model. As Erden (1995) states, researchers can choose the most appropriatemodel in terms of their purposes and conditions during their curriculum evaluationmodels or they can develop a new one making use of the existing ones.
Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (1998) classify the evaluation approaches under thecategories of objectives oriented evaluation approach, management orientedevaluation approach, consumer oriented evaluation approach, expertise orientedevaluation approach, adversary oriented evaluation approach and participant orientedevaluation approach.
2.6.1.Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches:
The distinguishing feature of an objectives-oriented evaluation approach is that thepurposes of some activity are specified and then evaluation focuses on the extent towhich those purposes are achieved.
2.6.2 Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches
Its rationale is that evaluative information is an essential part of good decision makingand that the evaluator can be most effective by serving administrators, policy makers,boards, practitioners, and others who need good evaluative information.
2.6.3.Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches
Independent agencies or individuals who take responsibility to gather information oneducational or other human services products, or assist others in doing so, support theconsumer-oriented evaluation approach. These products generally include: curriculumpackages, workshops, instructional media, in-service training opportunities, staff evaluation forms or procedures, new technology, software and equipment, educational materials and supplies, and even services to agencies.
2.6.4Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach
It depends primarily upon professionalexpertise to judge an institution, program, product or activity.
2.6.5.Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches:
Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approach in its broad sense refers to all evaluations inwhich there is a planned opposition in the points of view of different evaluators orevaluation teams.
2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches
Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approach aims at observing and identifying all of theconcerns, issues and consequences integral to human services enterprise.Worthern, Sanders and Fitzpatrick (1998) highlighted the aspect of each approachunder eight headings such as proponents, purpose of evaluation, distinguishingcharacteristics, past uses, contributions to the conceptualization of an evaluation,criteria for judging evaluations, benefits and limitations.
2.7. Evaluation Models
Evaluation has a long history, which ultimately lead to the use of various evaluationmodels by curriculum specialists. While the models differ in many of their details, the decision to choose an evaluation model depends on a few important factors such as the evaluation questions, the issues that must be addressed, and the available resources (Madaus and Kellaghan, 2000).
2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt
Franklin Bobbitt played a leading role during the first three decades of the twentieth century in establishing curriculum as a field of specialization within the discipline of education. Bobbitt is best known for two books, the Curriculum (1918) and How to Make a Curriculum (1924).Bobbitt concerned himself with the development of specific activities that he believed contributed to the adjustment of the individual to society. The procedure for curriculum planning which Bobbitt referred to as job analysis, were adapted from Taylor’s work and began with the identification of the specific activities that adults undertook in fulfilling their various occupational citizenship, family and other social roles. The resulting activities were to be the objectives of the curriculum. The curriculum itself, Bobbitt noted, was comprised of the school experiences that educators constructed to enable children to attain those objectives. Bobbitt argued that the content of the curriculum was not self-evident in the traditional disciplines of knowledge, but had to be derived from objectives that addressed the functions of adult work and citizenship.
Education was not important in its own right for Bobbitt its value lay in the preparation it offered children for their lives and as adults.
Bobbitt along with other early-twentieth-century efficiency-oriented school reformers made the case that the curriculum ought to be differentiated into numerous programs, some academic and preparatory and others vocational and terminal, and that students ought to be channeled to these tracks on the basis their abilities.
2.7.2. Tyler’s Model(Framework)
Tyler’s model is the most influential theoretical formulation in the field of curriculum. It is sometimes known as the ‘Tyler Rational’ or the ‘Objective Model’. The model provides a framework of how to construct a plan curriculum.
Tyler’s rational revolves around four central questions which Tyler feels need answers if the process of curriculum development is to proceed. The questions which are posted in Tyler’s well-known book basic principles of curriculum and instruction are as follows:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3.How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4.How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?
The questions provide a four-step approach which is logical, sequential and systematic, moreover they may be reformulated into the familiar four-step process by which a curriculum is developed: stating objectives, selecting experiences, organizing experiences, and evaluating. The most crucial step is obviously the first since all the others proceed from the statement of objectives.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the questions and four-step process:
Figure1: the Tyler Model of Curriculum Development
What educational goals should the school
Seek to attain?
What educational experiences can be
provided that are likely to attain these
How can these educational experiences
be effectively organized?
How can we determine whether these
purposesare being attained?
