CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT MODELS

Linear Curriculum Development Model

This model prescribe a rational step-by-step procedure for curriculum development starting
with objectives.
STANDARD BASED MODEL
Phase I. Development standards.
1. Develop a comprehensive set of content standards using multiple sources.
2. Refine he comprehensive list by eliminating and combining.
3. Secure teacher input to identify teacher priorities.
4. Use data to develop final draft of standards divide into Essential Standards and
Enrichment Standard.
Phase II. Develop benchmarks.
1. Review decisions about content emphases
2. Identify standards for continuing development (standards that will not be
benchmarks).
3. Decide how benchmarks will be identified- by taskforce or by teachers.
4. Develop initial draft of benchmarks, evaluating with criteria provided, and secure
teacher review; revise benchmarks if needed.
Phase III. Develop final products.
1. Use standards and benchmarks to produce the scope and sequence chart.
2. Decide on curriculum guide content.
3. Analyze benchmarks into learning objectives.

Tyler’s Rational-Linear Model

The Tyler Model, developed by Ralph Tyler in the 1940’s, is the quintessential
prototype of curriculum development in the scientific approach. One could almost dare to
say that every certified teacher in America and maybe beyond has developed curriculum
either directly or indirectly using this model or one of the many variations.
Tyler did not intend for his contribution to curriculum to be a lockstep model for
development. Originally, he wrote down his ideas in a book Basic Principles of Curriculum
and Instruction for his students to give them an idea about principles for to making
curriculum. The brilliance of Tyler’s model is that it was one of the first models and it was
and still is a highly simple model consisting of four steps.
1. Determine the school’s purposes (aka objectives)
2. Identify educational experiences related to purpose
3. Organize the experiences
4. Evaluate the purposes
5.
Taba's Grassroots Rational Model
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

Determination of what to evaluate and the ways and means of doing it

These rational models provide a logical, sequential and meaningful approach. They
provides an easy to follow step-by-step guide to curriculum planning and development.
These models are also time efficient and they emphasize on roles and values of objectives
but however they are rigid. The nature of teaching and learning, being unpredictable, one
cannot be sure of the learning outcomes. Learning often occurs beyond objectives and if we
stick to the linear model, learning will be limited and this model hence cannot account for
the many/complex outcomes of learning.
Linear models end at the evaluation stage and there is no scope for re-visiting the
teaching methods or other elements of the curriculum; it is a static model and it fails to
consider the changing environment.

Cyclical and Dynamic Models of Curriculum Development

We have a group work and the assign task in our group is Walker's Model of
Curriculum Development
Cyclical Models of Curriculum Development
The cyclical model prescribes a cyclical or continuous process of curriculum
development Cyclical models usually start with situational analysis that serve as basis for all
the succeeding process.

Audrey Nicholls and Howard Nicholls Model of Curriculum Development

• Audrey and Howard Nicholls, his book "Developing a Curriculum: A Practical Guide"
(1978)devised a straight forward cyclical approach that covered the elements of curriculum
briefly but succinctly.
• This model is like a map for particular teaching and learning process.
• It is a cyclical model (rational Model and Dynamic model in middle of it
this model stands.
• It is logical sequential model
• elements of curriculum are interdependent in this model
STEPS
1. Situational analysis
2. Formation of Objectives
3. Selection and Organization of Content
4. Selection and Organization of Method
5. Evaluation

Understanding by Design Model (UbD)

This model is also called 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 Deeping their understanding of important
ideas and the design of assessments (Wiggins & Mctighe 2002).

Systematic Design Model

Robert Diamond originally develop the Systematic Design model in the early 1960.
Since then, it has undergone major revisions 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 actions
must precede others, and certain decisions should not be made until all relevant facts are
known. It Is imperative that all data must be complete before preceding to the next step.

