Models of Curriculum Evaluation

Models of Curriculum Evaluation SE 505: The Science Curriculum Sulthan Ramiz PGIS/SE/M.Sc/SED/BE/14/02Postgraduate Institute of Science University of Peradeniya 2014sulthanHewlett-Packard1/1/2014

ContentsModels of curriculum evaluation2ROBERT E. STAKE2Biography2Robert Stakes countenance model (1967)2Advantages and disadvantages of the countenance model4MICHAEL SCRIVEN-(1972)4Biography4Screven goal-free model4Advantages and disadvantages5LAWRENCE STENHOUSE6Biography6Stenhouse research model7Advantages and disadvantages of the model7RALPHY TYLER8Biography8Tylers objectives model8Advantages and disadvantages of the model10PARLETT AND HAMILTONS10Biography10Illuminative model11Advantages and disadvantages of the model11WHEELER12Biography12The model12Advantages and disadvantages of the model13DANIEL LEROY STUFFLEBEAM13Biography13The CIPP model13Advantages and disadvantages of the model15

Models of curriculum evaluation

1. ROBERT E. STAKE1.1. Biography Robert E. Stakewas born in December 18, 1927. Stake is a native ofAdams, Nebraska. Professor Stake received his B.A. in Mathematics with a minor in naval science and Spanish from the University of Nebraska in 1950.He graduated with an M.A. in educational psychology in 1954 from this university. In the 1950s stake taught mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory school and later completed his Ph.D. Program in psychometrics at Princeton University. In 1963, he joined the faculty at the University of Illinois, where he taught in the educational psychology department and served as association director of the centre for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCLE) under Thomas Hastings. Hastings had bought him to Illinois to do research on instruction, but Stakes interest was soon captured by the new work Hastings and Lee Cronbach were doing in curriculum evaluation. When Hastings retired in 1978, Stake became director of CIRCLE and held that position until he retired in the early 2000s. He has made lot of contribution to educational field, among his many contributions are the 2010 bookQualitative Research: Studying How Things Work, and in 1995,The Art of Case Study Research. He was the recipient in 1988 of the Lazerfeld Award from the American Evaluation Associationand an honorary doctorate from the University of Uppsala in 1994.He also received an honorary doctorate from theUniversity of Valladolidin 2009. In 2007 Robert Stake received a Presidential Citation from theAmerican Educational Research Association"for his significant contribution to qualitative methodology, to the theory and practice of evaluation".1.2. Robert Stakes countenance model (1967)

This model emphasized on a full description of the educational programme and the curriculum process. Stake believes that the starting off point is to determine the "intents" of a particular curriculum. And these need to be described in terms of antecedents, transactions and outcomes. The Antecedent phase relates to any conditions prior to the start of a curriculum and might include both students' and teachers backgrounds and interests. Transaction phase constitutes the procedures and events which it is expected will transpire as the curriculum unfolds. They take place in the classroom or teaching learning environment and the outcome phase relate to the intended student outcomes in terms of achievements, together with the anticipated effects upon teachers, administrators and other parties. The 3 phases are summarise in figure 1.1

Antecedents Transactions OutcomesFigure 1.1: The three phases of Stakes modelStake emphasises two basic acts of evaluation; descriptions and judgements.Description includes the evaluators observation and list of benchmarks for the activities being evaluated. Descriptions are divided according to whether they refer to what was intended or what actually was observed. Judgment is the evaluators overall rating of merit.Judgements are separated according to whether they refer to standards used in arriving at the judgements or to the actual judgements. The evaluator is making judgements regarding the programme based on the congruency between the intended and the observed aspects of the curriculum

1.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the countenance model Advantages 1. Evaluator looks at the needs for those whom the program serves.2. Attempts to reflect the complexity of the program as realistic as possible.3. Has the potential for gaining new insights and theories about the field and program it evaluates. Disadvantages1. Approach accused of being too subjective 2. Possibly over-minimizes the importance of data collection instruments and quantitative evaluation 3. Can be cost prohibitive and labour intensives.

