1

CURRICULUM EVALUATION
What is evaluation? Evaluation is the process of collecting data on a programme
to determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt, reject, or
revise the programme. Programmes are evaluated to answer questions and concerns of
various parties. The public want to know whether the curriculum implemented has
achieved its aims and objectives; teachers want to know whether what they are doing in
the classroom is effective; and the developer or planner wants to know how to improve
the curriculum product.
Evaluation is a disciplined inquiry to determine the worth of things. Things
may include programmes, procedures or objects. Generally, research and evaluation are
different even though similar data collection tools may be used. The three dimensions
on which they may differ are:
First, evaluation need not have as its objective the generation of knowledge.
Evaluation is applied while research tends to be basic.
Second, evaluation presumably, produces information that is used to make
decisions or forms the basis of policy. Evaluation yields information that has
immediate use while research need not.
Third, evaluation is a judgement of worth. Evaluation result in value judgements
while research need not and some would say should not.
Formative and Summative Evaluation
As mentioned earlier, evaluation is the process of determining the significance or worth
of programmes or procedures. Scriven (1967) differentiated evaluation as formative
evaluation and summative evaluation. However, they have come to mean different
things to different people, but in this chapter, Scrivens original definition will be used.
Formative 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. Formative evaluation
may include determining who needs the programme (eg. secondary school students),
how great is the need (eg. students need to be taught ICT skills to keep pace with
expansion of technology) and how to meet the need (eg. introduce a subject on ICT
compulsory for all secondary schools students). In education, the aim of formative
evaluation is usually to obtain information to improve a programme.
In formative evaluation, experts would evaluate the match between the
instructional strategies and materials used, and the learning outcomes or what it aims to
achieve. For example, it is possible that in a curriculum plan the learning outcomes and
the learning activities do no match. You want students to develop critical thinking skills
but there are no learning activities which provide opportunities for students to practice
critical thinking. Formative evaluation by experts is useful before full-scale
implementation of the programme. Review by experts of the curriculum plan may
provide useful information for modifying or revising selected strategies.
In formative evaluation learners may be included to review the materials to
determine if they can use the new materials. For example, so they have the relevant
prerequisites and are they motivated to learn. From these formative reviews, problems
may be discovered. For example, in curriculum document may contain spelling errors,

2
confusing sequence of content, inappropriate examples or illustrations. The feedback
obtained could be used to revise and improve instruction or whether or not to adopt the
programme before full implementation.
8.2.2 Summative evaluation
The term summative indicates that data is collected at the end of the
implementation of the curriculum programme. Summative evaluation can occur just
after new course materials have been implemented in full (i.e. evaluate the effectiveness
of the programme), or several months to years after the materials have been
implemented in full. It is important to specify what questions you want answered by the
evaluation and what decisions will be made as a result of the evaluation. You may want
to know if learners achieved the objectives or whether the programme produced the
desired outcomes. For example, the use of a specific simulation software in the teaching
of geography enhanced the decision making skills of learners. These outcomes can be
determined through formal assessment tasks such as marks obtained in tests and
examinations. Also of concern is whether the innovation was cost-effective. Was the
innovation efficient in terms of time to completion? Were there any unexpected
outcomes? Besides, quantitative data to determine how well students met specified
objectives, data could also include qualitative interviews, direct observations, and
document analyses

How should you go about evaluating curriculum? Several experts have

proposed different models describing how and what should be involved in evaluating a
curriculum. Models are useful because they help you define the parameters of an
evaluation, what concepts to study and the procedures to be used to extract important
data. Numerous evaluation models have been proposed but three models are discussed
here.

8.3.1 Context, Input, Process, Product Model (CIPP Model)

8.3 Curriculum Evaluation Models
Daniel L. Stufflebeam (1971), who chaired the Phi Delta Kappa National Study
Committee on Evaluation, introduced a widely cited model of evaluation known as the
CIPP (context, input, process and product) model. The approach when applied to
education aims to determine if a particular educational effort has resulted in a positive
change in school, college, university or training organisation. A major aspect of the
Stufflebeams model is centred on decision making or an act of making up ones mind
about the programme introduced. For evaluations to be done correctly and aid in the
decision making process, curriculum evaluators have to:
first delineate what is to be evaluated and determine what information that has
to be collected (eg. how effective has the new science programme has been in
enhancing the scientific thinking skills of children in the primary grades)
second is to obtain or collect the information using selected techniques and
methods (eg. interview teachers, collect test scores of students);
third is to provide or make available the information (in the form of tables,
graphs) to interested parties. To decide whether to maintain, modify or eliminate

3
the new curriculum or programme, information is obtained by conducting the
following 4 types of evaluation: context, input, process and product.
Stufflebeams model of evaluation relies on both formative and summative evaluation to
determine the overall effectiveness a curriculum programme (see Figure 8.1).
Evaluation is required at all levels of the programme implemented.

