CURRICULUM PLANNING

Curriculum planning is the process of selecting and organizing the information

and learning experiences that will be offered to the student. Curriculum planning
comes before curriculum development. Curriculum planning, according to Ivowi
(1994), is the same as curriculum development. It involves all stakeholders in the
learners' education and considers everything that would enable curriculum recipients to
function as productive members of society. Different curriculum planning methods
exist, each focusing on the culture of the society for which the curriculum is being
developed. Tyler (1971) and Wheeler (1978) emphasize goal selection as the first step,
whereas Taba (1962) and Nicholls and Nicholls (1978) believe that Situational Analysis
should be the first step in order to understand the people's culture and the available
body of knowledge before moving on to goal selection. Even when choosing objectives,
one of the most important factors to consider is present society, which reflects people's
culture. As a result, every curriculum that is worthwhile must be planned around the
culture of the society that owns the learners (Offorma, 2016).

Henson (2015) suggested that there are 9 curriculum designs which can be
utilized throughout the course of learning. Along with this are the different curriculum
design qualities that should be embodied in each curriculum designs.

Inencode ni mf bea

Meo (2008) have found that given the diversity of high school classrooms and the
mandate that all students achieve appropriate progress in the general education
curriculum, developing curriculum that serves all learners is a challenge. The Center for
Applied Special Technology (CAST; 2004) developed planning for all learners (PAL) as
a response to this difficulty. Creating curricula that takes into account the variety of
today's schools Although the PAL approach can be used in a variety of curriculum
areas, I will use it to enhance the growth of high school students' reading vocabulary
and comprehension in this essay. Reading comprehension is a necessary skill for
academic achievement in all subjects and a substantial issue for many kids, even in high
school. According to the findings of the 2002 National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 26% of 8th grade students in the United States performed below basic reading
ability, and a similar percentage of 12th grade students performed below basic literacy
(U.S. Department of Education, 2003). It is evident that there are far too many pupils,
not just those classified as particular, are struggling readers who are ill-equipped to
deal with various types of content as well as the complexity of the stuff they will
encounter (Snow, 2002). Students must change how they read in order to enhance their
performance, incorporating a new set of reading comprehension abilities and methods
(Taylor, Pearson, Perterson, & Rodriguez 2001; Wilson & Rupley, 1997). Because
comprehension-strategy instruction is frequently lacking in high school courses, this is
very difficult for pupils (Pressley, 1998), Students are required to comprehend and
apply the material they are given to read. High school content educators will continue
to achieve the same outcomes if they continue to assume that their students have the
necessary skills to understand their topic and if they continue to teach content in the
same way with little attention to comprehension-strategy instruction. In our work with
high school teachers, we discovered that using the PAL approach to design a
curriculum based on UDL principles and research-based reading comprehension
methods is helpful in eliminating learning barriers and maximizing all learners'
abilities. The PAL method (see Figure 1) gives teachers concrete steps to employ in
developing curricula that increase learning outcomes for all children. A PAL team is
formed before the real PAL process begins; the teams should comprise regular and
special education instructors, as well as other professionals who focus on the
curriculum as the foundation of instruction. One team member is designated as team
facilitator, and is responsible for organizing regular meetings, checking in with others to
answer to queries, assisting with the PAL process, and determining the agenda.
Throughout the PAL process, each team member draws on his or her educational
talents and experiences to create a curriculum that assures that all students gain
information, skills, and a love of learning. Collaboration is a fundamental component
among the team members, with everyone working on creating a flexible curriculum that
helps all learners in achieving their objectives. The four-step PAL process is based on
the principles and concepts of UDL (Meyer & Rose, 2000; Rose & Meyer, 2002), proven
professional development strategies (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Guskey, 2002), and
effective teaching practices once the PAL team has been identified and a facilitator has
been chosen. The team has access to online materials and templates to assist with the
PAL process; however, once the team is familiar with the our-step process, these
resources may not be required.

Step 1: Determine your objectives.

The PAL team's first task is to set goals that provide adequate challenges for all
children. Although it may seem self-evident, the team must comprehend what they
want all students to learn as well as the components of the goals that must be
maintained for all students. The means of reaching the goal must be kept separate from
the goal itself. The team (a) offers a context for the lesson or unit by offering
background knowledge about the material and topic, or (b) aligns goals with local
content and state standards to ensure that all students have access to high-quality
curricula. The UDL Goal Setter is an online resource that includes a tutorial and a
beginning tool to assist educators in developing clear objectives (CAST, 2007a).

