MODULE 4

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Module 4 discusses the processes for developing curriculum as presented by different

scholars in curriculum development through their models. These curriculum development models
have been tried an curricula from preschool education to graduate programs. The models in this
module are presented according to three categories: linear, cyclical, and dynamic. In this module,
you should be able to:
1. Analyze different curriculum models;
2. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of a curriculum; and
3. Discuss how these curriculum development models can be applied in Philippine context.

Different Curriculum Development Models

Curriculum development models are based on a clear and consistent understanding of various
scholars of the nature of curriculum as a discipline and as a field of study. In this context, well known models
that are found in major curriculum books are analyzed. These models have been recognized and accepted
by curriculum scholars as effective and appropriate for developing curriculum in any level. In this module,
the analysis points our various strengths and weaknesses of different models. A brief background and
description of the processes involved in each model is presented. The models are treated as inimitable
since each represents various ideas or theories on how to develop curriculum.

Linear Models of Curriculum Development

The linear models of curriculum development prescribe a rational step-by-step procedure for
curriculum development starting with objectives.

A. Tyler’s Rational Linear Model

Ralp Tyler at the University of Chicago developed the first model of curriculum development. This
model was presented in his book Principles of Curriculum and Instruction published in 1949. Tyler argued
that curriculum development should be logical and systematic.
His model, as shown in Figure 3, presents a process of curriculum development that follows a sequential
pattern starting from objectives to content, learning experiences, and evaluation.
 Society Students Subject Matter

Philosophy of Education Psychology of Learning

Selecting Objectives

Selecting Learning Experiences

Organizing Learning Experiences

Evaluation

Figure 3. Tyler’s Rational Model

Tyler argued that to develop any curriculum, curriculum workers should respond to four basic
questions:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences are likely to attain these objectives?
3. How can these education experiences be organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

Aside from these four questions, Tyler also identified three curriculum sources: society, students, and
subject matter. Accordingly, curriculum workers need to study these sources carefully in order to develop
a curriculum. Tyler also pointed out the importance of philosophy of education and psychology of learning
to screen the objectives that are included in the curriculum.
B. Taba’s Grassroots Rational Model

A follower of Tyler is another curriculum scholar, Hilda Taba, Taba presented her model in her book
Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice in 1962. Her model is a modified version of Tyler’s Model.
Taba argue that curriculum development should follow a sequential and logical process, and she suggested
for more information input in all phases of curriculum development. Tab also claimed that all curricula are
composed of fundamental elements. In her model, Taba outlined seven steps that should be followed when
developing a curriculum:

1. Diagnosis of needs
2. Formulation of objectives
3. Selection of content
4. Organization of content
5. Selection of learning experiences
6. Organization of learning experiences
7. Determination of what to evaluate and ways and means of doing it

Taba also suggested that curriculum development could be made successful if there was diagnosis of
needs. This would help curriculum workers in understanding the needs of the learners. It would also help
in the selection of the goals and objectives and in the selection of contents. Taba pointed out that nature of
the objectives determines what learning is to follow.

C. Standards-based Curriculum Development Model

Allan Glatthorn developed the standards-based curriculum development model. The model was
intended for developing curriculum standards for any discipline from basic education to higher education.
As shown in table 2, Glatthorn identified three phases to be followed in developing a standard-based
curriculum. This model is an example of a linear model. It includes a prescribed sequence of curriculum
development activities to develop standards.
Table 2. Standards-based Curriculum Development Model

Phase 1. Develop standards.

1. Develop a comprehensive set of content standards, using multiple sources.

2. Refine the comprehensive list by eliminating and combining.
3. Secure teacher input to identify teacher priorities.
4. Use data to develop final draft of standards, divided into Essential Standards
and Enrichment Standards.
Phase 2. Develop benchmarks.

1. Review decisions about content emphases.

2. Identify standards for continuing development (standards that will not be
benchmarked).
3. Decide how benchmarks will be identified – by taskforce or by teachers.
4. Develop initial draft of benchmarks, evaluation with criteria provided, and
secure teacher review; revise benchmarks if needed.
Phase 3. Develop final products.

1. Use standards and benchmarks to produce scope and sequence chart.

2. Decide on curriculum guide content.
3. Analyze benchmarks into learning objectives.

Glatthorn’s model is an example of linear and rationale curriculum development model. The
model is rational and descriptive, stressing the development of standards as the first activity in curriculum
development. The model recognizes the importance of using multiple sources in developing curriculum
standards. This model also recognizes teachers’ input in the development of standards, which are often
neglected in curriculum project in the Philippines because of the top – down approach to curriculum
development and implementation.

The model extends itself up to the development of scope and sequence, which is important for
planning instruction, and for deciding on specific contents and objectives. Another important feature of
Glatthorn’s model is its relevance and applicability in any educational institution in developing curriculum
standards for various courses. The linear nature of Glatthorn’s model is also one of its weaknesses.

In this model, developing curriculum standards is separate activity from the overall curriculum
development process. This makes the model incomplete. The model should recognize that developing
curriculum standards is an integral part of the curriculum development process. This model does not include
situational analysis nor needs analysis. Analyzing the different curriculum sources and influences will lead
to the development of curriculum standards that are not just focused on a specific discipline, but also
consider the important role of the learners and the society in curriculum development.

D. Understanding by Design Model (UBD)

The Understanding by Design model was developed by Wiggins and McTighe (2002). It has
become a byword in the Philippine educational system because it was used to design the basic education
curriculum in school year 2010-2011 before the K-12 Education Curriculum was implemented.

The model is also called as the Backward Design for putting emphasis on starting with the goals and
objectives in designing curriculum. The model puts emphasis on designing curriculum to engage students
in exploring and deepening their understanding of important ideas and the design of assessments (Wiggins
& McTighe, 2002). Figure 4 shows the three stages in backward design process.

Stage 1. Identify
desired results Stage 2. Determine
Stage 3. Plan the
acceptable evidence
learning experience
and instruction
Figure 4. Stage in backward Design Process

Stage 1 include what students should know, understanding, and be able to do. It also asks the questions
about what is worthy of understanding and what enduring understanding are desired for the learners. This
calls for examining current curriculum goals and established curriculum standards and reviewing curriculum
expectations.

Stage 2 calls for designing assessment evidence for documenting or validating whether the desired learning
has been achieved. This model encourages the use of authentic assessment for assessing and evaluating
students’ learning.

Stage 3 includes planning learning experiences that are useful in implementing the curriculum. In this
stage, teachers decide on the type of activities that the students will do and the materials that will be needed
for the planned activities.

The UbD model is prescriptive and rational, focusing on the development of goals as the starting point
of curriculum development process. The model is currently popular in the Philippines because of its
advocacy in focusing on enduring understanding or central ideas (Wiggins and McTighe, 2002) as the
central goal of the curriculum.
 The model stresses the six facets of understanding as a framework of identifying the results or goals of
learning. If this model is used in the Philippines, it can help the Commission on Higher Education,
particularly various teacher education institutions, to revise their existing curricula to focus on higher
understanding rather than just prescribing subject and course descriptions. The UbD calls for development
of higher and more relevant curriculum standards in the country.

