Curriculum Evaluation Models: Their Use In My Milieu

 

Curriculum Evaluation Models: Their Use In My Milieu

John D woods (1988) stated that curriculum development was equivalent to collecting information and making judgements about curriculum. He goes on to claim that evaluation is a must to spur debates about curriculum issues and is the basis for proposing change. In my milieu, teaching English to adult learners of English, evaluation in the sense described by Woods (1988) is non-existent. Instead, what exists are two forms of evaluation: (i) a threat-based evaluation of teachers’ lesson plans with ineffective feedback and almost no suggestions for improvement that are imaginative or inventive! (ii) a yearly performance review meant to determine whether a teacher meets some arbitrary standard that has no real conceptualisation than to satisfy professional accreditation.

Woods (1988) says a critical aspect of curriculum evaluation is to know why the change and what direction the change should go. Curriculum evaluation serves several purposes: to identify aspects of a curriculum that are working and those that need to change, to assess the effectiveness of changes that have already been made, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the current programme, to meet regular programme review requirements and to satisfy professional accreditations (Wolf, P., Hill, A., & Evers, F.  2006). In my milieu, I have not seen evaluations done with any of these purposes being evident because “the structures necessary to facilitate constructive evaluation are lacking and must be put in place” (Woods, 1988 p 4) to help restore that credibility of evaluations and turn them from the negative thing they are now into the valuable planning and implementation information collection tools they should be.

To make evaluations in my milieu effective, there will need to be a concerted effort to operationalize the main task of evaluation by employing the Davies Process Model. Woods (1988) mentions that agreement on what should be observed, when it should be observed, by whom it should be observed and for what purpose it should be observed must first be in place before any observation happens. Secondly, there needs to be an overhaul of the manner in which findings are discussed by employing the Stake Countenance Model. It must move from fault finding and pointing out short coming to being framed as areas requiring support. The findings must be discussed to elicit positive and constructive evaluation as opposed to threatening and negative ones (Woods, 1988). Finally, there will need to be a complete overhaul of the manner in which feedback is presented. Currently, feedback for lesson plan evaluation is sent by email, highlighting all the wrong ideas or matters contained therein. Feedback for the annual evaluation is written into a form and handed to instructors, requiring them to sign in agreement. Opportunities for discussion can only happen when appointments are booked to talk to the administrator, and it is not easy to get such appointments during work hours. Woods (1988) suggests a sub process called the Art of Disclosure to give feedback by first describing what happened, then moving into explaining and interpreting why the events occurred, into appraisal in the form of consensus statements and finally into utilisation and how the knowledge gained will be used.

I do believe that if these principles are sincerely and conscientiously applied, then evaluations will take on the meaning and effectiveness they embody in my milieu.

 

References:

Wolf, P., Hill, A., & Evers, F. (2006). [PDF]. HbonCurriculumAssessment.pdf. Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://ctlt.ubc.ca/files/2010/08/HbonCurriculumAssmt.pdf

 

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

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-1989145902552297"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
  Assessing Diversity in my Classroom      I teach in a special classroom for students whose eligibility are identified by the Government of Canada. I am a Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Instructor. This is a federally established English School Program for students who meet the criteria of being a Permanent Resident (PR) or Government Assisted Refugee (GAR) to Canada. On this first premise, my classroom is certainly homogenous as eligibility criteria is immigration status of PR or GAR.      Additionally, Canada’s immigration policies inform who the newcomers to Canada will be in terms of what part of the world they come from, based on four categories of economic, family, protected persons and refugees and humanitarian. Canada specifically codified immigration as a means of meeting cultural, economic and social objectives (Cheatham, 2020) and it is these immigrants who satisfy the criteria for becoming students at my ...
Read more
Image
Learner Analysis: Three Crucial Goals for Instructional Design Learners come into the classroom with varied experiences, values, qualities, moods, and motivation. Although Brown and Green (2016) classify learners into two broad categories of and of captive audience (extrinsically motivated) and willing volunteers (intrinsically motivated) learners, they also highlight the myriad sub characteristics within each group. There is no one correct way to perform learner analysis (LA) but the existence of several theories can enable instructors to perform relatively effective LAs and use them as a guide to design instruction (Brown & Green, 2016). LA is important because it helps identify best ways of reaching the target audience so that teaching, learning and instruction can be maximized (Siemens, 2002). Siemens (2002) holds that in conducting an LA, three types of characteristics must be considered: situation, decision, and learner-characteristics. The situation determines who the targe...
Read more