Step 2: Analyze Current Status of Curriculum and Classroom

The PAL team gathers baseline data on current instructional methods,

assessments, and resources, as well as a sense of the heterogeneous makeup of the kids
in the classroom. When planning classes, it is critical that the team not focus on
individual student profiles, but rather recognize that each classroom of children is
unique. Furthermore, this baseline data is required for detecting current curriculum
barriers that prohibit all learners from accessing, participating in, and progressing.
Identifying curricular barriers is an important part of the PAL process since it is the
team's job to decrease and, if feasible, eliminate barriers in the curriculum so that all
students have a chance to achieve the curriculum for general education.

Step 3: Apply UDL to Lesson or Unit Development

The PAL team uses the three fundamental concepts of UDL to lesson or unit
development, armed with clearly defined curriculum goals and a grasp of presently
used methods, assessments, materials, class profile, and potential curriculum
impediments. Using the UDL Solutions Finder as a guide, the team (a) identifies
methods, assessments, and materials that align with UDL principles and lesson goals,
address classroom diversity, and eliminate potential barriers; (b) writes a UDL lesson or
unit plan using the UDL Lesson Planning Form (CAST, 2007f); and (c) collects and
organizes materials that support the UDL lesson in preparation for teaching the lesson.

Step 4: teach the UDL Lesson or Unit

The UDL lesson or unit is taught to the class to complete the PAL procedure. A
team of normal and special education teachers is recommended to teach the lesson. The
UDL lesson is designed to reduce curriculum barriers, recognize the potential that each
student brings to learning, rely on effective teaching approaches, and apply challenges
to each learner properly. The lesson will thus engage more pupils and assist each
student in making progress. If the session was a success for all kids, the team moves on
to the next lesson in the PAL process. If the lesson requires revision, the team uses the
PAL process to revisit the lesson and enhance it to remove barriers and make it
accessible to all students. It's crucial to remember that no single lesson will work for all
pupils, and that "universal" does not imply "one size fits all."

Bringing UDL into the Classroom

 The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) paradigm is used to create flexible
goals, techniques, resources, and evaluations that account for learner diversity. The
PAL process is a set of processes for designing curricula that was designed as an
educator application of UDL (goals, methods, materials, and assessments). The
following composite case story was developed from CAST's work with 12 high school
content teachers and special educators to represent an 18-month professional
development project designed to improve students' understanding of core curriculum
content by combining UDL (Hitchcock et al., 2002; Rose & Meyer, 2002), the PAL
process, and research-based reading comprehension practices (Beck, McKeown, &
Kucan, 2002; Palincsar & Brown, 1986; Pressley, 1998; Snow, 2002; Taylor et al., 2001;
Wilson et al., 1997)

In the book of VanTassel-Baska & Baska (2021) titled Curriculum Planning and
Instructional Design for Gifted Learners said that to achieve goals, the act of planning
necessitates complex mental and behavioral procedures. People make plans to solve
issues, remedy errors, and predict the future. This book will walk instructors through
the process of building gifted curricula and instructional preparation based on existing
standards and differentiating components. Gifted educators must understand the
history of the discipline as well as the context in which gifted programs and curricula
are developed. Schools are arranged to meet the needs of all children, with some
accommodations for students with special needs and curricular changes for brilliant
students through differentiation.

Friedman and Scholnick (2014) suggested that planning involves essential

psychological components, such as representation, sequencing, attention, and self-
regulation, which are moderated by expertise in a knowledge base and motivational
variables, such as values and coping skills. Also affecting planning, according to this
model, are key aspects of the task itself, such as its complexity, coherence, and
familiarity, and whether it can be undertaken individually or in groups. These aspects
of planning are moderated by the environmental context, which determines the
provision of resources, reassurance, and support, and the existing norms affecting
coordination of the plan. For several reasons, this planning model provides a useful
backdrop for educators planning curriculum experiences for gifted learners. First,
Friedman and Scholnick’s (2014) model acknowledges the important role of curriculum
planners and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they must possess. Educators who
engage in curriculum planning for the gifted must demonstrate the following
characteristics, among others:

 knowledge of gifted children, their nature, and their needs;

  knowledge of the planning models to be employed—in this case the Integrated
Curriculum Model (ICM; VanTassel-Baska, 1986) for diferentiation and the
curriculum planning model for organizing the products;
 expertise in written lesson plan and unit development tasks;
 ability to represent concepts and ideas in teaching and learning models;
 strength in sequencing ideas and content for presentation; and
 capability to independently develop, test, and revise curricula.

