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

2
developmental levels of students. It can take many forms according to the viewpoints

from 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.

3
 Evaluation

Methods,
Objectives, Contents,
Materials,
Purposes Knowledge
Assessments

Figure 1. Model of the Curriculum Development Process

As can be seen in Tyler’s last question and the model of the Curriculum Development

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

national project or any particular piece of work undertaken with our own pupils” (Kelly

1989, p. 187).

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.

4
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.

School
Education
Board
Authorities Principal
Teachers
Academia

Industry Curriculum Pupils

Religion Parents
Society Resources
Government

Figure 2. Influences on the Curriculum

Pupils can contribute both positively and negatively to curriculum. They can be positively

involved in curriculum design (Nelson 1994, pp. 71-74) as a facilitator led activity. On

the negative side, Riseborough (1985) argued that pupils can subvert the official

curriculum by “withdrawal of learning” (p. 210) as well as proffering a hidden counter-

curriculum to their teachers (p. 212).

“Thus the lesson does not simply belong to the teacher, children can and do
make it their own. They put so much on the agenda of the lesson, to a
point where, they are the curriculum decision makers.” (p. 214)

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

5
 “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?

 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?

6
  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.

7
 Evaluation
Needs
Analysis

Curriculum Development System Instruction System Actu al

Learning
Specification Selection & Curriculum Outc omes
Documentation Curric ulum
of Aims Structuring Implementation

Planning of
Body of Teaching/
Knowledge Learning
Situation

Teaching Teaching
Knowledge Activities
adapted from:The Singapore Polytechnic Education Model
(Anon 1993, pp 1, 7 & 15)

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.

8
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

9
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;

1. What should be learnt?

2. How should it be learnt?
3. How should it be assessed?

The individual teacher should then be able to make the following curriculum decisions;

1. Learning strategies
2. Theories and concepts
3. 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).

10
 Aims & Objectives Curriculum Who's Involved?
Education Authorities
National Level Strategic Aims National Curriculum Educational Academia
(Teachers)

Local/State Localised Aims Localised Curriculum

Local Education
Authorities
Level (Teachers)

Institute/School Institutional Aims School Curriculum

Principal
Board of Studies
Level Teachers' Representative

Department/ Course Objectives Course Documents

Department Head
Course Managers
Course Level Teachers

Subject Experts
Subject Level Subject Objectives Subject Syllabus
Teachers

Area of Teacher's Self Direction

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

11
the difficult and philosophical question of the aims of education. If we believe that the

aim 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”.

12
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.

13
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, Mid-
continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL).
[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.

14