Module Assignment: Understanding the Curriculum

“Curriculum evaluation is too important to be left to teachers.” Discuss

Tutor: Dennis Sale

An assignment submitted by Ng Hwee Kiat to the Division of Education The University of Sheffield in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Education (Higher Education) Degree 13 May 1997

“Curriculum evaluation is too important to be left to teachers.” Discuss
Introduction In the past decade, there has been increasing demand for education to be publicly accountable to justify the increasingly tight funding amidst falling confidence in the competency of the educational system (Nixon 1992, pp. 1-22). Developments where graduates have been found to be unsuitable for employment has also contributed to the question of educational accountability. These issues has led to the educational curriculum being questioned. There has been arguments that the traditional autonomy of the teacher/principal in curriculum decision should be removed in lieu of a centrally dictated curriculum, known as the National Curriculum in the UK (Anon 1997). With a centrally dictated curriculum, curriculum development and evaluation would then be shifted from teachers to the central curriculum development body. The argument is that “curriculum evaluation ( and development) is too important to be left to teachers”. I will be exploring this issue in this essay. I will be introducing this essay by defining curriculum evaluation and showing that curriculum evaluation is important as an integral part of curriculum development. The central issues involved in curriculum evaluation and development will then be highlighted in view of the teacher’s role in all these issues. Finally, I will be developing the argument that, of all those involved in curriculum evaluation, the teacher is in the best position to be involved due to his/her strategic position as the curriculum implementor. What is Curriculum Evaluation? What is the curriculum? Curriculum is a set of planned and purposeful learning experiences, based on intended learning outcomes and organized around the developmental levels of students. It can take many forms according to the viewpoints from

2

which it is approached. I will be basing my discussion on the formal curriculum without referring to the informal or hidden curriculum. In my discussion, teachers will include lecturers, instructors, trainers and all other educational practitioners. However, I will also qualify that when I use the term “teachers”, they refer to educational practitioners in the general education system (i.e., Primary and Secondary schools). I will be using the term “lecturers” when they refer to educational practitioners in the specialist education system (i.e., Tertiary Institutions and Vocational Institutions). I will also attempt to relate the aspects of curriculum development to my personal experience in Singapore and Singapore Polytechnic wherever possible. Tyler (1949) quoted in Kelly suggested that the curriculum has to be seen as consisting of four elements: objectives, content, methods and evaluation. He seeks to answer the four fundamental questions in developing any curriculum: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? These four questions can be viewed as the four main elements in the Curriculum Development Process. As can be seen in Tyler’s last question and the model of the Curriculum Development E v a lu a t io n Process, curriculum evaluation is an integral part of curriculum development. Curriculum evaluation is used not only to determine the attainment of the purposes but also “to gauge the value and effectiveness of any particular piece of educational activity - whether a
M e th o d s , O b je c ti v e s , C o n te n ts , Moure own ,pupils” (Kelly national r project or any particular piece of dwork undertaken with a t r i a l s Pu poses K n o w le g e A s s e s s m e n ts

1989, p. 187). Figure 1. Model of the Curriculum Development Process

3

The curriculum development process does not end with curriculum evaluation, although it appears to be so in Tyler’s model of curriculum development. Russel (1984, p. 246) adds that “the process must also involve the examination of criteria, goals, objectives or aspirations, the means by which these are created, the manner in which they are implemented together with the intended and unintended effects of attempting to obtain them”. This means that we should evaluate the method and implementation as well as the effectiveness and the meeting of objectives. Gronlund (1981, pp. 11-12) also noted that evaluation of the curriculum plays an important part in curriculum development. Since curriculum evaluation has such a close relationship with all aspects of curriculum development, I will be expanding the scope of this discussion to include the role of the teacher in the curriculum evaluation as well as in curriculum development process. There are many issues associated with curriculum evaluation. I shall only be discussing the four main relevant issues. These include; 5. determining the purpose of the evaluation, 6. identifying the aspects of the curriculum to be evaluated, 7. matching the evaluation models to the curriculum being evaluated and 8. identifying the appropriate staff for carrying out the evaluation. All these issues will be dealt with in-depth in the following discussion. There are other minor issues such as time of evaluation, reporting format, audience, criteria, etc., which although will affect the evaluation, will not be further discussed here. The Purpose of Curriculum Evaluation To understand the importance of curriculum evaluation, we need to understand the purpose of curriculum evaluation. The purposes of any scheme of evaluation, including curriculum