Not all educators can be effective curriculum developers for gifted learners.
Strong curriculum development and planning requires the attention of individuals with
the knowledge and skills outlined here.

Second, Friedman and Scholnick’s (2014) model highlights the importance of task
analysis as an early step in any planning effort (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015). Assessing
how complex, broad in scope, and familiar the task is and determining the
organizational frameworks required to complete the task are essential elements in
curriculum planning for gifted learners. The scope and complexity of the curriculum
planning task may be determined by the levels of planning that will be involved. For
example, building a K–12 curriculum framework, which involves negotiating the levels
of goals, outcomes, and assessment, is fairly complex in that it cuts across grade levels
and subject areas and requires a strong team approach. Developing a unit of study on
genetics for sixth graders may be conceived as narrower in scope and less complex with
respect to target audience subject matter. In the latter example, coherence in the unit of
study may be better achieved by one curriculum developer rather than several,
although review and revision of any curriculum product is desirable.

Third, a strong planning model recognizes the effect of the environment or

climate of an educational institution on the curriculum planning effort. If the norms of
an institution are for every teacher to develop his or her own curriculum, efforts to
bring coherence to curriculum offerings will meet with resistance. And although the
provision of monetary resources may show support for curriculum work, resources
alone are insufficient for successful curriculum implementation (Henderson & Gornik,
2007). Administrative support also must be present, and a critical mass of the faculty,
judged to be at least one third of the staff, must be willing and capable to support the
effort.
References:

Friedman, S. L. , & Scholnick, E. K. (Eds.). (2014). The developmental psychology of

planning: Why, how, and when do we plan? New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Henson, K. T. (2015). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism,

and education reform. Waveland Press.

Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying universal design for
learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 21-30.

Offorma, G. C. (2016). Integrating Components of Culture in Curriculum

Planning. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 1-8.

VanTassel-Baska, J., & Baska, A. (2021). Curriculum planning & instructional design for
gifted learners. Routledge.
CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

Penuel et. Al (2007) have agreed with researchers who argue that the most robust
inferences about what makes professional development effective must come from
experimental tests of different professional development designs that examine the
impact on student achievement (Borko, 2004; Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003).
However, in addition to research on overall effectiveness of professional development
in promoting student achievement, research is needed on the conditions required for
effective scaling of programs, which requires different research designs and methods in
which the focus is on predicting high-quality curriculum implementation (Means &
Penuel, 2005). Especially important are analytic methods that allow researchers and
educational decision makers to understand how actions at different levels of the system
(e.g., district, school, individual) can influence implementation and scaling processes.
Hierarchical linear models allow researchers to estimate the contribution of particular
predictor variables when students and teachers are nested within particular conditions,
such as different professional development experiences or in different school settings.
Standardized coefficients from these analyses of effects of professional development on
curriculum implementation provide a rough estimate of what kinds of professional
development designs at the provider level and experiences at the teacher level may be
necessary to achieve particular levels of scale with a program. Ideally, there would be
measures at each of the levels required for the study of program implementation. At the
professional-development-provider level, data are needed about the design of the
activities, specifically the extent to which they incorporate the kinds of features that past
studies have identified as potentially effective strategies, such as opportunities for
teachers to spend time planning for classroom integration of materials into their
instruction—what is called “active learning” in the framework of Garet et al. (2001). In
addition, some objective measure of program implementation at the teacher level tied to
a model of implementation fidelity that can serve as an independent source of data on
the effectiveness of professional development would be ideal. Observation data or
automated records that document implementation provide potentially the most reliable
data and could complement self-report data obtained through the kinds of surveys used
in past studies. Survey questions should align as closely as possible with the
implementation models of curricula in order to yield more program-specific
information, as opposed to general information about teacher beliefs, knowledge, or
instructional strategies. Finally, we argue that studies need to be guided by a theoretical
perspective that gives central importance to both learning processes among teachers
and to the particular curricular and school contexts in which professional development
takes place. The theoretical perspective should draw on available research in the
learning sciences about how people learn (National Research Council, 1999), but it
should also draw on studies that examine the conditions under which innovations are
able to succeed at scale (Means & Penuel, 2005). Below, we describe a theoretical
framework that integrates findings from learning sciences research on professional
development with specific findings about conditions required for scaling of educational
innovations, especially in science education.

