Alternative Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation
A curriculum involves a set of events designed to have an educational consequence. A subject matter such as history or art is not a curriculum. Subject matters have to be changed into educational events in order to count as curriculum (Claus, and Pia, 2008). A curriculum is essentially as a series of educationally beneficial activities, which happen in the classroom. The resultant consequences of a curriculum can be wider than what was originally intended by its developers. Evaluation should use instruments that measure both the ancillary and intended outcomes. Educators understand that a gap often exits between the intention of a curriculum and its actualization. What is planned may not play out in the classroom s intended. What teachers do with the materials they receive, how they interpret it and present it in class largely determine the educational experience of the students (Claus, and Pia, 2008).
Curriculum development requires sources in order to successfully take place. Tyler’s rationale recognizes three main data sources. These are society, students and the subject matter. Traditional curriculum development recognizes the importance of these sources; however, they fail in using all of them appropriately in the process (Frey, and Whitehead, 2009). To develop a comprehensive curriculum, all three sources must be utilized. Current practice focus almost exclusively uses subject matter as the main data source. This has led to the emergence of a measured curriculum which is dominant over other alternative conceptions and designs. The measured curriculum looks at behavioral objectives, timed tasks, sequential learning, and positive reinforcement (Frey, and Whitehead, 2009). Other measured aspects are mastery of skills, achievement testing, direct instruction and content.
Apart from the technological process, Siraj (2011) identifies other concepts of curriculum development. These are cognitive processes, social reconstruction, self actualization and academic rationalism. These four conceptualizations propose an alternative approach that the technical process does not focus on. Cognitive processes and academic rationalism are usually planned and carried out using technological processes and through a subject matter design. On the other hand, self actualization and social reconstruction use different curriculum designs, concepts and designs in planning and implementation.
Academic rationalism advocates a curriculum based on a storehouse of knowledge, which has enabled civilization. The storehouse is organized subject matter presented as various academic disciplines. The subject focused curriculum design and technological process of curriculum development are compatible with this conception. Cognitive processes and a concept in curriculum conception not tied down to any particular subject matter. The content is generalized form one subject area to another. The process to be learnt is of more importance than the content to be learnt.
Social reconstruction looks to society for the content of the curriculum. They believe that students should learn about the problems and dilemmas of society and possible solutions in order to become more equitable and humane in society. Ideally, the students should go out to the community to get original sources as opposed to reading textbooks and other social material. Students tackle real problems and become meaningfully involved in their society. Testing as a form of evaluation is not applicable because students do not necessarily study the same thing. Other forms of testing emphasizing on process other content have to be used. While in the social construction the students are involved in curriculum development, self-actualization makes the student the subject of the curriculum. The curriculum evolves as students and their teachers explore various subjects of interest. Growth and learning are viewed as a process of self actualization. Content is only as valuable as it is relevant and meaningful to the individual student. Student interaction is maximized; the traditional classroom is converted into an enriched and stimulating environment.
After a curriculum has been developed, it is vital that it is regularly evaluated to find out its effectiveness. Curriculum evaluation is done to examine factors such as student satisfaction with the current curriculum, student achievement of the goals set in the curriculum and its adaptability to current student changes. The evaluation also examines the expectations of educational professionals and any other changes in staff, time and resources which require a new curriculum. Evaluation as discussed earlier is done to check whether the curriculum in use is effective, accurate, comprehensive, deep, timely and or of the required quality standards.
A curriculum can be evaluated by the results and goals it aims to achieve. Aspects such as its ability to enhance the learning, reasoning and thinking can be measured to find its effectiveness. In the mid 1980’s the United States through the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics came up with a set of standards for students in elementary to secondary schools (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005). The standards defined expectations of each level of learning and what the students were expected to have learnt at the end of each level. Elementary level required number sense and numeration, concept of whole numbers, geometry patterns and relationships among others. Middle level standards were number relationships, number systems algebra, probability and statistics. At the secondary level the students were expected to learn and understand algebraic perspectives, functions, trigonometry, discrete mathematics and conceptual underpinnings. To properly evaluate any curriculum, the program design has to be well articulated, research design properly designed and methodology to be used to come up with accurate results clearly identified.
