Module Assignment: Understanding the Curriculum

“Curriculum evaluation is too important to be left to teachers.” Discuss

Tutor: Dennis Sale

An assignment submitted by Ng Hwee Kiat

to the Division of Education The University of Sheffield

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Education (Higher Education) Degree

13 May 1997

“Curriculum evaluation is too important to be left to teachers.” Discuss

Introduction

In the past decade, there has been increasing demand for education to be publicly

accountable to justify the increasingly tight funding amidst falling confidence in the

competency of the educational system (Nixon 1992, pp. 1-22). Developments where

graduates have been found to be unsuitable for employment has also contributed to the

question of educational accountability. These issues has led to the educational curriculum

being questioned. There has been arguments that the traditional autonomy of the

teacher/principal in curriculum decision should be removed in lieu of a centrally dictated

curriculum, known as the National Curriculum in the UK (Anon 1997). With a centrally

dictated curriculum, curriculum development and evaluation would then be shifted from

teachers to the central curriculum development body. The argument is that “curriculum

evaluation ( and development) is too important to be left to teachers”. I will be exploring

this issue in this essay.

I will be introducing this essay by defining curriculum evaluation and showing that

curriculum evaluation is important as an integral part of curriculum development. The

central issues involved in curriculum evaluation and development will then be highlighted

in view of the teacher’s role in all these issues. Finally, I will be developing the argument

that, of all those involved in curriculum evaluation, the teacher is in the best position to be

involved due to his/her strategic position as the curriculum implementor.

What is Curriculum Evaluation?

What is the curriculum? Curriculum is a set of planned and purposeful learning

experiences, based on intended learning outcomes and organized around the

2

developmental levels of students. It can take many forms according to the viewpoints

from which it is approached. I will be basing my discussion on the formal curriculum

without referring to the informal or hidden curriculum.

In my discussion, teachers will include lecturers, instructors, trainers and all other

educational practitioners. However, I will also qualify that when I use the term

“teachers”, they refer to educational practitioners in the general education system (i.e.,

Primary and Secondary schools). I will be using the term “lecturers” when they refer to

educational practitioners in the specialist education system (i.e., Tertiary Institutions and

Vocational Institutions). I will also attempt to relate the aspects of curriculum

development to my personal experience in Singapore and Singapore Polytechnic wherever

possible.

Tyler (1949) quoted in Kelly suggested that the curriculum has to be seen as consisting of

four elements: objectives, content, methods and evaluation. He seeks to answer the four

fundamental questions in developing any curriculum:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?

3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

These four questions can be viewed as the four main elements in the Curriculum

Development Process.

3

As can be seen in Tyler’s last question and the model of the Curriculum Development

Process, curriculum evaluation is an integral part of curriculum development. Curriculum

evaluation is used not only to determine the attainment of the purposes but also “to gauge

the value and effectiveness of any particular piece of educational activity - whether a

national project or any particular piece of work undertaken with our own pupils” (Kelly

1989, p. 187).

The curriculum development process does not end with curriculum evaluation, although it

appears to be so in Tyler’s model of curriculum development. Russel (1984, p. 246) adds

that

“the process must also involve the examination of criteria, goals, objectives or aspirations, the means by which these are created, the manner in which they are implemented together with the intended and unintended effects of attempting to obtain them”.

This means that we should evaluate the method and implementation as well as the

effectiveness and the meeting of objectives.

Gronlund (1981, pp. 11-12) also noted that evaluation of the curriculum plays an

important part in curriculum development. Since curriculum evaluation has such a close

relationship with all aspects of curriculum development, I will be expanding the scope of

Objectives,Purposes

Contents,Knowledge

Methods,Materials,

Assessments

Evaluation

Figure 1. Model of the Curriculum Development Process

4

this discussion to include the role of the teacher in the curriculum evaluation as well as in

curriculum development process.

There are many issues associated with curriculum evaluation. I shall only be discussing

the four main relevant issues. These include;

5. determining the purpose of the evaluation,

6. identifying the aspects of the curriculum to be evaluated,

7. matching the evaluation models to the curriculum being evaluated and

8. identifying the appropriate staff for carrying out the evaluation.

All these issues will be dealt with in-depth in the following discussion. There are other

minor issues such as time of evaluation, reporting format, audience, criteria, etc., which

although will affect the evaluation, will not be further discussed here.

