curriculum-evaluation-models. Module ___

Curriculum Evaluation Models
Bachelor of Secondary Education (Cebu Normal University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Bachelor of Secondary Education (Cebu Normal University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by LISLY OGUIS (lisly.oguis@cbsua.edu.ph)
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

CURRRICULUM EVALUATION
The term <evaluation= generally applies to the process of making a value judgment. In education, the
term <evaluation= is used in reference to operations associated with curricula, programs,
interventions, methods of teaching and organizational factors. Curriculum evaluation aims to
examine the impact of implemented curriculum on student (learning) achievement so that the
oýcial curriculum can be revised if necessary and to review teaching and learning processes in the
classroom.
Curriculum evaluation establishes:
● Speciûc strengths and weaknesses of a curriculum and its implementation;
● Critical information for strategic changes and policy decisions;
● Inputs needed for improved learning and teaching;
● Indicators for monitoring
Student Assessment
The ultimate goal of curriculum evaluation is to ensure that the curriculum is effective in promoting
improved quality of student learning. Student assessment therefore connotes assessment of
student learning. Assessment of student learning has always been a powerful inüuence on how and
what teachers teach and is thus an important source of feedback on the appropriateness
implementation of curriculum content.
Fulûlling the diverse objectives of diagnosis, certiûcation and accountability requires different kinds
of assessment instruments and strategies selected to achieve speciûc purposes. Assessment of
student learning could be summative or formative, and there are various types of tests to address
different needs such as standardized tests, performance-based tests, ability tests, aptitude tests and
intelligence tests
Furthermore, there are various concepts related to curriculum evaluation. Pawilen (2015)
enumerated in his book various curriculum scholars’ deûnition of curriculum evaluation based on
how they view curriculum, the purposes of curriculum, curriculum inüuences, and how curriculum is
implemented.
Basically, according to these expert’s curriculum evaluation is:
● The process of delineating, obtaining, and providing information useful for decisions and
judgments about curricula (Davis 1980);
● The process of examining the goals, rationale, and structure of any curriculum (Marsh 2004).
(In this book, curriculum evaluation is deûned as the process of making objective judgment
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

to a curriculum- its philosophy, goals and objectives, content, learning experience, and
evaluation);
● The process of assessing the merit and worth of a program of studies, a course, or a ûeld of
study (Print 1993);
● The means of determining the program whether the program is meeting its goals (Tuckman
1985);
● The broad and continuous effort to inquire into the effects of utilizing content and processes
to meet clearly deûned goals (Doll 1992); and
● The process of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision
alternatives (Stuþebeam 1971).
Consequently, curriculum evaluation is also concerned with ûnding out whether the curriculum is
relevant and responsive to the needs of the society and the learners. It is a scientiûc and dynamic
process of understanding the merit of any curriculum.
Purposes of Curriculum Evaluation
Print (1993) identiûed several important purposes and functions of evaluation in a school setting:
● Essential in providing feedback to learners – provides useful information in helping the
students improve their performance and helps teachers identify the strength and
weaknesses of the learners
● Helpful in determining how well learners have achieved the objectives of the curriculum
describes whether the students learned or mastered the desired outcomes and objectives of
the curriculum
● To improve curriculum-the result of evaluation serves as basis for improving curriculum and
for suggesting innovations to improve learning.
In addition, curriculum evaluation is also useful to administrators and teachers in many different
ways. For example:
● Evaluation helps in making decision about improving teaching and learning processes.
● It helps in shaping academic policies.
● It guides in initiating curricular changes and innovations.
● It ensures quality of any curricular program.
● It helps schools align their curriculum to different curriculum sources and inüuences.
● It determines the level of success of the school’s vision and mission.
Conducting curriculum evaluation is a determinant of an academic institution or school’s
commitment to quality and continuous improvement. It shows how serious a school can be in
realizing its philosophy, vision, and mission. Conversely, Emerita Reyes et al (2015) pointed out that
curriculum needs to be evaluated in order to determine if it meets the current demands of
educational reforms that have been made. results of evaluation would provide education authorities
to make necessary adjustments or improvements in case of possible gaps that may exist between
the curriculum being implemented and the identiûed educational requirements.
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