In Cowie’s et al. (2009) book, new thinking about the intent of the curriculum
was characterized as moving the content focus from what to include the how and why
of learning. In one area school this change was described as a “paradigm shift” in
teachers’ understanding and there was a related shift from teaching contexts to teaching
for the development of big ideas and important concepts. During the Round Two visit,
several primary schools in one cluster described how they have begun to focus on the
essence statements as they plan, rather than the detail of the achievement objectives.
They plan in ways that align these “big ideas” with their vision so that, in the words of
one principal, they “pull out the important bits for us”. A student-centred focus A
second, related, paradigm shift has led many schools and teachers to embrace greater
student ownership of their learning. However, what this actually means can be
interpreted in different ways: As noted in the earlier report, many schools are making
greater use of inquiry learning and independent research. This is further discussed in
the pedagogy section that follows. Some schools have adopted a more explicit focus on
the teacher sharing learning intentions and encouraging personal goal setting, which is
consistent with an assessment-for-learning focus. This appears to be particularly
powerful where it is aligned with other professional learning; for example, via
programmes to strengthen literacy or numeracy teaching. Some schools have
encouraged greater student ownership by including students in consultation processes,
and this is also further discussed shortly.

Challenges, tensions and solutions.

Implementation is not a finite process In the first round of the research there was
a sense that schools were working to develop their understanding of the intent of NZC
in the expectation that this process would reach some sort of conclusion, if not quickly.
In the second round, school leaders said that as they moved to explore, for example,
what constitutes effective pedagogy, they needed to go back and review their vision
and goals because their understanding of the potential scope of these had evolved. Such
insights had led to an acceptance that understanding and implementing the curriculum
might involve an iterative adaptive process, in which deeper understanding of one
aspect raised the need to probe more deeply into other aspects. The process was seen to
be ongoing, and would definitely need to continue beyond the nominated year 2010.
Gaining and maintaining a shared understanding can be challenging

The perceived flexibility to best meet the needs of a school’s own student
community does come at a price. Given the drive for a shared understanding of the
school’s vision and ways of enacting it, staff turnover emerged as an issue for some
schools. For example, one of the low-decile primary schools (new to the study in the
second year) needed to work hard to build a stable staff community before they could
even begin to think about curriculum implementation. With a new leader, and after a
number of years of turmoil and instability, this conducive climate for change took
several years of hard work to achieve. In the newly merged area school, staff turnover
was such that only about five of the original teachers remained in the school several
years later. In this case the newly appointed principal worked towards substantive
changes in teacher practice, aligned to the intent of NZC, and his strongly
communicated expectations and actions contributed to staff turnover in the early stages
of implementation. Staff changes were also an issue in small primary schools, where the
loss of even one or two staff could be significant in this regard.

Meshing the front and back ends is work in progress

During the second round of fieldwork, schools were still in the initial stages of
exploring the linkages between the front and back end of the curriculum. Their
explorations were building on from their perception of a shift in focus from what to
include both why and how, as discussed above. Associated with this new focus, some
teaches raised the challenge of how they might rationalise “content”, given the need to
make space for new types of curriculum goals such as the focus on learning to learn, or
on development of the key competencies. The renewed emphasis on achieving national
standards in literacy and numeracy (which happened after the fieldwork was
completed) is likely to exacerbate the tensions that school leaders face when considering
how to design a school curriculum that judiciously selects amongst the many
achievement objectives across all eight learning areas. The nature and focus of the
revised National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) achievement
standards is also likely to be influential in shaping how secondary schools respond to
this issue. In 2008 we noted a concern that beginning teachers may not have enough
existing curriculum knowledge to link NZC to the more detailed content of the
curriculum documents that preceded it (Hipkins et. al, 2009). This concern was similarly
expressed by some teachers in the second-round schools. They also requested greater
guidance about the relative importance of different areas of content, preferably in the
form of curriculum support documents.

Balancing responding to student interests with covering the curriculum

 Curriculum design that is responsive to students’ perceived needs creates
tensions concerning whether or not curriculum coverage will be achieved when
teachers respond to students’ interests rather than following a fully thought-out plan.
Some schools have addressed this concern by experimenting with retrospective
planning. For example, in one primary school this process resulted in the realisation
that the focus of the just-completed inquiries had mainly been in the social science area.
To address this imbalance, they planned to introduce topics related to the technology
and science learning areas in the next learning cycle.