Wheeler’s Curriculum Development Model

The Wheeler model of curriculum development (1967), or cyclic model, asserts that
curriculum should be a continuous cycle which is responsive to changes in the education
sector and makes appropriate adjustments to account for these changes. It focuses on
situational analysis: the context in which the curriculum decisions are taken is considered
important, as this is believed to help make the most effective decisions. This model is
comprised of five interconnected stages
1. Aims, goals and objectives
2. Selection of learning experiences
3. Selection of content
4. Organization and integration of learning experiences and content
5. Evaluation
Once the cycle has been followed once, it begins again at step one and continues
onward to continuously improve the curriculum in the face of any changes that may have
been imposed or come about naturally. It is different from other models in that ‘selection of
learning experiences’ comes before ‘selection of content’: it specifically gears the content in
the curriculum to learners, where most models follow the opposite structure. Wheeler
viewed evaluation as particularly important, stating that ‘[e]valuation enables us to
compare the actual outcomes with the expected outcomes […] [without it] it is impossible
to know whether objectives have been realized, and if they have, to what extent (Wheeler,
1976, cited in Carl, 2009). While Wheeler's approach, like other cyclical models, has been
popular in teaching practice for its flexibility and relevance to learners in particular
situations, it is not always practical to use because of time constraints. Undertaking a
detailed situational analysis that Wheeler advocates is a time-consuming process that can
be difficult to put into practice in the hectic conditions in modern educational practice.

The Contextual Filters Model Of course Planning

The Contextual Filters Model of Course Planning was developed by Stark, Lowther,
Bentley, Ryan, Martens, Gethon, Wren, and in 1990 as part of their study conducted at the
University of Michigan National Center for Research to Improve Post-Secondary Teaching
and Learning. This model appeared in the book Shaping the College Curriculum written by
Stark and Latucca, Published in 1997.

Dynamic Model 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.

Walker's Model of Curriculum Development

Walker (1972) felt that the objectives or rational models were unsuccessful and
devised a model, which has three phases. These phases are:
platform - includes "deas, preferences, points of view, beliefs and values about the
curriculum" (Print: 1993:113).
Deliberations here interaction between stakeholders begin and clarification of views
and ideas in order to reach a consensus of a shared vision.
Design-here, curriculum developers actually make decisions, which are based on
deliberations (above). These decisions affect curriculum documents and materials
production.
(Beliefs Theories Conceptions Points of view Aims, objectives)

Skilbeck's Curriculum Development Model

In 1976, Malcolm skilbeck came up with a model for developing a school-based
curriculum in Australia. His model presents a dynamic view of curriculum development.
When using this model, curriculum workers may start from any phase, each phase is
interrelated and follows, a systematic sequence: skilbech's model includes a situational
analysis that involves gathering data from the school, society, and the learners. The results
of the situational analysis provide strong baes for asking curricular decisions for all the
succeeding phases of curriculum development.
Skilbeck (1976) stated that: A situational analysis of needs is vital for effective
curriculum change. He also said: Education should be a meaningful learning experience.
Teachers are very important. Curriculum change can occur at any point in the process & can
proceed in any direction. The source of objectives should be clear to teachers and
curriculum developers.
Below is the model proposed by Skilbeck and he suggested that planning of the
curriculum can be started at any of these five stages and proceed in any order.
1. Situation analysis
2. Goal formulation
3. Program building
4. Interpretation and implementation
5. Monitoring, feedback, assessment, reconstruction

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 that
recognizes the artistry of teaching which is useful in helping teachers develop those arts. In
his books, Eisner outlined how artistic this approach can also be used in curriculum
development.
Eisner Artistic Model of Curriculum Development
1. Goals and priorities
• The need to consider less, well- defined objectives as well as explicit
ones
• The need for deliberation in talking 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 content into learning events that
will be of significance to students
4. Organization of learning opportunities
• Emphasis on a nonlinear approach in order to encourage diverse student
outcomes
5. Organization of content areas
• Emphasis on cross-curricula organization of content
6. Model of presentation and mode of response
 • Use of number of modes 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