2. MICHAEL SCRIVEN-(1972)3. 4. 2. 2.1. BiographyMichael Scrivenwasborn and raised in Victoria, Australia. He took his Master of Arts degree in applied mathematics and symbolic logic at the University of Melbourne and completed his Ph.D.in philosophy of science at Oxford University. He served in many professional roles in various universities and colleges. 1952-1956: University of Minnesota 1956-1960: University of Swarthmore College 1960-1965: Indianan University 1965-1975: University of California at Berkeley 1975-1982: University of San Francisco

2.2. Screven goal-free model Goal-free evaluation (GFE) is any evaluation in which the evaluator conducts the evaluation without particular knowledge of or reference to stated or predetermined goals and objectives. The goal-free evaluator attempts to observe and measure all actual outcomes, effects, or impacts, intended or unintended, all without being cued to the programs intentions.Then, by using methods that are 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.The Goal-Free model focuses on the actual outcomes of a program or activity, rather than only those goals that are identified.Scriven says that evaluators who do not know what the program is supposed to be doing look more thoroughly for what it is doing. Of course, this makes it a challenge for program staff to conduct the evaluation in a goal free manner. Scrivens main contribution, obviously, was to redirect the attention of evaluators and administrators to the importance of unintended effectsa redirection that seems especially 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. Scrivens 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 probably can be used only by experts who do not require explicit guidance in assessing needs and detecting effects.Scriven differentiated evaluation as formative evaluation and summative evaluation. The term formative indicates that data is gathered during the formation or development of the curriculum so that revisions to it can be made. On the other hand the term summative indicates that data is collected at the end of the implementation of the curriculum programme.

2.3. Advantages and disadvantagesAdvantages1. This type of model allows identifying and noting outcomes that may not have been identified by program designers. 2. Both quantitative and qualitative method may be applied

Disadvantages 1. Evaluators criticize GFE as pure rhetoric and imply that it lacks practical application. 2. Evaluators have difficulty accepting the notion that they can, much less should, evaluate a program without knowing its goals. As a result, while most evaluators have heard of goal-free evaluation, they may not see it as central to their thinking about evaluation, and they still use goals as the most common source of dependent variables.3. GFE model does not provide enough explicit directions for developing and implementing the model; as a consequence, it probably can be used only by experts who do not require explicit guidance in assessing needs and detecting effects.4. Lack of knowledge of goals may make the evaluator skip the main purpose of evaluating the curriculum in the first place.

3. LAWRENCE STENHOUSE 1. 2. 3. 3.1. Biography Lawrence Stenhouse was born in Scotland on 29 of March 1926. He completed his secondary education at Manchester Grammar School. He had completed master of education in 1956 at Glasgow University. At the end of M.Ed he had highlighted the educational problem that he wanted to work on. He was working in the profession of teaching in a school but left the school to become a lecturer at the Institute of Education at Newcastle-upon-Tyne and then principal lecturer at Jordan hill College of Education. In order to attend a conference, he visited United States and during the process, which gave him the opportunity to apply for a directorship of the Humanities projects which was funded by the Schools Council and the Nuffield Foundation. The project was one of the most influential projects of the curriculum development movement in UK. Lawrence was interested by the right of the student to knowledge, the relationship between school knowledge with the student understands of the world outside the school etc. At the end of the project he and several of his colleagues moved to the University of East Anglia where they setup the Centre for Applied Research in Education (CARE). This centre addressed the problems of practice and for its commitment to the idea of the teacher as researcher. His research activities mainly focused on curriculum but later moved in developing the theory and practice of case study. In 1975 he published his major book called, An introduction to Curriculum Research and development. Before he died in 1982, he complied a collection of his papers written across the year, under the title Authority, Education and Emancipation.

3.2. Stenhouse research model

Stenhouse's Research Model of the 1970's reveals evaluation as a part of curriculum. There must be a continuous cycle of formative evaluation and curriculum improvement at the school level. It emphasises that studying, developing, and experimenting with curricular is central to the teacher not to academic researchers. So teachers become the curriculum designers as well as evaluators. This model evaluates an experienced curriculum. The developer studies others and testing ideas. It's more about self-study and research than objectives and data gathering. The evaluator acts as a practical voice in the process by tempering enthusiasm with judgment.