Maintenance of coherent learning programmes can be a challenge

Teachers who said they valued increased flexibility to meet student needs
nevertheless raised the question of the impact of such responsiveness on the coherence
of students’ learning experiences over the longer term, and subsequently on expected
student understandings and outcomes. The realisation that different students/schools
could experience a curriculum that differs considerably in its details is clearly
challenging. Given the high mobility of New Zealand’s students, there is also concern
that differences between schools will be disruptive to making progress. There was some
indication that primary, intermediate and secondary schools were beginning to explore
the issue of coherence across transitions from one level to the next. A secondary
principal noted that although it had taken some time to establish a working relationship
with contributing schools, the collaboration had confirmed the school is on a track that
aligns with what is happening in the local primary schools. In one instance, all the
schools in the town had come together to discuss student learning pathways from Years
1 to 13. Provision of a coherent learning programme is one of the eight principles of
NZC, although this link was not typically made during the fieldwork conversations.
This is an area where ongoing discussion and support are likely to be needed.

What constitutes an acceptable implementation process?

A number of school leaders were concerned whether their understanding of the

curriculum, and subsequently their actions to implement it, would be seen to be “right”,
for example, when ERO visited. Secondary leaders were also concerned about making
appropriate interpretations in relation to changes in the NCEA subject frameworks and
achievement standards. These concerns raise the question of what constitutes an
acceptable range of responses to, and interpretations of, NZC. Coupled with this,
teachers in the Round Two interviews were querying what learning, achievement and
making progress can look like across the levels, which in turn informs how they might
generate and report evidence of this. Carefully developed and annotated exemplars of
an acceptable range and variety of implementation approaches could help dispel these
anxieties, but endorsing them as falling within an acceptable range would need to be
balanced against the risk that they would then become a sort of de facto curriculum.

What does this look like when it is working well?

The process is working well when all the members of a school community have
productive opportunities to explore the intent of NZC. Recognition that NZC is a tool to
leverage change can be challenging but can also help schools move forward. For
example, one principal noted that the curriculum document was a useful resource for
changing “teacher and community mindsets”. For him, the prominence given to these
themes in a national framework bolstered his own authority to push for a fundamental
rethinking of basic assumptions about the purposes of schooling and the nature of
valued educational outcomes, and how these might be achieved. When the process is
working well, members of the school community share an appreciation that
understanding the curriculum and its implementation is a nonlinear process with no
end point. As they continue to explore the intent and implementation of the curriculum,
they deepen their understanding and enhance previous implementation decisions and
actions as they go. Put another way, schools adopt a constant improvement agenda.
Ways leaders provided for this to happen are further discussed in subsequent themes.
Coherence and alignment are enhanced when clusters of schools within the same
locality work together to discuss the intent of the curriculum and its implications for
practice.

Two distinct research indicated that educator workload had a substantial impact
on curriculum implementation in Hong Kong (Cheung & Wong, 2012) and Korea (Park
& Sung, 2013). Teacher training, according to the same studies, is essential for better
curriculum implementation. Makunja's (2016) study in Tanzania demonstrates the
significance of training, and a comparable difficulty exists in South Africa (Bantwini,
2010). To put it another way, this article acknowledges that curriculum implementation
is a worldwide issue. It aims to go beyond the frequent awareness of educator overload
and the need for training in the global scholarship on curriculum implementation. Its
goal is to motivate educators to come up with innovative solutions to the contextual
and individual obstacles of curriculum implementation.

Molapo & Pilay (2018) found that inadequate instructor training, a scarcity of
resources, and excessive paperwork appear to be the main reasons for the frustration of
curriculum implementation. According to a preliminary examination of the data,
respondents could be separated into two groups: those who were hopeful about
curriculum change and implementation and those who were not. We discovered that
those who were optimistic had a Master's degree and those who were pessimistic had
an Honours degree or a lower qualification when we grouped 'optimistic' and
'pessimistic' respondents. In comparison to the rest of the sample, the two more
qualified and optimistic respondents were also relatively young. It's possible that the
respondents' lack of confidence and feelings of overwhelm as a result of so many
curricular changes in such a short amount of time harmed their capacity to learn
independently, be bold, and test implementation options. They appear to have
delegated responsibility for implementation to the DBE, so abdicating their own
responsibilities.