The Purpose of Curriculum Evaluation

To understand the importance of curriculum evaluation, we need to understand the

purpose of curriculum evaluation. The purposes of any scheme of evaluation, including

curriculum evaluation, will vary according to the purposes, views, conceptions of the

persons or persons making the evaluation (Kelly 1989, p. 188). A teacher could use

curriculum evaluation to improve his teaching. A school may use curriculum evaluation

to appraise the quality of the teaching staff. Principals may use curriculum evaluation to

provide information to help them make decisions (Beswick 1990). Governing agencies

may use curriculum evaluation for accountability and control purposes. There is no doubt

that a pupil or parent would approach curriculum evaluation differently from any of the

above groups.

5

Kelly (1989, p. 23) identifies two purposes for curriculum evaluation;

9. To evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum and

10. To evaluate for the accountability of schools and teachers (within the context of a National Curriculum).

The first purpose serves to use the evaluation for improving teaching and learning usually

by the teacher. The second purpose serves to inform various audiences, usually governing

agencies, concerning the programmes of the school. Other legitimate purpose might be to

allocate resources or placement (Russel 1984, p. 246).

The purposes of the evaluation would also dictate the types of evaluation used. During

the early stages of curriculum development, formative evaluation helps the curriculum

developer to determine the effectiveness of new procedures and identify areas where

revision is needed. When the curriculum has been fully developed, summative evaluation

makes it possible to determine the effectiveness in meeting the instructional objectives

(Gronlund 1981, pp. 11-12).

Tuckman (1985) defines formative evaluation and summative evaluation in instructional

program evaluation as follows;

"Formative evaluation" is an internal function that feeds results back into the program to improve an existing educational unit; this kind of evaluation is used frequently by teachers and school administrators to compare outcomes with goals. Attainment can be measured and procedures modified over time.

"Summative evaluation" exists for the purpose of demonstration and documentation. Various ways of achieving similar goals can be compared. Summative evaluations help school districts analyze their unique characteristics and choose the program that will best achieve their pedagogical goals. An example is the evaluation of the adaptability and success in the work force of students who have emerged from a program.

In addition, he also defined a separate type of evaluation for long term evaluation;

"Ex post facto evaluation" is a study over time. It attempts to determine if new programs, launched without readily predictable results, are achieving the desired goals. Here the data generated by continuous

6

analysis are compared over time and, when available, compared with data of similar pilot programs. Both longitudinal (comparison of results over time) and cross-sectional (comparison of different student groups) results give evaluators the data to recommend improvement or termination.

Both formative and summative evaluations are widely understood and used. The

Singapore Polytechnic Education Model (Anon 1993, p. 22) practices both formative and

summative evaluations. Curriculum element and related processes are reviewed and

evaluated at regular intervals to identify areas for improvement as well as to determine the

extent to which aims are being achieved.

Aspects of the Curriculum

The second issue is that of determining the aspects of the curriculum to be evaluated.

This should include teaching methods, learning styles as well as subject matter and

content. The teacher is the one using the teaching methods, observing the learning styles

and imparting the subject matter to the pupils. In all these aspects of the curriculum, there

should be no contention that the most suitable person for this job, outside of the academic

researchers, would be the classroom teacher.

Curriculum Evaluation Models

The third issue in curriculum evaluation is matching the evaluation models to the

curriculum being evaluated. The model used in the curriculum evaluation must match the

curriculum planning model being evaluated. This is to avoid using the wrong criteria as

well as creating meaningless results (Kelly 1989, p. 189). McPherson (1979, p. 21), in his

Introduction to Evaluation in Education, listed 3 major types of evaluation models;

1. The Quantitative/Objectives model - advocated by Tyler (1949). This model aims to

measure learner’s and instructors’ progress towards pre-specified objectives. This

is the most instinctive evaluation model as most evaluation starts with deciding

7

what we want to evaluate (i.e., the objectives or purposes). There is a high

dependence on measurement of quantifiable data. The problem here is that

objectives would tend to be set in a way that can be easily measured and achieved.

Educationally worthwhile but less tangible objectives could be ignored in lieu or

more tangible and measurable objectives.

2. Goal Free Evaluation Model - advocated by Scriven (1973). This model aims to

assess the effects of the objectives of the program irrespective of whether they are

intended or unintended. This model of evaluation does not seem to be complete in

itself and needs to be used together with either Objectives Model or Process

Model. However, it is useful when we want to evaluate the planning and

management performance rather than the success of the implementation.