WHAT TO EVALUATE?
According to Ornstein & Hunkins (1998), evaluation may be undertaken to gather data and relevant
information that would assist educators in deciding whether to accept, change, or eliminate the
curriculum in general or an educational material in particular. Objects or subjects for evaluation may
be the whole curriculum itself or its speciûc aspects such as goals, objectives, content, methodology
and even the results or outcomes. The different phases or stages in curriculum development may
also be the focus of evaluation.
1) Goals and Objective
All the processes and the mechanisms needed in designing a curricular or educational program are
based on the goals and objectives, hence, they have to be evaluated, primarily to determine whether
these goals and objectives are worthwhile bases used in developing the program and if they are
achievable that result in the desired outcomes. Additionally, it is important to note that the contents,
materials and methodologies of a curriculum must ût the goals and objectives to which such
program are conceptualized and even developed.
2) Content and Methodology
Contents of the developed curriculum or any educational program need to be examined and
evaluated in order to determine whether they relate with the needs of the learners whom the
curriculum was developed, and also to establish the congruency between the methodology and the
curriculum objectives as well as determine the appropriateness of the content (Gattawa 1990).
3) Outcomes/Results
The evaluation of outcomes or results goes hand in hand with the evaluation of objectives, content
and methodology. These outcomes or results serve as the ultimate measure of how successful or
effective the curriculum has been in achieving its goals and objectives. Outcomes evaluation is
conducted to draw out information and data that can be used in improving the curriculum as a
whole.
Steps to Curriculum Evaluation
Regardless of the methods and material evaluation to utilize, a suggested plan of action for the
process of curriculum evaluation is introduced with these steps:
a. Focus on the particular component of the curriculum
b. Collect or gather information
c. Organize the information gathered
d. Analyze the information organized
e. Report the information to curriculum decision makers
f. Recycle the information for continuous feedback, modiûcations and adjustments to
be made
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

CURRICULUM EVALUATION MODELS
1. Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model
● In curriculum development process. Tyler’s Ends- Means Model begins with deûning the
teacher’s philosophy, followed with identifying the desired outcomes spelled out in the forms
of educational goals, purposes and objectives, and then proceeding with designing and
evaluating the curriculum accordingly by means of examining the three essential elements:
the learners, the life in the community and the subject matter.
● Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model (1950) can be described in terms of the rational and
systematic movement of evaluating procedures looking at the several related steps
(Glathorn, 1987 p. 273) as indicated below:
● Begin with the behavioral objectives that have been previously determined.
● Identify the situations that will give the student opportunity to express the behavior
embodied in the objective and that evoke or encourage such behavior.
● Select, modify, or construct suitable evaluation instruments, and check the instruments for
objectivity, reliability, and validity.
● Use the instruments to obtain summarized or appraised results. Compare the results
obtained from several instruments before and after given periods in order to estimate the
amount of change taking place.
● Analyze the results in order to determine strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum and to
identify possible explanations about the reason for this particular pattern of strength and
weaknesses.
● Use the results to make the necessary modiûcations in the curriculum.
Basically, described as rational and systematic, Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model in evaluating
curriculum has been found to be advantageous as it is relatively easy to understand and apply.
2. Stuﬄebeam’s Context, Input, Process and Product Model (CIPP)
● It was developed by Phi Delta Kappa chaired by Daniel Stuþebeam (1971). This model
accordingly, seemed to appeal educational leaders, emphasizes the importance of producing
evaluative data that can be used for decision making, since the view of the phi Delta
Committee that worked on the model was that decision making is the sole justiûcation and
rational for conducting an evaluation. Braden (1992) posits that this model can be used for
both formative and summative kinds of evaluation activity
● To respond more effectively to the needs of decision makers, this Stuþebeam model
provides a means for generating data relative to the four phases of program evaluation:
❖ Context Evaluation is intended to continuously assess needs and problems in context in
order to help decisions makers determine goals and objectives. To serve planning decision
(Worthen and Sanders,1987),this element of CIPP Model <is intended to describe the status
or context or setting so as to identify the unmet needs, potential opportunities, problems, or
program objectives that will be evaluated= (Pace & Friedlander, 1987 as stated by Reyes and
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

Dizon, 2015).
What does the curriculum need to achieve?
What are the factors that must be considered?
How is the curriculum relevant?
Does time permit the execution of the curriculum?
❖ Input Evaluation is used in assessing alternative means for achieving those goals and
objectives in order to help decision makers choose optimal means. To serve structuring
decisions (Worthen & sanders, 1987), this element is intended for evaluators to provide
information that could help decision makers in selecting procedures and resources for the
purpose of designing or choosing appropriate methods and materials (Pace & Friedlander,
1987 as stated by Reyes and Dizon, 2015)
How do we implement the curriculum?
How do the teachers prepare for the implementation?
What must the students already know?
What resources do we have?
❖ Process Evaluation. To monitor the processes, both to ensure that the menas are actually
implemented, and to make the necessary modiûcations, is the main task of this element of
CIPP Model. It serves in implementing decisions (Worthen & Sanders, 1987), as it makes
sure that the program is going as intended, identiûes defects or strengths in the procedures
(Pace & Friedlander, 1987 as stated by Reyes and Dizon, 2015).
Is the curriculum being implemented properly?
What problems are encountered?
Are teachers being eýcient?
Are students participating?
Are contributions of outside stakeholders maximized?
❖ Product Evaluation. This is used to compare actual ends with intended or desired ends,
eventually leading to a series of modifying and/or recycling decisions. It serves in recycling
decisions (Worthens & Sanders, 1987), where there is a combination of progress and
outcome evaluation stages (Pace & Friedlander, 1987 as stated by Reyes and Dizon, 2015)
that serves in determining and judging program attainments.
Were the instructional objectives met?
How different are the teachers from what they were at the beginning?
How different are the students from what they were at the beginning?
How will the students use what they have learned?
How can we further improve the curriculum?
Glatthorn (1987) points out that all throughout the four stages of the model, the following speciûc
steps are undertaken:
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

