Module 8:

CURRICULUM EVALUATION

LEARNING OUTCOMES When you complete this module will be able to: State what is curriculum evaluation List reasons for evaluating the curriculum Explain the characteristics of the CIPP model OVERVIEW Describe the features of Stakes model of curriculum evaluation Explain the characteristics of Eisners model 8.0 Introduction 8.5Connoisseurship Data collection methods 8.1 is curriculum evaluation? 8.5.1 Interviews What Compare the different instruments of data collection
8.2 The CIPP evaluation model 8.3 Application of the CIPP evaluation model 8.3 Stakes evaluation model 8.4 Eisners connoisseurship evaluation model

8.5.2 Observations 8.5.3 Tests 8.5.4 Surveys 8.5.5 Content analysis 8.5.6 Portfolio Discussion Questions Readings Dont Make Physical Education (PE) an Examination Subject
The sporting calendar for Term 1 (January to April) had football, athletics, cross country. Term 2 (May to August) it was athletics and cricket. Term 3 (September to December it was hockey and rugby. As for the court games, they were played all year round. There were inter-house games and if your school had six houses you would play at least five matches for your house. There were inter-school games and the rivalry was very intense. Today, inter-house games are extinct and even if they do have them, it is on a knock-out basis. It is the same for inter-school games. Sporting activities have become a burden to schools. There is little organisation and the faster they are over, the better. The school saves money and teachers have more time for completing the syllabus and revision in preparation for national examinations. - Retired Physical Education Teacher

The Education Ministry has asked ministry officials to look into introducing Physical Education (PE) as an examination subject. I think PE should not be an exam subject. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, PE was never an exam subject and yet the country produced world-class sportsmen and women in badminton, weightlifting, hockey, athletics and other events. People like Jegathesan, Mokhtar Dahari, Tan Aik Huang, Rajamani, Ng Boon Bee, Nurul Huda, Marina Chin, Karu Selvaratnam, Nashtar Singh, Zaiton Sulaiman, Ghani Minhat, Tan Aik Mong, Dhanapal Naidu and many others. We had no sports schools in those days. All schools were sports schools. How did we produce excellent sportsmen and sportswomen? We had supportive parents, interested headmasters, dedicated and committed PE teachers, coaches and disciplined sportsmen and sportswomen.

[Source: Letters to the Editor, New Straits Times, February 1, 2005]

8.0 Introduction 1

In Module 7, we discussed the implementation of the curriculum plan. We looked at why people resist change, the role of teachers, students, administrator and parents in ensuring the successful implementation of change. In this chapter, we will focus on determining whether the curriculum plan implemented has achieved its goals and objectives as planned. In other words, the curriculum has to be evaluated to determine whether all the effort in terms of finance and human resources has been worthwhile. Various stakeholders want to know the extent to which the curriculum has been successfully implemented. The information collected from evaluating a curriculum forms the basis for making judgements about how successfully has the programme achieved its intended outcomes and the worth or value of the programme.

ACTIVITY 8.1 Read the newspaper report at the beginning of the chapter and answer the following questions Do you think physical education be made an examination subject? Do you agree with the writers opinions on the state of sports in schools?

8.1 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. McNeil (1977) states that curriculum evaluation is an attempt to throw light on two questions: Do planned learning opportunities, programmes, courses and activities as developed and organised actually produce desired results? How can the curriculum offerings best be improved? (p.134). Ornstein and Hunkins (1998) define curriculum evaluation as a process or cluster of processes that people perform in order to gather data that will enable them to decide whether to accept, change, or eliminate something- the curriculum in general or an educational textbook in particular (p.320). Worthen and Sanders (1987) define curriculum evaluation as the formal determination of the quality, effectiveness, or value of a programme, product, project, process, objective, or curriculum (p.22-23).

Gay (1985) argues that the aim of curriculum evaluation is to identify its weaknesses and strengths as well as problems encountered in implementation; to improve the curriculum development process; to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum and the returns on finance allocated. Oliva (1988) defined curriculum evaluation as the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives. The primary decision alternatives to consider based upon the evaluation results are: to maintain the curriculum as is; to modify the curriculum; or to eliminate the curriculum.

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. 8.2 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. 8.2.1 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 When the cook tastes the soup, the materials to determine if they thats formative evaluation; can use the new materials. For when the guests taste the soup,
thats formative evaluation. - Robert Stakes

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, 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

SELF-TEST SELF-TEST 8.1 8.1 Identify Identify the the key key words words in in the the five five definitions definitions of of curriculum curriculum evaluation. evaluation. Why do you need to evaluate curriculum? Why do you need to evaluate curriculum? Whats Whats the the difference difference between between formative formative and and summative summative evaluation? evaluation?