UbD’s advocacy of planning for authentic assessment before planning learning experiences is essential
in connecting the assessment with the goals and learning experiences of the curriculum. Analyzing what
the learners should know and understand is an important feature on the model. This principle will make the
content of the teacher education curriculum more learner centered. Like Glatthorn’s model, it also
recognizes the important role of teachers in curriculum development processes, which is a good practice
in curriculum development.

While the UbD model puts emphasis on analyzing what the learners need to know and understand in
formulating curriculum goals, the school authority or the government already fixes the standards. The model
is fixed at accepting what standards are prescribed by the government agency on education. Consequently,
the goals are most likely to follow the prescribed content standards set by the government.

E. Systematic Design Model

Robert Diamond originally developed the systematic Design model in the early 1960s. Since then, it has
undergone major revision, but its structure is unchanged (Diamond, 1998). The model has two basic
phases: (1) project selection and design and (2) production, implementation, and evaluation. Like some of
the previous models, it follows a linear process of curriculum development. Diamond (1998) explained that
ideally, some action must precede others, and certain decisions should not be made until all relevant facts
are known. It has imperative that all data must be complete before proceeding to the next step.

The Systematic Design is prescriptive and rational. It presents a systematic and liner view of curriculum
development. The use of diagram is an excellent way of helping curriculum workers to visualize the entire
curriculum development process. As shown in its first phase, some curriculum influences and sources are
also acknowledged in the process of curriculum development. These curriculum source and influences are
used to determine the objectives of the curriculum.

The model relies heavily on data; therefore, it is important to gather necessary information before
proceeding to each of the processes. This curriculum practice allows research to influence curriculum
processes and encourages a team approach to curriculum development.

The second phase of the model allows curriculum workers to design for the production and
implementation of the curriculum and on the importance of the evaluation of instructional materials to ensure
the smooth implementation of the curriculum. The model involves a series of task, which, if carefully
followed, may result in a relevant and effective curriculum.

Similar to the weaknesses linear models presented earlier, the model of Diamond ends in phase II. It
assumes that the product, which is the curriculum, is final and good as planned. There is no provision where
curriculum workers can review their actions and decision in relation to the factors identified in the first phase.
Probably, the data gathered were assumed to support the curriculum and are sufficient to ensure that the
curriculum is relevant and effective. Evaluation and revision are only done in phase II. But this is in level of
instruction or the implanted curriculum.

The model, if applied in the Philippines, will probably be difficult because of the lack of research culture
in our education institution. Print (1993) and Doll (1992) considered curriculum development as a decision-
making process, emphasizing for faculty members to conduct research as a basis for making curricular
decisions.

F. Murray Print Model for Curriculum Development

Murray Print published his model in his book Curriculum Development and Design in 1988. His model, as
shown in Figure 6, prescribes a sequential and logical approach to curriculum development to provide a
useful and easy-to-understand process in developing curriculum.

Aims, Goals, Objectives Content

Implementation
and Modification

Situational Analysis
Learning Activities
Monitoring and
Curriculum Feedback, curriculum
Presage Evaluation
Instructional Evaluation

Phase 1: Organization Phase 2: Development Phase 3: Application

Figure 6. Print’s Curriculum Development Model

The first phase of Print’s model recognizes the nature of the curriculum workers involved in the
development of the curriculum. Accordingly, in this phase, it is important to pose the following questions
that may influence curriculum development:

1. Who are involved in this curriculum development, and what, if anything, do they represent?
2. What conceptions of curriculum do they bring with them?
3. What underlying forces or foundations have influenced the developers thinking?

The answer to these questions will bring useful insights into the type of curriculum that will be developed.

The second phase in this model is the task of developing the curriculum. The procedure is cyclical,
which begins with a situational analysis, and continues with the aims, goals, and objectives, content,
learning activities and instructional evaluation, and then continuing to situational again.

The third phase includes the actual application that incorporates three major activities: (1)
implementation of the curriculum, (2) monitoring of, and feedback from the curriculum, and (3) the provision
of feedback data to the presage group.

Print’s model is also prescriptive and rational. The model starts with identifying the aims, goals, and
objectives of the curriculum. It also embraces the principles of cyclical and dynamic models in its
procedures. Curriculum workers can examine their actions as they go through the process of curriculum
development. Print’s idea of curriculum presage recognizes the important role and influence of various
curriculum workers involved in different curriculum activities. It also recognizes the myriad of curriculum
conceptions and ideas that various curriculum workers bring to the curriculum development process which
may influence them in making important curricular decisions.

The inclusion of instructional evaluation in the development process makes this model unique.
Evaluation provides necessary data regarding the implementation of the curriculum. The result of the
evaluation is valuable in examining whether the curriculum is applicable to the students or whether the
goals of the curriculum have been achieved. The inclusion of a monitoring and feedback system in the
curriculum development is also useful when there is need to do some revisions. Lastly this model can be
used in any level of curriculum development – local, college – wide, or national. Hence, it is very practical
to apply this model in the Philippines.

The model describes the process of curriculum development on a macro level; however, it is not clear
where the philosophy of the institution and philosophy of the curriculum will come into play. Philosophy is
very influential in curriculum processes. The philosophy of the school and of the curriculum embodies or
reflects the kind of curriculum offered in a particular institution. Philosophy should precede selection of
objectives.
 Print’s model should establish a stronger link between the curriculum presage and the situational
analysis. The model gives the impression that curriculum presage has no direct effect or relationship with
situational analysis. Curriculum presage is part of situational analysis since the various curriculum workers
are also part of the context or environment of the curriculum.

Cyclical Models of Curriculum Development

The cyclical models prescribe a cyclical or continuous process of curriculum development. Cyclical models
usually start with situational analysis that serves as the basis for all the succeeding process.

A. Audrey Nicholls and Howard Nicholls Model for Curriculum Development

An example of cyclical model for curriculum development was developed by Nicholls and Nicholls (1978).
The model emphasizes the cyclical nature of curriculum development. According to the proponents of this
model, curriculum development is a continuous process.

As shown in figure 7, the model prescribes five logical and interdependent stages that are in a continuous
curriculum development process. The model starts with a situation analysis in which curricular decision are
made, followed by the selection of objectives and the other succeeding phases.

Situational Analysis

Selection of Objectives
Evaluation

Selection and Organization

of Content Selection and Organization
of Content

Figure 7. Nicholls and Nicholls Curriculum Development Model

The model is highly prescriptive and dynamic. The inclusion of situational analysis as part of the
model is a valuable principle in curriculum development. It enables the curriculum workers to understand
better the context in which the curriculum is developed. By starting with situational analysis, curriculum
workers will be able to collect data and the needed information from various curriculum sources and
influences that are prerequisites in formulating curriculum goals and objectives. Thus, if applied in college
settings, faculty members need to conduct situational analysis before planning their syllabi and curriculum
plans. This will make it possible for the curriculum to be more relevant and responsive to the needs of the
students and the school.

The model also recognizes the influence and importance of contributing disciplines such as philosophy,
psychology, and sociology in developing the curriculum. These disciplines are useful in selecting the
curriculum goals and objectives, contents, learning experiences, and evaluation. The importance of these
three disciplines in developing curriculum is also recognized in the model of Tyler (1949).

