Models of Curriculum
Evaluation
SE 505: The Science Curriculum
Sulthan Ramiz
PGIS/SE/M.Sc/SED/BE/14/02
Postgraduate Institute of Science
University of Peradeniya
2014
sulthan
Hewlett-Packard
1/1/2014
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 1 of 14
Contents
Models of curriculum evaluation ............................................................................................................ 2
ROBERT E. STAKE ................................................................................................................................. 2
Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Robert Stakes countenance model (1967)..................................................................................... 2
Advantages and disadvantages of the countenance model ........................................................... 4
MICHAEL SCRIVEN-(1972) ................................................................................................................... 4
Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Screven goal-free model ................................................................................................................. 5
Advantages and disadvantages ....................................................................................................... 5
LAWRENCE STENHOUSE...................................................................................................................... 6
Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Stenhouse research model ............................................................................................................. 7
Advantages and disadvantages of the model ................................................................................. 7
RALPHY TYLER ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Tylers objectives model ................................................................................................................. 8
Advantages and disadvantages of the model ............................................................................... 10
PARLETT AND HAMILTONS ............................................................................................................... 10
Biography ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Illuminative model ........................................................................................................................ 10
Advantages and disadvantages of the model ............................................................................... 11
WHEELER ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Biography ...................................................................................................................................... 11
The model ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Advantages and disadvantages of the model ............................................................................... 12
DANIEL LEROY STUFFLEBEAM ........................................................................................................... 12
Biography ...................................................................................................................................... 12
The CIPP model ............................................................................................................................. 13
Advantages and disadvantages of the model ............................................................................... 14
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 2 of 14
Models of curriculum evaluation
1. ROBERT E. STAKE
1.1. Biography
Robert E. Stake was born in December 18, 1927. Stake is a
native of Adams, 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 book Qualitative 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 Association and an honorary doctorate
from the University of Uppsala in 1994.He also received an honorary doctorate from
the University of Valladolid in 2009. In 2007 Robert Stake received a Presidential Citation
from the American 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
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 3 of 14
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 Outcomes
Figure 1.1: The three phases of Stakes model
Stake 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
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 4 of 14
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.
Disadvantages
1. 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)
2.1. Biography
Michael Scriven wasborn 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
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 5 of 14
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 disadvantages
Advantages
1. This type of model allows identifying and noting outcomes that may not have
been identified by program designers.
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 6 of 14
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
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,
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 7 of 14
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.
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 8 of 14
4. RALPHY TYLER
4.1. Biography
Tyler was born on April 22, 1902, in Chicago. Tyler grew up
in Nebraska. He worked at various jobs while growing up, including
his first job at age twelve in a creamery. He earned his bachelor's
degree in 1921 at the age of 19 from Doane College in Crete, 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 his master's degree from
the University of Nebraska followed by Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 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 the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences at Stanford 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
objectives
What educational purposes should the
institution seek to attain?
selecting learning experiences
how can learning experirences be
selected which are likely to be useful
in attaining these objectives
organising learning experiences
how can learning experiences be
organised for effective instruction
evaluation
how can the effectiveness of learning
experineces be evaluated?
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 9 of 14
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.
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 10 of 14
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 HAMILTONS
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.
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 11 of 14
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 answered
3. 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 evaluation takes 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
6.1. 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.
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 12 of 14
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 STUFFLEBEAM
7.1. 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.
2.
Selection of
learning
experiences
3.
Selection of
content
4.
Organization
and
integration of
leaning
experiences
5.
Evaluation
1.
Aims, Goals
and
Objectives
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 13 of 14
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. Context evaluations: 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
SE 505: Science Curriculum: The Models of Curriculum Evaluation Page 14 of 14
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.
FORMATIVE
SUMMATIVE
Figure 7.2: formative and summative evaluation in the CIPP model
7.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the model
Advantages
1. Comprehensive is responsive to intents
2. Each one of parts can be undertaken while waiting for product
3. Meets need of decision makers, administrators, and managers
4. 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
Context
Input
Process
Product
