Models of Curriculum Evaluation.pptx

Curriculum Evaluation Models

1. Curriculum evaluation models Prepared by: Jennifer Gabasa

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

3. Curriculum Evaluation Models Provus’ Discrepancy Evaluation Model Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model Stakes’ Congruency-Contingency Evaluation Model 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 Context Evaluation Input Evaluation Process Evaluation 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: Antecedents- include data on students and teachers, the curriculum to be evaluated, and the community context. Transactions- include time allotment, sequence of steps, social climate, and communication flow. 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!