achieving individual and classical competency of students, namely in KTSP students are formed to develop knowledge, understanding, ability values, attitudes, and interests that eventually form personal skills and independent, (b) KTSP is oriented towards learning outcomes and diversity, and (c) assessment emphasizes learning processes and outcomes in mastering and achieving competencies.
The assessment activities at KTSP according to Mulyasa (2007) are (1) class assessments carried out with daily tests, midterms, final semester examinations, and education program final exams namely school exams and National examinations), (2) basic ability tests, (3) the final assessment of the education unit and certification as evidenced by a diploma and published Certificate of Exam Results (4) Benchmarking is a standard for measuring ongoing performance, processes and results, and (5) program evaluation is carried out by The Ministry of National Education is continuous and continuous. Arikunto (2010) explains that the class assessment model includes: (1) quizzes, fillings, or short answers that ask principle questions (2) oral questions, to measure understanding of concepts, principles, and theorems. (3) daily tests , carried out by the teacher periodically at the end of learning certain Basic Competencies (BC), (4) Midterm and end of semester examinations, conducted with material assessed from the merging of several BCs in a given period of time, (5) individual assignments given to students according to certain times and needs in various forms, for example activity reports, clippings, papers, etc. (6) group assignments are used to assess students' competencies in group work, (7) responses or practice exams, used on subjects certain who need practicum, including preactivities, knowing the readiness of students, and post-activities, to find out the achievement of certain BCs, (8) Report on practical work, in do by the teacher in certain subjects that require practicum by observing a symptom and need to be reported, and (9) portfolio assessment, a collection of learning outcomes / student work in the form of test results, individual assignments, practice reports, which are assessed as a process of progress either analytically, holistically, or a combination of both). The 2013 curriculum is an improvement of the Competency-Based Curriculum (KBK) and Education Unit Level Curriculum (KTSP), there are 4 elements of change in educational standards, one of which is the assessment standard (Yaumi, 2013). Assessment of learning outcomes in the 2013 curriculum includes three types of competencies, namely knowledge (cognitive), attitudes (affective), and skills (psychomotor) which are based on an authentic system assessment, which is a process assessment and overall results and requires a longer assessment time.
The 2013 curriculum on the evaluation of learning outcomes has changed several times since its enactment. The 2013 curriculum assessment has a structured and systematic assessment system for 3 competency domains namely cognitive, affective, and psychomotor with the assessment rubric of each competency domain. The assessment also changes in the writing of student report cards, namely there is a description sheet that contains groups of subjects, competencies assessed, and notes. Then the achievement sheet containing subject groups, the knowledge column, and the skill column with numbers using the value range 1 to 4 and the predicate A + to E, for columns of spiritual and social attitudes using the letter rating SB/ B/ C/ K in the subjects, while between subjects use descriptions. In this case, Mulyasa (2015) explains that the 2013 curriculum uses a benchmark reference assessment, namely the achievement of learning outcomes based on the position of the score obtained against the ideal score (maximum).

B. Method
This research used investigative methods to determine the real implementation conditions of the learning evaluation. The objects of investigation focused on in this study are: assessment aspect, scoring system, assessment instrument, portfolio assessment concept, report card format, value list format, competency achievement indicators, graduate competency standards, assessment standards, rating structure, value range. The objects of the investigation are described from the perspective of the KTSP curriculum and the 2013 Curriculum. This research is located at MTsN 1 Medan, North Sumatra. Data were collected using a questionnaire and Focus Group Discussion (BSNP, 2015). The questionnaire and FGD data complement each other in which several things are not visible in the FGD that can be studied in-depth with the questionnaire database, as well as various questionnaire data that can be interpreted more deeply with the FGD database. The scopes that will be explored in this research activity are (1) assessment techniques and instruments (covering attitude competence, knowledge competency, and skills competency); (2) the mechanisms and procedures for assessment carried out by educators and educational units; (3) implementation and reporting of assessments which are also carried out by educators and educational units.
The various data collected were then analyzed using a quantitative or qualitative descriptive approach developed by Miles and Huberman.
According to Miles & Huberman (2002: 12), the stages of qualitative data analysis are data collection, reduction, display, and conclusion. The analysis process starts from data recapitulation; data reduction is carried out including simplifying the data by sorting out the required data. The reduction result data is classified according to the analysis design that has been designed which is then displayed. Each reduction data that has been classified is verified by various facts in the field, including the results of validation and student achievement test results. After the display data has been verified, conclusions are drawn.

