Runninghead: CURRICULUM EVALUATION 1

Curriculum Evaluation

Sophia Rodney

University of the West Indies

Department: School of Education

ID# 620048586

EDCU6026

October 16, 2018

Dr. Roofe

Assignment 1:
 Scenario 4 2

Rationale for the Evaluation

The challenges of operating a school without accreditation, is like operating a motor car

without the requisite insurance, hence educational evaluation is the end towards that mean. In

reference to scenario 4, the School of Education at the UWI, Mona has been selected for

accreditation by the University Council of Jamaica. As a result, the rationale for the carrying out

this evaluation is to assess through the process of accreditation the strengths and weaknesses of

there programme; as well as, how best the department in this case can improve its offering for

future students. Ornstein and Hunkin (2014), states that educational evaluation serve the mere

purpose of making judgement about the quality or worth of educational programme, workers

performance or proficiency or students attainments; which underscores the rationale for this

evaluation. According to Boulet and Zenten (2014), accreditation is the process by which a

designated authority reviews and evaluate, on a cyclical basis, an educational programme or

institution using clearly specified criteria and procedures. Worthen, Sanders and Fitzpatrick

(1997) added that it is the process whereby an organization is granted approval to carry out its

programmes. The Commission on Institution of Higher Education (n.d) further explains that

accreditation has two fundamental purposes; which are to assure the quality of the institution or

programme, and to assist in the betterment of the institution or programme; which is the very aim

of this process.

In the process of conducting an evaluation for the purpose of accreditation, there are a

number of issues that one will have to contend with to ensure that the evaluation is

comprehensive. As was previously stated, curriculum evaluation is about judging the merit and

worth of a programme. Therefore, in so doing, one has to ensure that the evaluation is delicate to
 Scenario 4 3

the concerns of the stakeholders and provide the kind of information needed. As a result, the

evaluation should pay keen attention to the following evaluation issues:

The written curriculum

Does the curriculum contains clearly defined goals. Is it relevant to society, and is it

supported and understood by all the relevant stakeholders (Glatthorn & Boschee, 2012). These

are questions the evaluation should answer.

Resources

Does the curriculum have the adequate resources to ensure that it operates efficiently

(Worthen, Sanders & Fitzpatrick,1997). By resources it means; is sufficient time allotted for the

taught curriculum? Are the requisite material available in order to execute the curriculum

accordingly?

Quality of Instruction

Is the kind of instruction provided in the delivering of the curriculum of high quality?

Does it reflect the kind of discourse that should be taking place at that level.

The learned Curriculum

What have students taken away from the whole experience of interacting with the

curriculum; the entire teaching and learning process (Glatthorn, Boschee & Whitehead, 2012).

When assessing a programme, choosing the right type of evaluation is of tantamount

importance, so as to ensure the right kind of feedback is provided. Depending on the purpose of

the evaluation, a formative or summative evaluation is usually carried out. So in the case of
 Scenario 4 4

judging the merit and worth of an institution programme, for the process of accreditation, a

summative evaluation is recommended. Klenowski (2010) outlines that summative evaluation

takes place generally to assess the outcomes, the merit, or worth of a particular curriculum.

(p.335-336). This view was further supported by Scriven (1967), who stated that “summative

evaluation also informs decision making about whether or not a curriculum is considered worthy

of continued support or adoption”.

So, having articulated the purpose for the evaluation being accreditation, I strongly

believe that summative evaluation is most fitting. This is so as the accreditation of a programme

can only be considered, after the institutional programmes or activities would have interacted

with a full cohort of students. This view is supported by Ornstein and Hunkins (2004), who

postulated:

“Summative evaluation is usually undertaken after the project has been implemented

school wide or district wide, as it focuses on the effectiveness of the total course or total

curriculum. They also added that once implemented, summative evaluation is used to

determine whether students have been successful in obtaining the final goals of the

curriculum/programme. Have they met the educational standards of the school or state”?

(p.339)

Which is the very question the evaluation will seek to uncover. State (2018) argues that this type

of evaluation compares knowledge or skills against benchmarks or standard.

Type of Evaluation approach Model

Having clearing outlined the type evaluation that should be utilized in the evaluation

process, I therefore believe that the expert- oriented approach coupled with the connoisseurship
 Scenario 4 5

model would be the most appropriate based on the scenario. The expert-oriented approach is said

to be the oldest known approach and is the work of Elliott Eisner(McNamara & McNamara,

1997. p. 54). According to Fitspatrick, Sanders & Worthen (2011), “this approach is used to

provide professional judgement of quality”, which is the case in point. Fitspatrick, Sanders &

Worthen added that judgements through the use of this approach are not carried out in a

wholesale fashion; but rather, relies on professional judgement of content expert, individual’s

experience, use of a set of consensus standards/criteria along with site visit. Likewise, the

connoisseurship model of evaluation according to Glatthorn, Boschee and Whitehead (2009)

states that,

“Evaluation emphasizes a qualitative appreciation. It is built on two constructs

namely connoisseurship and criticisms. It is the art of appreciation – recognizing

and appreciating through perceptual memory, drawing from experiences 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 classroom

structure”.