1. Identify the kinds of decisions.
2. Identify the kinds of data neded to make decisions.
3. Collect those data needed.
4. Establish criteria for determining quality.
5. Analyze data collected on the bases of established criteria.
6. Provided needed information to decision makers explicitly.
To sum up, the CIPP Model looks at evaluation both in terms of processes and products or
outcomes not only at the conclusion of the program but also at various phases or stages of program
implementation. Outcomes are expected to be offshoots of determined objectives, and differences
are noted between expected and actual results. In effect, CIPP Model enables the decision makers to
continue, terminate, or modify the program (Pace & Friedlander, 1987).
3. Stake’s Responsive Model.
● This model is developed by Robert Stake (1973), this evaluation model gives more emphasis
on a full description of the evaluation program as well as the evaluation process itself. Stake
believes that the concerns of the stakeholders for whom the evaluation is done, should be
primordial in determining all sorts of issues surrounding evaluation process itself. Described
as a responsive evaluation approach, this model is an approach that trades off some
measurement precision in order to make the ûndings more useful to persons involved with
the program.
Three Essential Elements
● Antecedents- refer to the conditions existing prior to intervention;
● Transactions- which pertain to events or experiences that constitute the program;
and
● Outcomes- which are the effect of the program
Two special aspects may also describe this particular model:
● The distinction between intents and observation; and
● The difference between standards and judgments about what affects occurred. In effect, the
model may be regarded as comparative (A is better than B?) or not (Does A do what is meant
to do?) (Ogle, 2002 as cited in Sumayo, 2012 and also cited by Dizon and Reyes in 2015).
According to Worthen and Santhers (1987), as mentioned by Ogle (2002), and cited by Dizon
and Reyes (2015), the evaluator would use this model, following these steps:
1. Provide background, justiûcation, and description of the program rationale (including its
need);
2. List intended antecedents (inputs, resources, existing conditions), transactions (activities,
processes), and outcomes.;
3. Record observed antecedents, transactions, and outcomes (including observations of
unintended features of each);
4. Explicitly state the standards (criteria, expectations, performance of comparable
programs) for judging program antecedents, transactions and outcomes; and
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

5. Record judgments made about the antecedent conditions, transactions, and outcomes.
Stake himself as cited in Glathorn (1987; pp. 275-276) recommends the following steps in
employing his model which he considers as an interactive and recursive evaluation process:
1. The evaluator meets with clients, staff, and audiences to gain a sense of their perspectives
on and intentions regarding the evaluation;
2. The evaluators draw on such discussions and the analysis of any documents to determine
the scope of the evaluation project.
3. The evaluator observes the program closely to get a sense of its operation and to note any
unintended deviations from announced intents.
4. The evaluator discovers the stated and real purposes of the project and the concerns that
various audiences have about it and the evaluation.
5. The evaluator identiûes the issues and problems with which the evaluation should be
concerned. For each issue and problem, the evaluator develops an evaluation design,
specifying the kinds of data needed.
6. The evaluator selects the means needed to acquire the data desired. Most often, the
means will be human observers or judges.
7. The evaluator implements the data-collection procedures.
8. The evaluator organizes the information into themes and prepares <portrayals= that
communicate in natural ways the thematic reports. The portrayals may involve videotapes,
artifacts, case studies, or other <faithful representations=.
9. By again, being sensitive to the concerns of the stakeholders, the evaluator decides which
audiences require which reports and chooses formats most appropriate for given audiences.
House (1980) as cited in Ogle (2002) points out very clearly that the essential components of
Stake’s Responsive evaluation are:
● The belief that there is no true value to anything (knowledge is context bound)’
● The belief that stakeholder perspectives are integral elements in evaluation, and
● The belief that case studies are the best method for representing the beliefs and
values of stakeholders and of reporting evaluating results.
Evidently, the main advantage of this responsive model is its being sensitive to clients or
stakeholders, in particular, their concerns and their values. If effectively used, this model should
result in evaluations highly useful to clients
4. Eisner Connoisseurship Model.
This model is developed by Elliot Eisner (1979) through his background in aesthetics and education,
this model is an approach to evaluation that gives emphasis to qualitative appreciation. Eisner
argued that learning was too complex just to be broken down to a list of objectives then measured
quantitatively to ûnd out if these objectives have been attained or that learning has taken place,
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

therefore, it is imperative that in evaluating a program, it is important to get into the details of what is
actually happening inside the classroom, instead of just considering the small bits and pieces of
information vis-a-vis the objectives of a particular learning episode. It is in this premise that Eisner
developed and proposed the Connoisseurship Model on the belief that a knowledgeable evaluator
can determine whether a particular curricular program has been successful using a combination of
skills and experience. The word connoisseurship comes from the Latin word cognoscere, meaning to
know
lOMoARcPSD|53741182

curriculum-evaluation-models. Module ___

More Related Content

Similar to curriculum-evaluation-models. Module ___

Recently uploaded

curriculum-evaluation-models. Module ___