Curriculum evaluation frameworks

In this study, curriculum is defined as

An attempt to communicate the essential principles and features of an educational proposal in such a form that it is open to critical scrutiny and capable of effective translation into practice (Stenhouse 1976, p.4).

Stenhouse’s definition suggests that a curriculum has three components: a written document following piloting and development, wide implementation in schools, and

formal evaluation about whether it has been effective. Evaluation is inbuilt into the definition of curriculum, and it follows that adjudicating worth or attributing value to a curriculum ordinarily/customary follows implementation with the view to diagnosing needs, identifying problems and improvement of the implementation.

The term ‘evaluation’ has proved to be difficult to define. Although evaluators have attempted to provide definitions of the term, their definitions have however tended to emphasize their theoretical and practical inclinations. Definitions of evaluation differ in level of abstraction and often reflect the specific concerns of the people who formulate them. Nevertheless, definitions are provided for convenience; to guide an evaluation process at a particular moment. It is for this reason that I examine some definitions of curriculum evaluation with the aim of defining the scope of my study.

Evaluation is defined as ‘the collection and use of information to make decisions about an educational programme’ by Cronbach (1963). He was advocating an action-oriented evaluation where data from various sources of the educational programme were to be used for decision-making. But he did not say who should make the decisions. It appears, however, that Cronbach’s major question was not who the decision-makers are, but what are the types of decisions for which evaluation data is being collected?

Following Cronbach’s action-oriented approach, MacDonald and Walker (1976), define evaluation in terms of the role an evaluator should play in evaluating an educational programme. They argue that the role of an evaluator should include the identification of those who will have to make judgments and decisions about the programme. The evaluator’s role, they say, would be to place before decision makers those facts of the case which are recognised by them as relevant to their concern. With this view, MacDonald and Walker define evaluation as

…the process of conceiving, obtaining and communicating information for guidance of educational decision making with regards to a specific programme (p.1-2).

This study intends to subscribe to Cronbach’s and MacDonald and Walker’s interpretations of evaluation in that the evaluation findings of this study about how teachers teach Expressive Arts learning area will be made available to the developers of the curriculum for subsequent action and other education stakeholders for information. Expert advice will also be provided to the Malawi Institute of Education, the national curriculum development centre and the Ministry of Education for subsequent curriculum and assessment projects.

Other definitions of evaluation range from those given by Hamilton (1976), Adelman and Alexander (1982), Worthen and Sanders (1987), to some of the most recent ones such as that given by Rogers and Badham (1992). I will consider each of these scholar’s definitions in turn, and where possible discuss how this study subscribes to these definitions.

One definition of curriculum evaluation reads

It is the process or processes used to weigh relative merits of those educational alternatives which, at any given times, are deemed to fall within the domain of curriculum practice (Hamilton, 1976, p.4).

Another definition of curriculum evaluation is that it is the making of judgment about the worth and effectiveness of educational intentions, processes and outcomes, about the relationships between these, and about the resource planning and implementation frameworks for such ventures (Adelman and Alexander, 1982). In this definition, there are a number of dimensions of evaluation. First, by making judgment implies that

evaluators are engaged in forming opinions about something based on available information. Second, the opinion is formed about the value of something. Third, educational evaluation is concerned with education aims, activities and experiences and the products. Fourth, evaluators have to compare and contrast the aims, processes and outcomes including the management of the whole programme. This study intends to subscribe to Adelman and Alexander (1982) interpretations of evaluation in that the evaluation of Expressive Arts will involve comparing the aims of the Expressive Arts learning area and the processes and the outcomes (how the programme is working out) on the ground.

Another definition says that curriculum evaluation is ‘the process of systematically collecting and analysing information in order to form value judgements based on firm evidence’ (Rogers and Badham, 1992, p.3). From this definition, four characteristics of evaluation can be drawn as follows; first, evaluation is based on systematic procedures that help to obtain precise information. Second, evaluation relies on interpretation of evidence, which is critical to validating the information. Third, judgment of value is another key element of evaluation that takes evaluation beyond the level of mere description of what is happening. Fourth, evaluation is more than a collection of information. It is conducted with the view of taking action.

Yet another definition is that curriculum evaluation

Is the act of rendering judgment to determine value, worth and merit – without questioning or diminishing the important role it plays in decision-making and political activities (Worthen and Sanders, 1987, p.24).

This indicates that curriculum evaluation is about adjudication of worth. It deals with making judgments in order to give value to a curriculum. Broadly speaking, adjudication

of the worth refers to judgments made by an evaluator about the success or failure of a curriculum. This might include adjudications on whether a curriculum is implemented as intended in terms of the principles informing it, or about relative merit of a curriculum, or to improve a curriculum for its goodness between the statements of content to be learnt and its actual accomplishment.

The fact that evaluators cannot agree on the precise meaning of the term “evaluation” demonstrates that the term itself can be used in a variety of ways. This difficulty was evident during the Churchill Conference of Evaluators (1972) at which evaluators from United States, Sweden and Britain met at Churchill College, Cambridge and produced a manifesto which Stenhouse (1976) suggested marked a new wave of evaluation and evaluators. However, there was no absolute consensus on some of the issues pertaining to the definition of evaluation and what it entails (Nyirenda, 1993).

Curriculum evaluation can be done through various qualitative approaches. The qualitative approaches to evaluation emphasize understanding the object of investigation, a curriculum for example from ‘emic’ or ‘insider’ perspective as opposed to ‘etic’ or evaluator’s perspective. To elicit informants’ views about the object of investigation, evaluators spend extended periods of time on site to investigate issues in some depth describing what actually happens in sites with the evaluator’s voice being one of many, not sole or dominant in evaluation. The evaluator brokers multiple views of informants about the object of evaluation to contribute to decision-making (Basson, 2006). Qualitative approaches to evaluation thus differ from quantitative evaluation in that qualitative approaches seek in-depth description of the programme using human and cultural evidence, rather than scientific evidence. These qualitative approaches to curriculum evaluation are discussed next.