4

evaluation, will vary according to the purposes, views, conceptions of the persons or persons making the evaluation (Kelly 1989, p. 188). A teacher could use curriculum evaluation to improve his teaching. A school may use curriculum evaluation to appraise the quality of the teaching staff. Principals may use curriculum evaluation to provide information to help them make decisions (Beswick 1990). Governing agencies may use curriculum evaluation for accountability and control purposes. There is no doubt that a pupil or parent would approach curriculum evaluation differently from any of the above groups. Kelly (1989, p. 23) identifies two purposes for curriculum evaluation; 9. To evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum and 10. To evaluate for the accountability of schools and teachers (within the context of a National Curriculum). The first purpose serves to use the evaluation for improving teaching and learning usually by the teacher. The second purpose serves to inform various audiences, usually governing agencies, concerning the programmes of the school. Other legitimate purpose might be to allocate resources or placement (Russel 1984, p. 246). The purposes of the evaluation would also dictate the types of evaluation used. During the early stages of curriculum development, formative evaluation helps the curriculum developer to determine the effectiveness of new procedures and identify areas where revision is needed. When the curriculum has been fully developed, summative evaluation makes it possible to determine the effectiveness in meeting the instructional objectives (Gronlund 1981, pp. 11-12). Tuckman (1985) defines formative evaluation and summative evaluation in instructional program evaluation as follows; "Formative evaluation" is an internal function that feeds results back into the program to improve an existing educational unit; this kind of evaluation

5

is used frequently by teachers and school administrators to compare outcomes with goals. Attainment can be measured and procedures modified over time. "Summative evaluation" exists for the purpose of demonstration and documentation. Various ways of achieving similar goals can be compared. Summative evaluations help school districts analyze their unique characteristics and choose the program that will best achieve their pedagogical goals. An example is the evaluation of the adaptability and success in the work force of students who have emerged from a program. In addition, he also defined a separate type of evaluation for long term evaluation; "Ex post facto evaluation" is a study over time. It attempts to determine if new programs, launched without readily predictable results, are achieving the desired goals. Here the data generated by continuous analysis are compared over time and, when available, compared with data of similar pilot programs. Both longitudinal (comparison of results over time) and cross-sectional (comparison of different student groups) results give evaluators the data to recommend improvement or termination. Both formative and summative evaluations are widely understood and used. The Singapore Polytechnic Education Model (Anon 1993, p. 22) practices both formative and summative evaluations. Curriculum element and related processes are reviewed and evaluated at regular intervals to identify areas for improvement as well as to determine the extent to which aims are being achieved. Aspects of the Curriculum The second issue is that of determining the aspects of the curriculum to be evaluated. This should include teaching methods, learning styles as well as subject matter and content. The teacher is the one using the teaching methods, observing the learning styles and imparting the subject matter to the pupils. In all these aspects of the curriculum, there should be no contention that the most suitable person for this job, outside of the academic researchers, would be the classroom teacher. Curriculum Evaluation Models

6

The third issue in curriculum evaluation is matching the evaluation models to the curriculum being evaluated. The model used in the curriculum evaluation must match the curriculum planning model being evaluated. This is to avoid using the wrong criteria as well as creating meaningless results (Kelly 1989, p. 189). McPherson (1979, p. 21), in his Introduction to Evaluation in Education, listed 3 major types of evaluation models; 1. The Quantitative/Objectives model - advocated by Tyler (1949). This model aims to measure learner’s and instructors’ progress towards pre-specified objectives. This is the most instinctive evaluation model as most evaluation starts with deciding what we want to evaluate (i.e., the objectives or purposes). There is a high dependence on measurement of quantifiable data. The problem here is that objectives would tend to be set in a way that can be easily measured and achieved. Educationally worthwhile but less tangible objectives could be ignored in lieu or more tangible and measurable objectives. 2. Goal Free Evaluation Model - advocated by Scriven (1973). This model aims to assess the effects of the objectives of the program irrespective of whether they are intended or unintended. This model of evaluation does not seem to be complete in itself and needs to be used together with either Objectives Model or Process Model. However, it is useful when we want to evaluate the planning and management performance rather than the success of the implementation. 3. The Qualitative/Humanistic/Process model - advocated by Stake (1978). This model is reflected by the Humanities Curriculum Project (1968-73). It aims to report the different ways in which a program is seen and judged. As far as the pupils or parents are concerned, the curriculum is a continuous story and not a snapshot. The teachers’ view of the curriculum is usually a snapshot and thus will differ from that of the pupils

