MODELS FOR CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Curriculum evaluation is the assessment of the merit and worth of a program of studies, a field of study, or a course of study. Also Curriculum evaluation can be defined as a judgment regarding the qualities or values of the response, product or performance based on the established criteria or curriculum standards.

Curriculum Evaluation models refers to the graphical representation of the actual process of judging the response, product or performance of the curriculum based on the established criteria.

The following are the most common models of Curriculum evaluation process;

Bradley’s Effectiveness Model

Bradley’s (1985) book Curriculum Leadership and Development Handbook provides 10 key indicators that can be used to measure the effectiveness of a developed curriculum. He designed a chart to help in identifying 10 indicators to appraise curriculum effectiveness school building. To assess how schools or district meets each of the indicators, respond with a Yes or No in the column provided.

Indicator Description Yes or No Vertical curriculum continuity The course of study enables teachers to have quick and constant access to what is being taught in the grade levels below and above them. Also, upward spiraling prevents undue or useless curricular repetition. Horizontal curriculum continuity The course of study developed provides content and objectives that are common to all classrooms of the same grade level. Also, daily lesson plans reflect a commonality for the same grade level. Instruction based on curriculum Lesson plans are derived from the course of study, and curriculum materials used are correlated with the content, objectives, and authentic tasks developed. Curriculum priority Philosophical and financial commitments are evident. Clerical assistance is provided and reasonable stipends are paid to teachers for work during the summer months. In addition, curriculum topics appear on school board agendas, administrative meeting agendas, and building-staff meeting agendas.

EXHIBIT 12.1 Bradley’s Effectiveness Model for Curriculum Development Indicators

CHAPTER 12    Curriculum Evaluation 359

Indicator Description Yes or No Broad involvement Buildings in the district have teacher representatives on the curricular committees; elementary, middle level or junior high, and high school principals (or designees) are represented; and school board members are apprised of and approve the course of study. Long-range planning Each program in the district is included in the 5-year sequence and review cycle. Also, a philosophy of education and theory of curriculum permeate the entire school district. Decision- making clarity Controversies that occur during the development of a program center on the nature of the decision, and not on who makes the decision. Positive human relations Also, the initial thoughts about the curriculum come from teachers, principals, and the curriculum leader. All participating members are willing to risk disagreeing with anyone else; however, communication lines are not allowed to break down. Theory-into- practice approach The district philosophy, vision, mission, exit (graduation) outcomes, program philosophy, rationale statement, program goals, program objectives, learning outcomes, and authentic tasks are consistent and recognizable. Planned change Tangible evidence shows that the internal and external publics accept the developed program course of study for the school district. The process of developing a course of study for each program or discipline in a school district is no longer one of determining how to do it, but one of determining how to do it better. If any of the 10 indicators are identified with a No (negative), consideration should be given to make it a Yes (positive) indicator.

SOURCE: The 10 indicators of effective curriculum development were adapted from Curriculum Leadership and Development Handbook (pp. 141–146), by L. H. Bradley, 1985, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

The indicators for effective curriculum development represent working characteristics that any complex organization must have in order to be responsive and responsible to its clients. Further, the measurement can be oriented to meet the needs of any school district— from large to small—and it can focus on a specific evaluation of a district’s curriculum area, such as reading, language arts, math, or any content area designated. The models (Tyler’s objectives-centered model; Stufflebeam’s context, input, process, product model; Scriven’s goal-free model; Stake’s responsive model, and Eisner’s connoisseurship model) presented below give some support to Bradley’s effectiveness model.

Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model

One of the earliest curriculum evaluation models, which continues to influence many assessment projects, was that proposed by Ralph Tyler (1950) in his monograph Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. As explained in this work and used in numerous

PART III    CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT360

large-scale assessment efforts, the Tyler approach moved rationally and systematically through several related steps:

 1. Begin with the behavioral objectives that have been previously determined. Those objectives should specify both the content of learning and the student behavior expected: “Demonstrate familiarity with dependable sources of information on questions relating to nutrition.” 2. Identify the situations that will give the student the opportunity to express the behavior embodied in the objective and that evoke or encourage this behavior. Thus, if you wish to assess oral language use, identify situations that evoke oral language. 3. Select, modify, or construct suitable evaluation instruments, and check the instruments for objectivity, reliability, and validity. 4. Use the instruments to obtain summarized or appraised results. 5. Compare the results obtained from several instruments before and after given periods in order to estimate the amount of change taking place. 6. 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 strengths and weaknesses. 7. Use the results to make the necessary modifications in the curriculum. (as cited in Glatthorn, 1987, p. 273)

The Tyler model has several advantages: It is relatively easy to understand and apply. It is rational and systematic. It focuses attention on curricular strengths and weaknesses, rather than being concerned solely with the performance of individual students. It also emphasizes the importance of a continuing cycle of assessment, analysis, and improve- ment. As Guba and Lincoln (1981) pointed out, however, it suffers from several deficiencies. It does not suggest how the objectives themselves should be evaluated. It does not provide standards or suggest how standards should be developed. Its emphasis on the prior state- ment of objectives may restrict creativity in curriculum development, and it seems to place undue emphasis on the preassessment and postassessment, ignoring completely the need for formative assessment. Similarly, Baron and Boschee (1995), in their book Authentic Assessment: The Key to Unlocking Student Success, stress that “we are encountering funda- mental changes in the way we view and conduct assessment in American schools” (p. 1). And “sixty years have passed since we experienced such a deep-seated and thoughtful revaluation of our assessment methods” (p. 1).

Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model

These obvious weaknesses in the Tyler model led several evaluation experts in the late 1960s and early 1970s to attack the Tyler model and to offer their own alternatives.

CHAPTER 12    Curriculum Evaluation 361

The alternative that had the greatest impact was that developed by a Phi Delta Kappa com- mittee chaired by Daniel Stufflebeam (1971). This model seemed to appeal to educational leaders because it emphasized the importance of producing evaluative data for decision making; in fact, decision making was the sole justification for evaluation, in the view of the Phi Delta Kappa committee. To service the needs of decision makers, the Stufflebeam model provides a means for generating data relating to four stages of program operation: context evaluation, which continuously assesses needs and problems in the context to help decision makers deter- mine goals and objectives; input evaluation, which assesses alternative means for achiev- ing those goals to help decision makers choose optimal means; process evaluation, which monitors the processes both to ensure that the means are actually being implemented and to make the necessary modifications; and product evaluation, which compares actual ends with intended ends and leads to a series of recycling decisions. During each of these four stages, specific steps are taken:

•• The kinds of decisions are identified. •• The kinds of data needed to make those decisions are identified. •• Those data are collected. •• The criteria for determining quality are established. •• The data are analyzed on the basis of those criteria. •• The needed information is provided to decision makers. (as cited in Glatthorn, 1987, pp. 273–274)

The context, input, process, product (CIPP) model, as it has come to be called, has sev- eral attractive features for those interested in curriculum evaluation. Its emphasis on deci- sion making seems appropriate for administrators concerned with improving curricula. Its concern for the formative aspects of evaluation remedies a serious deficiency in the Tyler model. Finally, the detailed guidelines and forms created by the committee provide step- by-step guidance for users. The CIPP model, however, has some serious drawbacks associated with it. Its main weakness seems to be its failure to recognize the complexity of the decision-making pro- cess in organizations. It assumes more rationality than exists in such situations and ignores the political factors that play a large part in these decisions. Also, as Guba and Lincoln (1981) noted, it seems difficult to implement and expensive to maintain.

Scriven’s Goal-Free Model

Michael Scriven (1972) was the first to question the assumption that goals or objectives are crucial in the evaluation process. After his involvement in several evaluation projects where so-called side effects seemed more significant than the original objectives, he began to question the seemingly arbitrary distinction between intended and unintended effects. His goal-free model was the outcome of this dissatisfaction. In conducting a goal-free evaluation, the evaluator functions as an unbiased observer who begins by generating a profile of needs for the group served by a given program

PART III    CURRICULUM MANAGEMENT362

(Scriven is somewhat vague as to how this needs profile is to be derived). Then, by using methods that are primarily qualitative in nature, the evaluator assesses the actual effects of the program. If a program has an effect that is responsive to one of the identified needs, then the program is perceived as useful. Scriven’s main contribution, obviously, was to redirect the attention of evaluators and administrators to the importance of unintended effects—a redirection that seems espe- cially useful in education. If a mathematics program achieves its objectives of improving computational skills but has the unintended effect of diminishing interest in mathematics, then it cannot be judged completely successful. Scriven’s emphasis on qualitative methods also seemed to come at an opportune moment, when there was increasing dissatisfaction in the research community with the dominance of quantitative methodologies. As Scriven himself notes, however, goal-free evaluation should be used to complement, not supplant, goal-based assessments. Used alone, it cannot provide sufficient information for the decision maker. Some critics have faulted Scriven for not providing more explicit directions for developing and implementing the goal-free model; as a consequence, it prob- ably can be used only by experts who do not require explicit guidance in assessing needs and detecting effects.

Stake’s Responsive Model

Robert Stake (1975) made a major contribution to curriculum evaluation in his develop- ment of the responsive model, because the responsive model is based explicitly on the assumption that the concerns of the stakeholders—those for whom the evaluation is done—should be paramount in determining the evaluation issues. He made the point this way:

To emphasize evaluation issues that are important for each particular program, I recommend the responsive evaluation approach. It is an approach that trades off some measurement precision in order to increase the usefulness of the findings to persons in and around the program. . . . An educational evaluation is a responsive evaluation if it orients more directly to program activities than to program intents; responds to audience requirements for information; and if the different value perspectives present are referred to in reporting the success and failure of the program. (p. 14)

Stake recommends an interactive and recursive evaluation process that embodies these steps:

•• The evaluator meets with clients, staff, and audiences to gain a sense of their perspectives on and intentions regarding the evaluation. •• The evaluator draws on such discussions and the analysis of any documents to determine the scope of the evaluation project. •• The evaluator observes the program closely to get a sense of its operation and to note any unintended deviations from announced intents.