C

Chhaapptteerr 88:: C
CU
UR
RR
RIIC
CU
ULLU
UM
ME
EV
VA
ALLU
UA
ATTIIO
ON
N

LEARNING OUTCOMES
When you complete this module will be able to:

State what is curriculum evaluation

List reasons for evaluating the curriculum
Explain the characteristics of the CIPP model
Describe the features of Stakes model of curriculum evaluation
Explain the characteristics of Eisners Connoisseurship model
Compare the different instruments of data collection

OVERVIEW
8.0 Introduction
8.1 What is curriculum evaluation?
8.2 The CIPP evaluation model
8.3 Application of the CIPP
evaluation model
8.3 Stakes evaluation model
8.4 Eisners connoisseurship
evaluation model

8.5 Data collection methods

8.5.1 Interviews
8.5.2 Observations
8.5.3 Tests
8.5.4 Surveys
8.5.5 Content analysis
8.5.6 Portfolio
Discussion Questions
Readings

Dont Make Physical Education (PE) an Examination Subject

The Education Ministry has asked
ministry officials to look into introducing
Physical
Education
(PE)
as
an
examination subject. I think PE should not
be an exam subject.
In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and
1980s, PE was never an exam subject and
yet the country produced world-class
sportsmen and women in badminton,
weightlifting, hockey, athletics and other
events. People like Jegathesan, Mokhtar
Dahari, Tan Aik Huang, Rajamani, Ng
Boon Bee, Nurul Huda, Marina Chin,
Karu Selvaratnam, Nashtar Singh, Zaiton
Sulaiman, Ghani Minhat, Tan Aik Mong,
Dhanapal Naidu and many others.
We had no sports schools in
those days. All schools were sports
schools. How did we produce excellent
sportsmen and sportswomen? We had
supportive
parents,
interested
headmasters, dedicated and committed PE
teachers,
coaches
and
disciplined
sportsmen and sportswomen.

The sporting calendar for

Term 1 (January to April) had football,
athletics, cross country. Term 2 (May
to August) it was athletics and cricket.
Term 3 (September to December it was
hockey and rugby. As for the court
games, they were played all year round.
There were inter-house games
and if your school had six houses you
would play at least five matches for
your house. There were inter-school
games and the rivalry was very intense.
Today, inter-house games are
extinct and even if they do have them,
it is on a knock-out basis. It is the same
for inter-school games.
Sporting
activities
have
become a burden to schools. There is
little organisation and the faster they
are over, the better. The school saves
money and teachers have more time for
completing the syllabus and revision in
preparation for national examinations.
- Retired Physical Education
Teacher

[Source: Letters to the Editor, New Straits Times, February 1, 2005]

8.0 Introduction
In Module 7, we discussed the implementation
of the curriculum plan. We looked at why people resist
change, the role of teachers, students, administrator and
parents in ensuring the successful implementation of
change. In this chapter, we will focus on determining
whether the curriculum plan implemented has achieved
its goals and objectives as planned. In other words, the
curriculum has to be evaluated to determine whether all
the effort in terms of finance and human resources has
been worthwhile. Various stakeholders want to know
the extent to which the curriculum has been successfully
implemented. The information collected from evaluating a curriculum forms the basis
for making judgements about how successfully has the programme achieved its intended
outcomes and the worth or value of the programme.
[Source: Letters to the Editor, New Straits Times, February 1, 2005]

ACTIVITY 8.1
Read the newspaper report at the beginning of the chapter and answer the
following questions
1. Do you think physical education be made an examination subject?
2. Do you agree with the writers opinions on the state of sports in schools?

8.1 Curriculum Evaluation

What is evaluation? Evaluation is the process of collecting data on a programme
to determine its value or worth with the aim of deciding whether to adopt, reject, or
revise the programme. Programmes are evaluated to answer questions and concerns of
various parties. The public want to know whether the curriculum implemented has
achieved its aims and objectives; teachers want to know whether what they are doing in
the classroom is effective; and the developer or planner wants to know how to improve
the curriculum product.