3. The Qualitative/Humanistic/Process model - advocated by Stake (1978). This model

is reflected by the Humanities Curriculum Project (1968-73). It aims to report the

different ways in which a program is seen and judged. As far as the pupils or parents

are concerned, the curriculum is a continuous story and not a snapshot. The teachers’

view of the curriculum is usually a snapshot and thus will differ from that of the pupils

and the parents. The Process Model seeks to report these differing vews of the

program thus providing a more comprehensive evaluation.

Other researchers such as Nixon (1992, pp. 4-6) viewed evaluation as a continuum, with

measurement of quantifiable data at one end and rich descriptions at the other end. This

can be viewed as the Objectives Model (quantifiable data) at one end and Process Model

(rich descriptions) at the other end.

8

Kelly (1989, p. 189) suggests that the model used in the curriculum evaluation must match

the curriculum planning model being evaluated. However, I would like to counter that

based on the diverse types of information provided by each model of evaluation, a

comprehensive curriculum evaluation should embrace all the three models of evaluation.

Each evaluation model would provide its own perspective on the curriculum. As an

example, the evaluation of an Objective Based Curriculum Model could require

information on the attainment of objectives (Objectives Model), the quality of the

planning and management (Goal Free Model), the students or parents perspective (Process

Model). Obviously the evaluation model/s to be used would depend greatly on the type of

information the evaluator is interested in.

Stakeholders in the Curriculum Evaluation Issue

The fourth issue deals with the identifying the appropriate personnel for carrying out the

curriculum evaluation. Before we start identifying the staff for the evaluation, it would be

fruitful to see who or what are the main influences on the curriculum.

There can be many influences on the curriculum of which the teacher and the principal

may be the most obvious. The 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted

by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), reinforces this from the

principal's perspective where up to 90% of principals perceived themselves and teachers

as having a great deal of influence over the curriculum (Ingersoll, 1995).

“... these data clearly show that principals consistently see themselves and teachers as the groups exerting the greatest influence over curriculum decisions ...”

Besides teachers and principals, school boards, state (or national) and local government

agencies can definitely act to directly influence the curriculum on a higher or more

strategic level.

9

Government agencies and industries can be a major contributing factor in curriculum

decisions. The case of setting a National Curriculum in many countries such as

Singapore, United Kingdom (Anon 1997) shows the political influence of the governing

agencies on the curriculum. In Singapore, the Education Minister, together with the

Ministry of Education sets out the direction for the national curriculum for all Primary

Schools, Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges. This curriculum planning is based on

the perception that “the school curriculum is a socially constructed response to perceived

issues and demands in society” (Lim 1990, p. 79). Curriculum development is carried out

by the Curriculum Planning and Development Division with curriculum evaluation being

carried out by the National Institute of Education, a teacher training institute.

Even in the USA, where there is no National Curriculum, the setting of Educational

Standards by the governing agencies indicates their influence on curriculum (Ravitch,

1995). These standards of achievement dictate the educational curriculum, although in a

less explicit way.

Industry can also influence the curriculum in their favour by offering financial support,

sponsorships, scholarships, etc., to schools or courses that meet their needs. In the

Singapore Polytechnic (SP), the curriculum is influenced by the students’ occupational

needs, industry needs and the community needs. The main influence is from feedback

from the sectors of industries served by SP as well as from students, both past and present

(Anon 1993, p. 4-6).

On top of these direct and political influences, there can be other indirect and non-political

influences such as administrative factors, examination system, timetabling constraints,

available textbooks (Vann 1994, pp. 20-21), parental involvement and even layout of

buildings!

10

An example of direct parental influence on the curriculum can be seen in the case of the

William Tyndale Primary School in the United Kingdom in 1976 where parental pressure

caused the school’s educational policies to be changed (Ball 1985, pp. 3-4). Not all

parental involvement is unwanted as research has shown that parental involvement and

student achivevement is stongly linked (Jesse 1996). We need to be judicious in the use

of parental feedback as they can be easily biased by public sentiment and they are usually

without sound educational basis.

Pupils can contribute both positively and negatively to curriculum. They can be positively

involved in curriculum design (Nelson 1994, pp. 71-74) as a facilitator led activity. On

the negative side, Riseborough (1985) argued that pupils can subvert the official

curriculum by “withdrawal of learning” (p. 210) as well as proffering a hidden counter-

curriculum to their teachers (p. 212).

