Tag Archives: Advance curriculum theory

Advance Curriculum theory ( Secondary level), M. Ed.

Criteria for Content Selection

3 Comments

When selecting content for a curriculum, there are several criteria for content selection that should be considered to ensure that the content is relevant, appropriate, and engaging for the students.

The following are some of the common criteria for content selection in the curriculum:

Self-sufficiency: This criteria helps the students to attain maximum self-sufficiency and that too in the most economical manner i.e., economy of teaching efforts, students’ efforts. In other words, we can say that the content should help the student become self-reliant and self-sufficient.
Significance: The content to be learned should be significant in terms of its contributions to the basic ideas, concepts, etc., in particular learning abilities.
Validity: Validity relates to the authenticity of the content selected. The content selected should be valid to the extent that it flows from and supports the goals and objectives of the curriculum. The content should be usable in day-to-day life.
Interest: Another deciding factor for content selection is that the content should suit the personality (e.g. attitude, interest, etc.) and intellectual capabilities (e.g. mental level, aptitude, etc.) of the students. It is likely that the students, interests are transitory. The criterion should be weighed and adjusted to provide for the student’s maturity, prior knowledge, experience, etc.
Utility: The utility criterion is concerned with the usefulness of the content. The usefulness can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the content learned by the student should be useful in higher job situations.
Learnability: This criterion relates to the optimal placement and appropriate organization and sequencing of content. The selected content should not be out of the range of students’ experiences, intellectual abilities, etc. In other words, the content should be such that it can be percieved, understood, and assimilated by the learners for whom it is intended.
Feasibility: Feasibility as a criterion of content selection compels curriculum planners to analyze and examine the content in light of the time and resources available to the student, costs involved, contemporary socio-political climate, etc. Despite the fact that there are several options available, the students do have limitations as far as the pace of their learning is concerned.

Also Read: Prep with Harshita

Criteria for Content Selection

Also Read: Perspective to Curriculum Transaction

BUY ME A BOOK!
Advance Curriculum theory ( Secondary level), M. Ed.

Perspectives to Curriculum Transaction

3 Comments

The perspective of curriculum transaction refers to the process of delivering a curriculum to learners. This process can be viewed from different theoretical frameworks, including behaviouristic, cognitive, and constructivist perspectives.

Curriculum transaction is the process of delivering the curriculum to students. It is a complex process that involves the teacher, the students, the content, and the learning environment.

There are many different perspectives on curriculum transaction. Some people believe that the teacher is the most important factor in the process. They argue that the teacher’s skills, knowledge, and enthusiasm can have a major impact on student learning. Others believe that the students are the most important factor. They argue that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the learning process and when they are motivated to learn. Still, others believe that the content is the most important factor. They argue that students need to be exposed to a variety of content in order to develop their minds and to prepare for college and careers.

The best way to think about curriculum transaction is as a partnership between the teacher, the students, and the content. Each of these factors plays an important role in the learning process. When all of these factors are working together, students are more likely to learn effectively.

Behaviouristic Perspective:

The behaviouristic perspective focuses on observable behavior and reinforces learning through rewards and punishments. In this perspective, the curriculum is delivered through repetitive drills and rote memorization to achieve mastery of specific skills and knowledge. The teacher is viewed as the authority figure, and learning is primarily based on conditioning and external reinforcement.

Cognitive Perspective :

The cognitive perspective focuses on how learners process information, emphasizing the role of mental processes such as perception, memory, and reasoning. In this perspective, the curriculum is delivered through active engagement in problem-solving, critical thinking, and inquiry-based activities. The teacher is viewed as a facilitator of learning, helping learners to construct their knowledge through interaction with the environment.

Constructivist Perspective :

The constructivist perspective focuses on the active construction of knowledge by the learner, emphasizing the role of prior knowledge and experience in shaping new understanding. In this perspective, the curriculum is delivered through authentic and meaningful learning experiences that promote inquiry, reflection, and collaboration. The teacher is viewed as a guide, helping learners to construct their understanding of the world by engaging in real-world problem-solving and authentic experiences.

A synthesis of these perspectives can lead to a more holistic approach to curriculum transaction, where the curriculum is designed to accommodate different learning styles and preferences. Such an approach may incorporate both traditional teaching methods and newer, more progressive approaches that emphasize learner-centered instruction. Ultimately, the effectiveness of any approach to curriculum transaction depends on the needs and goals of learners and the context in which learning occurs.