3.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model Advantages 1. Curriculum development came to be seen as enhancing the professionalism of teachers. It was emphasised that the teacher as a skilled practitioner ,continually reflecting on her or his practice in terms of ideals and knowledge of local situations, and modifying practice In light of these reflections; rather than a technician merely applying scientifically produced curriculum programmes.2. Develop a mean of collecting data by a qualitative method. Qualitative method could deal better with local circumstances, and presented findings in terms that were accessible and useful to teachers, parents and others.3. The teachers been a researcher have access to their own intentions and motives, thoughts and feelings, in a way that an observer does not, and so have a deeper understanding of their own behaviour than an outsider could ever have.4. That the teacher-researcher will usually have long-term experience of the setting being studied, and will therefore know its history first-hand, as well as other information that may be required to understand what is going on. It would take an outsider a long time to acquire such knowledge; indeed this may never be possible.

Disadvantages 1. 4. RALPHY TYLER 4. 4.1. Biography Tyler was born on April 22, 1902, inChicago. Tyler grew up inNebraska. He worked at various jobs while growing up, including his first job at age twelve in acreamery. He earned his bachelor's degreein 1921 at the age of 19 from Doane College inCrete, Nebraska and in 1923 became a high school teacher where he wrote a science test for high school students which helped him "see the holes in testing only for memorization." He received hismaster's degreefrom theUniversity of Nebraska followed by Ph.D. from theUniversity of Chicagoin 1927 but later he joined Ohio State University, to improve their teaching and increase students retention. He introduced the term evaluation for measurement and testing with educational objectives. Tyler became the first director of theCenter for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences atStanford University, a position he held until his retirement in 1967.

4.2. Tylers objectives model One of the best known curriculum models was first introduce in 1949 by Ralph Tyler in his book Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. He argues that there are really four principles or big questions that curriculum makers have to ask as shown below.

The first question is about the educational purpose to attain. Tyler suggest to identify the objectives we need to find what students need to know, or what society thinks should be taught or what subject specialist wants to include in the discipline which are finally shaped by educational philosophy and psychological principles. Therefore Tyler suggests that philosophy and psychology should be used as a screen to sieve off the important objectives (see figure 4.1)

Figure 4.1: Tylers curriculum development model The next step is the selection of learning experiences which leads to the achievement of the objectives. Here it is important to take into account the previous learning experiences the learners bring to a situation and then it has to be selected based on what is now about humans learning and human development. Next involves organisation and sequencing of the learning experiences. Here he emphasises that that the experience should be properly organised so as to enhance learning and suggested that ideas, concepts, values and skills be used as organising elements into the curriculum. Finally Tyler propose that evaluation should be an important part of the curriculum development process. It is important for the educators to know whether the selected learning experiences produced the intended results. So as a result it is possible to determine whether the curriculum was effective or ineffective.

4.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model Advantages 1. It can be applied to any subject and any level of teaching. 2. It provides a set of procedures which are very easy to follow and which appear to be most logical and rational. 3. At the time the model was first published (1940) it broke new ground by emphasising students behaviour and learning experiences. The guideline for evaluation were also far more comprehensive than others avalaiable in the 1940s. Disadvantages 1. No explicit guidelines are given about why certain objectives should be chosen over the others. 2. Research evidence on teacher thinking and teacher planning indicates that few teachers use objectives as their initial planning point and neither they use set of series of steps. 3. Tyler is only concerned about evaluating intended instructional objectives. He ignores the unintended leanings which invariably occur.

5. PARLETT AND HAMILTONS5. 5.1. Biography 5.2. Illuminative model Parlett and Hamilton (1988) advocated a new approach to educational evaluation which they termed illuminative evaluation. As its title suggests the aim of this form of evaluation is to illuminate problems, issues and significant program features particularly when an innovatory program in education is implemented. This model is concerned with description & interpretation, not measurement and prediction of an innovation. The arguments in favour of this approach are that the variables in educational developments cannot be readily identified or controlled, and that 'inputs' and 'outputs' can be varied, complex, difficult to specify with certainty, and often virtually impossible to measure. It involves three main stages: 1. the observation of on-going events, transactions and background information; 2. then making further inquiries to refine data collected and 3. to seek underlying principles, spot patterns of cause and effect and suggest alternatives to the planned activities. Therefore, in the evaluation, the illumination of unintended outcomes would be useful for the improvement of the implementation.