7

and the parents. The Process Model seeks to report these differing vews of the program thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation. Other researchers such as Nixon (1992, pp. 4-6) viewed evaluation as a continuum, with measurement of quantifiable data at one end and rich descriptions at the other end. This can be viewed as the Objectives Model (quantifiable data) at one end and Process Model (rich descriptions) at the other end. Kelly (1989, p. 189) suggests that the model used in the curriculum evaluation must match the curriculum planning model being evaluated. However, I would like to counter that based on the diverse types of information provided by each model of evaluation, a comprehensive curriculum evaluation should embrace all the three models of evaluation. Each evaluation model would provide its own perspective on the curriculum. As an example, the evaluation of an Objective Based Curriculum Model could require information on the attainment of objectives (Objectives Model), the quality of the planning and management (Goal Free Model), the students or parents perspective (Process Model). Obviously the evaluation model/s to be used would depend greatly on the type of information the evaluator is interested in. Stakeholders in the Curriculum Evaluation Issue The fourth issue deals with the identifying the appropriate personnel for carrying out the curriculum evaluation. Before we start identifying the staff for the evaluation, it would be fruitful to see who or what are the main influences on the curriculum. There can be many influences on the curriculum of which the teacher and the principal may be the most obvious. The 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), reinforces this from the principal's

8

perspective where up to 90% of principals perceived themselves and teachers as having a great deal of influence over the curriculum (Ingersoll, 1995). “... these data clearly show that principals consistently see themselves and teachers as the groups exerting the greatest influence over curriculum decisions ...” Besides teachers and principals, school boards, state (or national) and local government agencies can definitely act to directly influence the curriculum on a higher or more strategic level. Government agencies and industries can be a major contributing factor in curriculum decisions. The case of setting a National Curriculum in many countries such as Singapore, United Kingdom (Anon 1997) shows the political influence of the governing agencies on the curriculum. In Singapore, the Education Minister, together with the Ministry of Education sets out the direction for the national curriculum for all Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges. This curriculum planning is based on the perception that “the school curriculum is a socially constructed response to perceived issues and demands in society” (Lim 1990, p. 79). Curriculum development is carried out by the Curriculum Planning and Development Division with curriculum evaluation being carried out by the National Institute of Education, a teacher training institute. Even in the USA, where there is no National Curriculum, the setting of Educational Standards by the governing agencies indicates their influence on curriculum (Ravitch, 1995). These standards of achievement dictate the educational curriculum, although in a less explicit way. Industry can also influence the curriculum in their favour by offering financial support, sponsorships, scholarships, etc., to schools or courses that meet their needs. In the Singapore Polytechnic (SP), the curriculum is influenced by the students’ occupational needs, industry needs and the community needs. The main influence is from feedback
9

from the sectors of industries served by SP as well as from students, both past and present (Anon 1993, p. 4-6). On top of these direct and political influences, there can be other indirect and non-political influences such as administrative factors, examination system, timetabling constraints, available textbooks (Vann 1994, pp. 20-21), parental involvement and even layout of buildings! An example of direct parental influence on the curriculum can be seen in the case of the William Tyndale Primary School in the United Kingdom in 1976 where parental pressure caused the school’s educational policies to be changed (Ball 1985, pp. 3-4). Not all parental involvement is unwanted as research has shown that parental involvement and student achivevement is stongly linked (Jesse 1996). We need to be judicious in the use of parental feedback as they can be easily biased by public sentiment and they are usually without sound educational basis. Pupils can contribute both positively and negatively to curriculum. They can be positively