McNeil (1977) states that curriculum evaluation is an attempt to throw light on two
questions: Do planned learning opportunities, programmes, courses and activities as
developed and organised actually produce desired results? How can the curriculum
offerings best be improved? (p.134).

Ornstein and Hunkins (1998) define curriculum evaluation as a process or cluster

of processes that people perform in order to gather data that will enable them to
decide whether to accept, change, or eliminate something- the curriculum in general
or an educational textbook in particular (p.320).

Worthen and Sanders (1987) define curriculum evaluation as the formal

determination of the quality, effectiveness, or value of a programme, product,
project, process, objective, or curriculum (p.22-23).

Gay (1985) argues that the aim of curriculum evaluation is to identify its weaknesses
and strengths as well as problems encountered in implementation; to improve the
curriculum development process; to determine the effectiveness of the curriculum
and the returns on finance allocated.

Oliva (1988) defined curriculum evaluation as the process of delineating, obtaining,

and providing useful information for judging decision alternatives. The primary
decision alternatives to consider based upon the evaluation results are: to maintain
the curriculum as is; to modify the curriculum; or to eliminate the curriculum.

Evaluation is a disciplined inquiry to determine the worth of things. Things

may include programmes, procedures or objects. Generally, research and evaluation are
different even though similar data collection tools may be used. The three dimensions
on which they may differ are:
First, evaluation need not have as its objective the generation of knowledge.
Evaluation is applied while research tends to be basic.
3

Second, evaluation presumably, produces information that is used to make

decisions or forms the basis of policy. Evaluation yields information that has
immediate use while research need not.
Third, evaluation is a judgement of worth. Evaluation result in value judgements
while research need not and some would say should not.

8.2 Formative and Summative Evaluation

As mentioned earlier, evaluation is the process of determining the significance or
worth of programmes or procedures. Scriven (1967) differentiated evaluation as
formative evaluation and summative evaluation. However, they have come to mean
different things to different people, but in this chapter, Scrivens original definition will
be used.
8.2.1 Formative evaluation:
The term formative indicates that data is gathered during the formation or
development of the curriculum so that revisions to it can be made. Formative evaluation
may include determining who needs the programme (eg. secondary school students),
how great is the need (eg. students need to be taught ICT skills to keep pace with
expansion of technology) and how to meet the need (eg. introduce a subject on ICT
compulsory for all secondary schools students). In education, the aim of formative
evaluation is usually to obtain information to improve a programme.
In formative evaluation, experts would evaluate the match between the
instructional strategies and materials used, and the learning outcomes or what it aims to
achieve. For example, it is possible that in a curriculum plan the learning outcomes and
the learning activities do no match. You want students to develop critical thinking skills
but there are no learning activities which provide opportunities for students to practice
critical thinking. Formative evaluation by experts is useful before full-scale
implementation of the programme. Review by experts of the curriculum plan may
provide useful information for modifying or revising selected strategies.
In formative evaluation
learners may be included to review When the cook tastes the soup,
the materials to determine if they thats formative evaluation;
can use the new materials. For when the guests taste the soup,
example, so they have the relevant thats formative evaluation.
- Robert Stakes
prerequisites
and
are
they
motivated to learn. From these
formative reviews, problems may be discovered. For example, in curriculum document
may contain spelling errors, confusing sequence of content, inappropriate examples or
illustrations. The feedback obtained could be used to revise and improve instruction or
whether or not to adopt the programme before full implementation.
8.2.2 Summative evaluation
The term summative indicates that data is collected at the end of the
implementation of the curriculum programme. Summative evaluation can occur just
after new course materials have been implemented in full (i.e. evaluate the effectiveness
of the programme), or several months to years after the materials have been
implemented in full. It is important to specify what questions you want answered by the
evaluation and what decisions will be made as a result of the evaluation. You may want

to know if learners achieved the objectives or whether the programme produced the
desired outcomes. For example, the use of a specific simulation software in the teaching
of geography enhanced the decision making skills of learners. These outcomes can be
determined through formal assessment tasks such as marks obtained in tests and
examinations. Also of concern is whether the innovation was cost-effective. Was the
innovation efficient in terms of time to completion? Were there any unexpected
outcomes? Besides, quantitative data to determine how well students met specified
objectives, data could also include qualitative interviews, direct observations, and
document analyses

SELF-TEST 8.1
1. Identify the key words in the five definitions of curriculum
evaluation.
2. Why do you need to evaluate curriculum?
3. Whats the difference between formative and summative
evaluation?