The model has the potential to be used in any educational setting, either school-based or on a national
level. The cyclical nature of the model also enables curriculum workers in making the necessary changes
and adjustments in the total curriculum. This attribute of the model is helpful for teachers, administrators,
and education boards to address curricular issues and propose innovations and changes whenever
needed. The model of Nicholls and Nicholls (1997) advocates a curriculum development activity that
involves continuous improvement.

There is little weakness found in this model. The possible problem that may occur is that many
curriculum workers are used to develop curricula following a linear model. In the Philippines, for example,
curriculum development follows a top-down approach where many curricular decisions are made in the
national level. The goals and contents of the curriculum are set by the state. In the context of higher
education, there is a tendency for teachers not to follow this model because of the tedious job for conducting
situational analysis before developing any syllabus or curriculum plan.

B. Wheeler’s Curriculum Development Model

In his influential book, Curriculum Process, Wheeler (1967) presented a cyclical process in which each
element of the curriculum is related and interdependent (see figure 8). Although this model is also rational
in nature, each phase is logical development of the preceding one. One cannot proceed to the next phase
unless the preceding phase is done. Wheeler also emphasized the importance of starting from the
development of aims, goals, and objective
 1. Aims, Goals and Objectives 2. Selection of Learning
Experiences

5. Evaluation
3. Selection of Content

4. Organization and Integration of

Learning Experiences and Content

Figure 8. Wheeler’s Curriculum Development Model

C. The Contextual Filters Model of Course Planning

The Contextual Filters Model of Course Planning was developed by Stark, Lowther, Bentley, Ryan,
Martens, Genthon, Wren, and Shaw in 1990 as part of their study conducted at the University of Michigan
National Center for Research to improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. This model appeared in
the book shaping the College Curriculum written by Stark and Latucca and published in 1997.

Content influences encompass faculty members’ background and associate disciplinary and educational
beliefs. Contextual influences refer to the influences outside of the instructor’s immediate control that cause
adjustment in the course plans such as student characteristics or instructional resources. From includes
the processes that are followed when designing courses (Stark & Latucca, 1997).

The contextual Filters model presents a cyclical view of curriculum development. After making course
decisions, the planners can check with the content considerations and contextual filters. It describes the
reality of how college faculty members design their courses. Hence, it is very much applicable for designing
higher education courses.
 Influence of Faculty Views
Purposes of
Faculty of their
Education
Background and Academic
Espoused by
characterization Fields
Faculty
Members

Contextual Filters (Context)

Goals
Students
Schedules
Campus Services
Resources
Feedback
Adjustment

Course Description (Form)

Select Content
Arrange Content
Choose Process

Figure 9. The Contextual Filters Model of Course Planning

The model is based on a research conducted by the proponents on how faculty members in several
higher education institutions in the United States plan their curriculum (see Stark & Latucca, 1997). Several
curriculum influences such as faculty background and educational beliefs are recognized in the model. The
influence and the special role of faculty members in curriculum planning and development are recognized
as a main factor in curriculum development in higher education.

This model is very teacher-centered. Given the influence of academic freedom, faculty members may
plan the curriculum based on their own convenience. The model can be improved by putting students as
part of the content influences. In many curriculum models (Tyler, 1949; Taba, 1962; Wheeler, 1967; Walker,
1971; Skilbeck, 1976; Print, 1993; Oliva, 2005), students are viewed as a significant source of curriculum.
Considering the fact that most college faculty members do not have pedagogical training, the model failed
to elaborate how contents and process are arranged. This could have been very useful for faculty members,
especially for neophyte instructors, who do not have background knowledge on education.
Dynamic Models of Curriculum Development

The dynamic models describe how curriculum workers develop curricula in various educational contexts.
The dynamic curriculum development models are usually used in school-based settings.

A. Walker’s Model of Curriculum Development

Decker Walker developed a model for curriculum development and first published it in 1971. Walker
contended the curriculum developers do not follow the prescriptive approach of the rationale-linear
sequence of curriculum elements when they develop curricula (Walker, 1971; Marsh & Willis, 2007; Print,
1993). In his model, Walker was particularly interested on how curriculum workers actually do their task in
curriculum development. As shown in figure 10, Walker was able to identify three phases, which he termed
platform, deliberation, and design.

(Beliefs, Theories, Conceptions, Points of View, Aims, Objectives)

Platform

Deliberation

(applying them to practical situations, arguing about, accepting, refusing,

changing, adapting)

Curriculum Design

Figure 10. Walker’s Naturalistic Model

In Platform phase, Walker suggested that curriculum workers bring with them their individual
beliefs, knowledge, and values. They have their own ideas about how to do their task and they are prepared
to discuss and argue about them. The first phase is similar to the idea of Print (1993) of a curriculum
presage. Deliberation phase, on the other hand, involves identify which facts are needed for means and
ends, generating alternatives and considering the consequences, and choosing the best alternative for the
curriculum task they are about to do. The third phase, which is the design, involves planning, decision-
making, and the actual development of the curriculum.
 Walker’s model is a dynamic and descriptive model of curriculum development. It reflects the realities
of how curriculum workers plan and develop a curriculum. It recognizes the role and influence of curriculum
workers in any curriculum development tasks.

In addition, it avoids the obsession of starting with objectives. This practice is also observed in the model
of Print (1993). Since the model is dynamic, the curriculum workers many commence at any point in the
curriculum process depending on their needs. This allows more flexibility among curriculum workers in
developing curriculum. Curriculum workers may review their previous decisions and actions to correct some
mistakes. According to Walker (1971), this model can be used for a school-based curriculum development.

The model, being dynamic, can be confusing to other curriculum workers who are not aware of the
necessary processes of curriculum development. If this model is applied in the Philippines, where most
teachers are implementers of curriculum developed by other educators, this model may not have value to
them.

Another weakness of Walker’s model is a strong tendency of the curriculum development to be stuck in
phase 2. According to Print (1993), too much discussion may lead to analysis-paralysis syndrome that could
penalize or prolong the process of curriculum development. Probably, the model can be elaborated more
on the design processes involved in Phase3 to help teachers and neophyte curriculum workers do their
task.

B. Skilbeck’s Curriculum Development Model

In 1976, Skilbeck came up with a model for developing a school-based curriculum in Australia. His model
present workers may start from any phase. However, as shown in Figure 11, each phase is interrelated and
follows a systematic sequence. Skilbeck’s model includes a situational analysis that involves gathering data
from the school, society, and the learners. The result of the situational analysis provides strong bases for
making curricular decisions for all the succeeding phases of curriculum development.
 Situational Analysis

Goal Formulation

Program Building

Interpretation and Implementation

Monitoring, Feedback, Assessment,

Reconstruction

Figure 11. Skilbeck’s Curriculum Development Model

C. Eisner’s Artistic Approach to Curriculum Development

Elliot W. Eisner was a famous curriculum scholar. In 1979, he published the book The Educational
Imagination where he presented his idea on how curriculum development should be done. Eisner (1979)
believed that there is a need to develop a new theory recognizes the artistry of teaching that is useful in
helping teachers develop those arts. In his book, Eisner outline how this artistic approach can also be used
in curriculum development.

