Curriculum Evaluation Models

1. CURRICULUM EVALUATION
MODELS
Prepared by: Jennifer Gabasa

2. Objective:
■ Expand knowledge about different curriculum
evaluation models.

3. Curriculum Evaluation Models
A. Provus’ Discrepancy Evaluation Model
B. Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model
C. Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model
D. Stakes’ Congruency-Contingency Evaluation
Model
E. Eisner’s Educational Connoisseurship Model

4. A. Provus’ Discrepancy Evaluation Model (1971).
• Determining program standards.
• Determining program performance.
• Comparing performance with standards.
• Determining whether a discrepancy exists between
performance and standards.
1
2
3
4
This model for curriculum evaluation was developed by Malcolm
Provus in 1971 to evaluate projects under the Elementary-Secondary
Education Act in the United States. Provus identified four major
stages of conducting curriculum evaluation.

5. B. Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model (1950)
Curriculum Elements Evaluation Process
• Objective/Intended learning
Outcomes
1. Pre-determine intended learning
outcomes or objectives.
• Situation or Context 2. Identify the situation/ context that
gives opportunity to develop
behavior or achieve objectives.
• Evaluation Instruments/Tools 3. Select, modify and construct
evaluation Instruments or tools.
check it’s objectivity, reliability and
validity.
In using the Tyler’s model, the following curriculum components and
process are identified in curriculum evaluation.

6. • Utilization of tool 4. Utilize the tools to obtain results.
5. Compare the results obtained from
several instruments before and after
to determine the change.
• Analysis of Results 6. Analyze the results obtained to
determine strength and weaknesses.
Identify possible explanation about
the reason for the particular pattern.
• Utilization of Results 7. Use the results to make the
necessary modifications.

7. C. Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model (1971)
The Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, chaired
by Daniel L. Stufflebeam, developed and published a curriculum
evaluation model known as the CIPP Model.
Context Process
Input Product
Context Evaluation-
assesses needs and
problems in the
context for decision
makers to determine
the goals and
objectives of the
program/curriculum.
Product evaluation-
compares actual ends
with intended ends
and leads to a series
of recycling decisions.
Process Evaluation-
monitors the
processes both to
ensure that the
means are actually
being implemented
and make necessary
modifications.
Input Evaluation-
assesses alternative
means based on the
inputs for the
achievement of
objectives to help
decision makers to
choose options for
optimal means.

8. For all the four stages, the six steps are suggested.
Stages of the CIPP Model Steps Taken in All the Stages
1. Context Evaluation
2. Input Evaluation
3. Process Evaluation
4. Product Evaluation
Step 1: Identify the kind of decision to
be made.
Step 2: Identify the kinds of data to
make that decision.
Step 3: Collect the data needed.
Step 4: Establish the criteria to
determine quality of data.
Step 5: Analyze data based on the
criteria.
Step 6: Organize needed information
needed for decision makers.

9. D. Stakes' Congruency-Contingency Evaluation
Model (1975)
Robert Stake claimed that curriculum evaluation is not complete
unless three categories of data are made available. These
categories of data are:
1. Antecedents- include data on students and teachers, the curriculum to
be evaluated, and the community context.
2. Transactions- include time allotment, sequence of steps, social climate,
and communication flow.
3. Outcomes- encompass students' learning in the form of understandings
skills, and values or attitudes, as well as the effects of curriculum on the
teachers, students, and the school.

10. E. Eisner’s Educational Connoisseurship
Model (1979)
Eliot Eisner provided a qualitative way of evaluating a
curriculum. This model does not have methodical
procedures compared with other evaluation models.
Eisner's model calls for a deeper and wider observation
results of evaluation that are expressed in written form.
The results, however, are not just merely descriptions;
they provide excellent and accurate interpretation and
appraisal.

11. Using this model calls for thorough and
comprehensive observations of classroom and school
activities in relation to curriculum. It tries to capture
every aspect of curriculum activities including the
hidden curriculum. The emphasis of this model is
always on the quality rather than on the measurable
quantity of learning and interaction.

12. Thank you!