E d u c a t io n A u t h o r it ie s A c a d e m ia In d u s try

School B o a rd

P r in c i p a l T e a ch e rs

C u r r ic u lu m
P a re n ts S o c ie t y G o v e rn m e n t R e so u rc e s

P u p il s

R e l ig io n

Figure 2. Influences on the Curriculum

10

Pupils are not the only ones who can subvert the curriculum, disgruntled teachers can practice covert curriculum innovation in resentment or frustration or even as a way of “getting back” at authority (Beynon 1985, p. 160). However, not all curriculum innovations by teachers are bad. Gilroy (1996a) suggests that “unless they are blindly following a pre-determined programme of instruction, any teacher who implements a curriculum is at the same time innovating that curriculum. This is because they implement it in the light of their own professional understanding of the content of that curriculum and also those students they are responsible for teaching”. Looking at all the influences on the curriculum, we can see that the teacher is only one of the many influences on the curriculum. However, as the implementor of the curriculum, the teacher has the last say and can reinforce or nullify “most” of the other influences. Notice that I use the word “most” and not “all” as some influences are inbuilt into the school system and are practically “impossible” to change. Who then should carry out the curriculum evaluation? Principals, senior staff, students, parents, classroom teachers, representatives of outside body (e.g., consultant, advisor) or combination of the above could all be used for carrying out the curriculum evaluation (Russel 1984, pp. 249-250). The choice is a crucial one as I have previously pointed out that the purpose of the evaluation and type of evidence to be gathered are closely related to the staff involved. Nixon (1992, p. 41) poses some questions that relate to the constitution of the evaluation group. • • • Should a member, or members, of the senior management team have automatic membership of the evaluation coordinating group? Should the members of the group be assigned or elected? If the former, by whom? If the latter, should this be on the basis of an open election for which all staff are eligible to stand?

11

Regardless of whether members are to be assigned or elected, should they be drawn from specified constituencies within the community of the school? How should the chairing of the group be determined? Should provision be made for the cooption of members (1) from within the school; and (2) from non-teaching staff? If the principle of cooption is to be adopted, what individuals and groups from outside the school might have useful experience and expertise to draw on? For what length of time should individuals serve as members of the coordinating group?

• • •

The composition of the evaluation group will definitely be determined by the purposes of the evaluation. In the Singapore Polytechnic, curriculum evaluation is carried out as part of the curriculum development process. This is achieved through regular monitoring and periodic review of all on-going courses. Evaluation is carried out all levels with lecturers being involved at various levels; lecturer, module coordinator, course manager, Curriculum Development & Implementation Unit (CDIU), Curriculum Evaluation Unit (CEU), Department Course Management Team (DCMT), Board of Studies (BOS), etc. At the Department level, the DCMT comprises the relevant course managers, the CEU and the CDIU. An academic quality assurance system is in place to ensure that staff/students and industry feedback are accounted for.

12

E v a l u a ti o n
N eeds A n a ly s is

C u r r i c u lu m D e v e l o p m e n t S y s t e m
S p e c if ic a tio n o f A im s S e l e c ti o n & S tr u c t u r i n g D o c u m e n ta t i o n
C u r r i c u lu m

In s tr u c tio n S y s te m
C u r ric u lu m I m p l e m e n t a ti o n

A c tu a l L e a r n in g O u tc o m e s

Body of K n o w le d g e

P la n n in g o f T e a c h in g / L e a r n in g S itu a tio n

a d a p t e d fr o m : T h e S in g a p o r e P o ly t e c h n ic E d u c a t io n M o d e l (A n o n 1 9 9 3 , p p 1 , 7 & 1 5 )

T e a c h in g T e a c h in g K n o w le d g e A c ti v i ti e s

Figure 3. The SP Education Model All lecturing staff will be involved in the Instruction System (see Figure 3) and some may be involved in the Curriculum Development System as part of the DCMT, BOS. As such, the SP Education Model (Anon 1993, p. +18) has this to say of lecturers “In developing and implementing instruction, educators should be innovative. They are at liberty to choose any teaching or learning method that will achieve the desired learning outcomes, but they must take into consideration the requirements of the course, the characteristics and needs of students, and the resource implications.” For tertiary or specialist education, where the knowledge is specialised in nature, the best person to make decisions regarding the curriculum would be the subject domain expert, usually the lecturer. Thus Havelock’s Problem-Solving model of curriculum deployment is more dominant in tertiary education and it is reasonable to expect most tertiary, specialist or vocational education to be using the school based curriculum development model. In the Singapore Polytechnic context, subject coordinators are subject experts who can request for changes in their curriculum area if they deem that the relevance of the subject matter has shifted due to changes in technology.