Table 3. Eisner’s Artistic Model of Curriculum Development

1. Goals and their priorities

• The need to consider less, well-defined objectives as well as explicit
ones
• The need for deliberation in taking through priorities
2. Content of curriculum
• Options to consider in selecting curriculum
• Caveats about the null curriculum.
3. Types of learning opportunities
• Emphasis on transforming goals and contents into learning events
that will be of significance of students
4. Organization of learning opportunities
 • Emphasis on a nonlinear approach in order to encourage diverse
student outcomes
5. Organization of contents areas
• Emphasis on cross-curricula organization of content
6. Mode of presentation and mode of response
• Use of a number of models of communication to widen educational
opportunities for students
7. Types of evaluation procedure
• Use of a comprehensive range of procedures at different stages of
the process of curriculum development

In selecting the content of the curriculum, Eisner (2002) considered the three sources of curriculum:
individual, society, and subject matter as identified by Tyler (1949). On selecting learning opportunities,
Eisner strongly favored providing students with a wide variety of learning opportunities. Accordingly,
educational imagination must transform goals and contents into high quality experiences for students
(Eisner, 2002).

Eisner also emphasized providing a variety of learning opportunities to different types of students using
varied resources and activities. He contended that curriculum content should be organized and integrated
in different ways. Eisner suggested using different strategies and methods to engage the students in
meaningful learning. Lastly, for Eisner, evaluation is not the final step of curriculum development, but rather
it is something that pervades the entire curriculum development process (Eisner, 1985).

The model can be applied in designing school-based curriculum development or in national curriculum
projects. It is descriptive in offering a general approach that can be followed by curriculum workers, yet the
model is also prescriptive in offering suggestion about what should happen when developing a curriculum.

The Eisner’s model recognizes the influence of various curriculum workers in developing a curriculum.
The model emphasizes the importance of having well-define goals and objectives in curriculum. It
recognizes the varied activities that teachers do in the school to attain the goals of curriculum.

The model may be effective in the context of developing and designing courses for higher education.
The influence of academic freedom and the changing nature of the discipline in higher education require a
curriculum model that is less prescriptive, but logical enough to embrace the artistic or creative ways in
which faculty members develop their courses.

Since the processes are not procedural, curriculum workers can always modify and improve their
curricula to address certain problems and needs. The model calls for more relevant and responsive ways
of selecting and organizing contents and learning experiences in order to respond to the diverse needs of
students.

D. Pawllen’s Model for Developing Curriculum

The Author developed this model (see Figure 12) as one of the major outputs of his doctoral dissertation in
the University of the Philippines, Diliman. It is intended to help curriculum workers develop curriculum that
is relevant and appropriate to the Philippine context (Pawilien, 2011)

1. Situational Analysis
Curriculum Sources
2. Selection of Goals and Objectives
• Learners
• Society
• Discipline 3. Development of Curriculum Standards
a. Developing a comprehensive set of standards
b. Aligning standards with several criteria
c. Securing teacher’s input
d. Validating of standards by experts
e. Developing final curriculum standards

Curriculum Influences
4. Selection of Content or Subject
• External
• Internal Areas
• Organizational
5. Selection of Organization of
Learning Experiences

6. Implementation

7. Evaluation

Figure 12. Pawilen’s Model for Developing Curriculum

Curriculum sources are general factors that influence or affect curriculum development and
decision-making in the macro level. Posner (1995) suggested two level of curriculum development: macro
level, which includes the general or overall process of curriculum development, and the micro level,
which focuses on specific phase or phases or on specific context like school-based curriculum
development.

There are three curriculum sources in the model. These three sources are the learners,
society, and disciplines. These curriculum sources are based on the model or Ralph Tyler (1949). The
learner as a curriculum source is very important. Knowing their interest, needs, learning styles, thinking
styles, culture, socio-economic status, gender, and other variables are significant data for developing
curriculum. Understanding the nature of learning is helpful for curriculum workers in making appropriate
choices in curriculum decision-making (Print 1993).

Society is also considered as a source of curriculum. Knowledge about the society provides
better understanding of the context in which the curriculum will be implemented. Cultural values, beliefs,
attitudes, political and economic systems, and the physical environment directly or indirectly affect
curriculum development because the learners are in integral part of the society. Understanding the nature
of discipline is also essential in curriculum development. It can provide data for making decisions as to what
contents should be include in the curriculum and how to organize the contents of the curriculum.

As shown in the model in Figure 12, the curriculum sources are considered vital in conducting
situational analysis. Curriculum sources provide necessary data in determining the goals and objectives of
the curriculum. These curriculum sources are also valuable in making decisions on the development of
curriculum standards. In the revised mode (see Figure 12), an arrow connects the curriculum sources to
phase III.

Curriculum influences are specific factors that affect the development of the curriculum and
decision-making in the micro level. The idea of curriculum influences was adopted from the model of Stark
and Lattuca (1997). Accordingly, these curriculum influences can be grouped into three: external, internal,
and organizational.

External influences are social factors that directly influence curriculum decision-making. These
factors are society, market demand, government, disciplinary associations, and alumni. Internal factors are
those that are related to the school like faculty members, student, disciplines, and program mission.
Organizational influence are school factors, but they are more concerned with the governance of the
program and support system like school resources, leadership, governance, and program relationship
(Stark & Lattuca, 1997). These curriculum influences provide important data for conducting situational
analysis.

In the revised model, the various curriculum influences are integral, as shown by an arrow
connecting the curriculum influences and the development of curriculum standards. In all phases of
curriculum development, these curriculum influences are always considered. For example, new
government policies, in most case, need to be implemented immediately. Change in school leadership and
programs also need immediate action. Consequently, at any point, the curriculum influences may have
direct or indirect effect to curriculum development. The broken arrows connecting the curriculum influences
with the different phase of the curriculum development show this. This influence makes the model dynamic.
It always considers the changing nature, needs, and demands of its context.

By nature, curriculum sources and influences serve as bases for selecting and making decisions
about the various elements of curriculum: intent, content, learning experiences, and evaluation.

Processes for Developing Curriculum Under Pawilen’s Model

1. Situational Analysis – the first phase; starts with analyzing the context in which the curriculum is
developed. The situational analysis includes a study of the different curriculum sources (students,
society, and disciplines or subject matter), and careful examination of the different curriculum
influence (internal, external, and organizational) that affect curriculum development.
2. Selecting of Goals and Objectives – results from situational analysis. In some cases, if the
government or the university prescribes the curriculum goals and objectives, such features will be
considered as part of the internal or external influences that will be studied in the situational
analysis.
3. Development of Curriculum Standards – takes place after situational analysis and selection of
goals and objective. The first phase of Glatthorn’s model (1998) was modified to simplify the task
for developing curriculum standards: (1) develop a comprehensive set of content standards by
examining various curriculum sources and influences; (2) align the standards to several criteria; (3)
secure teacher input to revise and improve the standard; (4) ask experts to validate the standard;
and (5) develop the final draft of standard, divided into content standards, skills standards, and
values standards.
4. Selections of Content or Subject Areas – phase where the developed curriculum standards are
used to select subjects or courses to be included in the curriculum.
5. Selection and Organization of Learning Experiences – includes selecting learning activities,
organizing instructional plans, and selecting instructional materials to be used in implementing the
curriculum.
6. Implementation – involves the actual implementation of the curriculum by faculty members. It is
where the actual teaching and learning take place.
7. Evaluation – the final phase; phase where the goals and objectives of the curriculum, including
the design and selecting of all curriculum elements, are evaluated. After the result of evaluation,
the curriculum development process will go back to situational analysis to reexamine the needs
and include necessary changes and demands from curriculum sources and influences.
Analysis of Different Curriculum Development Models

Figure 13 provides a summary of the results of the analysis of the different curriculum
development models in relation to the two-dimension suggested by Print (1993). All the curriculum
development models are based on curriculum research and are based on certain theories of curriculum.
Each model is unique depending on the curriculum theory advocated by the proponents. It is the role of the
curriculum developers to select a model based on their context (Print, 1993).