Evaluation of the curriculum begins with the specification and articulation of evaluation problems and issues in order to elaborate the mechanisms to be considered in the evaluation process. The evaluator then concentrates on the different principles involved and adopts a point of view for the different curriculum programs. Student participation and contribution in class is evaluated. Their problem solving strategies are carefully observed and recorded. This information will be used in examining student progress and their mastery of all the topics, subjects and issues covered in the curriculum. The curriculum used should be clearly articulated and defined. This will enable careful analysis and evaluation of the projected results compared to the real results.
Multiple methodologies can be used to analyze the curriculum evaluated. The three methodologies often used are case studies, content analysis, and comparative studies (Michael, and Connie, 2007). Content analysis evaluates the content of the curriculum. Curricula developed using cognitive processes and academic rationalization can be evaluated using this method. Comparisons are done with other curricula and its needs examined for alignment with the content goals and objectives. The material is examined for its ability to create a sense of purpose and its ability to promote student thinking and engagement. Emerging evaluation standards that examined the expectations and ways of achieving these standards were developed across several states. The Standards for School Mathematics required consistency in student outcomes, teaching standards and mathematical content (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005). The standards clearly defined the purpose, the responsible, and units of assessment, type of assessment and the method to be used in the assessment.
Comparative study identifies relevant variables that are applicable in the evaluation of several curriculums. The study compares two or more programs and identifies the one which has been proper implemented. In the example given above, variances were found in different states. In Arizona, Colorado and Maryland, variances were found in the grade level mathematics learning and expectations (GLEs). Each of the state work within the framework given by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) however, their adaptation and flow of work varied form one state to the next (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005). The states also had varying levels of complexity with regard to standard statements. Language, verbs and specificity varied among the three states. Among all 42 states, there was a considerable variation in the grade at which a learning expectation is first introduced (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005). The students also mastered the content of what that they were to learn at different levels of study.
Finally yet indispensable, the case study method is another key alternative approach that can be used in curriculum evaluation. Case study relies on data collected from classroom observations, interviews and discussions with the participants of the programs (Siraj, 2011). The complex factors that influence of affect the implementation of the curriculum have to be analyzed in detail. This method can be used in analyzing curricula that used social reconstruction and self actualization conceptualization. The evaluator must be able to comprehend the thought process that the curricula developers used. He/ she should understand the goals and objectives set out for the curriculum, and compare it independently with what it was able to achieve (Siraj, 2011). Time is a significant factor in the evaluation. The evaluator must look at the time required for the proper implementation of a curriculum in relation to the time available.
Curriculum evaluation is an exercise that requires careful examination of the curriculum to be evaluated form its inception to its execution. Focus is now moving more towards concepts and systems that give consideration to the human and societal component of study as opposed to traditional subject matters. Alternative evaluation has to take a proactive human approach as opposed to the generic research methodologies traditionally employed.
References
Claus N, and Pia B., (2008) "Learning-centered public management education,”
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21 (4),
pp.400 – 416
Frey, C. and Whitehead, D., M. (2009). “International Education Policies and the
boundaries of global citizenship in the US.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41 (2),
p 269-290
Michael K. O. and Connie J. O. (2007). "Selection or censorship: libraries and the
intelligent design debate", Library Review, 56 (3), pp.200–207
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., and McKnight, C. C. (2005). “Curriculum Coherence: An
Examination of US Mathematics and Science Content Standards from an
International Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum Studies. 37 (5), 525-559
Siraj, S. (2011). “Development of Future Curriculum via Future Studies.” US-China
Education Review B. 2b, p 226-236