Also Read: Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation

Perspectives to curriculum transaction and their synthesis

Also Visit: Prep with Harshita

BUY ME A BOOK!
Advance Curriculum theory ( Secondary level), M. Ed.

Congruence-Contingency Model of curriculum evaluation

2 Comments

The congruence-contingency model of curriculum evaluation is a qualitative approach to evaluation that was developed by Robert Stake in 1975. The model is based on the assumption that curriculum evaluation should be focused on determining the extent to which the curriculum is congruent with the needs of the students and the context in which it is being implemented.

According to him, formal procedures will help increase the objectivity in evaluation. They aim at furnishing data, we can make descriptions and judgements of the curriculum being evaluated. Stake argues that for evaluation purposes, we should not rely only on the statements of objectives aims. We should allow all those ‘affected’ by the curriculum to extensively participate in judging the curriculum.

He further maintains that the data can be collected under the following three bodies of information.

I. Antecedent: This is any condition that exists prior to teaching and learning that may influence the outcomes. For example, prior knowledge, aptitudes, psychological profiles of students, etc., years of experience of teachers, teacher- behaviour, etc.

2. Transactions: Learning transactions that occur between and among teachers and students, students and students and among students and resource people.

3. .Outcomes: These are the consequences of education – immediate and long-range, cognitive and conative, personal and community-wide. For example, students’ performance, achievements, etc. Stake, however, lays stress on even such outcomes as the impact of a new programme on teachers’ perception of their competence.

The term contingencies here refer to the relationships among the variables in three categories: antecedents, transactions and outcomes. Once the evaluator collects views on a curriculum from various sources like students, teachers, support staff, etc., he puts them on a matrix to identify the congruencies and contingencies among them. The model clearly shows that it provides an organizational framework that points to the data to be considered and compares what is planned and what has occurred.

Here are some of the advantages of the congruence-contingency model:

  • It is a qualitative approach, which means that it takes into account the subjective experiences of the students and the teachers.
  • It is a comprehensive approach, which means that it considers all aspects of the curriculum.
  • It is a flexible approach, which means that it can be adapted to different types of curriculums and different contexts.

Here are some of the disadvantages of the congruence-contingency model:

  • It can be time-consuming and expensive to implement.
  • It requires a high level of expertise to use effectively.
  • It can be difficult to get all stakeholders involved in the evaluation process.

Overall, the congruence-contingency model is a valuable tool for educators who want to ensure that their curriculum is meeting the needs of their students. It is a comprehensive and flexible approach that can be used to evaluate all aspects of the curriculum.

Also Read: Approaches of Curriculum Evaluation

Congruence-Contingency Model of curriculum evaluation
Congruence-Contingency Model of curriculum evaluation

Also visit: Prep with Harshita

BUY ME A BOOK!
Advance Curriculum theory ( Secondary level), M. Ed.

Metfessel-Michael Model of Curriculum Evaluation

3 Comments

The Metfessel-Michael Model of curriculum evaluation is a goal-oriented model that was developed in 1967 by Norman Metfessel and James Michael. The model is based on the assumption that curriculum evaluation should be focused on determining whether or not the curriculum is achieving its goals. It is a variation of the Tylerian model.

The Metfessel-Michael Model consists of these steps(major 8 steps):

  1. Involve the participants and Identify the goals of the curriculum or formulate the objectives.
  2. Translate the goals into specific, measurable objectives and content and experience.
  3. Develop assessment instruments and methodology to carry out the evaluation.
  4. Carry out observations and collect data on student achievement of the objectives.
  5. Analyze the data and compare student achievement to the objectives.
  6. Interpret the data to make judgments about the extent to which the curriculum is achieving its goals.
  7. Use the results of the evaluation to make decisions about the curriculum and make recommendations.
  8. Repeat the evaluation process on a regular basis.

The Metfessel-Michael Model is a comprehensive and systematic approach to curriculum evaluation. It is a useful tool for educators who want to ensure that their curriculum is meeting the needs of their students.

Here are some of the advantages of the Metfessel-Michael Model:

  • It is a goal-oriented model, which means that it is focused on determining whether or not the curriculum is achieving its goals.
  • It is a systematic approach, which means that it follows a step-by-step process.
  • It is comprehensive, which means that it considers all aspects of the curriculum.
  • It is flexible, which means that it can be adapted to different types of curriculums.

