The document discusses the CIPP model for curriculum evaluation developed by Daniel Stufflebeam. The CIPP model guides evaluators and stakeholders in systematically assessing a curriculum at four stages: context, input, process, and product. Context evaluation involves analyzing needs and goals. Input evaluation considers resources and design. Process evaluation monitors implementation. Product evaluation judges outcomes against anticipated results to determine if the curriculum should continue, be modified, or discontinued. The model helps answer four questions: what should we do, how should we do it, are we doing it as planned, and did the program work.

1. 1
CURRICULUM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT BY HINA JALAL (PHD SCHOLAR GCUF)
CIPP model for Curriculum Evaluation
CIPP evaluation model is a Program evaluation model which was developed by Daniel Stufflebeam and
colleagues in the 1960s. The CIPP evaluation model is designed to systematically guide both evaluators and
stakeholders in posing relevant questions and conducting assessments at the beginning of a project, while it is in
progress, and at its end. The CIPP models help us to make the analyze of all these four parts of curriculum system.
1. Context Evaluation: Planning decision about the design of curriculum
2. Input Evaluation: - Decision for providing infrastructure of various resources
3. Process Evaluation: Decision regarding the curriculum implementation and
4. Product Evaluation: Decision for recycling of process used for generating product
Four aspects of CIPP evaluation
These four aspects of CIPP evaluation assist a decision-maker to answer four basic questions:
1. What should we do?
This involves collecting and analyzing needs assessment data to determine goals, priorities and objectives. For
example, a context evaluation of a literacy program might involve an analysis of the existing objectives of the
literacy program, literacy achievement test scores, staff concerns (general and particular), literacy policies and
plans and community concerns, perceptions or attitudes and needs
2. How should we do it?
This involves the steps and resources needed to meet the new goals and objectives and might include identifying
successful external programs and materials as well as gathering information.
3. Are we doing it as planned?
This provides decision-makers with information about how well the program is being implemented. By
continuously monitoring the program, decision-makers learn such things as how well it is following the plans and
guidelines, conflicts arising, staff support and morale, strengths and weaknesses of materials, delivery and
budgeting problems.
4. Did the program work?
By measuring the actual outcomes and comparing them to the anticipated outcomes, decision-makers are better
able to decide if the program should be continued, modified, or dropped altogether. This is the essence of product
evaluation.

2. 2
CURRICULUM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT BY HINA JALAL (PHD SCHOLAR GCUF)
C Context
What is the relation of the course to other courses? • Is the time adequate? • What are critical or
important external factors? • Should courses be integrated or separate? • What are the links between the
course and research/extension activities? • Is there a need for the course? • Is the course relevant to the
job needs?
I Input “How should it be done?” • Refers to the ingredients of the curriculum which include the goals,
instructional strategies, the learners, the teachers, the contents and all the materials needed.
P Process “Is it being done?” • refers to the ways and means of how the curriculum has been
implemented. • monitors the project implementation process. • assess the extent to which participants
accept and carry out their roles.
P Product “Did the project succeed?” • indicates if the curriculum accomplishes its goals. • measure,
interpret, and judge a project’s outcomes by assessing their merit, worth, significance, and probity. •
ascertain the extent to which the needs of all the participants were met.
• Geis, G.L. (1996). “Planning and Developing Effective Courses.” In
R.J. Menges and M. Weimer (eds.), Teaching on Solid Ground. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass