By: Arriane T.

Sarmiento
Trends in Curriculum Evaluation
Process or transactional evaluation can
aid ongoing innovative programs. It
focuses on the individuals in a changed
situation by analyzing the organizational
disruption that results from innovations.
Likewise the politics of the curricular
setting are a crucial consideration.
While an evaluator should stay away from
involvement in political causes, he should
be sensitive to such realities as the use of
evaluation as tactical weapon,
unacknowledged political goals, and
effects on participants.

Worner (1972) argues that many
principals have failed to convince parents
and boards of the potential of an
instructional program because of vague
and imprecise evaluation data.
Planning-Programming-Budgeting
Systems
provide the type of data that help
principals in making difficult decisions on
program expansion, program elimination,
and program maintainance.


This approach enhances the knowledge
of key school administrators about the
effectiveness of instructional programs
by identifying program strengths, flaws,
and alternatives.

A speech prepared by:
Rush and other (1972)
reports a systematic attempt to train and
use classroom teachers and
administrators in the operation of a
curriculum evaluation model.
The data indicate that competent
professionals can indeed be trained to play an
effective role. In turn, their training can be
used as an in service component of an overall
evaluation. This professional group can then
deal with final evaluation reports.

An expected oppurtunity loss
model is advanced by Tanner (1970) as a
decision-making technique. The model
formulates alternatives for decision-
making under uncertanity and weighs
the probable or possible oppurtunity
loss. It subjectively ranks coursed
according to their expected contributions
to the primary objective of the total
program.
Objective data are gained from component
costs, but less emphasis is placed on
these components than in traditional
cost-effectiveness models. The minimum
loss is evaluated as the optimum
decision.

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.

A major aspect of the Stufflebeams model is
centred on decision making or an act of
making up ones mind about the programme
introduced.


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.

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.
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.

Thank You and
Godbless You!