CURRICULUM EVALUATION

NAME: M. MOHSIN ALTAF

STUDENT ID: 14505
SUBMITTED TO: DR. ZEHRA HABIB
 CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Introduction:
Evaluation is the classification, interpretation and application of defensible criteria of defensible
criteria to determine an evaluation object’s value in relation to those criteria. (Fitzpatrick,
Sanders and Worthen, 2004). Evaluation as a study planned and directed with the target of
supporting the significant groups by determining the contribution and the value of the evaluated
item. (Stufflebeam, 2001).Evaluation is viewed as the systematic attempt to gather information
in order to make judgments or decisions. (Lynch, 1996) Evaluation is the process of collecting
data on a program to determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt,
reject or revise the program.
Curriculum evaluation is the series of activities involved in order to collect information about the
process and effects of policies, programs, curricula, courses and educational software and other
instructional materials. (Gredler, 1996).
Curriculum evaluation is very important for curriculum development, implementation and
maintenance. It finds out all the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum before
implementation whether to continue with the process or to change it and to increase the
effectiveness of its delivery after implementation. Curriculum evaluation basically utilize for
making program decisions that relate to effectiveness, efficiency, value and sufficiency based
upon a variety of systematic data collections and analysis. (Brewer, 2009)
As we have many evaluation model which were shaped in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Among them
four models: Tyler’s objective model, Stake’s responsive model, Scriven’s goal free model and
Stufflebeam’s CIPP model, which have been developed and commonly applied in educational
evaluation in general.
From my perspective after studied all the evaluation model, the reasonable model is CIPP model
because,
 CIPP model has four different dimensions:
Context evaluation: where planning decisions need to address to determine the changes
in existing program if it’s needed. Further it deals with assessing needs, problems and
opportunities within a defined environment.
Input evaluation: Here to formalize and structure all the decisions which need to take in
action. To see available resources and project alternate strategies.
Process evaluation: Include implementing decisions. How well is plan being
implemented? Barriers to success? Revisions needed?
 CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Product evaluation: Include recycling decision. Measure results. What to do after

program has run its course? (Stufflebeam, 2000)

 CIPP model has a long history and it has been restructured regularly, so it is quite
beneficial in evaluation. This model is not designed for any specific programs or
solutions, Therefore it is easily applicable to applied in different multiple evaluation
situations. (Thi Kim Anh Vo, 2018 )

 CIPP model can be used as the whole process to evaluate programs or objects or can be
applied separately to suit the need of the evaluation.

It has a very clear guidance in this model in order to apply for evaluation. Based on all
dimensions, it depends on evaluator to decide whether to apply whole CIPP model or to
choose any particular dimension in their evaluation. (Stufflebeam, 2000)

 Provides evaluators with in depth guidance on when, why and how to use CIPP model.

 Evaluators by a checklist which they use to figure out what they need to do during
evaluation. It may also help evaluators to know what they should deal within their
evaluation. (Stufflebeam, 1996)

 Its comprehensive approach to evaluation can be applied from program planning to

program outcomes and fulfillment of core values.

 CIPP holistic approach is not only evident in what it evaluates, but also who it involves in
the evaluation.

 The role of stakeholder representatives in CIPP evaluations is as active participants

helping to gain and provide information.

 Huang and Yang (2004) criticize that the model does not provide feedback mechanism
to tell stakeholders or evaluators on how to deal with improvements.
I am working for one of the colleges under the management of Pakistan Air force where
Autocratic leadership style is followed. On the basis of objective built strategies and some
related contents the Tyler’s Objective model is being followed. But I am not satisfied by the
strategies that are implemented according to the Tyler’s Objective model.
 CURRICULUM EVALUATION

 As like Tyler’s model, our model also based on objective based nature. As the objectives
can be changed at any time of the implementation of the program, the evaluation fails to
evaluate the program with unstable objectives. (Chen et al., 2005)

 It limits what students can learn.

 It doesn’t indicate who decides what is worthwhile learning.
 It fails to consider the changing environment.
 It doesn’t consider that not all learning outcomes can be measured
 It fails to recognize that the future cannot be predicted accurately with precision.
 It is difficult and time consuming to construct behavioral objectives. Tyler’s model relies
mainly on behavioral objectives. Huang and Yang (2004)

 It is too restrictive and covers a small range of students’ skills and knowledge.
 The objectives in Tyler’s model comes from three sources (the student, the society and
the subject matter) and all the three sources have to agree on what objectives needs to be
addressed. This is a cumbersome process. Thus, it is difficult to arrive to consensus easily
among the various stakeholders groups.

 It is too student centered and therefore the teachers are not given any opportunity to
manipulate the learning experiences as they see fit to evoke the kind of learning outcome
desired.

To reduce those gaps from the model implemented in my educational setup. I am presenting my
designed eclectic model where student’s learning limitation can remove and it will increase the
opportunity for the teachers’ to influence in learning experiences.
CURRICULUM EVALUATION
 CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Curriculum evaluation operation is divided into two different dimensions. The first is curriculum
analysis whereas the second is the opinions of beneficiary/stakeholders on the curricula.
The analysis of the curricula is split into half in itself as the analysis of the current situation and
previous/new curricula. These analysis continue with the analysis of the five basic dimensions of
the curricula. The second dimension of the model foresees the curriculum evaluation based on
taking the opinions of teacher, principal and employer representative. After the analysis in both
dimensions evaluation results, whether the results about the curriculum is adequate or not is
questioned and the next operation to be done and decided. If the results are sufficient then
practice the curriculum, if not desk based analysis on the dimensions of the curriculum is turned
back.
Here I didn’t include all the stakeholders, because not all the stakeholders could have sufficient
ideas on the basic dimensions of curricula, the views of stakeholders except for teachers,
employer representative and principals were not taken.

References:
Nevriye Yazcayir, Kiymet Selvi (2020). Curriculum evaluation model- KONDEM
Thi Kim Anh Vo (2008). Evaluation models in educational program: Strengths and weaknesses.
Ozudogru,F. (2018). Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language
education.
https://kibogoji.com/2014/04/19/curriculum-evaluation-using-tylers-goal-attainment-model-or-
objectives-centered-model/

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/performance-evaluation-proven/9780787988838/ch008-
sec008.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
330002563_Evaluation_models_in_educational_programs_Strengths_and_weaknesses

file:///C:/Users/ASUS/Downloads/PDF%20(Published%20version)%20(1).pdf
CURRICULUM EVALUATION
CURRICULUM EVALUATION