ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY
Central Tehran Branch
Faculty of Foreign Languages- Department of English
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Translation Studies
Subject:
Evaluating the M.A. English Translation Curriculum in Iran
Advisor:
Dr. Abdolbaghi Rezaei
By:
Zahra Torbatinezhad
August 2014
In The Name of God
The Compassionate, The Merciful
Dedicated to
My Beloved Family
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Abdolbaghi Rezaei, whose invaluable guidance, effort and encouragement made this study possible. Without his unending assistance and great encouragements, I would not have been able to finish this study.
I am also grateful for the invaluable insights and recommendations put forth by my proof reader, Ramin Rezaei, who spends his valuable time and encouraged me in this study.
My sincere and special thanks also go to students and professors of M.A. English Translation which I had conversations and interviews related to this thesis.
Last but not least, I wish to give a heartfelt thanks to my family for their unconditional love and endless supports throughout my study, without their kind encouragements, patience and enthusiasm this study would have no chance for successful development.
Abstract
This research was conducted in order to evaluate the current M.A. English Translation Curriculum in Iranian Universities through the students and instructors’ point of view based on Tyler (1949) model to find out whether the curriculum was well-designed enough to matches the current needs of students. To this end, the current researcher employed 4 researcher-made questionnaires as the main instrument and instructor interview to evaluate the research questions of the study and to collect data. The questionnaires were designed based on Tyler model (1949) providing a series of critical steps for developing educational curriculum with measurable and attainable educational objectives. The data obtained in the current research, presented in tables according to the main elements of the curriculum i.e. students and instructors’ thought about the instructional objectives of M.A. English Translation curriculum, about the courses included for M.A English Translation curriculum, about the arrangement of the courses of the current English Translation curriculum and finally about the types of assessments carried out based on the current English Translation curriculum. According to the questionnaire and interview results, it was found out that students and instructors are not satisfied with current instructional objectives included in M.A. curriculum. Also it was found out that translation curriculum should balance theoretical and practical components in their translator training curricula. This thesis also revealed that the students perceived themselves less competent and less prepared for translation profession. By the result of this study the researcher hopes to make clear the educational goals that need to be meets through the program of M.A. English. Moreover, the study is going to explore the areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in education in English Translation at M.A level. Finally, this evaluation study may help administrators make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program.
Table of ContentsTitle Page………………………………………………………………………iDedication ……………………………………………………………………..iiAcknowledgement………………………………………………………………iiiAbstract…………………………………………………………………………ivTable of Content………………………………………………………………..vList of Tables …………………………………………………………………..xChapter I: Background and Purpose………………………………………..1.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….11.2. Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….31.3. Research Questions ……………………………………………………….31.4. Operational definition of the key terms ……………………………………4 1.4.1. Instructional Objectives………………………………………………..4 1.4.2. Curriculum……………………………………………………………..5 1.4.3. Curriculum Evaluation…………………………………………………51.5. Significance of the Study ………………………………………………….51.6. Limitations and Delimitations……………………………………………..6Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature………………………………2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….82.2. Translation studies in Iran…………………………………………………92.3. Evaluation and its objectives………………………………………………102.4. Different concepts of Curriculum …………………………………………112.5. Curriculum Evaluation ……………………………………………………14 2.5.1. The Needs for Curriculum Evaluation……………………………….18 2.5.2. Summative Evaluation and Formative Evaluation……………………182.6. Different Evaluation Approaches………………………………………….21 2.6.1. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………………212.6.2. Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches……………………..22 2.6.3. Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………..……..222.6.4. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach…………………………….22 2.6.5. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches …………………………22 2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches…………………………232.7. Evaluation Models…………………………………………………………23 2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt…………………………………………………………23 2.7.2. Tyler’s Model…………………………………………………………..24 2.7.2.1. The selection of Educational Objectives…………………………..26 2.7.2.2. Subject matter as a Source of Objectives………………………….27 2.7.2.3. Needs of the learners as a Source of Objectives……………………30 2.7.2.4. Studied of contemporary life as a source of Objective…………….34 2.7.2.4.1. The Philosophical Screen ……………………………………….35 2.7.2.5. Selecting and Organizing of Learning Experiences ………………38 2.7.2.6. Evaluation …………………………………………………………39 2.7.3 Stufflebeam’s Context, Input, Process, Product Model…………………41 2.7.3.1. Context Evaluation…………………………………………………42 2.7.3.2. Input Evaluation …………………………………………………..42 2.7.3.3. Process Evaluation …………………………………………………43 2.7.3.4. Product Evaluation ………………………………………………..442.7.4. Stake’s model……………………………………………………………45 2.7.5. Eisner’s Model………………………………………………………….47 2.7.6. Oliva’s Model……………………………………………………………48Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..503.2. Participants ………………………………………………………………..503.3. Instruments…………………………………………………………………52 3.3.1. Questionnaire……………………………………………………………533.3.2. Interviews………………………………………………………………..543.4. Data Collection Procedure ………………………………………………..553.5. Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………563.6. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………59Chapter IV: Results and Discussion…………………………………………4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..604.2. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………………624.3. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives………………….654.4. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objective………714.5. Evaluation Types…………………………………………………………..74Chapter V: Conclusion and Implications……………………………………5.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..785.2. Summary of Findings………………………………………………………78 5.2.1. Instructional Objectives……………………………………………….78 5.2.2. Courses for meeting the defined instructional objectives……………..79 5.2.3. Arrangement of the courses for attaining the instructional objectives..80 5.2.4. Evaluation types………………………………………………………80 5.3. Pedagogical implications………………………………………………….815.4. Suggestions for further research……………………………………………84References……………………………………………………………………….86Appendixes ……………………………………………………………………. Appendix A: Questionnaire 1 ……………………………………………….92 Appendix B: Questionnaire 2……………………………………………….93 Appendix C: Questionnaire 3……………………………………………….95 Appendix D: Questionnaire ………………………………………………….96
List of Tables
Table 4.1.Students’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program ……………………………………………………..…………..63
Table 4.2.Instructors’ conceptions of the instructional objectives of the current M.A. English Translation Program…………………………………………………………………64
Table 4.3.Students’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………….…….67
Table 4.4.Students’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ………………………………………………………………..68
Table 4.5.instructors’ conception of compulsory courses included in the current M.A English translation program………………………………………………………….….…69
Table 4.6.instructors’ conception of optional courses included in the current M.A. English translation program ……………………………………………………………….70
Table 4.7.students’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ………………………………………………………..…72
Table 4.8.instructors’ conception of the arrangement of the courses of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………….73
Table 4.9.students’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum ……………..………….75
Table 4.10.instructor’ conception of types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum………………………………………………………….……………….………76
CHAPTER I
Background and Purpose
1.1. Introduction
Translation studies as a new specific discipline, with no doubt, has great effect in today’s world from different aspects. According to Bassnett (1991), Translation Studies is a science, while translating is no longer a secondary activity. “Any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of EQUIVALENCE and to examine what constitutes MEANING within that process.”(Bassnett, 2002) Also, Gentzler (2014) believes that “Translation inheres in every discourse; there are many borders impeding communication that have little to do with national languages or disciplinary boundaries. Every language has its multilingual roots and its translational aspects. Every discipline depends upon and thrives within translation matters.
The need of translation activities in human communication on everyday life result in dramatic increase for translating efforts which need large scale translation competence. As a result, translators “should be given a sound educational basis and consequently their training needs to be institutionalized” (Sabaté Carrové, 1999, p.1).
Cominade and Pym (1995) believed that “Recent surveys indicate more than 250, offering a variety of certificates and degrees, undergraduate and graduate, training not only professional translators, but also scholar-teachers of translation and of foreign languages and literatures” (cited in Venuti, 2000). The education of translation at academic level in Iran started in 1973(Omid Jafari, 2013). In less than a decade, the number of universities in Iran that offer the postgraduate degree has increased, indicating the reflection of interest in this field. Therefore, it is imperative to take a moment and consider what courses and credits and generally translation studies program are being given at these universities particularly from instructional objectives perspectives that remained untouched in English translation program especially in Iran.
