The Practice of Curriculum Evaluation

Several models, papers, or comments dealing with curriculum evaluation have bee published recently, some of them excelling in analytical finesse (Stake, 1967; Alkin, 1970; Provus, 1969; Stufflebeam, 1969). However, the terms and concepts utilized in these models only partly overlap; indeed most of them refer to entirely different empirical aspects of the curriculum and teaching/learning processes. The practitioner in the field of curriculum evaluation who is faced with the problem of designing an evaluation study and willing to work according to some existing model will encounter difficulties in selecting a model. After his decision has been made, or after the creation of a new eclectic model containing elements from other existing ones, it will still be difficult to translate the model into guidelines for practical work. What is the reason for this lack of fit among evaluation models? Why is it difficult to employ existing models as framework for practical activities? What is the explanation for the fact that some central concepts or ideas appearing in one particular model of evaluation do not appear at all in another? Why is it that some central terms of particular models do not have easily identifiable empirical referents in situations where the need for curriculum evaluation emerges? A response to these questions involves looking at how these models have been developed and what they represent.