8.3 Curriculum Evaluation Models

How should you go about evaluating curriculum? Several experts have
proposed different models describing how and what should be involved in evaluating a
curriculum. Models are useful because they help you define the parameters of an
evaluation, what concepts to study and the procedures to be used to extract important
data. Numerous evaluation models have been proposed but three models are discussed
here.

8.3.1 Context, Input, Process, Product Model (CIPP Model)

Daniel L. Stufflebeam (1971), who chaired the Phi Delta Kappa National Study
Committee on Evaluation, introduced a widely cited model of evaluation known as the
CIPP (context, input, process and product) model. The approach when applied to
education aims to determine if a particular educational effort has resulted in a positive
change in school, college, university or training organisation. A major aspect of the
Stufflebeams model is centred on decision making or an act of making up ones mind
about the programme introduced. For evaluations to be done correctly and aid in the
decision making process, curriculum evaluators have to:
first delineate what is to be evaluated and determine what information that has
to be collected (eg. how effective has the new science programme has been in
enhancing the scientific thinking skills of children in the primary grades)
second is to obtain or collect the information using selected techniques and
methods (eg. interview teachers, collect test scores of students);
third is to provide or make available the information (in the form of tables,
graphs) to interested parties. To decide whether to maintain, modify or eliminate
the new curriculum or programme, information is obtained by conducting the
following 4 types of evaluation: context, input, process and product.

Stufflebeams model of evaluation relies on both formative and summative evaluation to

determine the overall effectiveness a curriculum programme (see Figure 8.1).
Evaluation is required at all levels of the programme implemented.

Context
Input
Process
+

FORMATIVE

Product

SUMMATIVE

Figure 8.1 Formative and summative evaluation in the CIPP Model

a) Context Evaluation (What needs to be done and in what context)?

This is the most basic kind of evaluation with the purpose of providing a
rationale for the objectives. The evaluator defines the environment in which the
curriculum is implemented which could be a classroom, school or training department.
The evaluator determines needs that were not met and reasons why the needs are not
being met. Also identified are the shortcomings and problems in the organisation under
review (eg. a sizable proportion of students in secondary schools are unable to read at
the desired level, the ratio of students to computers is large, a sizable proportion of
science teachers are not proficient to teach in English). Goals and objectives are
specified on the basis of context evaluation. In other words, the evaluator determines the
background in which the innovations are being implemented.
The techniques of data collection would include observation of conditions in the
school, background statistics of teachers and interviews with players involve in
implementation of the curriculum.
b) Input Evaluation (How should it be done?)
is that evaluation the purpose of which is to provide information for determining
how to utilise resources to achieve objectives of the curriculum. The resources of the
school and various designs for carrying out the curriculum are considered. At this stage
the evaluator decides on procedures to be used. Unfortunately, methods for input
evaluation are lacking in education. The prevalent practices include committee
deliberations, appeal to the professional literature, the employment of consultants and
pilot experimental projects.

c) Process Evaluation (Is it being done?) is the provision of periodic feedback while
the curriculum is being implemented.
d) Product Evaluation (Did it succeed?) or outcomes of the initiative. Data is collected
to determine whether the curriculum managed to accomplish it set out achieve (eg. to
what extent students have developed a more positive attitudes towards science). Product
evaluation involves measuring the achievement of objectives, interpreting the data and
providing with information that will enable them to decide whether to continue,
terminate or modify the new curriculum. For example, product evaluation might reveal
that students have become more interested in science and are more positive towards the
subject after introduction of the new science curriculum. Based on this findings the
decision may be made to implement the programme throughout the country.