Instructional objectives as the most essential act in the curriculum developing should be matched with students and market needs. According to Sheal (1990), if instructional objectives have not been clearly defined and determined, there may be disorder “in the course development; in the presentation; among the learners; in the follow-up after the course; or in making an evaluation”. The current study is to clarify translator training in Iran by evaluating translation programs at the Master’s level, which has received little attention. To do so, the Taylor’s rational or the objectives model (1949) is used as the framework for this study. The current researcher felt that his framework was a well-constructed framework best fit this study.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Before starting this section, it should be mentioned that apparently translation studies at M.A. should prepare students for particular occupations in translation professions including audiovisual translation, intermodal translation, editing, academic research, journalism, public relations, language teaching so on and so for. To do so, the curriculum should offer a balanced combination of theory and practice credits. Instructional objectives and outcome of each credit need to be clarified first and continually evaluated to make out its strong and weak points (Gredler, 1996). According to Brown (1989) continuous evaluation of some or total components of curriculum should be done without bias which is truly a vital step in any curriculum, and will lead to valuable revisions. In spite of the importance of curriculum evaluation, this crucial step remained untouched in English Translation program in Iran. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of English translation curriculum at Iranian universities, because it seems that the “original curriculum was merely a series of courses selected from well-known universities of the world” (LesanToosi, 2013).
1.3. Research Questions
The current research is to evaluate the present M.A. English Translation Curriculum in Iranian universities regarding instructors and students point of view based on Tyler (1949) model to find out whether it is well-designed enough to matches the current needs of students. Among a series of questions that come to mind, the researcher addresses the following questions:
1. What do students and instructors think about the instructional objectives of M.A. English Translation curriculum?
2. What do students and instructors think about courses included in M.A. English Translation curriculum?
3. What do students and instructors think about the arrangement of the courses in the current M.A. English Translation curriculum?
4. What do students and instructors think about types of assessments given to students during or at the end of the current M.A. English Translation curriculum?
1.4. Operational Definition of the Key Terms
1.4.1. Instructional objectives
The concept mainly considered as a series of specific and measurable objectives defined to meet the needs of students. Ammans (2003) believed that instructional objective is a statement of purpose that is derived by educators from the general purpose stated by the group that controls the educational enterprise.
1.4.2. Curriculum
The term curriculum in the present study mostly refers to the long-term written plan that provides a summary outline of a course of study or of a specified teaching program which represents the totality of ideas and activities in an educational program within a specified educational system (kearns, 2006).
1.4.3. Curriculum Evaluation
Evaluation was conceptualized by Tyler (1949) as a process essential to curriculum development. The purpose of evaluation in the current study is to determine the extent to which the curriculum had achieved its stated goals and to identify the “strength and weaknesses in the curriculum” (Gredler 1996).
1.5. Significance of the Study
According to Nation and Macalister (2010), “needs are not always clear and are always changing so it is important that needs are looked at from a variety of perspectives at a variety of times”. In this regard, in evaluating educational programs, analyzing learners and market’ needs is of outmost significance. Without an effective evaluation program it is impossible to know whether students have learned, whether teaching has been effective, or how best to address students learning needs. Brown (1989) felt that continuous evaluation should always be done for revision of all or some of the elements in the curriculum plan. Regarding this fact, the present study attempts to evaluate the current curriculum of M.A English Translation Program in Iranian universities based on Tyler’s Objective Model (1949). By the result of this study the researcher hopes to make clear the educational goals that need to be meet through the program of M.A. English Translation, also the study tries to mention whether the stated learning objectives adequately prepare students with the knowledge and skill required to be successful in different translation professions in the market. Moreover the study is going to explore the areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in education in English Translation at M.A level. Finally, this evaluation study may help administrators make relevant changes, additions and deletions to the program.
1.6. Limitations and Delimitations
In any kind of research to conduct, some limitations and delimitations may exist. Of course, in the process of evaluation, the influence of some factors cannot be controlled by the researcher, so they have to limit their study. The study relies on only the information that the students and instructor’s provide in their questionnaires and also instructors’ interviews. The students might have been unwilling to express their genuine ideas about the questions, in addition, during the face to face interview with the instructors some respondent may not have truthfully answered the questions that they find sensitive and sometimes to share their experience and knowledge to the inquiry.
The study also has some delimitation. The first delimitation is that the focus of the study was to M.A. students of English Translation and the other levels were not taken into account. Moreover, some of the students and instructors did not accept to participate in this study.
CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
2.1. Introduction
There has been a great deal of evaluating studies aiming at improving the quality of educational programs. However, the studies related tothe evaluation vary significantly in terms of their purpose, their methodologyand their emphasis. In some studies related to evaluation, the focus is placedonly on some of the components of the curriculum, rather than the curriculum as a whole. In some studies parts of curriculum has been evaluated such as the methodology of teaching and the materials which is used. Research has shown that evaluation is an important part ofcurriculum development and student perception is an important source forevaluation.Cronbach (1963) pointed out that the evaluation process should be focused on gathering and reporting information that could help decision making in an educational program and curriculum development.Also, many researches have been focused on student needs and determined the effectiveness or success of the program depending on how much those needs are met. The aim of the present study was to determine the educational needs of English Language Translation students and the effectiveness of their present curriculum. Proportional to this purpose, the related background was reviewed and presented here in order to construct the research on a solid theoretical foundation.
2.2. Translation Studies in Iran
The first translation movement in Iran, “the Foundation Movement”, which was triggered by the order of Cyrus the Great, helped him establish the Persian Empire and its identity, expand his territory and deliver Cyrus’s liberal message to the peoples of ancient world. The second translation movement, called “the Revival Movement”, in the Sassanian era was a cultural and scientific one aimed at acquiring knowledge, guaranteeing the empire’s preservation and approaching proactively towards world affairs. It was used to introduce Iranian culture, art and ideology to the other nations and therefore revive Iranian cultural influence. After the Arab invasion, the third translation movement or “the Survival Movement”, was initiated by massive and heroic efforts by Iranian scholars and men of letters to sustain the Iranian culture and resulted in the formation of a dynamic and patriotic translation movement for almost three hundred years. The fourth and final translation movement, called “the Modernization Movement”, which is widely regarded as a translation Renaissance in Iran started in the second half of the 19th century and was the beginning of great political and ideological transformations in the country that triggered the modernization process and the constitutional revolution.
The education of translation at academic level started in 1973 in Tehran as a higher education center titled as ‘College of Translation’ was established to train competent translators (OmidJafari, 2013). After Revolution (1979) this school was substituted by AllamehTabatabaei University in Tehran in 1983. The instruction of this major as a specialized one has continued since that time and spread to some other universities across the country because it has been needed to deal with translation major more academically and systematically as global communication has become more popular and necessary with the advent of the Internet and satellites and Iran has been also so dependent on translation of latest researches and books published in developed countries to advance its science. There are now nine postgraduate and two doctoral programs of translation in this country to prepare good translators and instructors of translation for near and far future.
2.3. Evaluation and its Objectives
The notion of evaluation has a long history. It has been defined as the systematic and scientific process determining the extent to which an action or set of actions were successful in the achievement of pre-determined objectives. Evaluation involves measurement of adequacy and effectiveness of a specific program. Moreover, evaluation has been the object of study in educational science. The field of evaluation has gradually broadened to the extent that it now encompasses not only examinations but also the educational system as a whole. In the pedagogical context, evaluation has traditionally been equated with measuring in order to judge; according to this perspective, the evaluator is therefore a judge, while the person evaluated has to submit to the evaluator’s authority, which is not always either just or objective. Evaluation was later to become an integral part of pedagogical practice, no longer concerned only exclusively with examinations. Thus, the student’s knowledge was evaluated, but so too was the functioning of both, the student and the school system in general.According to Tyler (1950), the evaluation process mainly consists in determining to which extent the education objectives principally aim at changing human beings, that is the objective is to cause desirable changes in students’ behaviors, whereas evaluation is the process consisting in determining to what extent these behavioral changes are actually occurring.Before beginning an evaluation, the evaluation purpose should be clearly defined. A clear purpose helps the formulation of evaluation questions, and makes it easier for external evaluators to respond to the demand.Evaluation is imperative for monitoring and getting feedback about the program as to whether it is running effectively or not and what kind of intervention is needed before evaluating the outcomes of the implemented program.