How should you go about evaluating curriculum? Several experts have proposed different models describing how and what should be involved in evaluating a 8.3 Curriculum Evaluation Models 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) 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 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. 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

ACTIONS

Product Process

SELF-TEST SELF-TEST 8.2 8.2 What is the difference What is the difference between between context context e evaluation valuation and and input input evaluation evaluation according according to to the the CIPP CIPP model? model? Give Give specific specific examples examples What What is is the the difference difference between between process process evaluation evaluation and and product product evaluation evaluation according according to to the the CIPP CIPP mode? mode? Give Give specific specific examples. examples.

8.4.2 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 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?

ACTIVITY 8.2 With reference to Case Study 8.4.2 Suggest other questions you would ask regarding process evaluation (i.e. implementation issues). What data collection techniques would you recommend for carrying out product evaluation to determine the teaching and learning outcomes of technology integration?

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
Student & teacher characteristics, curriculum content, instructional materials, community context.

Transactions Communication flow, time allocation, sequence of events, social, climate

Outcomes Student achievement, attitudes, motor skills, effect on teachers and institution.

Figure 8.3 Stakes Countenance Model 8.3.2 Eisners Connoisseurship Model Elliot Eisner, a well known art educator argued that learning was too complex to be broken down to a list of objectives and measured quantitatively to determine whether it has taken place. He argued that the teaching of small manageable pieces of information prohibits students from putting the pieces back together and applying them to new situations. As long as we evaluate students based on the small bits of information students we will only learn small bits of information. Eisner contends that evaluation has and will always drive the curriculum. If we want students to be able to solve problems and think critically then we must evaluate problem solving and critical thinking, skills which cannot be learned by rote practice. So, to evaluate a programme we must make an attempt to capture the richness and complexity of classroom events.

He proposed the Connoisseurship Model in which he claimed that a knowledgeable evaluator can determine whether a curriculum programme has been successful, using a combination of skills and experience. The word connoisseurship comes from the Latin word cognoscere, meaning to know. For example, to be a connoisseur of food, paintings or films, you must have knowledge about and experience with different types of food, paintings or films before you are able to criticise. To be a food critic, you must be a connoisseur of different kinds of foods. To be a critic, you must be aware and appreciate the subtle differences in the phenomenon you are examining. In other words, the curriculum evaluator must seek to be an educational critic. When employing the procedure of educational criticism the following questions may be asked: What has happened in the classrooms as a result of implementation of the new curriculum? What are some of the events that took place? (eg. more students are participating in field work, more students are asking questions in class, even academically weak students are talking in group activities) How did students and teachers organise themselves in these events? What were the reactions of participants in these events? (eg. students enjoyed working collaboratively in projects) How can the experiences of learners be made more effective as suggested by students, teachers and administrators? (eg. more resources are needed for fieldwork, more computers are needed to integrate the internet in teaching and learning). You will notice that these questions places more emphasis on the process of learning and the quality of experiences by those involved in the implementation of the curriculum; namely, students, teachers and administrators. According to the Connoisseurship Model, evaluators provide a description and interpretation of the curriculum plan implemented: 1) Description: The evaluator records the actions, the features of the environment and experiences of students, teachers and administrators. People who read the evaluation report will be able to visualise what the place looks like and the processes taking place. The aim here is to help the reader see the school or classroom and get a feel of what the curriculum evaluator or critic is attempting to understand and help others understand. 2) Interpretation: The evaluator explains the meaning of events reported by putting it in its context. For example, why academically weak students were motivated to ask questions; why reading comprehension skills improved; why enthusiasm for doing science experiments increased and so forth. To be able to describe and interpret the implementation of a curriculum the evaluator has to collect data and the following are examples of activities an evaluator may engage in: o The evaluator observes what is going on the classroom and records teachers and students in action using videotapes, audiotapes and photographs.

o The evaluator keeps notes of what is done, what is said and more importantly what is not said. The evaluator should strive to describe the tone of the curriculum in action (Ornstein and Hunkins, 1998). o The evaluator interview students, teachers and administrators about the quality of the curriculum o The evaluator would analysis students work . One of the great benefits of Elliot W. Eisner's activities has been the way in which he has both made the case for a concern with connoisseurship and criticism, and mediated these concerns for educators and researchers. The importance of his advocacy of these ideas cannot be underestimated - especially at a time when rather narrow concerns with instrumental outcomes and an orientation to the technical dominate. Together they offer educators a more helpful and appropriate means to approach evaluation, for example.

Advocating moving beyond technocratic and behaviouristic modes of thinking and for having a concern for 'expressive outcomes'. Calling to attend to fundamentals. Eisner has consistently warned against educational fads and fashion. He has criticized dominant paradigms and invited educators and others to ask questions such as 'what is basic in education?'. Arguing that schools should help children create meaning from experience, and that this requires an education devoted to the senses, to meaning-making and the imagination. Eisner argues for a curriculum that fosters multiple 'literacies' in students (especially by looking to non-verbal modes of learning and expression) and a deepening of the 'artistry' of teachers.