Context

Input
GOALS

PLANS

CORE
VALUES

OUTCOMES

Product

ACTIONS

Process

SELF-TEST 8.2
1. What is the difference between context evaluation and input
evaluation according to the CIPP model? Give specific
examples
2. What is the difference between process evaluation and product
evaluation according to the CIPP mode? Give specific
examples.

8.4.2 Case Study:

Evaluation of a Programme on Technology Integration in Teaching and
Learning in Secondary Schools
The integration of information and communication technology (ICT) in
teaching and learning is growing rapidly in many countries. The use of the internet
7

and other computer software in teaching science, mathematics and social sciences is
more widespread today. To evaluate the effectiveness of such a programme using the
CIPP model would involve examining the following:
Context: Examine the environment in which technology is used in teaching and
learning
How did the real environment compare to the ideal? (eg. The programme
required five computers in each classroom, but there were only two computer
labs of 40 units each for 1000 students)
What problems are hampering success of technology integration? (eg.
technology breakdowns, not all schools had internet access)
About 50% of teachers do not have basic computer skills
Input: Examine what resources are put into technology integration (Identify the
educational strategies most likely to achieve the desired result)
Is the content selected for using technology right?
Have we used the right combination of media? (internet, video-clips, etc)
Process: Assess how well the implementation works (Uncovers implementation
issues)
Did technology integration run smoothly?
Were there technology problems?
Were teachers able to integrate technology in their lessons as planned?
What are the areas of curriculum in which most students experienced
difficulty?
Product: Addresses outcomes of the learning (Gather information on the results of
the educational intervention to interpret its worth and merit)
Did the learners learn using technology? How do you know?
Does technology integration enhance higher order thinking?

ACTIVITY 8.2
With reference to Case Study 8.4.2
1. Suggest other questions you would ask regarding process
evaluation (i.e. implementation issues).
2. What data collection techniques would you recommend for
carrying out product evaluation to determine the teaching
and learning outcomes of technology integration?

8.4.3 Stakes Countenance Model

The model proposed by Robert Stake (1967) suggests three phases of curriculum
evaluation: the antecedent phase, the transaction phase and the outcome phase. The
antecedent phase includes conditions existing prior to instruction that may relate to
outcomes. The transaction phase constitutes the process of instruction while the
outcome phase relates to the effects of the programme. Stake emphasises two
operations; descriptions and judgements. Descriptions are divided according to whether
they refer to what was intended or what actually was observed. Judgements are
separated according to whether they refer to standards used in arriving at the judgements
or to the actual judgements.

INSTRUCTION
Antecedents
Student &
teacher
characteristics,
curriculum
content,
instructional
materials,
community
context.

Transactions
Communication
flow, time
allocation,
sequence of
events, social,
climate

Outcomes
Student
achievement,
attitudes,
motor skills,
effect on
teachers and
institution.

Figure 8.3 Stakes Countenance Model

8.3.2 Eisners Connoisseurship Model
Elliot Eisner, a well known art educator argued that learning was too complex to
be broken down to a list of objectives and measured quantitatively to determine whether
it has taken place. He argued that the teaching of small manageable pieces of
information prohibits students from putting the pieces back together and applying them
to new situations. As long as we evaluate students based on the small bits of information
students we will only learn small bits of information. Eisner contends that evaluation
has and will always drive the curriculum. If we want students to be able to solve
problems and think critically then we must evaluate problem solving and critical
thinking, skills which cannot be learned by rote practice. So, to evaluate a programme
we must make an attempt to capture the richness and complexity of classroom events.
He proposed the Connoisseurship Model in which he claimed that a
knowledgeable evaluator can determine whether a curriculum programme has been
successful, using a combination of skills and experience. The word connoisseurship
comes from the Latin word cognoscere, meaning to know. For example, to be a
connoisseur of food, paintings or films, you must have knowledge about and experience
with different types of food, paintings or films before you are able to criticise. To be a