5.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model Advantages 1. Record exactly what happens and often will be a willing participant in the events, almost like a news reporter going to see what is really happening in the classroom. 2. It is suitability in the evaluation of education programs that have complex or hard to define goals, are distorted by an institutions local character, or are uncertain about the precise nature of questions to be answered3. Illuminative evaluation is characterised by a flexible methodology that exploits on available resources and opportunities, and draws upon different techniques to fit the total circumstance of each study. 4. illuminative evaluationtakes account of the wider contexts in which educational programmes function

Disadvantages 1. Stressing the uniqueness of each setting, illuminative models do not produce findings which have any generalizability. 2. Relying on the perceptions of the observer introduces problems of subjectivity. 3. The desirability or even possibility of the evaluator remaining judgment free is questionable. 4. The scale of illuminative model is limited to one school. 5. Focusing on schools in action the illuminative model tends to ignore the underlying objectives and structure of the organisation itself.

6. WHEELER 6. 6.1. Biography 6.2. The model Wheeler (1967) has presented a cyclical model which has many similarities with linear and interactive models such as Tyler. It begins with the identification of aims, goals, and objectives, goes on to the selection of learning experiences and hence to the selection of, and selection and organization of learning activities, and then specific evaluation process. The diagrammatic representation of the model is given in figure 6.1 below.

Figure 6.1: The cyclical model of Wheeler. 6.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model Advantages 1. It can be applied to any subject and any level of teaching. 2. It provides a set of procedures which are very easy to follow and which appear to be most logical and rational. Disadvantages 1. No explicit guidelines are given about why certain objectives should be chosen over the others. 2. Research evidence on teacher thinking and teacher planning indicates that few teachers use objectives as their initial planning point and neither they use set of series of steps.

7. DANIEL LEROY STUFFLEBEAM7.1. Biography Daniel Leroy Stufflebeam, education educator Born in Waverly, Iowa, September 19, 1936 Education BA, State University Iowa, 1958 MS, Purdue University, 1962, Ph D, 1964; postgrad., University of Wisconsin 1965. Professions Professor, Director Ohio State University Evaluation Center, Columbus, 1963 - 1973 Professor education, Director Western Michigan University Evaluation Center, Kalamazoo, 1973 Author monographs and 15 books; contributed chapters to books, articles to professional journals 7.2. The CIPP model Daniel L. Stufflebeam introduced a widely cited model of evaluation knows as the CIPP model (context, input, process and product) as shown below.

Figure 7.1: CIPP model of evaluation

The aim of the CIPP model in education is to determine if a particular educational effort has resulted in a positive change in school, college, university or training organisation. 1. Contextevaluations: this is about what needs to be done and in what context? The evaluator defines the environment in which the curriculum is implemented which could be a classroom or a school. Needs that were not met and reasons for why they are not been met are determined. It assess needs, problems, assets, and opportunities to help decision makers define goals and priorities and help the broader group of users judge goals, priorities, and outcomes.The technique of data collection includes observation of conditions in the school, background statistics of teachers and interviews. 2. Input evaluations(how should it be done?). Provides information in determining how to utilise resources to achieve objectives of the curriculum, competing action plans, staffing plans, and budgets for their feasibility and potential cost-effectiveness to meet targeted needs and achieve goals. Decision makers use input evaluations in choosing among competing plans, writing funding proposals, allocating resources, assigning staff, scheduling work, and ultimately in helping others judge an efforts plans and budget. 3. Process evaluations (is it being done ). Assess how well the plan being implemented and identifying the barriers and revising the curriculum where ever needed. 4. Product (did it succeed?). Identify and assess outcomesintended and unintended, short term and long term and involves measuring the achievement of objectives, interpreting the data and providing information that will enable them to decide whether to continue, terminate or modify the new curriculum. Stufflebeams model of evaluation relies both on formative and summative evaluation to determine the overall effectiveness of a curriculum programme as shown in figure 7.2.

Context Input Process FORMATIVE

ProductSUMMATIVE

Figure 7.2: formative and summative evaluation in the CIPP model7.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model Advantages 1. Comprehensive is responsive to intents 2. Each one of parts can be undertaken while waiting for product3. Meets need of decision makers, administrators, and managers4. Provides structure for focusing on evaluation tasks and questions. 5. Provide flexible framework.

Disadvantages 1. Too much structure may cause a variety of tunnel vision and miss unintended outcomes. 2. Can be complex and costly if fully implemented.3. All decisions may not be able to be specified in advance.

End

SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 14 of 14