“Thus the lesson does not simply belong to the teacher, children can and do make it their own. They put so much on the agenda of the lesson, to a point where, they are the curriculum decision makers.” (p. 214)

Curriculum

School

Board

Government

PupilsIndustry

Teachers

Religion

Academia

Parents

Principal

Society Resources

EducationAuthorities

Figure 2. Influences on the Curriculum

11

Pupils are not the only ones who can subvert the curriculum, disgruntled teachers can

practice covert curriculum innovation in resentment or frustration or even as a way of

“getting back” at authority (Beynon 1985, p. 160).

However, not all curriculum innovations by teachers are bad. Gilroy (1996a) suggests

that

“unless they are blindly following a pre-determined programme of instruction, any teacher who implements a curriculum is at the same time innovating that curriculum. This is because they implement it in the light of their own professional understanding of the content of that curriculum and also those students they are responsible for teaching”.

Looking at all the influences on the curriculum, we can see that the teacher is only one of

the many influences on the curriculum. However, as the implementor of the curriculum,

the teacher has the last say and can reinforce or nullify “most” of the other influences.

Notice that I use the word “most” and not “all” as some influences are inbuilt into the

school system and are practically “impossible” to change.

Who then should carry out the curriculum evaluation?

Principals, senior staff, students, parents, classroom teachers, representatives of outside

body (e.g., consultant, advisor) or combination of the above could all be used for carrying

out the curriculum evaluation (Russel 1984, pp. 249-250). The choice is a crucial one as I

have previously pointed out that the purpose of the evaluation and type of evidence to be

gathered are closely related to the staff involved.

Nixon (1992, p. 41) poses some questions that relate to the constitution of the evaluation

group.

· Should a member, or members, of the senior management team have automatic membership of the evaluation coordinating group?

· Should the members of the group be assigned or elected? If the former, by whom?

12

· If the latter, should this be on the basis of an open election for which all staff are eligible to stand?

· Regardless of whether members are to be assigned or elected, should they be drawn from specified constituencies within the community of the school?

· How should the chairing of the group be determined?

· Should provision be made for the cooption of members (1) from within the school; and (2) from non-teaching staff?

· If the principle of cooption is to be adopted, what individuals and groups from outside the school might have useful experience and expertise to draw on?

· For what length of time should individuals serve as members of the coordinating group?

The composition of the evaluation group will definitely be determined by the purposes of

the evaluation.

In the Singapore Polytechnic, curriculum evaluation is carried out as part of the

curriculum development process. This is achieved through regular monitoring and

periodic review of all on-going courses. Evaluation is carried out all levels with lecturers

being involved at various levels; lecturer, module coordinator, course manager,

Curriculum Development & Implementation Unit (CDIU), Curriculum Evaluation Unit

(CEU), Department Course Management Team (DCMT), Board of Studies (BOS), etc.

At the Department level, the DCMT comprises the relevant course managers, the CEU

and the CDIU. An academic quality assurance system is in place to ensure that

staff/students and industry feedback are accounted for.

13

All lecturing staff will be involved in the Instruction System (see Figure 3) and some may

be involved in the Curriculum Development System as part of the DCMT, BOS. As such,

the SP Education Model (Anon 1993, p. +18) has this to say of lecturers “In developing

and implementing instruction, educators should be innovative. They are at liberty to

choose any teaching or learning method that will achieve the desired learning outcomes,

but they must take into consideration the requirements of the course, the characteristics

and needs of students, and the resource implications.”

For tertiary or specialist education, where the knowledge is specialised in nature, the best

person to make decisions regarding the curriculum would be the subject domain expert,

usually the lecturer. Thus Havelock’s Problem-Solving model of curriculum deployment

is more dominant in tertiary education and it is reasonable to expect most tertiary,

specialist or vocational education to be using the school based curriculum development

model. In the Singapore Polytechnic context, subject coordinators are subject experts

who can request for changes in their curriculum area if they deem that the relevance of the

subject matter has shifted due to changes in technology.

Instruction SystemCurriculum Development System

Specificationof Aims

Selection &Structuring

Body ofKnowledge

CurriculumImplementation

Planning ofTeaching/LearningSituation

TeachingActivities

TeachingKnowledge

Documentation Curriculum

Evaluation

ActualLearning

Outcomes

NeedsAnalysis

adapted from:The Singapore Polytechnic Education Model(Anon 1993, pp 1, 7 & 15)

Figure 3. The SP Education Model

14

In the school based curriculum development approach (Problem Solving model), there is

no doubt that the teacher is in the centre of all curriculum related activity. There is no

question of the teacher’s role in both curriculum development and evaluation.

