Hammond’s Cube Evaluation Model Adapted to Current Conditions: Is It Appropriate?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70232/jrep.v2i3.73Keywords:
Behavior, Hammond’s Evaluation Cube, Industrial Revolution 4.0, Institution, Instruction, Society 5.0Abstract
In the original model of “Hammond’s Evaluation Cube (1967)”, educational evaluation focused on three main dimensions: (a) Behavior, consisting of Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor aspects, (b) Instruction, consisting of Organization, Content, Method, Facilities, and Cost, (c) Institution, consisting of Student, Teacher, Administrator, Education Specialist, Family, and Community, with a 3×5×6 evaluation structure, resulting in a total of 90 evaluation cells. However, with the dynamic changes in education in the era of technology, the 21st-century global demands, and developments related to the Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Society 5.0, the author proposes further development of this model to make it more relevant in the modern educational context. The method used is a critical analysis and literature review of Hammond’s Evaluation Cube (1967), with an emphasis on the relevance of the model to current educational developments. The findings produced are that the author offers an updated model with three main dimensions: (a) Behavior, consisting of Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor aspects, (b) Instruction, consisting of Organization, Content, Method, Facilities, and Cost, (c) Institution, consisting of Student, Teacher, Administrator, Education Specialist, Family, Community, AI and Data Specialist, Technology/IT Support, and Policies/Regulations, with a 3×5×9 evaluation structure, resulting in a total of 135 evaluation cells. The implication of this study is that the “Hammond Evaluation Cube Adapted to Current Conditions (2025)” can be a richer and more relevant evaluation model for modern education. This model can help educational institutions identify needs, strengths, and challenges in technology integration and in preparing students for an evolving future.
Metrics
References
Alkin, M. C., & Christie, C. A. (2004). An evaluation theory tree. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences. Sage.
Altay, B. ve Saracaloğlu, A.S. (2022). Dokuzuncu sınıf ingilizce öğretim programının hammond küp modeli ile nitel değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(1), 347-394. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.962062.
Ball, S. J. (2006). Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen Ball. Routledge.
Bebell, D. & O’Dwyer, L.M. (2010). Educational Outcomes and Research from 1:1 Computing Settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 5-13. http://www.jtla.org.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I Cognitive Domain. Longmans.
Clark, D. C. (1974). A prescriptive model of development or evaluation: Some needed maturity. Northwest Regional Laboratory Paper Series No. 8. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED104916.pdf.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). Teaching Adolescents with Disabilities: Accessing the General Education Curriculum. Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Westview Press.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher Beliefs and Technology Integration Practices: A Critical Relationship. Computers and Education, 59, 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. 4th Edition. Pearson, New York.
Fox, C., & Jones, R. (2016). The Broadband Imperative II: Equitable Access for Learning. State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA).
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Goleman, D. P. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ for character, health and lifelong achievement. New York: Bantam Books.
Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry: The Study of Curriculum Practice. McGraw-Hill.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Hammond, R. L. (1967). Evaluation at the local level. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (1st ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332.
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. Jossey-Bass.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2017). ISTE standards for educators. International Society for Technology in Education. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators.
Karagöl, İ., & Adıgüzel, O. C. (2022). Evaluating elementary teacher education program in terms of affective features using hammond’s evaluation model. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 11(3), 603-622. https://doi.org/10.52963/PERR_Biruni_V11.N3.15.
Khaidir. (2015). Pendidikan Berbasis Akidah pada TK Islam Terpadu Az-Zahira Meulaboh: Implementasi Model Evaluasi Goal Oriented Pendekatan Robert L. Hammond. Jurnal Ilmiah DIDAKTIKA, 16(1), 61-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/jid.v16i1.587.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Hand book II: Affective domain. David Mckay Company In corporated.
Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. SAGE Publications.
Livingstone, S., & Bulger, M. (2014). A Global Research Agenda for Children’s Rights in the Digital Age. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.961496.
Long, P., & Siemens, G. (2011). Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46, 31-40. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2011/9/penetrating-the-fog-analytics-in-learning-and-education.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson. https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/edu.google.com/en//pdfs/Intelligence-Unleashed-Publication.pdf.
Nur, M. (2018). Evaluasi Program Ma’had Aly pada LPI Ma’hadal Ulum Diniyah Islamiyah (MUDI) Mesjid Raya Samalanga. At-Tarbawi: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial dan Kebudayaan, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.32505/tarbawi.v5i1.1921.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). The Future of Education and Skills Education 2030: The Future We Want. E2030 Position Paper. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2023). OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2023 Issue 1: A long unwinding road. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ce188438-en.
P21 (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21).
Prastati, T. (2011). Program Evaluation on Tutor Training at Open University. Jurnal Evaluasi Pendidikan, 2(2), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.21009/JEP.022.08.
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Crown Publishing Group.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education. Polity.
Simpson, E.J. (1972) The Classification of Educational Objectives in the Psychomotor Domain. Gryphon House, Washington DC.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP Model for Evalutaion. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evalutaion Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 280-317). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Tenedero, E. Q., & Pacadaljen, L. M. (2021). Learning Experiences in The Emerging Outcomes Based Education (OBE) Curriculum of Higher Education Institutions (HEI’S) On The Scope Of Hammond’s Evaluation Cube. Psychology And Education, 58(2), 10325-10332. https://doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i2.4003.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. The Autodesk Foundation.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. John Wiley & Sons.
Warren, M.R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. L., & Sychitkokhong, P. U. (2009). Beyond the Bake Sale: A Community-Based Relational Approach to Parent Engagement in Schools. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 111, 2209-2254. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100901.
World Economic Forum (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020.
https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020.
Zhao, Y. (2015). Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon?: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World. Jossey-Bass.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ryan Angga Pratama
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
