Chapter 3: Literature Review
2.6 Curriculum Evaluation
2.6.2.3 Stufflebeam's Model: Context, Input, Process, Product
Daniel Stufflebeam developed a comprehensive model to evaluate four facets: context, input, process, and product. The model is known as CIPP. The model was developed based on the rationale of a "decision-management" approach (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009;
Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
138
The model’s purpose is to identify needs and ends of a curriculum or a program. Stufflebeam designed the CIPP model to address four main questions (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009;
Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014):
1. What should be done?
2. How should it be done?
3. Is it being done?
4. Is it succeeding?
Context evaluation concerns curricula or programs which identify needs and whether they have been addressed or not. If not, then the evaluator should analyse the reasons for unfulfilled needs (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
Input evaluation focuses on the resources required to accomplish the objectives of the curriculum. Process evaluation concerns the link between theory and practice and the implementation of the curriculum.
Product evaluation refers to the end-result, the extent to which the curriculum objectives have been met.
Humanistic Approach
Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) argue that a scientific approach prevents evaluators from gaining full pictures of curricula. Ornstein and Hunkins advocate a humanistic and non- traditional approach which is holistic and comprehensive. Humanistic approaches explore people’s perceptions, interactions, and uncover emotions which influence their interpretations of reality in different social contexts (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
Humanistic evaluators are more concerned with why rather than what, and seek to be interpretive more than to be objective. Humanistic efforts emphasize interaction in the
139
evaluation process more than outcomes which demonstrate the descriptive nature of humanistic evaluation reports.
Hamilton (1977) complimented (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009) the humanistic approach and expressed evaluation as a practical morality, or goodness, as being debatable in the field of curriculum evaluation. Hamilton divided the evaluation process into ethical and practical divisions, the former one guided by an established set of rules to address the question of
"what we should do" which enables evaluators to judge the value of the curriculum. The empirical part is factual and examines curriculum merit which responds to "what can we do".
Hamilton (1977) comments curriculum evaluation does not occur in a vacuum, but it stems from social and political change. Therefore, evaluation of a social process should reflect society’s needs—if not, then it's meaningless. Most importantly, Hamilton (1977) concludes curriculum evaluation models should be linked to curriculum design. The evaluation responds in similar practice to the developed curriculum.
Humanistic evaluators developed the Illuminative Evaluation model, Connoisseurship and Criticism evaluation, and Action-Research models (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009;
Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
Illuminative Evaluation Model
The Illuminative Evaluation model was developed by Malcolm Parlett and David Hamilton (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009). The Illuminative model adopted qualitative methods of interviews, observation, and document analysis to illuminate different issues of the curriculum and identify specific features.
The Illuminative model consists of observation, further inquiry, and explanation.
140
1. Observation. Evaluators get a summary of the program and then describe the context of the school, including relevant information such as learning materials, teachers’
lesson plans and teaching methods (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
2. Further inquiry. In this step, the evaluator focuses on a school program or curriculum to judge value. Evaluators spend more time in school and investigate other resources to gain sufficient knowledge to judge the program. Evaluators analyse student portfolios, conduct interviews, and give questionnaires to parents and teachers (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
3. Explanation. It's descriptive, more of an explanation of programs and reflects on causes or factors affecting the program. Explanation usually is presented to decision- makers (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
Eisner's Connoisseurship and Criticism Models
Elliot Eisner was an art teacher in high school and also was a painter. When Eisner received his PhD, he taught at Stanford university in the art and education colleges. In education, his expertise was in curriculum and instruction (Donmoyer, 2014).. At the time Eisner believed in the art of curriculum and that there was potential to transfer his art experience into education. Eisner perceived education as a broad phenomenon and using a qualitative, humanistic approach enables curriculum evaluators to craft evaluation processes to explore schools and interact with individuals which provides insight to evaluators to discover new aspects of programs (Nordin & Wahlstrom, 2019; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014). Eisner encouraged evaluators to be actively involved in qualitative methods to have better judgment and communicate accurate reports to schools or district management (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
Eisner criticised scientific evaluators who overvalued descriptive data which prevents evaluators from getting the big picture and undermines change of curriculum which is the
141
main objective of the evaluation process. Nordin and Wahlstrom (2019) and Stavropoulou and Stroubouki (2014) comment that this philosophy shaped Eisner’s beliefs to perceive school as a "living system", causing Eisner to develop the Connoisseurship and Criticism models for curriculum evaluation (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Shahidi et al., 2014; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).
Eisner asserts the importance for evaluators to look at educational programs (curriculum) in a real learning environment (Donmoyer, 2014). Eisner adopted a humanistic approach to develop both models. Qualitative evaluation judges curriculum value based on holistic views of individual and educational phenomena. Humanistic evaluators explore social interaction in educational contexts. Qualitative researchers are more concerned about education quality than outcomes (Shaidi et al., 2014). Eisner’s humanistic approach encourages reflective teaching where teachers are able to integrate "contextual aspects" into their classroom and students are encouraged to apply inquiry and critical thinking skills. Nordin and Wahlstrom (2019), in order to achieve this goal, say the national narrative should not be linear (known as single-narrative model). Also, it requires that teaching methods and pedagogy practices should be improved and students should be more engaged (i. e. social and economic history) (Paulson, 2015).