PRESCRIPTIVE

Tyler’s Model Contextual Filters Model

Taba’s Grassroots Model Nochlls & Nicholls Model
Understanding by Design Model Pawilen’s Model
Systematic Design Model
Print’s Model

RATIONAL/ DYNAMIC/
OBJECTIVES INTERACTION

Standards-based Model
Wheeler’s Model Walker’s Model
Eisner’s Model

DESCRIPTIVE

Figure 13. Summary of the Analysis of Curriculum Models

The linear models (Standards-based Curriculum Development Model, Understanding by Design,

Systematic Design Model, and Print’s Curriculum Development Model) provide a direct and time – efficient
approach to curriculum development. These models simplify the process of curriculum development such
that curriculum workers will find it easy to follow. The linear models are highly prescriptive and rational.
They state precisely where to start in the curriculum development process. Usually, they start with a
situational analysis or selecting objectives.
 The cyclical model of Nicholls and Nicholls (1978) and the Contextual Filters Model of Course Planning
Model present an interrelated procedure for developing curriculum. These models are prescriptive by
starting with situational analysis; yet they are also dynamic. These models are applicable to school-based
curriculum development.

The dynamic models of Eisner (1979), Walker (1971), and Pawilen’s model (2011) are less rigid
in application, and they can be used in school-based curriculum development. These two models reflect
the reality of how institutions and teachers develop curricula. Eisner’s (1979) model is prescriptive, yet, it is
also descriptive, while Walker’s (1971) model is highly dynamic and descriptive.

Each model of curriculum development is based on a curriculum theory development by various

proponents. The models presented are reflections of what various authors and scholars believe about the
nature of curriculum and the process of curriculum development. Each has its own rightful claim.

We can learn some principles from these models:

1. When developing a model for curriculum development, there is always the need for a clear and
logical process.
2. Curriculum sources and other variables that are influential in developing a curriculum should be
specified.
3. Models should reflect how educators plan and develop curriculum in any levels.
4. Models should be based on a curriculum theory.
5. Each process in a model should specify areas where curriculum decisions are made.
6. Each model should reflect the major phases of curriculum development (planning, design,
implementation, and evaluation).

IN A NUTSHELL

Reflections on Curriculum Development

• Curriculum development, as seen in the curriculum development models, follows a

scientific and logical process.
• Each curriculum development model represents different areas of emphasis.
• Essential elements of curriculum development are:
- Situational analysis
- Selection of objectives
- Selection of content
- Selection of learning experiences
- Evaluation
• Curriculum development models could be clustered into three:
- Linear Models – follows a logical and sequential approach to curriculum development
starting with curriculum objectives.
- Cyclical Models – they are essentially logical and sequential in terms of process,
however in cyclical models, curriculum development is viewed as a continuous
process.
- Dynamic Models – curriculum development may begin with any curriculum element
or process. It highlights the importance of involving teachers in curriculum
development process.
• Curriculum development in the Philippines needs to involve different stakeholders and
teachers.
• There is a need to develop a model that is relevant and responsive to the academic needs
and context of the Philippines.
 REFERENCES

Glatthorn, A.A., F. Boschee, and B. M. Whitehead. 2006. Curriculum Leadership, development and
implementation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Pawilen, G. T. 2011. A model for developing curriculum standards for preschool teacher education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. College of Education, University of the Philippines, Diliman.

Diamond, R. M. 1998. Designing courses and curricula. San Francisco: Jossey-bass.

Skillbeck, M. 1976. School-based curriculum development process and teacher education. Mimeograph,
OECD.

Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Walker, D. F. 1971. “A naturalistic model of curriculum development.” In the school review. No. 80.1. pp.
51-65.

Wheeler, D. k. 1967. Curriculum processes. London: University of London Press

 MODULE 5

CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

This chapter discusses the processes in implementing curriculum as presented by different

scholars in curriculum studies especially in the field of curriculum leadership and supervision. This chapter
is especially designed for educators and pre-service teacher education students to understand how a
curriculum is implemented in the Philippine context. In this chapter you will be able to:

1. dentify different curriculum workers;

2. analyze different level of curriculum implementation in the Philippine
Context; and
3. discuss the factors to consider in implementing a curriculum.

Curriculum Implementation

Curriculum implementation, from the term itself, focuses on the actual implementation of the curriculum
from the national level to the school context. It described the dynamics of how various curriculum workers
strive to do their functions in order to attain educational goals, programs, and policies set by the country,
region, division, district, and down to the local school level. Each of these levels has specific functions to
do.

Ideally, the implementation of the curriculum is influenced by the educational goals set by the
government or schools. However, the process by different curriculum implementation is also guided by an
educational or curriculum philosophy.

In practice, curriculum implementation is highly influenced by different curriculum workers: people

influence the process. Consequently, not all curricula are perfectly implemented as planned. In the process
of curriculum implementation, there are always problems encountered.

Curriculum Workers

The success or failure of any curriculum depends on the people working for its implementation.
Oliva (2005) identified these people as curriculum workers. At any level of curriculum implementation,
curriculum workers, through their expertise, creativity, and dedication, make sure that the curriculum is
implemented as planned.

• Teachers – the most visible among the curriculums. Their roles as implementers of the curriculum
are very crucial. It is through their expertise, creativity, and commitment that any curriculum
success is attributed. Teachers develop lesson plans, unit plans, yearly plans, and syllabi for each
 subject they teach. They prepare instructional materials, select methods and strategies, and assess
student’s progress. Every day, teachers are given teaching loads to teach different subjects. Their
educational background, educational philosophy, teaching styles, and personality affect the
implementation of the curriculum.

• Principals – the chief academic and administrative officer of the school. They provide curricular and
instructional leadership and supervision to the teachers and other school personnel in the local
school context. It is they who lead teachers in planning different school activities and make sure
that all educational goals set by the Department of Education are met. Principals check the lesson
plans developed by each teacher, prepare the school calendar, supervise instruction, and prepare
school report. Principals also work with parents and community leaders and win their support to
any school activities and projects.

• Curriculum Consultants – individuals with a rich experience on doing curriculum projects related to
curriculum planning, curriculum development, and curriculum evaluation.

• District Supervisors – responsible for supervising the implementation of the curriculum in the district
level. They help public school principals in ensuring that the programs of the Department of
Education are implemented in their respective schools. They also implement policies and programs
of the Department of Education in private schools.

• Education Supervisors – assigned to specific subject areas in basic education. They help the district
office of the Department of Education in supervising the implementation of projects and programs
specific for each subject area.

• Regional Directors – manage the programs and projects of the Department of Education in the
regional level.