For general education, i.e., primary and secondary education, the present trend is towards

Schon’s Centre-Periphery approach in curriculum deployment where there is central

development of curriculum and planned dissemination. Most countries are adopting a

National Curriculum approach where the educational agencies set a uniform curriculum

and expected educational outcomes for all schools to follow. While decisions about the

contents and approach to learning are best made by professionals in these educational

agencies, it is argued that teachers should be trusted to make decisions based on the

individual needs in the classroom (Monson 1993, pp. 19-21). The rationale is that the

nature of learning requires both the flexibility and responsiveness from the teacher.

In the Singapore Polytechnic context, curriculum change reflects a mix of the different

models. Strategic aspects of curriculum are dictated by the industry and economic needs

through the education authorities and changes implemented through the Centre-Periphery

model. At the lecturer’s level curriculum changes are reflected on a subject or course

level where the Problem Solving model is applicable.

The National Curriculum is a controversial issue in the UK where traditionally the

teachers and principals are used to the autonomy and freedom to decide on the curriculum.

A centrally dictated curriculum may be disgreeable to those who cannot accept the

curriculum. However, it has to be acknowledged that in today’s society, it is necessary to

possess a common set of basic knowledge and skills in order to meet the industry or

economic needs of the country. Educationally worthwhile curriculum determined by

individual teachers or principals may be educationally sound but if it results in students

15

being unemployable in the job market, then it is not viable. Who would then be held

accountable for well educated graduates who are not employable in the economy?

Even with a National Curriculum, it has been argued that there is still room for the

classroom teacher to exercise curriculum decisions, albeit at a “lower” level. The

difficulty is then in determining who make what decisions. As a guide, a centrally dictated

curriculum should make the following curriculum decisions;

11. What should be learnt?

12. How should it be learnt?

13. How should it be assessed?

The individual teacher should then be able to make the following curriculum decisions;

14. Learning strategies

15. Theories and concepts

16. Materials

Curriculum evaluation should then be exercised on the curriculum decsions made. The

classroom teacher should then perform evaluation on the learning strategies, theories,

concepts and materials. This does not mean that teachers should not be involved in

curriculum evaluation at the strategic level under a National Curriculum. Curriculum

evaluation can be carried out at all levels, from the teacher, department, school or institute

right up to national level (Educational agencies). My contention is that regardless of

which level curriculum evaluation is being carried out, the teacher has to be involved. As

the front-line contact, the teacher is in the best position to know the relevance of the type

of information, the best time to conduct the evaluation, the best instrument to be used for

the evaluation and of course the best people to be involved. At the “lower” levels, the

teacher would be highly involved in the curriculum evaluation process. At the “higher” or

more strategic levels, the teacher may be less involved but nevertheless has very useful

contributions as stated above (see Figure 4).

16

Conclusion

All researchers agree that teachers themselves should be centrally involved in evaluating

their own practice (Nixon 1992). Kelly (1989, p. 200), notes that “every teacher is a

curriculum developer” and that “the teacher must be involved in evaluating his or her own

work, since, without that, it is difficult to know how that work could ever improve”

Teachers are at the forward edge in the education battlefield. They should be involved in

any curriculum development and evaluation as they can proffer the best feedback and

make the best use of any development arising from the curriculum evaluation.

In the preceeding discussion, I have emphasised the need for classroom teachers be be

involved in curriculum development and evaluation. On the other hand, it may not be in

the best interest to society, in economic sense, to leave curriculum evaluation and

development to teachers alone. Society’s needs, and in particular industry’s needs, could

be sacrificed in the pursuit of educationally worthwhile objectives. This brings out back

Strategic Aims

Institutional Aims

Course Objectives

National Curriculum

School Curriculum

Course Documents

Education AuthoritiesEducational Academia

(Teachers)

PrincipalBoard of Studies

Teachers' Representative

Department HeadCourse Managers

Teachers

Subject Objectives Subject SyllabusSubject Experts

Teachers

National Level

Institute/SchoolLevel

Department/Course Level

Subject Level

Area of Teacher's Self Direction

Aims & Objectives Curriculum Who's Involved?

Localised Aims Localised CurriculumLocal Education

Authorities(Teachers)

Local/StateLevel

Figure 4. Teachers’ Role in Curriculum Development

17

to the difficult and philosophical question of the aims of education. If we believe that the

aim of education is to develop human potential (Wringe 1984, p. 43), then we should

leave education to the teachers to pursue educational worthwhile objectives. However, if

we believe that the aim of education is to train workers for the economy, which most

government of industrialised countries subscribe to, then, it is essential that industrial,

governmental and economical needs be communicated to the educational curriculum.