13

In the school based curriculum development approach (Problem Solving model), there is no doubt that the teacher is in the centre of all curriculum related activity. There is no question of the teacher’s role in both curriculum development and evaluation. For general education, i.e., primary and secondary education, the present trend is towards Schon’s Centre-Periphery approach in curriculum deployment where there is central development of curriculum and planned dissemination. Most countries are adopting a National Curriculum approach where the educational agencies set a uniform curriculum and expected educational outcomes for all schools to follow. While decisions about the contents and approach to learning are best made by professionals in these educational agencies, it is argued that teachers should be trusted to make decisions based on the individual needs in the classroom (Monson 1993, pp. 19-21). The rationale is that the nature of learning requires both the flexibility and responsiveness from the teacher. In the Singapore Polytechnic context, curriculum change reflects a mix of the different models. Strategic aspects of curriculum are dictated by the industry and economic needs through the education authorities and changes implemented through the Centre-Periphery model. At the lecturer’s level curriculum changes are reflected on a subject or course level where the Problem Solving model is applicable. The National Curriculum is a controversial issue in the UK where traditionally the teachers and principals are used to the autonomy and freedom to decide on the curriculum. A centrally dictated curriculum may be disgreeable to those who cannot accept the curriculum. However, it has to be acknowledged that in today’s society, it is necessary to possess a common set of basic knowledge and skills in order to meet the industry or economic needs of the country. Educationally worthwhile curriculum determined by individual teachers or principals may be educationally sound but if it results in students

14

being unemployable in the job market, then it is not viable. Who would then be held accountable for well educated graduates who are not employable in the economy? Even with a National Curriculum, it has been argued that there is still room for the classroom teacher to exercise curriculum decisions, albeit at a “lower” level. The difficulty is then in determining who make what decisions. As a guide, a centrally dictated curriculum should make the following curriculum decisions; 11. What should be learnt? 12. How should it be learnt? 13. How should it be assessed? The individual teacher should then be able to make the following curriculum decisions; 14. Learning strategies 15. Theories and concepts 16. Materials Curriculum evaluation should then be exercised on the curriculum decsions made. The classroom teacher should then perform evaluation on the learning strategies, theories, concepts and materials. This does not mean that teachers should not be involved in curriculum evaluation at the strategic level under a National Curriculum. Curriculum evaluation can be carried out at all levels, from the teacher, department, school or institute right up to national level (Educational agencies). My contention is that regardless of which level curriculum evaluation is being carried out, the teacher has to be involved. As the front-line contact, the teacher is in the best position to know the relevance of the type of information, the best time to conduct the evaluation, the best instrument to be used for the evaluation and of course the best people to be involved. At the “lower” levels, the teacher would be highly involved in the curriculum evaluation process. At the “higher” or more strategic levels, the teacher may be less involved but nevertheless has very useful contributions as stated above (see Figure 4).

15

A im s & O b je c tiv e s N a tio n a l L e v e l
S tra te g ic A im s

C u r r ic u lu m
N a tio n a l C u rric u lu m

W h o 's I n v o l v e d ?
E d u c a tio n A u th o r itie s E d u c a tio n a l A c a d e m ia (T e a c h e rs )

L o c a l/S ta te Level In s titu te /S c h o o l Level D e p a r tm e n t/ C o u rs e L e v e l

L o c a lis e d A im s

L o c a lis e d C u rric u lu m

L o c a l E d u c a ti o n A u th o ritie s (T e a c h e rs )

In s titu ti o n a l A i m s

S c h o o l C u rric u lu m

P rin c ip a l B o a rd o f S tu d ie s T e a c h e rs ' R e p re s e n ta tiv e

C o u rs e O b je c tiv e s

C o u r s e D o c u m e n ts

D e p a rtm e n t H e a d C o u rs e M a n a g e rs T e a c h e rs

S u b je c t L e v e l

S u b je c t O b je c tiv e s

S u b je c t S y lla b u s

S u b je c t E x p e r ts T e a c h e rs

A r e a o f T e a c h e r ' s S e l f D ir e c t i o n

Figure 4. Teachers’ Role in Curriculum Development Conclusion All researchers agree that teachers themselves should be centrally involved in evaluating their own practice (Nixon 1992). Kelly (1989, p. 200), notes that “every teacher is a curriculum developer” and that “the teacher must be involved in evaluating his or her own work, since, without that, it is difficult to know how that work could ever improve” Teachers are at the forward edge in the education battlefield. They should be involved in any curriculum development and evaluation as they can proffer the best feedback and make the best use of any development arising from the curriculum evaluation. In the preceeding discussion, I have emphasised the need for classroom teachers be be involved in curriculum development and evaluation. On the other hand, it may not be in the best interest to society, in economic sense, to leave curriculum evaluation and development to teachers alone. Society’s needs, and in particular industry’s needs, could be sacrificed in the pursuit of educationally worthwhile objectives. This brings out back to the difficult and philosophical question of the aims of education. If we believe that the aim
16