• Education Program Specialists – work at the national level or at the central offices of the
Commission on Higher Education and the Department of Education. They assist the two
government agencies in the development of curriculum policies that will help teachers and other
curriculum leaders in the implementation of the curriculum.

• Technical Panels and Technical Committees– professors and individual experts from different
disciplines and fields that assist the Commission on Higher Education in developing curriculum,
formulating curriculum policies, and evaluating the compliance of higher education institutions to
CHED program standards.
 Posner (1995) pointed out that in analyzing a curriculum, a careful examination of the background,
philosophy, expertise, and the level of involvement of different curriculum workers are important. Walker
(1971) made observations that in the process of curriculum development, various curriculum workers bring
with them their philosophies, beliefs, expertise, and other concerns when they plan and develop curriculum.
Consequently, these also are influential in the implementation of the curriculum.

Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead (2006) emphasized that curriculum workers are curriculum
leaders, too. As they implement the curriculum at any level, these curriculum workers take the role of
curriculum leaders providing directions, guidance, and supervision. They manage people and programs at
any level of education and in any school.

The problem, however, is that many individuals and groups establish schools for business
purposes. With limited or no background at all in education, they establish schools and employ teachers
and other experts to manage the implementation of the curriculum. The problem in this situation comes
when these schools compete with each other to increase the rate of enrolment. They implement curricular
innovations usually adopted from abroad and duplicate good programs of other schools. At times, the
competition is not healthy at all as there are schools that do not give emphasis on quality.

Levels of Curriculum Implementation

To ensure the smooth implementation of the curriculum, each department or ministry of education
in any country has established a system that will take charge of the whole work of planning, development,
implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum. Integrated in this system are the curriculum workers
mentioned earlier in this chapter who work in different levels of the bureaucracy.

As shown in Figure 14, the Philippines follows a centralized system of curriculum development and
implementation that starts from the national level down to the local school level. Although the regional,
division, district, and school levels are empowered to plan, monitor, and evaluate programs, projects, and
plans, the central office of the Department of Education still does most of the policies and curriculum
development work.

National Level

Regional Level

Division Level
 District Level

Local School Level

Figure 14. Levels Curriculum Implementation at Basic Education Level

Republic Act 9155, also known as the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Chapter 1,
Section 7 defines the function of each level as follows:

A. National Level

Through the leadership of the Secretary of Education, the Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries,
and different Bureau Officers are responsible for the following:

• formulating national educational policies;

• formulating a national basic education plan;

• promulgating national educational standards;

• monitoring and assessing national learning outcomes;

• undertaking national educational research and studies;

• enhancing the employment status, professional competence, welfare, and working conditions of all
personnel of the Department; and

• enhancing the total development of learners through local and national programs and /or projects.
B. Regional Level

Consistent with the national educational policies, plans, and standards, the regional office under
the Regional Director shall be responsible for the following:

• defining a regional educational policy framework which reflects the values, needs, and expectations
of the communities they serve;

• developing a regional basic education plan;

• developing regional educational standards with a view toward benchmarking for international
competitiveness;

• monitoring, evaluating, and assessing regional learning outcomes;

• undertaking research projects and developing and managing region-wide projects which may be
funded through official development assistance and /or other funding agencies;

• ensuring strict compliance with prescribed national criteria for the recruitment, selection, and
training of all staff in the region and divisions;

• formulating, in coordination with the regional development council, the budget to support the
regional educational plan which shall take into account the educational plans of the divisions and
districts;

• determining the organization component of the divisions and districts and approving the proposed
staffing pattern of all employees in the divisions and districts;

• evaluating all school division superintendents and assistant division superintendents in the region;

• planning and managing the effective and efficient use of all personnel, physical and fiscal resources
of the regional office, including professional staff development;

• managing the database and management information system of the region; and

• approving the establishment of public and private elementary and high schools and learning
centers.

C. Division Level
 A division consists of a province or a city. Consistent with the national educational policies, plans,
and standards, the division level through the leadership of the Division Superintendent shall be responsible
for the following:

• developing and implementing division education development plans;

• planning and managing the effective and efficient use of all personnel, physical, and fiscal
resources of the division, including professional staff development;

• hiring, placing, and evaluating all division supervisors and school district supervisors as well as all
employees in the division, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including school heads,
except for the assistant division superintendent;

• monitoring the utilization of funds provided by the national government and the local government
units to the schools and learning centers;

• ensuring compliance of quality standards for basic education programs and for this purpose
strengthening the role of division supervisors as subject area specialists;

• promoting awareness of and adherence by all schools and learning centers to accreditation
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Education; and

• supervising the operations of all public and private elementary, secondary, and integrated schools,
and learning centers.

D. School District Level

A schools district through the leadership of the District Supervisor is responsible for the following:

• providing professional and instructional advice and support o the school heads and
teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof; and

• curricula supervision.

E. School Level

Consistent with the national educational policies, plans, and standards, the school level through
the leadership of school heads is responsible for the following:

• setting the mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the school;

• creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning;

• implementing the school curriculum and being accountable for higher learning outcomes;
 • developing the school education program and school improvement plan;

• offering educational programs, projects, and services which provide equitable opportunities for all
learners in the community;

• introducing new and innovative modes of instruction to achieve higher learning outcomes;

• administering and managing all personnel, physical, fiscal resources of the school;

• recommending the staffing complement of the school based on its needs;

• encouraging staff development;

• establishing school and community networks and encouraging the active participation of teachers
organizations, non-academic personnel of public schools, and parents-teachers-community
associations; and accepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants for the purpose of upgrading
teachers’ learning facilitator’s competencies, improving and expanding school facilities, and
providing instructional materials and equipment.

Currently, the different offices of the Department of Education are doing their best in ensuring a smooth
and efficient implementation of the K-12 Education Program of the Philippines. Under the Republic Act
10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, Kindergarten and Senior High School were added to
the Philippine basic education system. This ensures that our education system for basic education is at par
with the international standards and to prepare Filipino students to meet the needs and demands of a
knowledge-based society.

For higher education institutions (HEIs) in the country, the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) was established under Republic Act No. 7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of
1994. Contrary to DepED, the CHED has two levels: the Central Office (national level) and the Regional
Offices. The CHED Central Office focuses on the development of policies and sets the national direction
for higher education in the country.

The CHED Office for Program Standards (OPS) is responsible for curricular matters. The CHED
issues a memorandum order (CMO) per program to serve as a guide to HEIs on the courses that should
be offered per program, admission and retention policies, administrative requirements, faculty
requirements, library and laboratory requirements, and others. Experts in different academic fields and
disciplines are invited to become members of different Technical Panels and Technical Committees to help
the Commission in the development of these CMOs per program. All curricular charges and application for
new curricular offerings from HEIs are reviewed and recommended for approval by the OPS to the
Commission en banc.

The Regional Offices of CHED is responsible for the monitoring and implementation of the policies
and guidelines developed by the Central Office. The monitoring work is done with the help of regional
experts on different fields known as Regional Quality Assurance Team (RQuAT). It is their duty to ensure
that all HEIs in their region comply with CHED requirements and policies.

