however, even by an expert. It is not reasonable to expect that in the time available they will readily flow from the pen of a member of Project Identification Mission, for example, whatever expertise in this area he may possess. It is suggested that a this stage and in the appraisal report much more detail about intended qualitative objectives be included. Then a set of detailed behavioral objectives can be produced by the time a
project is ready to get under way.
The uses of formative evaluation
Since the major aim of formative evaluation is to improve education, the collection of data on the achievement of any objective should be undertaken as soon as appropriate after the commencement of a project. The results of this assessment should be fed back immediately to those concerned with the projects development. If these results show that the stated objectives are indeed being achieved, the project can continue along the lines already adopted. The results may reveal, however, that the improvement sought, or the achievement of the standards desired, if falling below expectation. Then steps can and should be taken to change the project development plan in a direction that
subsequent evaluation will reveal to be more appropriate for the achievement of the stated objectives. Only a continuous ^
evaluation procedure of this kind can ensure that the objectives will be achieved and the improvement will be brought about. Such formative evaluation does, in fact, occur in the construction of hardware (e.g., school buildings) when Bank architects inspect and modify construction projects in process.
It will be seen from the above that the usefulness of
summative evaluation is somewhat limited. It is rarely possible, with such evaluation, to make judgements or conclusions about any improvement that may have taken place since the inception of a project. Further, there is no opportunity to effect a change if the summative evaluation demonstrates that particular objectives have not been achieved.
This brief introduction to the process of evaluation implies a number of important questions about the evaluation of projects already under way, but not yet completed. It also implies the need to consider the whole question of evaluation at the very outset of any new project.
33
EVALUATION IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Introduction
In evaluation we are primarily concerned with decision of judgement of the value or worth of something. All kinds of things can be evaluated: an experience, a training programme, a teaching-learning method, instructional materials (e.g., books), and education system, the behaviour or conduct of a person. We are constantly evaluating consciously or unconsciously when we make the following types of statements:
The training programme has been effective; the Ministry of Education is inefficient; the student has failed the
examination; it is not a good thing to teach sex education in schools; that girl is beautiful; the pupil's conduct is poor. Each statement denotes decision or judgement on the part of the person making the statement, and the statements are called evaluative statements.
_ We take it as self-evident that if one wants one*s decisions of judgement to be good or sound, one must base them on accurate and adequate information and data. In other words, if one makes any of the above statements, one may be asked:
What makes you think of feel so? Or, what makes you sav
that? 2 y
When one is asked such a question, one is required to produce information and data, or more generally, evidence on which one has based one*s decision or judgement on the
effectiveness of the training programme, the conduct of the pupil, or the efficiency of the Ministry of Education.
Data and information needed for making decisions in
curriculum development are normally collected with the help of one or more of the following data and information collecting techniques: a questionnaire, a test, a check list, a rating
scale, or an interview.
Definition and conceptual model
Evaluation has been variously defined: For example,
Stufflebeam and his associates define educational evaluation as a process of delineating, obtaining and providing data and
information for judging decision alternatives. This definition contains three important ideas or activities in an evaluation
exercise:
(a) the idea or need of being clear about what is to be
evaluated;
(b) the need for collecting information and data necessary for
an evaluation;
(c) the use of the data and information for judging or deciding
(on available alternatives).
Popham is less specific than Stufflebeam; he sees
educational evaluation as consisting of formal assessment of the worth of educational phenomena. Yet other educators see
evaluation as the process of assessing the extent of achievement of objectives. On analysis of these definitions, however, two
important things are noticed:
(a) the idea of value or worth determination is either explicit or implicit in virtually all of them; and,
(b) over the years, the definition has not only tended to be _ more complicated but it has at the same time tended to shift
the focus of emphasis.
Around the middle of this century evaluation was seen by educators like Tyler as being concerned only with achievement of objectives. Later definitions like that of Stufflebeam included data collection. Variations in the definitions over time are reflections of variations in the way educators were seeing or
conceptualising evaluation. Several evaluation models have been proposed to date but analysis has shown that they can be grouped into three main categories, namely: goal attainment models,
judgement models and decision facilitation models.
Goal attainment models
In these models evaluation focuses on the achievement or attainment of desired outcomes, e.g., the Tyler model and the Hammond model. The Tyler model of evaluation has three elements
as shown in the diagram below:
Educational objectives^ — ^Learning experiences
Examination of achievement
The Tyler model has been criticised for:
(a) not paying attention to antecedent conditions and to process variables involved, yet both could materially affect the outcome; the model focuses on the achievement of objectives
only.
35
(b) not taking into consideration unintended outcomes even if they are of value. (Scriven, 1967).
Judgement models
t Judgement models focus on the assessment of merit of an entity; the entity could be a curriculum plan, objectives, or anything else in education. Examples of models in this category are the Stake and Scriven evaluation models. Scriven was the
originator of the concept of formative and summative evaluation;
he argued that both the processes and the product are important in evaluation. More specifically, he contended that there is need to assess the merit or worth of the goals or objectives
themselves which are used as criteria for evaluation; these goals must be assessed on their own merit in terms of clarity,
appropriateness, and relevance, because it may well be that they are not worth achieving in the first place.
It should be noted the process characteristics or factors are what he calls intrinsic criteria for evaluation, while the effects of the programme outcomes are what he calls extrinsic criteria for evaluation.
The model proposed by Scriven thus demands that both extrinsic and intrinsic criteria should be considered in
programme evaluation. The process characteristics or factors are what Stake calls * transactions' and include learner participation in the teaching-learning activities, the teacher-pupil
interactions, and learner interest in the programme.
Scriven criticised the Tyler model for not taking into consideration the unintended outcomes; he contends that goals tend to limit the evaluator to intended outcomes. Thus if qoals were left out altogether this limitation would bot be there and the evaluator would be free to attend to all outcomes without regard to whether they were intended or unintended. Indeed
under such circumstances, the question of intended and unintended
outcomes does not arise.
Processes _ Products