Pawilen’s Model of Developing Curricula

The author developed this model as one of the major outputs of his doctoral
dissertation in the University of the Philippines and this model was developed to help
curriculum workers in developing a curriculum that is relevant and appropriate to the
Philippine context.
Mrs gallardo gave as an activity about Curriculum Implementation in by pair she gave
an question that we need to answer all about the curriculum implementation.
When we say curriculum implementation, from the term itself, focuses on the actual
implementation of the curriculum from the national level to the local school context. It
describes the dynamics on how various curriculum workers strive to do their functions in
order to attain education goals, programs and policies set by the country region, division,
distinct and down to the local school level and each levels has specific functions to do.
Curriculum implementation is influenced by the educational goals set by the government or
schools, however, the process of curriculum implementation is also guided by an
educational or curriculum philosophy.
Curriculum workers: According to Oliva, 2005, the success or failure of any
curriculum depends on the people working for implementation. This includes the following.
Teachers-the most visible among the curriculum workers. Their roles are very crucial
for it is through their expertise, creativity and commitment that any curriculum success is
attributed.
Principals the chief academic and administrative officer of the school, which provide
curricular and instructional leadership and supervision to the teachers and other school
personnel in the local school context.
Curriculum consultants- individuals with rich background experiences on doing
curriculumprojects related to curriculum planning, curriculum development and curriculum
evaluation.
District supervisors-responsible for supervising the implementation of the curriculum

In the district level.

Education Supervisors- assigned to specific subject areas in the basic education
 Division Superindendent- the chief academic officer of school division

Regional directors- manage the programs and project of the DepEd in the regional
level.
Education Program Specialists-work at the national level or at the central officers of
the CHED and Deped.
Technical Panels and Technical Commitees- professional and individual experts from
the different disciplines and fields who assist the Ched in developing curriculum.
Another topic was all about the different 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. The following are the levels of Curriculum Implementation
A. National Level-though the leadership of the Secretary of Education,
Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries and different Bureau Officers are
responsible for the formulating national educational policies and enhancing the
total development of learners through local and national programs and/or
projects.
B. Regional Level- consistent with the national policies, plans and standards, the
regional office under the Regional Director shall be responsible for the developing a regional
basic education plan and formulating in coordination with the regional development council
C. Division Level-copervisions. Consist of a province or a city. Consistent with the
national educational policies, plans, and standards, the division level through the leadership
of Division Superindendent and this level is responsible for developing and implementing
division education development plan and the hiring, placing and evaluating all division
superindendent and school district supervisor.
D. School District level-through the leadership of District Supervisor and responsible
for providing professional and instructional advice and curricula supervisions.
E. School Level- consistent with the national educational policies, plans, and
standards, through the leadership of school heads and responsible for setting the mission,
vision, goals, and objectives of the school.

Curriculum Evaluation.
When we say evaluation, it is the process of collecting data on a programme to
determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt, reject, or revise the
programme. Curriculum evaluation should be concerned with assessing the value of a
program of study, field of study and course study. Different person give definitions on
curriculum evaluation such as:
 Worthen and Sanders (1987)-curriculum evaluation as the formal determination of
the quality, effectiveness, or value of a programme, product, project, process, objective or
curriculum.
Ornstein and Hunkins(1998)-curriculum evaluation as a process or cluster of
processes that people perform in order to gather data that will enable them to decide
whether to accept, change or eliminate something- the curriculum in general or an
educational textbook in particular
Davis(1980)-the process of delineating, obtaining and providing information useful for
making decisions and judgements about curricula.
Marsh (2004)- the process of examining the goals, rationale, and structure of any
curriculum, in his book, curriculum evaluation is defined as the process of making objective
judgement to a curriculum-its philosophy, goals and objectives, content learning experience
and evaluation.
Print(1993)-the process of assessing the merit and worth of a program of studies, a
course, or a field of study.
Tuckman (1985)- the means of determining whether the program is meeting its goal
Doll(1992)- the broad and continuous effort to inquire into the effects of utilizing
context and processes to meet clearly defined goals.
Stufflebeam(1971)- the process of delineating, obtaining and providing useful
information for judging decision alternative.

How can we involve the following stakeholders in the curriculum?