State colleges and universities must seek the approval of their academic councils and their
corresponding board of regents for any curriculum changes and curriculum proposals before these
curriculum proposals are sent to CHED for approval. Exempted in this process is the University of the
Philippines System. The UP System does not follow the CHED prescribed curriculum. For UP, any
curriculum proposal must be approved by its university council and the UP Board of Regents.

Private HEIs may also add more subjects as institutional requirements per program based on the
mission, vision, and philosophy of the HEI concerned. For state universities and colleges, their individual
charters guide their program offerings. This process is shown in Figure 15. The regional offices of CHED
check the compliance of these HEIs to the CMO issued by the Commission.

Commission on Higher
Education

(National Level)

CHED Regional Offices

Higher Education Institutions

(Colleges, Professional
Institutes, Universities)
 Figure 15. Levels of Curriculum Implementation at the Higher Education Level

The academic freedom of individual HEI and faculty members also highly influences curriculum
development in higher education. Curricular revisions are presented and approved by the university council
in the case of state universities and colleges. For private HEIs, the curriculum committee and the council
of deans presided by the Vice President for Academic Affairs approve any curriculum proposal made in any
department or college. Each faculty member, whether in public or private HEI, develops a syllabus for his
or her subject guided by the faculty expertise and their academic freedom.

For vocational and technical courses, the Technical Education Skills Development Authority
(TESDA) is the government agency that prescribes the curriculum and other requirements for the
implementation of the program. Each course is implemented through modules, designed and implemented
based on specific competencies prescribed. All the specific requirements and facilities, including the
required training and certification for each faculty who will teach each course are prescribed by TESDA.

Things to Consider in Implementing the Curriculum

Curriculum implementation must be systematically planned. At any level, it requires careful

consideration of several factors and variables:

1. Government Requirements – include memoranda, policies, guidelines, and requirements from the
Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, and the Technical Education Skills
Development Authority. The competencies required by the board exams are also considered.

2. School Philosophy, Vision and Mission, and Core Values – must be considered at the school level
especially when selecting the specific contents and learning experiences for all students enrolled in each
program.

3. Learning Environment – includes the various school facilities required for the implementation of each
program. These facilities include laboratories, classrooms, libraries, sports facilities, instructional
technologies, and other facilities prescribed by the government for each program. In some schools, colleges
or universities, housing facilities for faculty and students are also provided.

4. Needs and Demands of the Society – are the needs and demands of the society that the curriculum must
respond to. Curriculum can address these needs and demands in the macro level by adding subjects or
contents, or in the local school level by integrating specific competencies in the various syllabi for each
course.

5. Needs of the Students – including interests, are considered when the school develops academic policies
and, in the preparation, of course syllabi. At the least, the school, college or university should have an idea
of the genera profile of students including their needs and interests when planning and implementing the
program.

6. Faculty Expertise – the faculty is considered as the most important assets of each school, college or
university. They also play an important role in the implementation of the curriculum.

7. The Changing Nature of Knowledge – includes the theories and research from different areas and
professional organizations in the academe that are also influential in the implementation of the curriculum.
It could result to the integration of important topics or subjects, and additional facilities.

These factors were emphasized by different curriculum experts (Tyler, 1949; Sowell, 1996;
Ornstein & Hunkins 1993; Marsh, 2004; Tanner & Tanner, 2007) as influential in planning, developing,
implementing, and evaluating a curriculum. In the context of curriculum implementation, curriculum leaders
and curriculum workers consider these factors in making curricular and instructional decisions.

At any level of the educational bureaucracy, the success of curriculum implementation can be
attributed to how curriculum leaders and workers plan, design, and develop the implementation of the
curriculum. School resources and the implementers at the school level are also contributory to the success
of curriculum implementation.

References

Diamond, R.M. 1998. Designing courses and curricula. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glatthorn, A.A., F. Boschee, and B.M. Whitehead. 2006. Curriculum leadership, development and
implementation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Oliva, P. 2005. Developing the curriculum. 6th Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ornstein, A. & F. Hunkins. 1993. Curriculum foundations, principles, and theory. 2 nd Ed. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Posner, G. 1995. Analyzing the curriculum. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Marsh, C. & G. Willis. 2007. Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Sowell, E J. 1996. Curriculum: An integrative introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Republic Act No. 9155. An act Instituting a Framework of Governance for Basic Education, Establishing
Authority and Accountability, Renaming the Department of Education, Culture and Sports as the
Department of Education, and for other Purposes. Quezon City: Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

Republic Act No. 10533. An Act Enhancing the Philippine Basic Education Sytem by Strengthening its
Curriculum and Increasing the Number of Years for Basic Education, Appropriating Funds Therefore and
Other Purposes. Quezon City: Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

Republic Act No. 7722. An Act Creating the Commissionj on Higher Education. Appropriating Funds
Therefore and Other Purposes. Quezon City: Congree of the Republic of the Philippines.

Tanner, D & L. Tanner. 2007. Curriculum development: Theory into practice. 4 th Ed. Upper Saddle River,
N.j.: Prentice Hall.

Tyler, R. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Walker, D.F. 1971.”A naturalistic model of curriculum development.” In The School review. No. 80.1. pp.
51-65.
 MODULE 6

CURRICULUM EVALUATION

This chapter discusses different models for curriculum evaluation. It aims to help teachers and
education students understand the processes in evaluating a curriculum from basic education to higher
education, especially in the Philippine context. In this chapter, you should be able to:

1. analyze different curriculum evaluation models and

2. identify several factors that are considered in evaluating curriculum in the Philippine context.

In general, evaluation is concerned with giving value or making judgments. Consequently, a person
acts as evaluator when he or she attributes worth or judgment to an object, a place, a process, or behaviour.
Usually, evaluation is done using a set of criteria. This enables the evaluation process to be always objective
rather than subjective.

Various curriculum scholars define curriculum evaluation based on how they view curriculum, the
purposes of curriculum, curriculum influences, and how curriculum is implemented. Basically, curriculum
evaluation is:

• the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing information useful for making decisions and
judgments about curricula (Davis, 1980);

• the process of examining the goals, rationale, and structure of any curriculum (Marsh,2004);

• the process of assessing the merit and worth of a program of studies, a course, or a field of study
(Print, 1993);

• the means of determining whether the program is meeting its goals (Bruce Tuckman, 1985);

• the broad and continuous effort to inquire into the effects of utilizing content and processes to meet
clearly defined goals (Doll, 1992); and

• the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision
alternatives (Stufflebeam, 1971).
 In this book, curriculum evaluation is defined as the process of making objective judgment to a
curriculum – its philosophy, goals and objectives, contents, learning experience, and evaluation.

Curriculum evaluation is also concerned about finding out whether the curriculum is relevant and
responsive to the needs of the society and the learners. It is a scientific and dynamic process of
understanding the merit of any curriculum.

Purposes of Curriculum Evaluation

Print (1993) identified several important purposes and functions of evaluation in school setting:

• Essential in providing feedback to learners – provides useful information in helping the students
improve their performance and helps teachers identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
learners

• Helpful in determining how well learners have achieved the objectives of the curriculum – describes
whether the students learned or mastered the desired outcomes and objectives of the curriculum

• To improve curriculum – the result of evaluation serves as basis for improving curriculum and for
suggesting innovations to improve learning

In addition, curriculum evaluation is also useful to administrators and teachers in many different
ways. For example:

• Evaluation helps in making decisions about improving teaching and learning processes.

