Wood’s Curriculum Evaluation Models and The One I See Within My Learning Community As Being Legitimate

 

Wood’s Curriculum Evaluation Models and The One I See Within My Learning Community As Being Legitimate

Author: Santosh Kumar Biswa, Sr. Teacher, Damphu CS, Tsirang, Bhutan

 

Curriculum evaluation means trying to find out whether or not the curriculum is accomplishing the very objectives or finding out the learning outcome (DiFlorio, Duncan, & Martin, 2016). In other words, it is to find out whether the particular curriculum is producing the result that was expected when designed through the proper process. During the process, data are collected through different means for analysis to determine the validity of the curriculum for further decision-making based on the findings and to come up with necessary changes if required (IPL, n.d.). It is through curriculum evaluation that any evaluator gets a successful structure for an effective evaluation process (Wood, 1988). Wood (1988), in his journal, “Curriculum Evaluation Models,” interpreted three models of curriculum evaluation such as Davis’ Process Model, Stake's Countenance Model, and Eisner's Connoisseurship Model.

Davis’ Process Model

In the words of Arthurs (1968), he stated that it is an alternative approach to streamline the curriculum process. In this model, Wood submitted that it is an initial, delineating sub-process. It means there is no study about specific curricula or the learners can derive the entire scenario but distinguished should be made based on the observation in line with that of standards and findings (Wood, 1988). It is just a simple overview that simply asks who is to be evaluated and what to find out from them.

Stake's Countenance Model

This model is already infused into Davis’ Process Model as the rationale of Stake’s presage factors is subsumed as Davis’ part of delineating sub-process (Perumal & Saravanakumar, 2018). His model can be described well as the responsive model because the positive about Stake's Countenance Model is that the intents and the type of actions to evaluate are distinguished through observation in line with the standards and findings (Wood, 1988). The descriptions are usually done in the form of antecedents, transactions, and outcomes of the students. Stake suggested that any data that are collected are to be used to determine any discrepancies between intents and action, and standards and findings.

Eisner's Connoisseurship Model

Eisner believed that any form of rationale and discussion related to unemotional matters are to be allowed during the data collection (Wood, 1988). He emphasized more on aesthetics and art education in his model to emphasize qualitative appreciation through empathy. Perumal and Saravanakumar, (2018) elaborated by stating that it perceives some essential educational life that enables one to understand those particulars that help in forming the part of a classroom structure. The issues encountered are then elaborated, explained, and interpreted based on the origin of the issues encountered. It means disclosing qualities that connoisseurship perceives. Finally, the judgments are passed through recommendations.

The model I see within my learning community as being legitimate

From the three models stated above, I think Stake's Countenance Model which is responsive in nature is legitimate in my learning community. It is also called Stake’s Responsive Model. In my milieu, any kind of evaluation isn’t taken to the personal intents and yes, Stake's Countenance Model emphasizes only the evaluation of those issues that are pertinent to the particular problems (Sage Pub, n.d.). More than a program intent, the evaluation in my milieu is focused on the program activities directly, and we are involved through the transparent, interactive, and recursive evaluation process. Mostly, it is the Dzongkhag Education officer, Principal, Academic Head, and the Head of the Subject Department who does the curriculum evaluation in our school.

The good part of the process followed during the evaluation process exactly aligns with Stake's Countenance Model of evaluation. We are pre-informed before the evaluation and whoever the evaluator is, he meets with the staff to understand the sense of the perspective that they have and the intention concerning the evaluation through the interactive and friendly process. Moreover, during the process, they promote the discussion.

The scope of the evaluation is determined through the analysis of the required documents. Classroom observation, interaction with students, checking of students' work, etc. are some activities carried out to get a sense of how things are operating to derive any kind of unintended deviations based on the intents pronounced and finally identify issues and problems. The evaluator chooses from the series of methodologies after the area of concern is identified. The feedback and suggestions are not given through assumption wherever they like but through the proper data-collection procedure and scheduled post-conference sessions in an organized and sensitive manner. They are made well aware of sensitive feedback and its values, so they select them accordingly during the course of the negotiation. Such a procedure has care as well as a constructive feedback system. We don’t point out the weakness but share the concern to be addressed in my milieu thus increasing the usefulness of the findings to persons in and around the program.

 

 

Reference

Arthurs, J. (1968). The process model—an alternative approach to the curriculum. Retrieved December 25, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691783800033

DiFlorio, I., Duncan, P., & Martin. (2016). Curriculum evaluation. Retrieved December 25, 2021 from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2601681/

IPL. (n.d.). Curriculum Evaluation. Retrieved December 25, 2021 from https://www.ipl.org/essay/Curriculum-Evaluation-P39TJQK6C48R

Perumal, N. N., & Saravanakumar, A. R. (2018). Curriculum Evaluation: A Multidimensional Model. Retrieved December 25, 2021 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334362435_CURRICULUM_EVALUATION_A_MULTIDIMENSIONAL_MODEL

Sage Pub. (n.d.). Curriculum Evaluation CHAPTER 12. Retrieved December 25, 2021 from https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/44333_12.pdf

Woods, J. D. (1988). Curriculum Evaluation Models: Practical Applications for Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 13(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.1988v13n2.1