food critic, you must be a connoisseur of different kinds of foods. To be a critic, you
must be aware and appreciate the subtle differences in the phenomenon you are
examining. In other words, the curriculum evaluator must seek to be an educational
critic. When employing the procedure of educational criticism the following questions
may be asked:
What has happened in the classrooms as a result of implementation of the new
curriculum?
What are some of the events that took place? (eg. more students are participating
in field work, more students are asking questions in class, even academically
weak students are talking in group activities)
How did students and teachers organise themselves in these events?
What were the reactions of participants in these events? (eg. students enjoyed
working collaboratively in projects)
How can the experiences of learners be made more effective as suggested by
students, teachers and administrators? (eg. more resources are needed for
fieldwork, more computers are needed to integrate the internet in teaching and
learning).
You will notice that these questions places more emphasis on the process of learning
and the quality of experiences by those involved in the implementation of the
curriculum; namely, students, teachers and administrators. According to the
Connoisseurship Model, evaluators provide a description and interpretation of the
curriculum plan implemented:
1) Description: The evaluator records the actions, the features of the environment
and experiences of students, teachers and administrators. People who read the
evaluation report will be able to visualise what the place looks like and the
processes taking place. The aim here is to help the reader see the school or
classroom and get a feel of what the curriculum evaluator or critic is attempting
to understand and help others understand.
2) Interpretation: The evaluator explains the meaning of events reported by
putting it in its context. For example, why academically weak students were
motivated to ask questions; why reading comprehension skills improved; why
enthusiasm for doing science experiments increased and so forth.
To be able to describe and interpret the implementation of a curriculum the evaluator
has to collect data and the following are examples of activities an evaluator may engage
in:
o The evaluator observes what is going on the classroom and records
teachers and students in action using videotapes, audiotapes and
photographs.
o The evaluator keeps notes of what is done, what is said and more
importantly what is not said. The evaluator should strive to describe the
tone of the curriculum in action (Ornstein and Hunkins, 1998).
o The evaluator interview students, teachers and administrators about the
quality of the curriculum
o The evaluator would analysis students work
.

10

One of the great benefits of Elliot W. Eisner's activities has been the way in
which he has both made the case for a concern with connoisseurship and criticism, and
mediated these concerns for educators and researchers. The importance of his advocacy
of these ideas cannot be underestimated - especially at a time when rather narrow
concerns with instrumental outcomes and an orientation to the technical dominate.
Together they offer educators a more helpful and appropriate means to approach
evaluation, for example.

Advocating moving beyond technocratic and behaviouristic modes of thinking and for having a concern for 'expressive outcomes'.

Calling to attend to fundamentals. Eisner has consistently warned against

educational fads and fashion. He has criticized dominant paradigms and
invited educators and others to ask questions such as 'what is basic in
education?'.

Arguing that schools should help children create meaning from experience,
and that this requires an education devoted to the senses, to meaning-making
and the imagination. Eisner argues for a curriculum that fosters multiple
'literacies' in students (especially by looking to non-verbal modes of learning
and expression) and a deepening of the 'artistry' of teachers.

Over the time that Eisner has been writing there have been significant shifts in
the context in which schools have to operate. While there have been other voices
calling for changes in the culture of schooling (notably Howard Gardner in this
arena), the impact of globalization, growing centralization in many schooling systems,
reaction against more process-oriented forms of pedagogy, and a growing
instrumentalism education have served to make Eisner's message both more pertinent
to schools, and more difficult to respond to.

11

8.5 Phases of Curriculum Evaluation

1. Aspects of the
curriculum to be
evaluated

2. Data Collection

3. Analysis of
Information

4. Reporting of
Information

The evaluator determines what is to be evaluated which may

be the total school system, a particular district, a
particular grade level or a particular subject. The objectives
of the evaluation activity are clearly stated.

Identify the information to be collected and the tools for

collecting the data which may involve interviews, giving of
questionnaires, tests, collection of documents and so forth.
The evaluator also identifies the people from whom data is
to be collected.

The data collected is analysed and presented in the form of

tables and graphs. Statistical tools are often used to compare
significant differences and to establish correlation or
relationship between variables.