Eisner successfully developed his Connoisseurship model of curriculum evaluation.
According to Eisner, curriculum evaluators can be connoisseurs (Donmoyer, 2014). The expert or specialist can notice fine characteristics which others cannot observe. Connoisseurs at end of the process can generate evaluation reports with artist touches such as literary work, not documents that were the norm in social sciences (Donmoyer, 2014). Nordin and
Wahlstrom (2019) feel the connoisseurship model enables the evaluator to discover the context to determine the curriculum value. Eisner "described" Connoisseurship as the ability to "appreciate the qualities that constitute some objects, situations, or events" (Ornstein &
142
Hunkins, 2009, p. 289). Connoisseurship consists of five components that reflect different aspects of curriculum: intentional, structural, curricular, pedagogical, and evaluative.
Intentional is a personal assessment of curriculum worth, value, and merit. Structural evaluation examines curriculum design and context of an educational organization itself (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Shahidi et al. 2014; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014). Curriculum evaluation examines knowledge, content, scope, and sequence.
Pedagogical assessment evaluates instructional design. Evaluative evaluation judges
evaluation itself (Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Shahidi et al., 2014; Stavropoulou
& Stroubouki, 2014).
Eisner believed that connoisseurs should be able to evaluate the program critically as “art critics” do. Eisner added criticism as a main component of evaluation. Eisner believed that art can have a role in social inquiry. Eisner developed both models on critical perspective and art (Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014). Stavropoulou and Stroubouki (2014) state that Criticism is another model of Eisner. The Criticism Model encompasses: (1) description: evaluators narrate the educational organization and curriculum; (2) interpretation: evaluators discuss and explain the finding to stakeholders; this can promote thorough interpretation of educational experience to explain the program based on epistemological theory – to social theory- foundation to make relevant meaning or meaningful knowledge; (3) evaluation: analysis of
“new programs to determine educational value; evaluation , where Eisner asserts that evaluators should give special attention to worth and value of educational programs; (4) thematic: to deduce unfolding themes, the evaluator needs to indicate an overarching theme yielded from evaluation and characterises the educational program (Donmoyer, 2014; Olivia, 2009; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009; Shahidi et al., 2014). Eisner described connoisseurship as the art of appreciation and criticism is the art of disclosure. “If connoisseurship is the art of
143
appreciation, then criticism is the art of disclosure” (Donmoyer, 2014, p. 444, cites Eisner, 1985).
Eisner encouraged evaluators to be actively involved in qualitative methods to have better judgment and communicate accurate reports to schools or district management (Ornstein &
Hunkins, 2009). Shahidi et al. (2014) highlight the critical nature of the Eisner model.
Evaluators who adopt the Eisner model tend to "search critically” all aspects related to
context and individuals such as curriculum, activities, and products. At the end of the process, evaluators are able to uncover unique and significant qualities of programs. The
Connoisseurship and Criticism model was the premise for the development of art-based research methodology (Cahnmann-Taylor & Siegesmund, 2008).
Evaluation of Secondary History Curriculum in Developed Countries by Using Eisner’s Connoisseurship and Criticism Frame.
The purpose of this study is to examine the history curriculum with the goal of proposing a new history curriculum within the context of Somali students in secondary schools. This part aims to evaluate the value of secondary history curricula in developed countries through critical review of ten of journal articles published between 2007 to 2018 to evaluate the worth and merit of history curricula of secondary schools in developed countries, including Finland, New Zealand, Australia, Israel, United Kingdom, and Australia.
Documents as secondary sources in qualitative research serve as an essential tool that facilitates researchers to discover new areas that can be addressed through interviewing or observations. Documents provide “historical, demographic, and sometimes personal
information that is unavailable from other sources” (Glesne, 2011, p. 85). Archival materials are valuable sources of historical knowledge of research context, which enables qualitative researchers to explore certain phenomena (Glesne, 2011). Content analysis is “used to
144
analyse documents”. The articles were selected to elicit knowledge and understanding of best practices to develop meritorious curriculum.
This is a developmental evaluation to determine characteristics of a meritorious history curriculum (Guba & Lincoln, 1979). Meriam (2009) recommends that content analysis should consist of systematic procedures; hence, the Eisner Connoisseurship and Criticism frame was adopted to provide a systematic review of published research. Eisner’s
Connoisseurship and Criticism Frame consists of four components: description,
interpretation, evaluation, and it “yields “themes developed from particular case studies (Nordin & Wahlstrom 2019; Olivia, 2009; Özüdoğru; 2018; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009;
Shahidi et al. 2014; Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).