Curriculum Evaluation Models: An Elementary Principal's View

Introduction

As the principal of an elementary school, I am tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that our curriculum meets our state's educational standards and enriches the lives of our young learners. Evaluating and refining our curriculum is therefore of utmost importance. This essay reviews five curriculum evaluation models, compares their strengths and weaknesses, and selects the most suitable model for our school.

The following sections provide a detailed analysis of Tyler's Objective Model, Stufflebeam's CIPP Model, Stake's Responsive Model, Scriven's Goal-Free Model, and Kirkpatrick's Hierarchy of Evaluation. Each of these models takes a distinct approach to curriculum evaluation, and understanding their implications in an elementary school context is valuable for any school leader. After examining each model, I discuss their respective strengths and weaknesses, considering factors such as adaptability to our school's needs, resources required for implementation, and effectiveness in capturing the multifaceted nature of elementary education. Finally, I conclude with the selection of one model that aligns most closely with our school's ethos, values, and specific curriculum goals — a decision guided by a thorough understanding of each model's potential to enhance our curriculum development, implementation, design, and assessment processes.

A Principal's Perspective on Curriculum Evaluation Models

In my role as the principal of an elementary school, I have had the opportunity to explore various curriculum evaluation models. Each model is unique, and my reflections below take into consideration the equally unique needs of our school's learners.

Tyler's model is notable for its clear objectives (Vo, 2018). For me, it is like setting a GPS for a journey — it tells you where to go but not how the journey should unfold. It works well when you have a clear destination or goal in mind. However, in our school, where education is as much about the journey as the destination, this model can sometimes feel overly constrained. In some ways, it is like having a map but being unable to explore the interesting detours.

The CIPP Model is like having a multi-tool in your pocket — it is versatile and comprehensive (Stufflebeam, 2000). It examines every facet of the curriculum, which is valuable. However, it is also like planning a major expedition: it requires significant resources and is quite an undertaking. For a school with limited resources, this model may be challenging to implement effectively (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Stake's model is like hosting a community dialogue. It brings everyone's voice to the table — teachers, students, parents — making the evaluation process a rich, collaborative effort. It is excellent for understanding the lived experiences of our curriculum. However, it is time-consuming, like having a long, engaging conversation that you wish you had more time for (Miller et al., 2016).

Scriven's approach is like exploring without a map, focusing on what you discover along the way. It brings to light outcomes that might not have been anticipated. In a school setting, this can be enlightening, revealing hidden strengths or challenges in our curriculum (Vo, 2018). However, it can also feel like a treasure hunt without clues — exciting but potentially overwhelming if you are unsure what you are looking for.

Kirkpatrick's model is like following a recipe — it is step-by-step and clear (Cahapay, 2021). It works well for training programs where you can measure how closely the recipe was followed and what outcome it produced. However, in a school where education is more than just following a recipe, it may not capture the full picture.

In our school, we value the voices of our community and the holistic development of our students. For this reason, Stake's Responsive Model resonates most with me. It aligns with our ethos of inclusive and comprehensive education. While it requires significant time and effort, the depth of understanding it provides about our curriculum's impact is invaluable. It is like weaving a tapestry with threads from every member of our school community, creating a picture that truly represents who we are and what we aspire to be.

Comparing Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Model

Strengths: Tyler's model functions like a clear-cut checklist. It is straightforward and goal-oriented, which is effective for tracking specific academic targets. It provides clear instructions — everyone knows what is expected.

Weaknesses: However, it is somewhat inflexible, like a recipe that does not allow for substitutions. It does not fully capture the fluidity of students' learning experiences or the evolving nature of educational needs (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Consider a classroom where the teacher distributes a project with a detailed checklist. The students know exactly what they need to do to succeed. This is the strength of Tyler's model: it acts as a roadmap for academic success. In a third-grade math class, for example, the model helps set clear objectives such as "Students will be able to multiply two-digit numbers." It is straightforward and goal-oriented, well-suited to tracking specific academic targets. The clarity it brings is comparable to guiding students through a step-by-step science experiment where the expected outcomes are precisely defined.

That said, the model has its limitations. In the diverse landscape of an elementary school, where each child's learning journey is unique, this rigidity can be a drawback. In art classes, for instance, while we aim to teach certain techniques, the rigid structure of Tyler's model does not fully embrace the creativity and individual expression of each student. It does not adequately capture the fluid, exploratory dimensions of student learning.

Strengths: The CIPP Model functions like an all-encompassing audit — it leaves no stone unturned. It is thorough, ensuring that every aspect of the curriculum is scrutinized and accounted for (Vo, 2018).

Weaknesses: However, conducting this level of evaluation is like running a full school inspection daily — exhaustive and resource-heavy. For a busy elementary school, the model can be overwhelming in its complexity and demands on resources.

Imagine our school as a beehive of activity, where each classroom buzzes with its own rhythm and learning style. The CIPP Model, in this setting, acts like a magnifying glass applied to every aspect of the curriculum. When a new reading program was introduced, the model guided us to examine not just the learning outcomes (Product), but also the context of students' reading levels, the resources (Input) such as books and digital materials, and the teaching processes employed. This thorough approach ensured that no aspect of the new program went unchecked.

Still, the model's exhaustive nature can feel overwhelming. Imagine asking teachers to complete detailed reports on every lesson while simultaneously delivering those lessons with enthusiasm and creativity. The complexity and resource-heavy demands of the CIPP Model can be daunting in a lively school environment. In the science curriculum, applying the model means evaluating not only end-of-unit test scores but also the context of each student's scientific understanding, the inputs such as lab equipment and textbooks, the instructional process, and finally the product. While undeniably beneficial, this requires significant time and resources that can strain an already busy staff.