Parents- as parents of the child who is in that school, parents ensure that the
curriculum being implemented is the best and their child experience the learning and
teaching in the best way.
Students-as the center of the curriculum, students can serve as the major source of
collection of data of the curriculum being implemented.
Community officials- community can also be involved in curriculum evaluation
because community serves as the bias of what curriculum or program can be implemented
and can satisfy the needs of the community
Professional Organizations- these organizations serve as one of the source of funds
for the projects and services that the school or the curriculum can offer.
Alumni- these will serve as for proving the effectiveness of the curriculum being
implemented, whether the curriculum is need for rejection, improvement or revisions.
Researchers-the one who is responsible for the curriculum’s innovation and further
study on curriculum, its way, development and plans.
 MODULE 5: CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

Curriculum Implementation.
Curriculum Implementation, from the term itself, focuses on the actual
Implementation of the curriculum from the national level to the local school context. It
describes the dynamic 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 of 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 (2004) 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 curriculum workers. 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 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 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 schools 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.
Division Superintendents the chief academic officer of each division.
They supervise the implementation of the DepEd curriculum, programs and projects
in the division level for both public and private schools. Usually, each province or a city is
considered a division for DepEd.
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 Panel 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
are also 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.
 Level 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 centralize the Department of
Education still does most of the policies and curriculum development work.
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 bench-
• Marking 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 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:
• hiring, placing and evaluating all employees in the regional office.
• except for the position of assistant director:
• 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 plan; 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
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 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 to the school heads
and teachers/facilitators of school 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 conductive 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 and innovative modes of instruction to achieve higher.
• Learning outcomes;
• Administering and managing all personnel, physical and 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 facilitators’ 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 Intentional 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 Educational Act of 1994. Contrary to Dep Ed, 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 HEls
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 changes and application
for new curricular offerings from HEls 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 HEls in their
regions comply with CHED requirements and policies.
State colleges and universities must seek the approval of their academic councils
and their corresponding board 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 HEls to
the CMO issued by the Commission.

Commission on Higher Education (National Level)

CHED Regional Offices

Higher Education Institutions (Colleges, Professional Institutes, Universities)

Pure 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 HEls, the curriculum committee and the council of deans prescribed
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 made in any
department or college. Each faculty member, whether in public or private HEls, 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 Educational 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.
4. Needs and Demands of the Society are 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 general 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 also contributory to the success of curriculum
implementation.

CURRICULUM EVALUATION
-Curriculum evaluation refers to the process of assessing the distinction or value of
some aspect or the whole of a curriculum. The way the term curriculum is defined, the
objective of curriculum evaluation may include the curriculum design, learning
environment, instruction process, resources and materials used in the process of imparting
education. It is also equally essential to find out about the adequacy along with the facility
of resources required for teaching such as teaching aids, laboratories, library books and
instruments. Curriculum evaluation is a process to attempt to gauge the value and
effectiveness of any piece of educational activity such as a rational project or a piece of
work undertaken by or with pupils.

-The strengths and the weaknesses of the curriculum before implementation and the
effectiveness of its implementation can be highlighted by the help of evaluation (Ornstein
and Hunkins 325). Thus, a systematic and continuous evaluation of a program is significant
for its improvement, which ultimately leads to the need for curriculum evaluation.
PURPOSE OF CURRICULUM EVALUATION
Educational prepares future generation to take their due place in the society. It
becomes essential that substandard educational goals, materials and methods of instruction
are not retained but updated in consonance with the advances in social cultural & scientific
field. It is also important to ascertain how different educational institutions and situations
interpret a given or prescribed curriculum. Hence, arises the need for curriculum evaluation.

Curriculum evaluation monitors and reports on the quality of education. Cronbach

1963 distinguishes three types of decisions for which evaluation is used.
Course Improvement: deciding what instructional material and methods are
satisfactory and where changes are needed.
Decisions about individuals: identifying the needs of the pupil for the sale of planning
of instruction and grouping, acquainting the pupil with his own deficiencies.
Administrative regulations: judging how good the school system is, how good
individual teachers are. The goal of evaluation must be to answer questions of selection,
adoption, support, and worth of educational material and activities. It helps in identifying
the necessary improvements to be made in content, teaching, methods, learning
experiences, educational facilities, staff-selection, and development of educational
objectives.
TYPES OF CURRICULUM EVALUATION
According to Scriven, following are the 3 main types

1. Formative Evaluation. It occurs during the course of curriculum

development. Its purpose is to contribute to the improvement of the Q educational
programme. The merits of a programme are evaluated during the process of its
development. The evaluation results provide information to the programme
developers and enable them to correct flaws detected in the programme.