Reports are written describing the findings and interpretation

of the data. Based on the findings, conclusion are made on
the effectiveness of curriculum implementation efforts.
Recommendations are made to reconsider certain aspects of
the curriculum.

8.6 Instrumentation for Curriculum Evaluation

No matter what evaluation model is used in evaluating a curriculum, the
methods of data collection and the instruments used are more or less similar. The
common instruments used in curriculum evaluation are interviews, observations, tests,
survey, content analysis and portfolios (record of work or products).
8.6.1 Questionnaires and Checklists
When you need to quickly and/or easily get lots of information from people in a
non threatening way, questionnaire and checklist are useful data collection techniques.
Questionnaires and checklists can complete anonymously and relatively inexpensive to
administer. Since data collected is quantitative, it is easy to compare and analyse and
can be administered to many people. Massive amount of data can be obtained. It is also
easy to design as there are many sample questionnaires already in existence. However,
the information obtained may not be accurate as it relies how truthfully subjects respond

12

to the questions. There is also the fear that the wordings used can bias client's responses.
Questionnaires are impersonal and since only a sample of subjects are given the
instrument, we not get the full story.

8.6.2 Interviews
Interviews are usually one-on-one situations in which an individual asks
questions to which a second individual (which may be a teacher, principal, student,
parent) responds. The person asking the questions is called the interviewer while the
person giving answers to the questions is called the interviewee. Interviews are used
when you want to fully understand someone's impressions or experiences, or learn more
about their answers to questionnaires. There are two general types of interviews
depending on the extent to which the responses required are unstructured or structured.
In an unstructured interview, the interviewer does not follow a rigid script and
there is a great deal of flexibility in the responses. For example; Why do you think the
recommended textbook for the course is difficult for low ability learners? The teacher
responding to such a question will give a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons given
may be of a general nature while others may be specific to certain sections of the
textbook. This makes the task of keeping track of responses more difficult. The openendedness of the question will require that the interviewer record all responses and
make sense of it later. The advantage of the unstructured interview is that it allows the
evaluator to gather a variety of information, especially in relation to the interviewees
knowledge, beliefs or feelings toward a particular situation.
In a structured interview, the questions asked usually require very specific
responses. For example, Is the recommended textbook difficult for low ability learners
because: a) there is too much content; b) the language used is beyond the
comprehension of low ability learners, c) or there are too few examples and illustrations.
Regardless of which type of interview is used, evaluators should ensure that each
question is relevant for its intended purpose. In the end, the data must be translated into
a form that can be analysed and this has to be dome carefully to preserve accuracy and
to maintain the sense of the data. The advantage of interviews is that it can get a full
range and depth of information and it develops a relationship with teachers and students
and it is more flexible. However, interview can take much time, can be hard to analyze
and compare, can be costly and interviewer can bias client's responses.
8.6.3 Observations
To gather accurate information about how a program actually operates,
particularly about processes. In other words to view operations of a program as they
are actually occurring. For example, can the people involved adapt to events as they
occur.
8.6.4 Documents
When we want impressions of how a programme operates without interrupting
the programme; we can review the memos, minutes, etc to get a comprehensive and
historical information about the implementation of the programme. However, we
should be quite clear about what looking for as there may be a load of documents.

13

Method

Overall Purpose

Advantages

-can complete anonymously

-inexpensive to administer
when need to quickly
-easy to compare and
questionnaires,
and/or easily get lots of
analyze
surveys,
information from people in -administer to many people
checklists
a non threatening way
-can get lots of data
-many sample questionnaires
already exist
when want to fully
understand someone's
impressions or
experiences, or learn more
about their answers to
questionnaires

interviews

-get full range and depth of

information
-develops relationship with
client
-can be flexible with client

Challenges
-might not get careful
feedback
-wording can bias client's
responses
-are impersonal
-in surveys, may need
sampling expert
- doesn't get full story

-can take much time

-can be hard to analyze and
compare
-can be costly
-interviewer can bias
client's responses

when want impression of

how program operates
documentation without interrupting the
review
program; is from review of
applications, finances,
memos, minutes, etc.