• It helps in shaping academic policies.

• It guides in initiating curricular changes and innovations.

• It ensures quality of any curricular program.

• It helps schools align their curriculum to different curriculum sources and influences.

• It determines the level of success of the school’s vision and mission.

Conducting curriculum evaluation is a determinant of an academic institution or school’s commitment to
quality and continuous improvement. It shows how serious a school can be in realizing its philosophy,
vision, and mission.

Curriculum Evaluation in the Classroom

Doll (1997) asserted that the classroom in fact could be the first of gathering important data that
will lead to curriculum evaluation. Within the classroom, teachers and administrators can collect data using
several instruments like:

• test results;

• anecdotal records;

• checklists;

• interview guides;

• observation guides;

• personality inventories;

• rating scales;

• IQ tests; and

• interest inventories.

Teachers play an important role in conducting curriculum evaluation in the classroom level. They
must be guided in gathering data from these instruments and in interpreting the data. The results of
classroom-based evaluation may help in improving instruction and in the effective implementation of the
curriculum.

Curriculum Evaluation at the School or School System Level

Curriculum evaluation is done mostly at a school or school system level. This is usually done to
evaluate how the curriculum goals are attained in the macro level. At this level, the following instruments
can be used to gather data for the evaluation of the curriculum:
 • Opinion polls

• Surveys

• Focus-group discussion

• Follow-up studies (Graduate tracer studies)

• Standard evaluation instruments

• Results of district or national tests

The schools that gather and analyze data on the implementation of the curriculum can also do
research activities.

Models of Curriculum Evaluation

Curriculum scholars and curriculum workers have identified various models that can be used for
evaluating curriculum. Each of these models is a product of endless works of curriculum scholars trying to
assess the value of a particular curriculum.

A. Provus’ Discrepancy Evaluation Model

This model for curriculum evaluation was developed by Malcolm Provus (1971) to evaluate projects
under the Elementary-Secondary Education Act in the United Sates. Using the taxonomy of program
content developed by Robert Stake, Provus identified four major stages of conducting curriculum evaluation
as shown in Figure 16.

• Determining program standards

• Determining program performance

• Comparing performance with standards

 Figure 16. Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model

Ronald Doll (1997) noted that the Provus model has been called the discrepancy model because
it compares performance with standards to determine whether there is a discrepancy between the two. This
model enables the curriculum evaluators and administrators of the school to collect or gather concrete
evidence on how the curriculum satisfies the set standards.

B. Tyler Model of Curriculum Evaluation

Aligned to his model of curriculum development, Ralph Tyler (1950) proposed seven steps for
evaluating a curriculum:

1. Establishment of goals and objectives

2. Classification of the objectives

3. Definition of the objectives in behavioural terms

4. Identification of situations in which achievement of the objectives could be shown

5. Selection of criterion of measurement procedures

6. Collection of data about pupil performance

7. Comparison of findings with the stated objectives

The completion of the seven stages will lead to the revision of the objectives. This evaluation model
is a cyclical type of model.

C. Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model

The Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, chaired by Daniel L. Stufflebeam,
developed and published a curriculum evaluation model known as the CIPP (context, input, process,
product) model (Stufflebeam, 1971). Stufflebeam (2001) defined evaluation as the process of delineating,
obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives.

Content Input Process Product

Figure 17. Stufflebeam’s CIPP Evaluation Model

Context evaluation, according to Stufflebeam, is the most basic kind of evaluation. Its purpose is to
provide a strong rationale for determining curriculum objectives. At this point, the curriculum evaluator
describes the environment and determines the different needs of the society, school, and students. If there
are unmet needs, the curriculum evaluator seeks to find reasons for not meeting the needs. The curriculum
context also includes the problems, issues, and challenges that the curriculum seeks to address.

Input evaluation aims to provide information for determining how resources are utilized to achieve
curriculum objectives. At this level, the resources of the school and the different designs for implementing
the curriculum are considered.

Process evaluation focuses on providing periodic feedback while curriculum is being implemented.
This phase aims to detect the problems in the implementation of the curriculum, provide information for
programmed decisions, and maintain a record of the procedures as it occurs.

Product evaluation aims to gather, interpret, and appraise curricular attainments not just the end of
an implementation of a curriculum.

When using CIPP model, while it is desirable and ideal to conduct curriculum evaluation by looking
at the four phases identified by Stufflebeam, one can also focus on one or two phrases of evaluation.

D. Stake’s Congruency-Contingency Evaluation Model

Robert Stake (1975) claimed that curriculum evaluation is not complete unless three categories of
data are made available. These categories of data are:

1. Antecedents – include data on students and teachers, the curriculum to be evaluated, and the community
context

2. Transactions – include time allotment, sequence of steps, social climate, and communication flow
3. Outcomes – encompass students’ learning in the form of understandings, skills, and values or attitudes,
as well as the effects of the curriculum on the teachers, students, and the school

The data gathered will provide necessary information for the evaluation process. The term
congruency refers to the degree of alignment between what was desired and what was actually achieved.
Contingency refers to the relationship between one variable to the other, for example, between the
curriculum and the community context.

E. Eisner’s Educational Connoisseurship Model

Elliot Eisner (1985) provided a qualitative way of evaluating a curriculum. This model does not have
methodical procedures compared with other evaluation models. Eisner’s model calls for a deeper and wider
observation results of evaluation that are expressed in written form. The results, however, are not merely
descriptions; they provide excellent and accurate interpretation and appraisal.

Using this model calls for thorough and comprehensive observations of classroom and school
activities in relation to curriculum. It tries to capture every aspect of curriculum activities including the hidden
curriculum. The emphasis of this model is always on the quality rather than on the measurable quantity of
learning and interaction.

Overall, curriculum evaluation is important as it is intended to provide meaningful information in

almost every aspect of the curriculum. These information or results of evaluation provide strong bases for
all decisions done about the planning, design, development, and implementation of the curriculum.
Curriculum leaders can utilize the results of the evaluation in instituting educational reforms and in finding
ways to make the curriculum more relevant and responsive to the needs of the learners.

The challenge for curriculum evaluation is how to get reliable data and how to involve other
stakeholders in the evaluation process. It is also important to ensure the accuracy of data that will be used
for the evaluation.
 References

Doll, R.C. 1992. Curriculum improvement decision-making and process. 8th Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Eisner, E.W. 1985. The educational imagination on the design and evaluation of school programs. 3 rd Ed.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Marsh, C. & G. Willis. 2007. Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Oliva, P. 2005. Developing the curriculum. 6th Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Posner, G. 1995. Analyzing the curriculum. 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Print, M. 1993. Curriculum development and design. 2 nd Ed. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin.

Provus, M. 1971. Discrepancy evaluation for educational program improvement and assessment. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Stake, R.E. (Ed.). 1975. Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach. Columbus, OH: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Stufflebeam, D.L. 1971. Educational evaluation and decision-making. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Stufflebeam, D, 2001. “Evaluation Models.” New Directions for Evaluation, 2001: 7-98. doi: 10.1002/ev.3.

Tuckman, B. 1985. Evaluating instructional programs. 2nd Ed. Rockleigh, NJ: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.