C. Result and Discussion
Evaluation of learning outcomes at MTsN 1 Medan, KTSP learning outcome evaluation model was carried out in class IX while the 2013 curriculum learning outcomes evaluation model was conducted in grades VII and VIII. For class IX that applies the KTSP assessment system has been carried out fully, this is evidenced by the implementation of Odd Semester Deuteronomy, Semester Deuteronomy, Even Semester Middle Deuteronomy, and Even Semester Deuteronomy, the final test program is evidenced by the implementation of National Based School Exams (USBN).  Table 1: The tendency of judgment to use tests on knowledge The balance between the assessment of knowledge, skills, and attitudes with structured forms of assessment 12 Value Range 0 -100 Experiencing changes from 1 -4 then 0 -100 for numbers while predicates using A + to E (knowledge and skills) while attitudes change with the union of spiritual and social attitudes from the columns in subjects with the SB/ B/ C/ K assessment and between eyes lesson with description becomes a division of the attitude column between spiritual and social with a description of the attitude that appears to students during their PBM at school.
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the comparison of the application of the 2013 KTSP and Curriculum at MTsNMedan can be described as follows: (1) for evaluating student learning outcomes at each class level running according to the curriculum used, (2) changes the system of converting values from qualitative to quantitative, which previously used a scale of 0 -100 changed to 0 -4 and returned to 0 -100. (3) madrasah has its policies for assessment formats, both for KTSP and curriculum 2013, (4) report cards students for the 2013 curriculum are listed in each assessment column, namely attitudes, knowledge, and skills, while for KTSP report cards there is only attitude assessment, and assessment of knowledge with skills is put together in one assessment column, and (5) attitude assessment in KTSP report cards is written on in that is the assessment of the personality and noble character of students filled by the teacher with p assessment of letters, while the attitude assessment in the 2013 curriculum report contains a spiritual attitude assessment column and a social attitude assessment column, each of which is still empty so that the assessment is filled by the teacher by writing students' attitudes as long as students follow the learning process in school.
In general, the implementation of the student learning evaluation outcomes at MTsN 1 Medan can be explained as follows: (1) to evaluate student learning outcomes at each class level runs independently according to the curriculum used, (2) there is a change in the value conversion system from qualitative to be quantitative, previously using a scale of 0 -100 changed to 0 -4 and back again to 0 -100 (3) Madrasah has their policies for assessment formats, both for KTSP and the 2013 curriculum, (4) the students' report cards for the 2013 curriculum are listed respectively in each column of assessments is attitude, knowledge, and skill, while for KTSP report cards there are only attitude assessments, and knowledge and skills assessments are put together in one assessment column. (5) the assessment of attitudes in the KTSP's report card has been written in it, namely the assessment of the personality and noble character of students filled by the teachers with a letter assessment, while the attitude assessment in the 2013 curriculum report card contains a spiritual attitude assessment column and in each blank of social attitude assessment column, so that the assessment is filled in by the teacher by writing down the attitudes of the students that seen as long as students take part in the learning process.
Furthermore, it is related to the implementation of learning evaluation which is carried out both from the perspective of the KTSP Curriculum and the 2013 Curriculum, it has the same working pattern starting from the planning stage, the implementation stage to the learning outcome analysis stage and the follow-up stage.
The planning stage is the activity before starting the learning outcome assessment activity, in this case, the teacher previously determines the assessment standards that are reviewed based on basic competencies, then it is developed into indicators that will be achieved by students in each of their competencies. Furthermore, the teacher chooses an assessment technique that is tailored to the competencies being assessed, makes assessment criteria, and the final process in the planning stage is that the teacher designs and makes an assessment rubric that refers to the assessment guide.
At the implementation stage, the teacher assesses following the curriculum used in both the KTSP and the 2013 curriculum which are carried out during the learning process using an assessment rubric which is designed as a sign for the implementation of the assessment of learning outcomes.
Furthermore, at the analysis stage, the activity carried out by the teachers were to examine the student assessment results sheet, then after the results of the student examination were obtained, the teacher entered the results into the value list book, then the teacher analyzed student learning outcomes with assessment analysis procedures and techniques.
The final part is the follow-up stage, it is the teachers carry out it after getting the results of the student learning analysis outcomes assessment activities, by filtering student scores and ordering them according to the predetermined assessment standards as completeness values, in this case, the teacher makes a remedial program for students who have an assessment lower than the set grade criteria and an enrichment program for students who score above the set grade criteria.

D. Conclusion
The conclusions that can be drawn are as follows: (1)  is applied in classes VII and VIII. Differences include aspects of the application in the classroom, aspects of assessment, aspects of the assessment system, aspects of assessment instruments, aspects of the concept of portfolio assessment, aspects of report format, aspects of value list format, aspects of competency indicators, aspects of competence standard graduations, standard assessment aspects and aspects of value ranges.
The recommendations that can be given are as follows: (1) to the Head of Madrasah to optimize the evaluation of student learning outcomes by monitoring each change in assessment activities from the government, and referring to the regulations that have been prepared, facilities and facilities for evaluating student learning outcomes on all subjects for the two curricula, (2) the teacher should evaluate the student learning outcomes more for the design, implementation, and follow-up in assessing student learning outcomes. and (3) the Ministry of Religion in Medan should