2. Summative Evaluation. In summative evaluation, the final effects of a

curriculum are evaluated on the basis of its stated objectives. It takes place after the
curriculum has been fully developed and put into operations.

3. Diagnostic Evaluation. Diagnostic evaluation is directed towards two

purposes either for placement of students properly at the outset of an instructional
level (such as secondary school), or to discover the underlying cause of deviancies in
student learning in any field of study.
TECHNIQUES OF EVALUATION
A variety of techniques are employed. Questionnaire, checklist, interview, group
discussions evaluation workshops.
a) Observation: It is related to curriculum transaction. Observation
schedule helps the evaluator to focus his attention on the aspects of the process that
 are most relevant to his investigation. This method gains credibility when it contains
both subjectives and objective methods. Interviews and feed-back and other
documentary evidences may supplement observations.

b) Questionnaire: is used to obtain reaction of curriculum users namely pupils,

teachers, administrators, parents and other educational workers concerning various
aspects of prescribed curriculum are to be ascertained

c) Check-list: It can be used as a part of questionnaire and interview. It provides

numbers of responses out of which most appropriate responses are to be checked by the
respondent.

d) Interview: It is a basic technique of evaluation and for gathering information. It

may be formal or informal in nature. The information required should be suitably
defined and the presentation of questions should in no case betray and sort of bias the
part of the interviewer.
Bradley’s Effectiveness Model
Bradley’s (1985) book Curriculum Leadership and Development Handbook
provides 10 key indicators that can be used to measure the effectiveness of a developed
curriculum. The chart in Exhibit 12.1 is designed to help you identify your perceptions
regarding the 10 indicators to appraise curriculum effectiveness in your school building
or district.
 The indicators for effective curriculum development represent working
characteristics that any complex organization must have in order to be responsive and
responsible to its clients. Further, the measurement can be oriented to meet the needs
of any school district—from large to small—and it can focus on a specific evaluation of a
district’s curriculum area, such as reading, language arts, math, or any content area
designated.
Tyler’s Objectives-Centered Model
One of the earliest curriculum evaluation models, which continues to influence
many assessment projects, was that proposed by Ralph Tyler (1950) in his monograph
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. As explained in this work and used in
numerous large-scale assessment efforts, the Tyler approach moved rationally and
systematically through several related steps:

1. Begin with the behavioral objectives that have been previously

determined. Those objectives should specify both the content of learning and the
student behavior expected: “Demonstrate familiarity with dependable sources of
information on questions relating to nutrition.”
 2. Identify the situations that will give the student the opportunity to
express the behavior embodied in the objective and that evoke or encourage this
behavior. Thus, if you wish to assess oral language use, identify situations that evoke
oral language.

3. Select, modify, or construct suitable evaluation instruments, and check

the instruments for objectivity, reliability, and validity.

4. Use the instruments to obtain summarized or appraised results.

5. Compare the results obtained from several instruments before and after
given periods in order to estimate the amount of change taking place.

6. Analyze the results in order to determine strengths and weaknesses of the

curriculum and to identify possible explanations about the reason for this pattern of
strengths and weaknesses.

7. Use the results to make the necessary modifications in the curriculum. (as
cited in Glatthorn, 1987, p. 273)

The Tyler model has several advantages: It is relatively easy to understand and
apply. It is rational and systematic. It focuses attention on curricular strengths and
weaknesses, rather than being concerned solely with the performance of individual
students. It also emphasizes the importance of a continuing cycle of assessment,
analysis, and improvement.

Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model

The CIPP model was first developed by Daniel Stufflebeam in 1966.
Stufflebeam is an “influential proponent of a decision-oriented evaluation
approach” designed to help administrators make good decisions (R. Worthen and
Sanders 98). Stufflebeam views evaluation as the process of delineating, obtaining
and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives.

