EDS547 Curriculum Evaluation İrem KÜRKÇÜ

Reflection 4

Curriculum Evaluation Trends and Models

Two perspectives to curriculum evaluation are Utilitarian and Pluralist/Intuitionist.

Utilitarian ones are the Provus discrepancy model, the CIPP model, Stake’s countenance
approach, and Scriven’s concept of goal-free evaluation. These models or approaches are to
the point and they aim to get different types of decision other than only having product
outcome. They are quite useful on the improvements of programs. For example; Provus
discrepancy model focus on problems and they work on the problem until they reduce the
discrepancies between intended and the real program. This model is quite useful since it
measures the discrepancy in each level of the program in detail by consequent steps of
evaluation and it also aims to find solutions. Moreover, utilitarian models are practical
because they help evaluators to decide whether to improve or discard the program. These
models are also beneficial as they provide a great deal of information and program definition.
To illustrate; Stake’s countenance approach aims to collect as much information as possible
about a program. The data is categorized as antecedents, transactions and outcomes, each
provides different information from various parts or parties of the program.

On the other hand, Pluralist/Intuitionist models have aimed to go beyond having

different types of decisions about the program and they claimed that it is evaluators job to
reveal the utilities of a program for different groups of people. Pluralist models include
judicial and adversary models, Eisner’s educational connoisseurship and criticism perspective,
Stake’s responsive evaluation perspective, and illuminative evaluation. To me, pluralist
models are more descriptive and informal studies. They aim to describe phenomena and
reveal complexity because people who favor these models think that programs consist of a
very complex system and they should be examined from various perspectives. To address
these complexities and call for clarification, many different audiences may participate in the
evaluation process. For instance, in the judicial and adversary models, there is a jury
consisting of different stakeholders or audiences and it may decide either to continue/
terminate the program or it may provide recommendations. Similarly, Stake’s responsive
evaluation perspective takes stakeholders’ concerns and contribution into consideration in
each part of the evaluation. However, this contribution is referred as a weakness in the book is
may harm the quality of evaluation.

1
EDS547 Curriculum Evaluation İrem KÜRKÇÜ

In brief, both utilitarian and pluralistic methods bring new perspectives to evaluation
approaches. In my opinion, utilitarian ones are more prescriptive as they value improvement
and problem solution whereas pluralistic methods have descriptive value since they aim at
increasing understanding and providing useful explanations about programs.

References

Gredler, M. E. (1996). Program evaluation. Prentice Hall.