Context
Input
Process
+

Product

FORMATIVE

SUMMATIVE

Figure 8.1 Formative and summative evaluation in the CIPP Model

a) Context Evaluation (What needs to be done and in what context)?
This is the most basic kind of evaluation with the purpose of providing a
rationale for the objectives. The evaluator defines the environment in which the
curriculum is implemented which could be a classroom, school or training department.
The evaluator determines needs that were not met and reasons why the needs are not
being met. Also identified are the shortcomings and problems in the organisation under
review (eg. a sizable proportion of students in secondary schools are unable to read at
the desired level, the ratio of students to computers is large, a sizable proportion of
science teachers are not proficient to teach in English). Goals and objectives are
specified on the basis of context evaluation. In other words, the evaluator determines the
background in which the innovations are being implemented.
The techniques of data collection would include observation of conditions in the
school, background statistics of teachers and interviews with players involve in
implementation of the curriculum.
b) Input Evaluation (How should it be done?)
is that evaluation the purpose of which is to provide information for determining
how to utilise resources to achieve objectives of the curriculum. The resources of the
school and various designs for carrying out the curriculum are considered. At this stage
the evaluator decides on procedures to be used. Unfortunately, methods for input
evaluation are lacking in education. The prevalent practices include committee
deliberations, appeal to the professional literature, the employment of consultants and
pilot experimental projects.
c) Process Evaluation (Is it being done?) is the provision of periodic feedback while
the curriculum is being implemented.

4
d) Product Evaluation (Did it succeed?) or outcomes of the initiative. Data is collected
to determine whether the curriculum managed to accomplish it set out achieve (eg. to
what extent students have developed a more positive attitudes towards science). Product
evaluation involves measuring the achievement of objectives, interpreting the data and
providing with information that will enable them to decide whether to continue,
terminate or modify the new curriculum. For example, product evaluation might reveal
that students have become more interested in science and are more positive towards the
subject after introduction of the new science curriculum. Based on this findings the
decision may be made to implement the programme throughout the country.
Context

Input

GOALS

PLANS

CORE
VALUES
OUTCOMES

Product

ACTIONS

Process

Case Study:
Evaluation of a Programme on Technology Integration in Teaching and Learning
in Secondary Schools
The integration of information and communication technology (ICT) in
teaching and learning is growing rapidly in many countries. The use of the internet
and other computer software in teaching science, mathematics and social sciences is
more widespread today. To evaluate the effectiveness of such a programme using the
CIPP model would involve examining the following:
Context: Examine the environment in which technology is used in teaching and
learning
How did the real environment compare to the ideal? (eg. The programme
required five computers in each classroom, but there were only two computer
labs of 40 units each for 1000 students)
What problems are hampering success of technology integration? (eg.
technology breakdowns, not all schools had internet access)
About 50% of teachers do not have basic computer skills

5
Input: Examine what resources are put into technology integration (Identify the
educational strategies most likely to achieve the desired result)
Is the content selected for using technology right?
Have we used the right combination of media? (internet, video-clips, etc)
Process: Assess how well the implementation works (Uncovers implementation
issues)
Did technology integration run smoothly?
Were there technology problems?
Were teachers able to integrate technology in their lessons as planned?
What are the areas of curriculum in which most students experienced
difficulty?
Product: Addresses outcomes of the learning (Gather information on the results of
the educational intervention to interpret its worth and merit)
Did the learners learn using technology? How do you know?
Does technology integration enhance higher order thinking?
8.4.3 Stakes Countenance Model
The model proposed by Robert Stake (1967) suggests three phases of curriculum
evaluation: the antecedent phase, the transaction phase and the outcome phase. The
antecedent phase includes conditions existing prior to instruction that may relate to
outcomes. The transaction phase constitutes the process of instruction while the
outcome phase relates to the effects of the programme. Stake emphasises two
operations; descriptions and judgements. Descriptions are divided according to whether
they refer to what was intended or what actually was observed. Judgements are
separated according to whether they refer to standards used in arriving at the judgements
or to the actual judgements.
INSTRUCTION

Antecedents

Transactions

Outcomes

Communication
flow,
Student
time allocation,
achievement,
sequence
attitudes,
of events,
motorcontext.
social,
skills, climate
effect on te
Student & teacher characteristics, curriculum
content,
instructional
materials,
community

Figure 8.3 Stakes Countenance Model

Phases of Curriculum Evaluation

1. Aspects of the
curriculum to be
evaluated

2. Data Collection

3. Analysis of
Information

4. Reporting of
Information

The evaluator determines what is to be evaluated which may

be the total school system, a particular district, a
particular grade level or a particular subject. The objectives
of the evaluation activity are clearly stated.

Identify the information to be collected and the tools for

collecting the data which may involve interviews, giving of
questionnaires, tests, collection of documents and so forth.
The evaluator also identifies the people from whom data is
to be collected.

The data collected is analysed and presented in the form of

tables and graphs. Statistical tools are often used to compare
significant differences and to establish correlation or
relationship between variables.

Reports are written describing the findings and interpretation

of the data. Based on the findings, conclusion are made on
the effectiveness of curriculum implementation efforts.
Recommendations are made to reconsider certain aspects of
the curriculum.