To service the needs of decision makers, the Stufflebeam model provides a

means for generating data relating to four stages of program operation: context,
input, process, and product.
 Context Evaluation
Context evaluation is used to give a rational reason for why a curriculum have
to be implemented. It also involves studying the environment in which a curriculum is
run. It is generally done when new program is launched.

Input Evaluation
This is done to provide information about the sources that can be used to
achieved the program objectives. It helps in finding a strategy to solve the problem
and helps in planning.

Process Evaluation
This evaluation is done to identify if the education program is as per the
strategies finalized for it. It is carried out to monitor potential sources that can cause
failure and necessary adjustment are made to enhance the impact of the program
and prevent its failure.

Product Evaluation
- It measures the achievement of the program objectives. It is conducted
during and after the program. On the basis of the data collected during this
evaluation, it is decided if the program is good, requires modification, or should be
terminated.
In conducting a goal-free evaluation, the evaluator functions as an unbiased observer
who begins by generating a profile of needs for the group served by a given program
(Scriven is somewhat vague as to how this needs profile is to be derived). Then, by using
methods that are primarily qualitative in nature, the evaluator assesses the actual effects of
the program. If a program has an effect that is responsive to one of the identified needs,
then the program is perceived as useful.
Scriven’s Goal-Free Model
Scriven’s main contribution, obviously, was to redirect the attention of evaluators and
administrators to the importance of unintended effects—a redirection that seems especially
useful in education. If a mathematics program achieves its objectives of improving
computational skills but has the unintended effect of diminishing interest in mathematics,
then it cannot be judged completely successful. Scriven’s emphasis on qualitative methods
also seemed to come at an opportune moment, when there was increasing dissatisfaction in
the research community with the dominance of quantitative methodologies.

As Scriven himself notes, however, goal-free evaluation should be used to

complement, not supplant, goal-based assessments.
Stake’s Responsive Model
Robert Stake (1975) made a major contribution to curriculum evaluation in his
development of the responsive model, because the responsive model is based explicitly on
the assumption that the concerns of the stakeholders those for whom the evaluation is
done should be paramount in determining the evaluation issues.

The chief advantage of the responsive model is its sensitivity to clients. By identifying
their concerns and being sensitive to their values, by involving them closely throughout the
evaluation, and by adapting the form of reports to meet their needs, the model, if
effectively used, should result in evaluations of high utility to clients. The responsive model
also has the virtue of flexibility: The evaluator is able to choose from a variety of
methodologies once client concerns have been identified. Its chief weakness would seem to
be its susceptibility to manipulation by clients, who in expressing their concerns might
attempt to draw attention away from weaknesses they did not want exposed.

Eisner’s Connoisseurship Model

Elliot Eisner (1979) drew from his background in aesthetics and art education in
developing his “connoisseurship” model, an approach to evaluation that emphasizes
qualitative appreciation. The Eisner model is built on two closely related constructs:
connoisseurship and criticism.
Connoisseurship, in Eisner’s terms, is the art of appreciation—recognizing and
appreciating through perceptual memory, drawing from experience to appreciate what is
significant. It is the ability both to perceive the particulars of educational life and to
understand how those particulars form part of a classroom structure.
 Criticism, to Eisner, is the art of disclosing qualities of an entity that connoisseurship
perceives. In such a disclosure, the educational critic is more likely to use what Eisner calls
“nondiscursive”—a language that is metaphorical, connotative, and symbolic. It uses
linguistic forms to present, rather than represent, conception or feeling.
Educational criticism, in Eisner’s formulation, has three aspects.
-The descriptive aspect. Is an attempt to characterize and portray the relevant
qualities of educational life the rules, the regularities, the underlying architecture.
-The interpretive aspect. Uses ideas from the social sciences to explore meanings and
develop alternative explanations to explicate social phenomena.
-The evaluative aspect. Makes judgments to improve the educational processes and
provides grounds for the value choices made so that others might better disagree.
The chief contribution of the Eisner model is that it breaks sharply with the traditional
scientific models and offers a radically different view of what evaluation might be. In doing
so, it broadens the evaluator’s perspective and enriches his or her repertoire by drawing
from a rich tradition of artistic criticism.