Worthen, Sanders and Fitzpatrick (1997) further stated that,

“Connoisseurship is not necessarily a liking or preference for that which is observed but

rather an awareness of its qualities and the relationships between them. Additionally, that

“the connoisseur’s perceptual acuity results largely from knowledge of what to look for,

which is gained through a backlog of previous relevant experience”.(p.128-129)

Orstein and Hunkins asserted that in employing the procedure of educational criticism,

evaluators should ask questions such as: “what has occurred during the school year as a result of
 Scenario 4 6

the new programme? What are the key events? How did such events arise? How did teachers and

students participate in these events? What were the reactions of the participants to these events?

How might the events have been made even more effective? What do the students learned form

experiencing the new programme?, which are pertinent questions that evaluation will have to

address”. (p. 347)

The expert-oriented approach using the connoisseurship model would be most suited as

both the approach and model draw on the works of experts. Orenstein and Hunkins exclaimed

that if one is to illuminate criticism at a painting, he or she must be an expert. Likewise, it is very

imperative that educational connoisseurs possess knowledge of curriculum and instruction to

determine what to observe, how to see, and how to value and appreciate (Orstein & Hunkins).

This I believe is a very vital component in making decisive decision on the programmes of the

School of Education, Mona and by extension any programme of higher learning. Worthen,

Sanders and Fitzpatrick, exclaimed that this approach and model has been broadly used by

national and regional accreditation agencies; hence supporting there suitability.

Another important tenet in the application of the connoisseurship model that justifies its

inclusion is site visit. Site visitation is a very important element of the accreditation process; as

it plays a pivotal role in the kind of judgement that would be formed about the programmes

being offered by an institution, like the School of Education, Mona. Worthen, Sanders and

Fitzpatrick (1997) states that site visitation is frequently the method that is used by expert to

conduct their evaluation; this is so, as it provides the expert with first-hand experience at

matching the information as outlined in the self-study against what they have observed. This is

where the evaluators interact with the entire curriculum programmes; hence solidifying its

importance.
 Scenario 4 7

Similarly, the expert- oriented approach coupled with the connoisseurship model were

selected as the appropriate model because they pave the way for sound educational criticism to

be provided, regarding the programme being offered by the School of Education, Mona.

Criticism about the extend to which the programme has achieved it objectives? Should the

programme continue as it is? Or blatantly, Should the programme be terminated? This kind of

criticism does not imply a negative appraisal but rather an educational process that provides

public disclosure of specific, detailed factors that establishes categories of distinction (Worthen,

Sanders & Fitzpatrick, 2011, p. 141). Such public disclosure is of utmost importance, especially

given the fact that the University is a public entity that affects graduates’ lives and thereby

society. Additionally, the use of this approach and model also create opportunities for detailed

qualitative feedback outlining the strengths and possible weakness as the programme moves

forward.

In closing, it has been outlined in the above paragraphs that the rationale for carrying out

the evaluation on the University of the West Indies, Mona by the University Council of Jamaica

as sited in the scenario, was solely for the purpose of accreditation. Accreditation holds grave

importance to the University, as it will affect to a great extend the kinds of graduates that the

school releases into the society, as well as job opportunities. Additionally, the process of

accreditation is normally embarked on after a full cohort of students would have completed their

study, hence making the kind of evaluation being executed summative in nature. Notably, that

accreditation is about matching an institution standard against prescribed standards/criteria and

making judgements based on what is observed. Hence, without a shadow of a doubt, the expert-

oriented approach coupled with the connoisseurship model are most suitable in providing

evaluators with such leverage. .

 Scenario 4 8

References

Boulet, J., & Zanten, M. V. (2014). Ensuring high-quality patient care: The role of accreditation,

licensure, specialty certification and revalidation in medicine. 48: 75-86. Retrieved from:

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.rproxy.uwimona.edu.jm/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=1&sid=2e50a435-6228-4ea8-aba9-8fa95b2fea55%40sessionmgr4010

Commission on Institution of Higher Education (n.d). New England Association of Schools and

`College. Retrieved from

https://cihe.neasc.org/sites/cihe.neasc.org/files/downloads/POLICIES/Pp63-

Role_and_Value_of-Accreditation.pdf

Fitpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative

approaches and practical guidelines, Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Chapter 5-8. pp.

126-230.

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2009). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for

development and implementation (2nd ed.). California, USA: Sage

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., & Whitehead, B. M. (2012). Chapter 12: Curriculum evaluation.

In Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. Los Angeles,

Sage

Klenowski, V. (2010). Curriculum Evaluation: Approaches and methodologies. International

Encyclopedia of Education. 1. 335-347.

McNamara, Erlandson & McNamara (1999). Measurement and Evaluation. New York, USA:
 Scenario 4 9

Routledge.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum foundations, princples and issues (4th ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Tyler, R. W., Gagne, R. M., and Scriven,

M. (eds.) Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, 1, 39–83. Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally

States, J. (2018). Summative Assessment (Wing Institute Original Paper). Retrieved

from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323946068_Summative_Assessment

_Wing Institute_Original_Paper