Strengths: Stake's model is like hosting a roundtable discussion. It values everyone's input — from teachers to students — ensuring the curriculum resonates with the entire school community (Vo, 2018).

Weaknesses: However, it is as time-consuming as organizing a school-wide event on a regular basis. It requires a substantial time investment to gather and analyze qualitative data, which can be challenging amid a busy school schedule.

In our school, every voice matters. Stake's Responsive Model is like a roundtable where every participant — teachers, students, parents — has an equal say. This inclusivity is its greatest strength. When our social studies curriculum was revisited, this model allowed us to gather diverse perspectives: teachers shared insights on content relevance, students expressed their interests and understanding, and parents contributed cultural and historical viewpoints. This collective input ensured that the revised curriculum resonated with the entire school community, much like a well-orchestrated symphony where every instrument contributes to a harmonious outcome.

However, the model's inclusivity comes with a significant time investment, akin to organizing a school-wide event regularly. Gathering and analyzing qualitative data from various stakeholders is time-intensive. Implementing this model for a new environmental science program, for example, would require conducting numerous interviews, focus groups, and surveys. While these activities yield valuable insights, they demand considerable time to plan, execute, and analyze — a challenge when every minute in the school day is precious.

Furthermore, the time spent on extensive data collection and analysis can delay immediate decisions or quick curriculum adjustments. It is like planning a school festival where every detail is carefully discussed and agreed upon — the outcome is well-considered, but the process is time-consuming and can be exhausting for staff.

Strengths: This model invites open-ended exploration. It allows for the discovery of unexpected outcomes and hidden strengths in the curriculum, much like a science experiment where the results are not predetermined (Scriven, 1979).

Weaknesses: Yet, it is unpredictable, like embarking on a field trip without a destination. Without specific goals, it can be difficult to gauge the success or direction of the curriculum.

Scriven's Goal-Free Model invites exploration without a predefined map. This openness is its most significant strength. Like conducting a science experiment with an open-ended hypothesis, the model frees evaluators from specific expectations, allowing unexpected outcomes to surface. When a new art program was introduced, this model enabled the discovery of surprising talents and interests among students that had not been anticipated. It also revealed new ways of integrating art with other subjects, enhancing the school's interdisciplinary approach — much like stumbling upon a beautiful hidden path in a well-trodden forest.

In terms of weaknesses, this model carries a sense of unpredictability, similar to setting off on a field trip without a clear destination. While that can be exciting, it also poses challenges for measuring success and providing direction. In a school striving to meet specific educational standards, the absence of predefined objectives can leave staff questioning whether they are on the right track. In efforts to improve reading skills, for instance, the model might lead to innovative teaching methods, but without clear goals, it becomes difficult to assess whether those methods are effectively improving reading proficiency. This unpredictability also complicates communication with stakeholders such as parents and the school board, who often seek tangible outcomes and specific improvements. It is like telling the story of a journey without a clear beginning or end — fascinating, but potentially disorienting for those expecting a more structured narrative (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Strengths: Kirkpatrick's model is methodical, like following a well-structured lesson plan. It is well-suited for assessing specific training programs and their direct outcomes.

Weaknesses: However, it is like using a rigid lesson plan for a field day — it does not fully capture the broader, more dynamic aspects of school life. Its scope is narrow, primarily suited to training effectiveness rather than comprehensive educational evaluation (Sharma & Raval, 2019).

Kirkpatrick's model resembles a well-organized lesson plan that educators follow step by step. Its methodical, sequential nature makes it an excellent tool for assessing specific training programs and their direct outcomes. When a new technology training program was introduced for teachers, for example, Kirkpatrick's model provided a clear framework for assessing its effectiveness. It allowed for a structured evaluation of teachers' reactions to the training, the amount they learned, the degree to which they applied that learning in their classrooms, and finally the impact on student outcomes. This structured approach ensured that each stage was carefully assessed and any gaps were promptly addressed.

Nevertheless, the model has drawbacks, much like applying a rigid lesson plan to a dynamic, multifaceted event such as a school field day. It does not fully capture the broader, more vibrant aspects of school life. In an elementary setting — where education involves nurturing creativity, social skills, and emotional intelligence as much as delivering content — Kirkpatrick's model can seem narrow in focus (Reio et al., 2017). While it can assess the effectiveness of a new reading program in terms of literacy rates, for example, it may not adequately capture the program's impact on students' love for reading or their overall engagement with literature. The model's structured nature can also overlook the spontaneous, organic learning moments that are so valuable in an elementary school — moments that, though unplanned, are crucial for student development and may not be captured by an approach focused primarily on predetermined outcomes.

Conclusion

Stake's Responsive Model aligns well with the needs of our elementary school, offering a comprehensive and adaptable framework for curriculum evaluation. It ensures that our curriculum is not only academically sound but also responsive to the broader developmental needs of our students. The goal is an educational environment that is both nurturing and academically enriching — one that prepares students for a well-rounded future. That goal, I believe, is most achievable with this model.

Cahapay, M. (2021). Kirkpatrick model: Its limitations as used in higher education evaluation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 135–144.

Miller, R. L., King, J. A., Mark, M. M., & Caracelli, V. (2016). The oral history of evaluation: The professional development of Robert Stake. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 287–294.

Reio, T. G., Jr., Rocco, T. S., Smith, D. H., & Chang, E. (2017). A critique of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29(2), 35–53.

Scriven, M. (1979). Interview: Michael Scriven: Viewpoints on education evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(2), 66–72.

Sharma, H. S., & Raval, V. (2019). Curriculum evaluation: Approaches and models. A Journal of Composition Theory, 12(10), 240–249.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The CIPP model for evaluation. In Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 279–317). Springer Netherlands.

Vo, T. K. A. (2018). Evaluation models in educational program: Strengths and weaknesses. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2).