Over the time that Eisner has been writing there have been significant shifts in the context in which schools have to operate. While there have been other voices calling for changes in the culture of schooling (notably Howard Gardner in this arena), the impact of globalization, growing centralization in many schooling systems, reaction against more process-oriented forms of pedagogy, and a growing instrumentalism education have served to make Eisner's message both more pertinent to schools, and more difficult to respond to.

10

The evaluator determines what is to be evaluated which may 8.5 Phases of Curriculum Evaluation

1. Aspects of the curriculum to be evaluated

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.

2. Data Collection

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.

3. Analysis of Information

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.

4. Reporting of Information

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.

8.6 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, 11

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, 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.

12

Method

Overall Purpose

Advantages

Challenges

-might not get careful -can complete anonymously feedback -inexpensive to administer when need to quickly -wording can bias client's questionnaires, -easy to compare and analyze and/or easily get lots of responses surveys, -administer to many people information from people in -are impersonal checklists -can get lots of data a non threatening way -in surveys, may need -many sample questionnaires sampling expert already exist - doesn't get full story when want to fully -get full range and depth of understand someone's information impressions or experiences, -develops relationship with or learn more about their client answers to questionnaires -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

interviews

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

-often takes much time -get comprehensive and -info may be incomplete historical information -need to be quite clear about -doesn't interrupt program or what looking for client's routine in program -not flexible means to get -information already exists data; data restricted to what -few biases about information already exists

observation

-can be difficult to interpret seen behaviors to gather accurate -view operations of a program -can be complex to information about how a as they are actually occurring categorize observations program actually operates, -can adapt to events as they -can influence behaviors of particularly about processes occur program participants -can be expensive 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

-quickly and reliably get

common impressions -can be efficient way to get much range and depth of information in short time - can convey key information about programs

focus groups

-can be hard to analyze responses -need good facilitator for safety and closure -difficult to schedule 6-8 people together -usually quite time consuming to collect, organize and describe -represents depth of information, rather than breadth

case studies

to fully understand or depict client's experiences -fully depicts client's in a program, and conduct experience in program input, comprehensive examination process and results through cross comparison -powerful means to portray program to outsiders of cases

Table Showing A Summary of Data Collection Instruments

13

8.3 Case Study: Evaluation of a Mathematics Curriculum in South Africa Background: Mathematics Learning and Teaching Initiative (MALATI) was commissioned by the Education Initiative of the Open Society Foundation for South Africa in 1996 to develop, pilot and disseminate alternative approaches and tools for teaching and learning mathematics. Method: Based on project workers observation and written field notes made during the implementation of the MALATI curriculum the following findings were obtained: Findings: a. a number of teachers had not yet received the most basic communications issued to schools regarding Curriculum 2005 b. teachers had difficulty interpreting certain aspect of the official curriculum document. Lack of clarity led to confusion c. the curriculum document had content errors d. content knowledge of teachers was not adequate to handle some of the topic in the curriculum such as statistics. e. learners did not have the prior experience assumed in the curriculum eg. in grade 9, the teaching of probability assumes that learner had done some statistics in the earlier grades f. teachers are continuing to teach the topics they are used to and are reluctant to use the MALATI materials g. the curriculum suggested that group work be used in teaching probability and data handling. Learners were not accustomed to group discussion and listening to one another. h. the teaching of the topic took a longer time as teachers struggled to deal with learners everyday experiences in the teaching of probability Recommendations: 1) Teachers need workshops on selected aspects of the content 2) Selected parts of the curriculum documents need to be rewritten to reduce confusion 3) To convince teachers not to treat the teaching of probability and statistics as new content but teach it for its mathematical value
[Source: Karin Brodie and Craig Pournara, 2003. Towards a framework for developing and researching groupwork in mathematics classrooms .http//www.hsrcpress.ac.za.

ACTIVITY 8.2 What are some of the problems identified with the implementation of the MALATI programme? Based on the findings list the recommendations made.

14

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: QUESTIONS:

Identify Identify some some problems problems in in the the implementation implementation of of the the Primary Primary School School Integrated Integrated Curriculum (KBSR) and the Secondary School Integrated Curriculum Curriculum (KBSR) and the Secondary School Integrated Curriculum (KBSM)? (KBSM)? Describe Describe how how the the teaching teaching of of science science and and mathematics mathematics in in English English was was implemented implemented in in your your school? school? New New curriculum curriculum often often fail fail to to become become established established in in schools schools because because the the importance and complexity of the implementation phase is not understood importance and complexity of the implementation phase is not understood Discuss. Discuss.

READINGS

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter. Buffalo: State University of New York Press. o Chapter 1: Patterns of teachers involvement in the curriculum endeavour. o Chapter 3: Teachers concerns about curriculum issues o Chapter 7; Implications for teacher education and staff development [available at eBrary]. Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. Curriculum: Foundations, principle and issues. (1998). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chapter 10: Curriculum implementation. Sowell, E. (2000). Curriculum: An integrative introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chapter 1: Overview of curriculum processes and products.

15