Instrumentation for Curriculum Evaluation

No matter what evaluation model is used in evaluating a curriculum, the methods of
data collection and the instruments used are more or less similar. The common
instruments used in curriculum evaluation are interviews, observations, tests, survey,
content analysis and portfolios (record of work or products).
8.6.1 Questionnaires and Checklists
When you need to quickly and/or easily get lots of information from people in a
non threatening way, questionnaire and checklist are useful data collection techniques.
Questionnaires and checklists can complete anonymously and relatively inexpensive to
administer. Since data collected is quantitative, it is easy to compare and analyse and
can be administered to many people. Massive amount of data can be obtained. It is also
easy to design as there are many sample questionnaires already in existence. However,
the information obtained may not be accurate as it relies how truthfully subjects respond
to the questions. There is also the fear that the wordings used can bias client's responses.
Questionnaires are impersonal and since only a sample of subjects are given the
instrument, we not get the full story.
8.6.2 Interviews
Interviews are usually one-on-one situations in which an individual asks
questions to which a second individual (which may be a teacher, principal, student,

7
parent) responds. The person asking the questions is called the interviewer while the
person giving answers to the questions is called the interviewee. Interviews are used
when you want to fully understand someone's impressions or experiences, or learn more
about their answers to questionnaires. There are two general types of interviews
depending on the extent to which the responses required are unstructured or structured.
In an unstructured interview, the interviewer does not follow a rigid script and
there is a great deal of flexibility in the responses. For example; Why do you think the
recommended textbook for the course is difficult for low ability learners? The teacher
responding to such a question will give a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons given
may be of a general nature while others may be specific to certain sections of the
textbook. This makes the task of keeping track of responses more difficult. The openendedness of the question will require that the interviewer record all responses and
make sense of it later. The advantage of the unstructured interview is that it allows the
evaluator to gather a variety of information, especially in relation to the interviewees
knowledge, beliefs or feelings toward a particular situation.
In a structured interview, the questions asked usually require very specific
responses. For example, Is the recommended textbook difficult for low ability learners
because: a) there is too much content; b) the language used is beyond the
comprehension of low ability learners, c) or there are too few examples and illustrations.
Regardless of which type of interview is used, evaluators should ensure that each
question is relevant for its intended purpose. In the end, the data must be translated into
a form that can be analysed and this has to be dome carefully to preserve accuracy and
to maintain the sense of the data. The advantage of interviews is that it can get a full
range and depth of information and it develops a relationship with teachers and students
and it is more flexible. However, interview can take much time, can be hard to analyze
and compare, can be costly and interviewer can bias client's responses.
8.6.3 Observations
To gather accurate information about how a program actually operates,
particularly about processes. In other words to view operations of a program as they
are actually occurring. For example, can the people involved adapt to events as they
occur.
8.6.4 Documents
When we want impressions of how a programme operates without interrupting
the programme; we can review the memos, minutes, etc to get a comprehensive and
historical information about the implementation of the programme. However, we
should be quite clear about what looking for as there may be a load of documents.

Method

Overall Purpose

Advantages

-can complete anonymously

-inexpensive to administer
when need to quickly
-easy to compare and
questionnaires,
and/or easily get lots of
analyze
surveys,
information from people in -administer to many people
checklists
a non threatening way
-can get lots of data
-many sample questionnaires
already exist

Challenges
-might not get careful
feedback
-wording can bias client's
responses
-are impersonal
-in surveys, may need
sampling expert
- doesn't get full story

when want to fully

understand someone's
impressions or
experiences, or learn more
about their answers to
questionnaires

interviews

-get full range and depth of

information
-develops relationship with
client
-can be flexible with client

-can take much time

-can be hard to analyze and
compare
-can be costly
-interviewer can bias client's
responses

when want impression of

how program operates
documentation without interrupting the
review
program; is from review of
applications, finances,
memos, minutes, etc.

-get comprehensive and

historical information
-doesn't interrupt program or
client's routine in program
-information already exists
-few biases about
information

-often takes much time

-info may be incomplete
-need to be quite clear about
what looking for
-not flexible means to get
data; data restricted to what
already exists

observation

to gather accurate
information about how a
program actually operates,
particularly about
processes

-view operations of a
program as they are actually
occurring
-can adapt to events as they
occur

-can be difficult to interpret

seen behaviors
-can be complex to
categorize observations
-can influence behaviors of
program participants
-can be expensive

-quickly and reliably get

focus groups

explore a topic in depth

through group discussion,
e.g., about reactions to an
experience or suggestion,
understanding common
complaints, etc.; useful in
evaluation and marketing

-fully depicts client's

case studies

to fully understand or
depict client's experiences
in a program, and conduct
comprehensive
examination through cross
comparison of cases

-can be hard to analyze

common impressions
responses
-can be efficient way to get -need good facilitator for
much range and depth of
safety and closure
information in short time
-difficult to schedule 6-8
- can convey key information people together
about programs
-usually quite time
consuming to collect,
experience in program input, organize and describe
process and results
-represents depth of
-powerful means to portray information, rather than
program to outsiders
breadth

Table Showing A Summary of Data Collection Instruments