-get comprehensive and

historical information
-doesn't interrupt program or
client's routine in program
-information already exists
-few biases about
information

-often takes much time

-info may be incomplete
-need to be quite clear about
what looking for
-not flexible means to get
data; data restricted to what
already exists

observation

to gather accurate
information about how a
program actually operates,
particularly about
processes

-view operations of a
program as they are actually
occurring
-can adapt to events as they
occur

-can be difficult to interpret

seen behaviors
-can be complex to
categorize observations
-can influence behaviors of
program participants
-can be expensive

-quickly and reliably get

focus groups

explore a topic in depth

through group discussion,
e.g., about reactions to an
experience or suggestion,
understanding common
complaints, etc.; useful in
evaluation and marketing

case studies

to fully understand or
depict client's experiences
in a program, and conduct
comprehensive
examination through cross
comparison of cases

common impressions
-can be efficient way to get
much range and depth of
information in short time
- can convey key information
about programs

-can be hard to analyze

responses
-need good facilitator for
safety and closure
-difficult to schedule 6-8
people together

-usually quite time

consuming to collect,
experience in program input, organize and describe
process and results
-represents depth of
-powerful means to portray information, rather than
program to outsiders
breadth

-fully depicts client's

Table Showing A Summary of Data Collection Instruments

14

8.3 Case Study: Evaluation of a Mathematics Curriculum in South Africa

Background: Mathematics Learning and Teaching Initiative (MALATI) was
commissioned by the Education Initiative of the Open Society Foundation for South
Africa in 1996 to develop, pilot and disseminate alternative approaches and tools for
teaching and learning mathematics.
Method: Based on project workers observation and written field notes made during
the implementation of the MALATI curriculum the following findings were obtained:
Findings:
a. a number of teachers had not yet received the most basic communications
issued to schools regarding Curriculum 2005
b. teachers had difficulty interpreting certain aspect of the official curriculum
document. Lack of clarity led to confusion
c. the curriculum document had content errors
d. content knowledge of teachers was not adequate to handle some of the topic in
the curriculum such as statistics.
e. learners did not have the prior experience assumed in the curriculum eg. in
grade 9, the teaching of probability assumes that learner had done some
statistics in the earlier grades
f. teachers are continuing to teach the topics they are used to and are reluctant to
use the MALATI materials
g. the curriculum suggested that group work be used in teaching probability and
data handling. Learners were not accustomed to group discussion and listening
to one another.
h. the teaching of the topic took a longer time as teachers struggled to deal with
learners everyday experiences in the teaching of probability
Recommendations:
1) Teachers need workshops on selected aspects of the content
2) Selected parts of the curriculum documents need to be rewritten to reduce
confusion
3) To convince teachers not to treat the teaching of probability and statistics as
new content but teach it for its mathematical value
[Source: Karin Brodie and Craig Pournara, 2003. Towards a framework for developing and
researching groupwork in mathematics classrooms .http//www.hsrcpress.ac.za.

ACTIVITY 8.2
1) What are some of the problems identified with the implementation of the
MALATI programme?
2) Based on the findings list the recommendations made.

15

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Identify some problems in the implementation of the Primary School
Integrated Curriculum (KBSR) and the Secondary School Integrated
Curriculum (KBSM)?
2. Describe how the teaching of science and mathematics in English was
implemented in your school?
3. New curriculum often fail to become established in schools because the
importance and complexity of the implementation phase is not understood
Discuss.

READINGS

Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter. Buffalo: State

University of New York Press.
o Chapter 1: Patterns of teachers involvement in the curriculum
endeavour.
o Chapter 3: Teachers concerns about curriculum issues
o Chapter 7; Implications for teacher education and staff development
[available at eBrary].

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. Curriculum: Foundations, principle and

issues. (1998). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chapter 10: Curriculum
implementation.

Sowell, E. (2000). Curriculum: An integrative introduction. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chapter 1: Overview of curriculum processes and
products.

16