18.104.22.168. The selection of educational objectives
Tyler’s section on educational objectives is a description of the three sourcesof objectives: studies of learners, studies of contemporary life, and suggestionsfrom subject-matter specialists, as well as an account of how data derived fromthese “sources” are to be “filtered” through philosophical and psychological”screens.” The three sources of educational objectives encapsulate severaltraditional doctrines in the curriculum field over which much ideological bloodhad been spilled in the previous several decades. The doctrines proceeded fromdifferent theoretical assumptions, and each of them had its own spokesmen, itsown adherents, and its own rhetoric. Tyler’s proposal accepts them all, whichprobably accounts in part for its wide popularity.While we are aware that compromise is the recourse frequently taken in thefields of diplomatic or labor negotiation, simple eclecticism may not be the mostefficacious way to proceed in theorizing. When Dewey, for example, identifiedthe fundamental factors in the educative process as the child and the “valuesincarnate in the matured experience of the adult,” the psychological and thelogical, his solution was not to accept them both but “to discover a reality towhich each belongs.” (Dewey,1964). In other words, when faced with essentially the sameproblem of warring educational doctrines, Dewey’s approach is to creativelyreformulate the problem; Tyler’s is to lay them all out side by side.
22.214.171.124. Subject Matter as a Source of Objectives
Of the three “sources” — studies of the learners themselve
s, studies of contemporarylife, and suggestions about objectives from subject-matter specialists—the last one seems curiously distorted and out of place. Perhaps this isbecause Tyler begins the section by profoundly misconceiving the role andfunction of the Committee of Ten. He attributes to the Committee of Ten a set ofobjectives which, he claims, has subsequently been followed by thousands ofsecondary schools. In point of fact, the notion of objectives in the sense thatTyler defines the term was not used and probably had not even occurred to themembers of the Committee of Ten. What they proposed were not objectives, but“four programs”: Classical, Latin-Scientific, Modern Languages, and English.Under each of these rubrics is a listing of the subjects that constitute eachof the four courses of study. This recommendation is followed by the reports ofthe various individual committees on what content should be included and whatmethods should be used in the various subject fields. Unless Tyler is using theterm “objective” as being synonymous with “content” (in which case it wouldlose all its importance as a concept), then the use of the term “objectives” in thecontext of the report of the Committee of Ten is erroneous. Probably the onlysense in which the term “objective” is applicable to the Committee of Ten reportis in connection with the broad objective of mental training to which it subscribes.
An even more serious error follows: “It seems clear that the Committee ofTen thought it was answering the question: What should be the elementaryinstruction for students who are later to carry on much more advanced work inthe field. Hence, the report in History, for example, seems to present objectives[sic] for the beginning courses for persons who are training to be historians.Similarly the report in Mathematics outlines objectives [sic] for the beginningcourses in the training of a mathematician.” (Tyler, 1950: p. 17)
As a matter of fact, one of the central questions that the Committee of Tenconsidered was, “Should the subject be treated differently for pupils who aregoing to college, for those who are going to a scientific school, and for those,who, presumably, are going to neither.?” The Committee decided unanimouslyin the negative. The subcommittee on history, civil government, and politicaleconomy, for example, reported that it was “unanimously against making such adistinction” and passed a resolution that “instruction in history and relatedsubjects ought to be precisely the same for pupils on their way to college or thescientific school, as for those who expect to stop at the end of grammar school, orat the end of the high school.” Evidently, the Committee of Ten was acutelyaware of the question of a differentiated curriculum based on probable destination.It simply rejected the doctrine that makes a prediction about one’s futurestatus or occupation a valid basis for the curriculum in general education. Theobjective of mental training, apparently, was conceived to be of such importanceas to apply to all, regardless of destination.Tyler’s interpretation of the Committee of Ten report is more than a trivialhistorical misconception. It illustrates one of his fundamental presuppositionsabout the subjects in the curriculum. Tyler conceives of subjects as performingcertain “functions.” These functions may take the form of a kind of definition ofthe field of study itself such as when he sees a function of science to be enablingthe student to obtain a “clearer understanding of the world as it is viewed by thescientist and man’s relation to it, and the place of the world in the largeruniverse”; or the subject may perform external functions such as the contributionof science to the improvement of individual or public health or to theconservation of natural resources. The first sense of function is essentially a wayof characterizing a field of study; in the second sense of function, the subject fieldserves as an instrument for achieving objectives drawn from Tyler’s other twosources. Tyler’s apparent