of education is to develop human potential (Wringe 1984, p. 43), then we should leave education to the teachers to pursue educational worthwhile objectives. However, if we believe that the aim of education is to train workers for the economy, which most government of industrialised countries subscribe to, then, it is essential that industrial, governmental and economical needs be communicated to the educational curriculum. Over and above these two extreme views; influences from parents, religions, politics, academia and other factors becomes directly or indirectly involved in the curriculum development and evaluation. These can diminish the teacher’s role in curriculum development or evaluation. Whether the teacher’s role in curriculum evaluation is a minor role or a major influencing role, the classroom teacher should be involved in order for any curriculum evaluation to be relevant and valid. From the discussion, I would like to conclude that the issue should not be “Curriculum evaluation is too important to be left to teacher” but rather “Curriculum evaluation is too important for teachers not to be involved in”.

17

References Anon (1993) The Singapore Polytechnic Education Model, Singapore, Singapore Polytechnic. Anon (1997) The School Curriculum: A Brief Guide, London, Department for Education and Employment. [ONLINE] http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/schurric.htm Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press. Beswick, R. (1990), Evaluating Educational Programs. ERIC Digest Series Number EA 54, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, Oreg. [ONLINE] gopher://vmsgopher.cua.ed:70/00gopher_root_eric_ae%3A%5B_tessay %5Deval.TXT. Beynon, J. (1985) “Institutional Change and Career Histories in a Comprehensive School” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press. Gilroy, P. (1996a) “Implementing the Curriculum”, Module 2, Unit 8, Understanding the Curriculum, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education. Gilroy, P. (1996b) “Evaluating the Curriculum”, Module 2, Unit 9, Understanding the Curriculum, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education. Gronlund, N. E. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching (Fourth Edition), London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. Ingersoll, R. & Rossi, R. (1995) Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals Say? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (National Center For Education Statistics Issue Brief IB-4-95) [ONLINE] gopher://gopher.ed.gov:10000/00/publications/brief/ib4. Jesse, D. (1996) “Increasing Parental Involvement: A Key to Student Achievement”, What’s Noteworthy on Learners, Learning & Schooling, Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL). [ONLINE] http://www.mcrel.org/products/noteworthy/danj.html Kelly, A. V. (1989) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Third Edition, London, Chapman. Lim, S. T. & Gopinathan, S. (1990) “25 Years of Curriculum Planning” in Yip, S. K. & Sim, W. K. (eds)(1990) Evolution of Educational Excellence- 25 Years of Education in the Republic of Singapore, Singapore, Longman. Marjono, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (1996) The Rise and Fall of Standards Based Education, A National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Issues in Brief, Midcontinent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL).

18

[ONLINE] http://www.mcrel.org/prodcuts/nasbe/ McPherson, I. N. (1979) Evaluation in Education, Dundee, Dundee College of Education. Monson, M. P. & Monson, R. J. (1993) “Who Creates Curriculum? New Roles for Teachers”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 19-21. Nelson, J. R. & Lin, F.(1994) “Can Children Design Curriculum?”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 51, February, pp. 71-74. [ONLINE] http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/ENC2397/2397.htm. Nixon, J. (1992) Evaluating the Whole Curriculum, Buckingham, Open University Press. Ravitch, D (1995) National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide, Washington, DC: Brooking Institute (quoted in Marjono 1996). Riseborough, G. F. (1985) “Pupils, Teachers’ Careers and Schooling: An Empirical Study” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, The Falmer Press. Russel, N. (1984) “Teachers as Curriculum Evaluators” in Skilbeck, M. (ed.) (1984) Readings in School-based Curriculum Development, London, Chapman. Scriven, M. (1973) “Goal Free Evaluation” in House, E. R. (ed.) (1973) School Evaluation: The Politics and the Process, Berkeley, McCutchan, quoted in McPherson (1979). Skilbeck, M. (ed.) (1984) Readings in School-based Curriculum Development, London, Chapman. Stake, R. (1978) Evaluating Education Programmes, Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, quoted in McPherson (1979) Tuckman, B. W. (1985) Evaluating Instructional Programs, Second Edition, NJ: Allyn and Bacon, quoted in Beswick (1990). Tyler, R. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, quoted in McPherson (1979). Vann, A. S. (1994) “Curriculum and Textbooks: A Happy Marriage?”, Principal, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 20-21, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Reston, Va. [ONLINE] http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/ENC2410/2410.htm. Wringe, C. A. (1988) Understanding Educational Aims, London, Unwin Hyman.

19

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful