Evaluation Models
Share your conceptualization of the four models and associated case studies of curriculum evaluation in the Marsh & Willis chapter. Relate these to the broader issues of curriculum planning and development and discuss how these fit with your own preferred approaches to curriculum.
The first model discussed for this assignment is Tyler’s Objectives Model of 1949. Tyler’s is a simplistic approach which basically asks, “Are the objectives being met?” This model starts with a pool of objectives drawn from students, society, and subject specialists. Narrowing the objectives down to what we would expect children to learn through school (I would assume that defining God and learning one’s last names would not be considered school based objectives, but would rather be screened out as objectives taught at home), Tyler uses pre and post-testing to see if the schooling environment is successfully working towards the stated goals.
If the objectives are being met, Tyler would leave well enough alone, if not, changes would be considered, and the process of evaluation would start again. Critics point out that there is no way to definitively state whether or not it is the school’s curriculum and atmosphere which is causing the objectives to be met. This could cause faulty curriculum to take credit for what something else is actually doing, and in doing that, the faulty curriculum would stay in place. Additionally, the objectives could be too simple, leading to over-achievement of the objectives by the students. This over-achievement sounds good at first, but it really means that the objectives should be more difficult, as the students have proven that they can do more than they are being asked to do. Tyler’s approach doesn’t allow for this type of change; the objectives model, in theory, only attempts to seek out shortcomings.
In my opinion, these shortcomings could be easily integrated into the model. Simply look for areas where the students would have been able to improve to new objective heights, and in those cases, increase the objectives. If the post tests scores show all students functioning at 100%, that would be a sign that the objective should have been set to a higher level. As for the criticism that other factors could have been causing the objectives to be met, this could be better screened out in the pre-test. If scores on a pre-test of objective satisfaction are high, it should be considered that something else has already worked to meet this objective, and including it as an objective in the curriculum you are working on may not be necessary. With these changes, or additions to the model’s theoretical functioning, this model would prove useful in evaluating many curriculums. I would have to say that I find refreshing the simplicity of this model.
Stake’s Countenance Model is said to advance over Tyler’s Objectives Model. However, when shown in practice via the Twin City case study, Stake has already backed away from the rigidity of his model for more “naturalistic and informal techniques.” I found this interesting, as I felt Tyler’s model in action via the NAEP example was more detailed and inadvertently addressed the model’s apparent theoretical lackings. For example, whereas theoretically, Tyler’s model would not have answers for curricula which is not difficult enough, the application of his model will point to the common sense of stepping up the curriculum’s expectations.
Stake’s model states that those evaluating curriculum should compare the congruence between the curriculum’s stated intent and the curriculum’s actual happenings. In other words, is what the curriculum is intended to do actually happening when the curriculum is put into practice? This observation is best made through an outside observer who considers the climate and uniqueness of each curriculum system (school, classroom, etc.). As the model is broken down into antecedents, transactions and outcomes for intents, observations, standards and judgments, applying this model in its entirety is a mammoth undertaking. To me, this seems less practical. No matter how well thought out, too much theory and evaluation often misses the curriculum forest in trying to decide the relevance and importance of a single curriculum sapling.
Parlett and Hamilton observe the curriculum forest entirely from within. Both Tyler and Stake step outside the forest when making decisions as to what type of trees (curriculum goals) should be found. Parlett and Hamilton’s Illuminative Model, however, seems to be completely an internal based assessment. Their methodology involves in class and in school observations to familiarize the evaluators as to what is occurring within the system. Parlett and Hamilton treat each school setting as a closed system, and herein is what I see to be their critical flaw. By observing only from within, interviewing students and teachers to find out what they are learning, searching for the cause and effects of the interactions within the schools, the evaluators risk failing to spot potential lackings simply because of the fact that they are lacking. When you only look from within a closed school setting, the internal nature of observations will not consider goals and knowledge that should be there but are missing, because they cannot be seen from the internal setting.
An extreme example will show the point. Imagine Parlett and Hamilton’s evaluators are to examine the workings of a school designed solely to teach math concepts. Only looking from within the school, they find that addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are taught by the teachers and mastered by the students. The evaluators give the school high marks, pointing to the mastery of the mathematic concepts. However, nothing more occurs. Power, square roots, and other higher math concepts are never discussed. Because the evaluators are making their decisions through in school observations and interviews, they do not even realize what is being left out. If these researchers had taken an approach more similar to Tyler in pre-deciding what goals should be included in a mathematics school, they would have seen what was missing. I understand this example is an oversimplification, but to play “devil’s advocate,” I must add that this trend towards internalization of curriculum theory has played a part in the US’s falling behind many other nations in test scores. If we were to make more curriculum decisions looking at the rest of the world and observing what has been proven to be accomplishable, we may realize that more could be expected of our students. With that, we would better develop curriculum to accomplish these higher goals.
Lastly, Eisner’s Educational Connoisseurship Model brings curriculum evaluation out of the scientific and into the aesthetic. Here, evaluators are trained to observe the classroom setting, taking note not only of what is being taught, but how, by whom, and where. Eisner believes that all these facets of the learning environment together make up the aesthetics of the curriculum, and all these facets combined are what cause students to either learn or not learn. With this, I agree. While curriculum success can be measured in terms of pre and post-testing, curriculum style must be measured in terms of everything going on in the teaching environment.
I see Eisner’s model being useful in light of Tyler’s model. Tyler could show where curriculum was lacking, and students were failing to perform, but he had no definitive ways of explaining this shortcoming. Eisner’s teachings would enable evaluators to go in and look at the full path the curriculum took from conception to implementation, to eventual learning by the students. By studying this path, and the full aesthetics of it, Eisner would be better able to explain why something was or was not working. Using these explanations, or critiques, as the case may be, the curriculum could be improved. With Eisner’s plan, the evaluator would be able to discern if the failure to learn was due to the curriculum itself, the teacher who presented it, the room it was presented in, or a interplay of two or more items.
On caution to Eisner’s model. The words of one evaluator can be highly subjective, no matter how well trained the evaluator. I would recommend several evaluators of different thought independently observe and report on a classroom. These separate critiques could then be summarized to look for common themes of improvement. Additionally, I feel an objectives style approach of evaluation should be performed first, so the Eisner evaluators can be guided to look for reasons for failures in specific areas, thus making their time and efforts more efficient.
Filed under: EDC 541 Curriculum and Instruction for Diverse Learners
Copyright: June, 2003 - David Profitt