References:

Cheung ACK & Wong PM 2012. Factors affecting the implementation of curriculum
reform in Hong Kong: Key findings from a large-scale survey study. International
Journal of Educational Management, 26(1):39–54.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211194374

Cowie, B., Hipkins, R., Boyd, S., Bull, A., Keown, P. A., McGee, C., ... & Yates, R. (2009).
Curriculum implementation exploratory studies.

Molapo, M. R., & Pillay, V. (2018). Politicising curriculum implementation: The case of
primary schools. South African journal of education, 38(1), 1-9.

Park M & Sung YK 2013. Teachers’ perceptions of the recent curriculum reforms and
their implementation: What can we learn from the case of Korean elementary teachers?
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1):15–33.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. American educational research journal, 44(4), 921-958.
CURRICULUM EVALUATION

Curriculum evaluation is a systematic and planned process (Kaya, 1997) that

involves providing perception about how to develop the program or practice along
with determining the values or worth of particular products or processes including
learning objectives, documents, or experiences for the purposes of informing decision
making about the curriculum (Klenowski, 2010).

Al-Jardani (2012) have found that in terms of English language education in Oman,
reform initiatives begin with the Ministry of Education, which aims to make reforms through a
new or amended curriculum. Because the ideas underpinning any new textbook or educational
reform program may be unfamiliar to end users (classroom teachers and students), difficulties
can develop if there is a lack of explanation, orientation, or an effective Curriculum Evaluation
process. If this aspect of Curriculum Evaluation is overlooked, the textbook may be abandoned
entirely, or, more likely, a concealed curriculum may emerge, with teaching and learning
continuing as before the innovation was introduced (Kennedy, 1987, pp: 164-165). As a result, a
systematic Curriculum Evaluation is required to assist practitioners in the sector. The Ministry
of Education established a new department, the Department of Curriculum Evaluation, in 2005.
The fundamental goal of having this department is to help build the curriculum based on
Oman's learning objectives, learner types, and society, as well as the needs of the workplace
(The Ministry official website: www.moe.om). As a result, rather than dealing with the
curriculum in ad hoc fashion, a clear and structured method to establishing and reviewing it is
required. Every year, the curriculum section of each subject specifies the grade on which the
Department of Curriculum Evaluation should focus its efforts. The department employs various
curricular departments that cover all topic areas. They also examine the books using monitoring
departments and teachers in schools. Document analysis sheets are primarily used by
educational researchers in the Department of Curriculum Evaluation, Curriculum Officers,
supervisors, and subject teachers. In 2011, for example, the Grade 8 English book was examined
and graded.

Marsh and Willis (2007) stated that evaluation in education is done for a variety
of reasons, including determining a student's deficiency, determining how well they
met their goals, comprehending the effectiveness of the method used, determining how
efficient the programs are, and sharing school practice with society. Erden (1998)
defines curriculum evaluation as the process of gathering data on a program's efficacy
through observation and various instruments, evaluating the data gained by comparing
it to criteria associated with program effectiveness, and making a program choice.
However, without evaluation, it is impossible to determine if the program is effective or
meets the demand (Sanders, & Nafziger, 1976). Curriculum assessment is the only way
to make program decisions and produce program drafts in line with those decisions
(Bilen, 1999). As a result, the program developed as a result of regular analysis and
evaluations must be open to modification and renewal (Erdoan, 2007). A review of the
literature in the subject of curriculum development revealed that many studies on
curriculum evaluation and development have been conducted to the current day.
However, until the 2000s, all evaluation studies were in the form of a pilot study. These
investigations were not accepted as assessment studies since it is impossible to evaluate
all stages of pilot studies (Güven, & leri, 2006). Curriculum development, according to
Demirel (2012), is the sum of dynamic relationships between curriculum objectives,
content, implementation, and evaluation stages. Curriculum development and revision
is strongly linked to judgments made as a result of curriculum evaluation studies, with
required revisions on the components of curriculum. The baselines of the program
stages and development must be revealed in order for a program to be successful. The
final circle of these baselines is created by trying and assessing the programs (Demirel,
2012). Curriculum evaluation is the only way to develop program decisions and drafts
that reflect those decisions (Bilen, 1999). As a result, the program that has been built as a
result of regular analysis and reviews must be flexible and adaptable (Erdoan, 2007).
Many studies on curriculum evaluation and development have been done to the
present day, according to a survey of the literature in the field of curriculum
development. Until the 2000s, however, all evaluation studies were conducted as a pilot
study.