Over and above these two extreme views; influences from parents, religions, politics,

academia and other factors becomes directly or indirectly involved in the curriculum

development and evaluation. These can diminish the teacher’s role in curriculum

development or evaluation. Whether the teacher’s role in curriculum evaluation is a

minor role or a major influencing role, the classroom teacher should be involved in order

for any curriculum evaluation to be relevant and valid.

From the discussion, I would like to conclude that the issue should not be “Curriculum

evaluation is too important to be left to teacher” but rather “Curriculum evaluation is too

important for teachers not to be involved in”.

18

References

Anon (1993) The Singapore Polytechnic Education Model, Singapore, Singapore Polytechnic.

Anon (1997) The School Curriculum: A Brief Guide, London, Department for Education and Employment.[ONLINE] http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/schurric.htm

Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press.

Beswick, R. (1990), Evaluating Educational Programs. ERIC Digest Series Number EA 54, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, Oreg. [ONLINE] gopher://vmsgopher.cua.ed:70/00gopher_root_eric_ae%3A%5B_tessay%5Deval.TXT.

Beynon, J. (1985) “Institutional Change and Career Histories in a Comprehensive School” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, East Sussex, The Falmer Press.

Gilroy, P. (1996a) “Implementing the Curriculum”, Module 2, Unit 8, Understanding the Curriculum, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education.

Gilroy, P. (1996b) “Evaluating the Curriculum”, Module 2, Unit 9, Understanding the Curriculum, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education.

Gronlund, N. E. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching (Fourth Edition), London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Ingersoll, R. & Rossi, R. (1995) Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals Say? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (National Center For Education Statistics Issue Brief IB-4-95) [ONLINE] gopher://gopher.ed.gov:10000/00/publications/brief/ib4.

Jesse, D. (1996) “Increasing Parental Involvement: A Key to Student Achievement”, What’s Noteworthy on Learners, Learning & Schooling, Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL).[ONLINE] http://www.mcrel.org/products/noteworthy/danj.html

Kelly, A. V. (1989) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Third Edition, London, Chapman.

Lim, S. T. & Gopinathan, S. (1990) “25 Years of Curriculum Planning” in Yip, S. K. & Sim, W. K. (eds)(1990) Evolution of Educational Excellence- 25 Years of Education in the Republic of Singapore, Singapore, Longman.

19

Marjono, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (1996) The Rise and Fall of Standards Based Education, A National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Issues in Brief, Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL).[ONLINE] http://www.mcrel.org/prodcuts/nasbe/

McPherson, I. N. (1979) Evaluation in Education, Dundee, Dundee College of Education.

Monson, M. P. & Monson, R. J. (1993) “Who Creates Curriculum? New Roles for Teachers”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 19-21.

Nelson, J. R. & Lin, F.(1994) “Can Children Design Curriculum?”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 51, February, pp. 71-74. [ONLINE] http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/ENC2397/2397.htm.

Nixon, J. (1992) Evaluating the Whole Curriculum, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Ravitch, D (1995) National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide, Washington, DC: Brooking Institute (quoted in Marjono 1996).

Riseborough, G. F. (1985) “Pupils, Teachers’ Careers and Schooling: An Empirical Study” in Ball, S. & Goodson, I. (eds)(1985) Teachers’ Lives and Careers, The Falmer Press.

Russel, N. (1984) “Teachers as Curriculum Evaluators” in Skilbeck, M. (ed.) (1984) Readings in School-based Curriculum Development, London, Chapman.

Scriven, M. (1973) “Goal Free Evaluation” in House, E. R. (ed.) (1973) School Evaluation: The Politics and the Process, Berkeley, McCutchan, quoted in McPherson (1979).

Skilbeck, M. (ed.) (1984) Readings in School-based Curriculum Development, London, Chapman.

Stake, R. (1978) Evaluating Education Programmes, Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, quoted in McPherson (1979)

Tuckman, B. W. (1985) Evaluating Instructional Programs, Second Edition, NJ: Allyn and Bacon, quoted in Beswick (1990).

Tyler, R. (1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, quoted in McPherson (1979).

Vann, A. S. (1994) “Curriculum and Textbooks: A Happy Marriage?”, Principal, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 20-21, National Association of Elementary School Principals, Reston, Va. [ONLINE] http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/ENC2410/2410.htm.

Wringe, C. A. (1988) Understanding Educational Aims, London, Unwin Hyman.

20