In recent years there has been a move away from conventional models of curriculum 'evaluation. For many years the pattern of curriculum evaluation was dominated by the objectives model which originated with Tyler in 1949 and was later refined by Bloom(1956). A curriculum was assessed
by a set of specified objectives. If the children met the stated objectives then the curriculum could be said to have been successful. This approach is essentially measurement-based. The model has proved to be the most frequently used form of conventional analysis of educational outcomes but has, however, many shortcomings - some of which will emerge as this discussion proceeds.
HamiltonC1976:39)t whose views on curriculum evaluation can be regarded as polemical, characterises the conventional models as having a 'behavioural psychologists psychometric perspective'. In his view (1976:12) 'the most persuasive influence in curriculum evaluation has been based on the theory and methods of mental testing, and "field" experimentation, of the kind predominantly used by agricultural botanists'.
This 'agricultural-botany paradigm' is typical of the earlier forms of curriculum evaluation in which the latter was equated with the administration of standardised tests. Students being evaluated were like plant-crops to be tested; they were
given pre-tests (the seedlings are weighed or measured) and then submitted to different experiences (treatment conditions). Subsequently, after a period of time, their attainment (growth or yield) is measured to indicate the relative efficiency of the methods(fertilizers) used. (Parlett and
Hamilton,1972:3-4)
The results of such testing can be submitted to statistical analyses. All the variables, such as IQ, personality,
attitudes, and so on can be codified and processed to give an indication of the success rate of the curricula.
In the 1970s in Great Britain a reaction to the traditional approaches to evaluation set in. As Stenhouse(1975:109) puts it these ’conventional objective-type evaluations do not address themselves to understanding the educational process'. Among the key critics of the traditional methods were Parlett and Hamilton who published Evaluation as Illumination in 1972. A conference also was held in 1972 on curriculum evaluation at Cambridge. Stenhouse(1975:115) provides the official statement from this conference which represents the position of the 'new wave' evaluators. Part of this statement refers to the inadequacies of past efforts at curriculum evaluation because there was
a. an under-attention to educational processes including those of the learning milieu;
b. an over-attention to psychometrically measurable changes in students behaviour (that to an extent represent the outcomes of the practice, but which are a misleading over-simplification of the complex changes that occur in students); and
c. the existence of an educational research climate that rewards accuracy of measurement and generality of theory but overlooks both mismatch between school problems and research issues and tolerates ineffective communication between researchers and those outside the research community. (Stenhouse,1975:115)
The 'new wave' evaluators are not only concerned with educational processes rather than with measurable outcomes but they are also interested in explaining the dynamics of
these processes. Hamilton( 1976: 39) refers to three main I
streams of the alternative models: they are the ’illuminative' as represented by Parlett and Hamilton, the 'responsive' as represented by Stake and the 'holistic' nepresented by MacDonald. StenhouseC1975:109) indicates an additional one - the 'transactional' associated with Rippey and others. In general these alternative models have bornowed from the anthropological and sociological research paradigms. In particular they are characterised by an adherence to the ethnographic approach or at a more general
a*
level to doing case studies which employ some methodologies commonly used by anthropologists and
sociologists.
Two basic concepts are central to curriculum evaluation in terms of the Parlett-Hamilton 'illuminative' model: the 'instructional system' and the 'learning milieu' (Stenhouse,1975:113). Parlett and HamiltonC1972:10-12) refer to the 'instructional system' as the bluepnint or the abstract model. When this is put into the classroom it interacts with the 'learning milieu', that is, 'the social-psychological and material environment in which
1. Only passing reference is made to these alternative models of curriculum evaluation for it is felt that further elaboration of them would be inappropriate for this thesis.
2. 'Case study' according to Adelman, Jenkins and Kemmis (1976:140) 'is an umbrella term for a family of research methods having in common the decision to focus an enquiry around an instance'.
students and teachers work together’ .
Parlett and Hamilton’s methodological approach relies
heavily or anthropology. Their approach to curriculum
evaluation does rot isolate the curriculum or measure its
educational merits as a more conventional approach would.
The model examines a curriculum in the context of the whole
school and its cultural environment - their methods
including ’observation, interviews with participants
(students, administrators and others), questionnaires, and
analysis of documents and background information...'(Parlett
and Hamilton,1972:1). They say (1972:16)
the researcher is concerned to familiarize
himself thoroughly with the day-to-day
reality of the setting or settings he is
studying. In this he is similar to social
anthropologists or to natural historians.
Like them he makes no attempt to manipulate,
control, or eliminate situational variables,
but takes as given the complex scene he
encounters. His chief task is to unravel it;
isolate its significant features; delineate
cycles of cause and effect; and comprehend
nelationships between beliefs and practices,
and between organizational patterns and the
responses of individuals.
Such a perspective enables the researcher to stand back from
the situation and to examine the significance of the issues.
Customs in the classroom which are normally taken for
granted are looked at, isolated and analysed. As
Hamilton(1976:44) says 'the concept of culture draws
attention to those patterned elements of the situation -
norms, standards, expectations and beliefs which influence
which are rarely made explicit’.
In the British evaluation scene the approach of Parlett and Hamilton was developed further by other evaluators interested in the case study approach.
A second conference as held in 1975 at Cambridge on the use of case study in education research and evaluation. Adelman, Jenkins and KemmisC1976:140) discuss a number of concerns which arose out of this conference, some of which 'reflect the underlying logic of the evolving case study paradigm' and others which reflect some of the more immediate problems. KemmisC1977:1-34) furthers the discussion of case study and writes about the problems of justification and tries to present it as a scientific enterprise.
One turns now to the more specific method - that of ethnography. WillisC1977:3) found the ethnographic method most suitable for researching things cultural for the techniques
have a sensitivity to meanings and values as well as an ability to represent and interpret symbolic articulation, practices and forms of cultural production. In particular the ethnographic account, without always knowing how, can allow a degree of the activity, creativity and human agency within the object of study to come through into the analysis and the reader's experience.
The desirable feature of the ethnographic method for curriculum evaluation is that it brings the researcher into intimate contact with the daily actualities of the school
and classroom. Wax(1978:2) sees this as advantageous for
policy making in the present as well as for the historical
comprehension of the past. Time is the essence when doing
ethnography; over time the ethnographer becomes aware of
the subtleties of a situation and is permitted to focus on
real behaviours and situations which may affect the
curriculum process.
It is possible when using the ethnographic approach to
curriculum evaluation to identify the conceptual frameworks
within which the participants operate and to discover how in
fact they experience the curriculum. If methodological
rigour is applied the research car aim at suspending
personal bias in an effort to understand the daily life of
the school or the classroom as its members do, and in this
way a picture may emerge that represents the 'insiders'
experience(Wilson,1977:201).
Another feature that Wilson(1977:210) admires is the
oper-erdedness of the approach and its flexibility. This
together with the above characteristics will be more fully
described in Chapter 3 or methodology. Unlike the
traditional approaches to curriculum evaluation and indeed
educational research in general, the research plan does rot
have to be fully determined and de-lirpited ahead of time.
This flexibility in research design allows for unanticipated
concepts and theory to emerge during the course of the
5. TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CURRICULUM