Kurt & Erdoğan (2015) have found that in terms of approach, the curriculum
assessment models employed in studies differ. As a result, using a single curriculum
evaluation approach for all curriculums is impossible. While scholars continue their
research in this field, they can use existing curriculum evaluation models or create a
new model based on current situations (Erden, 1998). Instead of utilizing a curriculum
assessment approach, most research used the perspectives of teachers and students to
evaluate the curriculum. A few studies employed these models to help researchers
conduct systematic evaluations. The fact that researchers are unqualified to decide
whether existing curriculum will be continued or not can be attributed to this
circumstance, because curriculum evaluation methods are designed to make decisions
on future curriculum (Fitzpatrick and others, 2004). This finding is consistent with
Gökmenolu's research (2014). The CIPP model is one of the most widely used program
evaluation frameworks. The program evaluation models are not included in most
studies, with the exception of a few. The CIPP model is one of the most widely used
program evaluation frameworks.

Levine (2002) implied about the approach to curriculum evaluation described

above contrasts starkly with the approach utilized when the curriculum is viewed as a
dynamic activity. In the latter situation, responsive, fourth-generation, and
empowerment approaches influence the evaluation. All are based on the social
constructivist paradigm and participatory inquiry view (Heron, 1996), and imply that
curriculum evaluation is a process of meaning making: "a meaning-making technology
applied to the curriculum, instruction, and learning" (Hill, 1997, in Presno, 1998).
Curriculum evaluation must continually adjust to the unexpected nature and conditions
of the curriculum and its accompanying learning settings, as well as the constant
involvement of many groups in its creation, when the curriculum is viewed as an
evolving process (primarily teachers, students, parents and experts). If we accept the
premise that knowledge is constructed rather than reproduced, and that there are as
many ways to construct knowledge as there are individuals or groups, then our
approach to curriculum evaluation must reflect the diversity of viewpoints and frames
of reference regarding the curriculum. As a result, curriculum evaluation should take
into account both intra-school/classroom and interschool/classroom curricular
realities. Furthermore, if curriculum evaluation is based on the participatory approach,
which asserts that knowledge is constructed collaboratively and influenced by the
individuals and context in which it operates; that it shapes individuals' construction
while also being shaped by them, then the obvious conclusion is that curriculum
evaluation is a joint activity (Stake, 1975, 1980), which can only be comprehended in the
context of the classroom. As a result, it can be envisioned as a shared and practiced
ongoing, contextual process involving all stakeholders involved in studying and
understanding the curriculum evolution process, such as teachers, students, parents,
superintendents, and experts. Curriculum assessment is essentially a communal
activity, in which a diverse, broad-based community of inquirers constructs most of the
core evaluation concerns pertaining to the entire curriculum. In a dialogic process
including all important stakeholders, the pertinent topics are constantly reconsidered
and reexamined (Stake, 1995).

Keating (2014) stated in her book about Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing
that a curriculum analysis is required in addition to the economic feasibility of the
curriculum evaluation to ensure that the proposed distant program is consistent with
the parent program's mission, goals, organizational framework, and student learning
outcomes. Although the curriculum's format and delivery may differ from the original,
it must still match the program's aims and objectives. Administrators and faculty must
make format judgments and have an explanation for why specific formats, such as on-
land satellites, video and/or teleconferencing, and/or web-based platforms, are chosen.
To assure its quality, the new program should be integrated into the parent program's
master evaluation plan. It should also have its own evaluation plan for monitoring the
program as it is implemented for corrections (formative evaluation), as well as
summative evaluation plans that measure the program's success in terms of student
learning outcomes and success, stakeholder satisfaction, and continued congruence
with the parent program's curriculum components.

References:

Al-Jardani, K. S. S. (2012). English language curriculum evaluation in

Oman. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 40.

Keating, S. B. (Ed.). (2014). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing. Springer

Publishing Company.

Kurt, A., & Erdoğan, M. (2015). Content Analysis and Trends of Curriculum Evaluation
Research: 2004-2013. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 40(178).

Levine, T. (2002). Stability and change in curriculum evaluation. Studies in educational

evaluation, 28(1), 1-33.

Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall