Curriculum evaluation noted_25

2,724 views

Published on

1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • This clarifies a few things for me in relation to teaching and learning and hints at some new avenues to explore in relation to tacit and explicit knowledge. There is also the issue of the role of evidence and research in teaching which appears to be undervalued.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,724
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
364
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
95
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Curriculum evaluation noted_25

  1. 1. Critical Evaluation at the Curriculum Level James Atherton 1 December 2010 http://bedspce2.blogspot.com/
  2. 2. <ul><li>Much evaluation takes place at the level of the taught session or a teaching sequence; this lecture will concentrate on critical evaluation of curricula as a whole. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Critical” in this context means making use of some kind of external framework to throw certain features into relief. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Gibbs’ cycle Just a reminder of the components of an evaluation and development cycle, after Graham Gibbs Description What happened? Conclusion What else could you have done? Action Plan If it arose again, what would you do? Feelings What were you thinking and feeling? Evaluation What was good and bad about the experience? Analysis What sense can you make of the situation?
  4. 4. <ul><li>Incidentally, do read Gibbs G (2010) Dimensions of Quality York; Higher Education Academy (available on-line for free—link is on blog) </li></ul><ul><li>It’s one of the best things on evaluation (albeit in HE), to appear for years. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Brookfield’s four “lenses” There’s nothing exclusive about choosing these particular lenses or perspectives. It is their multiplicity which is important. Brookfield S D (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher San Francisco; Jossey-Bass
  6. 6. Four lenses <ul><li>Autobiographical </li></ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul><ul><li>Peer </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical </li></ul>
  7. 7. Four lenses <ul><li>Autobiographical </li></ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul><ul><li>Peer </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical </li></ul>This lens is the default for most of us—seeing from the perspective of our own experience as the teacher.
  8. 8. Four lenses <ul><li>Autobiographical </li></ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul><ul><li>Peer </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical </li></ul>There has recently been an emphasis on the “student experience” particularly in HE
  9. 9. This is the formal curriculum
  10. 10. This is the formal curriculum This is broadly where it works; you set out to teach something , and the students learn it
  11. 11. This is the formal curriculum This is broadly where it works; you set out to teach something , and the students learn it This is what you teach but the students do not learn; it’s a waste of time
  12. 12. This is the formal curriculum This is broadly where it works; you set out to teach something , and the students learn it This is what you teach but the students do not learn; it’s a waste of time And this is the hidden curriculum ; stuff you did not set out to teach, but the students learned anyway.
  13. 13. <ul><li>All social practices have a sub-text, or “send a message”. </li></ul><ul><li>… usually about values and relationships </li></ul><ul><li>There is no way to avoid these messages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The only question is whether they are “good” messages or “bad” ones </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>Conveyed by practically everything that goes on apart from the formal taught material: </li></ul><ul><li>from the quality of the furnishings </li></ul><ul><li>to the assessment regulations </li></ul><ul><li>and accessibility ... </li></ul><ul><li>They all say something about what the institution thinks of its students... And that interacts with the formal curriculum... </li></ul>
  15. 15. Formal/intentional message Covert/unintended message “ Good” : covert message reinforces formal message
  16. 16. “ Bad” : covert message contradicts/undermines formal message Irrelevant/neutral
  17. 17. <ul><li>Bowles and Gintis : suggest that the systems of US education have developed to socialise children to join a capitalist workforce </li></ul><ul><li>Hunter : Suggests that many values associated with schooling were not deliberately developed, but are the by-products of the “social technology” of the institution </li></ul><ul><li>Illich : argues that the values of the school are inimical to education </li></ul><ul><li>Becker, Snyder: see the most effective training undertaken in colleges is how to survive the system </li></ul><ul><li>Apple: deconstructs practices (and materials) to expose embedded values </li></ul>Commentators —go back a long way in uncovering the hidden curriculum See blog for more detail/links
  18. 19. Four lenses <ul><li>Autobiographical </li></ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul><ul><li>Peer </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical </li></ul>We teach as part of a community of practice, living with all the tensions that entails. Assumptions about teaching and learning… Concern for inclusivity, and for standards
  19. 20. This is Etienne Wenger’s take on a community of practice. Much of it is not formally designed as an organisation; it develops organically... Based on Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice Cambridge; CUP p. 63 Participation Reification meaning world experience negotiation living in the world membership acting interacting mutuality forms points of focus documents monuments instruments projection
  20. 21. ...out of the interaction of participants, and the way in which procedures take on a life of their own and may even take physical form (reification) Based on Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice Cambridge; CUP p. 63 Participation Reification meaning world experience negotiation living in the world membership acting interacting mutuality forms points of focus documents monuments instruments projection
  21. 22. Hunting Assumptions <ul><li>Assumption 1 </li></ul><ul><li>It’s common sense to cut lecturing down to a minimum, since lecturing induces passivity in students and kills critical thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Assumption 2 </li></ul><ul><li>It’s common sense that students like group discussion because they feel involved and respected in such a setting. Discussion methods build on principles of participatory, active learning. </li></ul><ul><li>Assumption 3 </li></ul><ul><li>It’s common sense that respectful, empathic teachers will downplay their position of presumed superiority and acknowledge their students as co-teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>Etc…. </li></ul><ul><li>(Brookfield, 1995) </li></ul>In the same vein, Brookfield encourages us to explore the taken-for-granted assumptions implicit in the curriculum and pedagogic approach: where’s the evidence for all this stuff? What’s it say about us that we believe it?
  22. 23. Espoused theories and theories-in-use <ul><li>Argyris and Schön differentiate between </li></ul><ul><li>espoused theories : what people say they are doing, and </li></ul><ul><li>theories-in-use : what they are “in fact” doing, as it might appear to an informed outsider </li></ul>So what are the theories-in-use in the curriculum? Note that theories-in-use are often regarded as “inferior” to espoused theories, both technically and morally. But sometimes they are actually better—we just don’t know how to explain and communicate them.
  23. 24. Working myths <ul><li>When theories-in-use are articulated </li></ul><ul><li>usually as stories </li></ul><ul><li>they become taken-for-granted “working myths” </li></ul>Ideas are shared in communities of practice not as formal theories, but as stories which embody values
  24. 25. Four lenses <ul><li>Autobiographical </li></ul><ul><li>Student </li></ul><ul><li>Peer </li></ul><ul><li>Theoretical </li></ul>We’ve touched on this lens, implicitly, but as the preceding point about stories makes clear, it’s perhaps the least important one...
  25. 26. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact (results) </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>To end with a reminder of what you already know, just as we started with one.
  26. 27. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Did the students/participants enjoy it?
  27. 28. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Did the students/participants enjoy it? From evaluation instruments
  28. 29. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Did they actually learn anything?
  29. 30. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Did they actually learn anything? From assessment results
  30. 31. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Do they do anything differently?
  31. 32. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Do they do anything differently? From observation of subsequent practice
  32. 33. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Does that make any difference to the performance of the organisation?
  33. 34. Kirkpatrick <ul><li>Reaction </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Impact </li></ul><ul><li>Kirkpatrick D and Kirkpatrick J (2006) Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3 rd edn.) NY; Berrett-Koehler </li></ul>Does that make any difference to the performance of the organisation? From ?
  34. 35. http://bedspce2.blogspot.com/

×