Here are some of the disadvantages of the Metfessel-Michael Model:

  • It can be time-consuming and expensive to implement.
  • It requires a high level of expertise to use effectively.
  • It can be difficult to get all stakeholders involved in the evaluation process.

Overall, the Metfessel-Michael Model is a valuable tool for educators who want to ensure that their curriculum is meeting the needs of their students. It is a comprehensive and systematic approach that can be used to evaluate all aspects of the curriculum.

Also Visit: Prep with Harshita

Metfessel-Michael Model of Curriculum Evaluation

Also Read: Sources of Curriculum design

BUY ME A BOOK!
Advance Curriculum theory ( Secondary level), M. Ed.

Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation

5 Comments

Approaches of Curriculum Evaluation can be categorized into various types:

Scientistic and Humanistic Approach

Cronbach (1 982) has identified two approaches to evaluation – the scientistic ideals approach and the humanistic ideals approach. The scientistic end advocates experimentation and the humanistic end does not have faith in experimentation.

The scientistic approach and the humanistic approach are two different ways of evaluating curriculum. Here are some of the key differences between them:

  1. Focus: The scientistic approach focuses on measurable outcomes, such as test scores and academic achievement. The humanistic approach focuses on the personal and social dimensions of learning, such as critical thinking, communication skills, and personal values.
  2. Methodology: The scientistic approach uses quantitative data and statistical analysis to evaluate the curriculum. The humanistic approach uses qualitative data and subjective feedback, such as interviews and observations.
  3. Values: The scientistic approach values objectivity, control, and predictability. The humanistic approach values subjectivity, empathy, and personal experience.
  4. Goals: The scientistic approach is primarily concerned with academic outcomes and the effectiveness of the curriculum in achieving those outcomes. The humanistic approach is concerned with the personal and social development of learners, as well as their academic achievement.
  5. Outcomes: The outcomes of the scientistic approach are typically focused on academic achievement and the effectiveness of the curriculum in meeting specific learning goals. The outcomes of the humanistic approach are more diverse and may include personal growth, social responsibility, and other non-academic dimensions of learning.

Intrinsic and Pay-off Evaluation:

The intrinsic and pay-off evaluations are two different approaches used in curriculum evaluation to assess the effectiveness of educational programs.

The intrinsic approach focuses on evaluating the curriculum based on its internal components, such as the learning objectives, content, and teaching methods. This approach involves analyzing the curriculum to determine whether it aligns with the goals of the educational institution, whether it is effective in achieving those goals, and whether it provides a meaningful and engaging learning experience for students. The intrinsic evaluation assesses the quality of the curriculum itself and is concerned with the curriculum’s internal validity.

In contrast, the pay-off evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the curriculum based on its external outcomes, such as the success of students in academic or career settings. This approach involves measuring the performance of students who have completed the curriculum and comparing it to the performance of those who have not. The pay-off evaluation focuses on the curriculum’s external validity and its impact on the students’ future lives, such as their academic achievement or job prospects.

The main difference between intrinsic and pay-off evaluation is their focus. Intrinsic evaluation is focused on the internal quality of the curriculum, while pay-off evaluation is focused on the external outcomes of the curriculum. Both approaches have their advantages and limitations, and a comprehensive evaluation of the curriculum should consider both approaches to provide a complete picture of the curriculum’s effectiveness.

Formative and Summative Evaluation:

These are two types of assessments that are commonly used in education, training, and other fields to measure learning outcomes and evaluate the effectiveness of programs or interventions.

Formative is an ongoing process that takes place during the learning or training process. It is designed to provide feedback to learners, teachers, or trainers on their progress and to help identify areas where they need further support or improvement. Formative evaluation is often informal and may involve self-reflection, peer feedback, or teacher feedback. The goal of formative evaluation is to improve learning and promote student success.

On the other hand, summative evaluation is a final assessment that takes place at the end of a learning or training program. Its purpose is to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program and to determine whether the program’s learning objectives have been achieved. Summative evaluation is often formal and involves assessments such as exams, tests, or project evaluations. The goal of summative evaluation is to measure the success of a program or intervention.

In summary, formative evaluation is ongoing and designed to improve learning, while summative evaluation is a final assessment that measures the overall effectiveness of a program or intervention. Both types of evaluation are important for measuring learning outcomes and evaluating the effectiveness of educational and training programs.

Also Read: Curriculum Development Stages

Approaches of Curriculum Evaluation

Also Visit: Prep with Harshita

BUY ME A BOOK!