2.4. Different Conceptions of Curriculum
There are numerous uses of the word “curriculum”. Standard dictionaries define curriculum as a course of study and notes that it derives from the Latin word for a chariot race-course. In the past the term “curriculum” referred to a course of studies followed by a pupil in a teaching institution. Today, the term curriculum does not have any single definition. According to Olivia (2001),“Thecurriculum field is by no means clear; as a discipline of study and as a field ofpractice, curriculum lacks clean boundaries” (p. 10). So this leads to emergence of various interpretations from different scholars. According to Ronald Doll (1996), curriculum is the formal and informal content and process by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter attitudes, appreciations, and values under the auspices of an academic institution. Ornstein and Hunkins (2004) provides five different definitions for the concept ofcurriculum which can be listed as follows; A curriculum can be defined as a plan foraction or a written document that includes strategies for achieving desired goals orends. A curriculum can be defined broadly- as dealing with experiences of thelearner. Curriculum can be considered as a system for dealing with people and theprocesses or the organization of personnel and procedures for implementing thatsystem. Curriculum can be viewed as a field of study. Finally, curriculum can beconsidered in terms of subject matter or content. Tanner and Tanner (1980) on theother hand; defines curriculum as “The cumulative tradition of organized knowledge,modes of thought, race experience, guided experience, planned learning environment, cognitive/affective content and progress, an instructional plan, instructional ends oroutcomes, and a technological system of production” (p. 54). A different approach todefining curriculum was taken by Robert M. Gagne (1987), who wove togethersubject matter, the statement of ends, sequencing of content, and pre-assessment ofentry skills required of students when they begin the study of content.
There is also a group of educators who regard curriculum as a production system. Toillustrate, Bobbitt (1923) defines curriculum as the series of things which childrenand youth must do and experience by way of developing ability to do the things wellthat make the affairs of adult life. Similarly, according to Popham (1972) curriculumrevolves around “objectives that an educational system hopes its learners willachieve” (p. 96).
By the 1980s, the concept of curriculum expanded even more with changes in socialemphasis. For example; Tanner and Tanner stated that “Curriculum is the learningexperiences and intended outcomes formulated through systematic reconstruction ofknowledge and experience, under the auspices of the school, for the learners’continuous willful growth in personal-social competence” (Tanner and Tanner, 1984 p. 102). Besides, Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi not only described curriculum as planfor learning but also considered the curriculum as a goal or set of values, which areactivated through a development process culminating in classroom experiences(Wiles and Bondi, 1985). Similarly, Hilda Taba(1962) put forward a similardefinition of curriculum. She defined curriculum as a plan for learning and lists theelements:
A curriculum usually contains a statement of aims and of specific objectives;it indicates some selection and organization of content; it either implies ormanifests certain patterns of learning and teaching, whether because theobjectives demand them or the content organization requires them. Finally itincludes a program of evaluation of the outcomes. Geneva Gay (2000), writing on desegregating the curriculum, offered a broadinterpretation of curriculum: If we are to achieve equally, we must broaden ourconception to include the entire culture of the school- not just subject matter andone content.
2.5. Curriculum Evaluation
It is a fact that evaluation, for a wide range of reasons,is an inseparable part of our life. In terms of education, evaluation is one of the basic components of any curriculum and plays a pivotal role in determining what learners learn. It can be stated that the main purpose of evaluation is to obtain information about student and teacher performance along with classroom interactions. In the same way, the aims might also include to identify strengths and weaknesses of particular activities in a program. According to Ornstein and Hunkins (1998), ‘Evaluation is a process that we carry out to obtain data, to determine whether to make changes, to make modifications, eliminations and/or accept something in the curriculum. This continuous evaluation implies that there should always be preparation for revision of all the elements in the curriculum plan (Brown, 1989). He points out the importance of evaluation and states that “The ongoing program evaluation is glue thatconnects and holds all the elements together. Without evaluation, there is no cohesion among the elements and if left in isolation, any of them may become pointless. In short, the heart of the systematic approach to language curriculum design in evaluation- the part of the model that includes, connects and gives meaning to all of the other elements” (p.235).
There is no widely agreed upon definitions of evaluation. While some educators relate evaluation with measurement, the others define it as the assessment of the extent to which specific objectives have been attained. Some view evaluation as primarily scientific inquiry, whereas others argue that it is essentially the act of collecting and providing information to enable decision-makers to function effectively (Worthen and Sanders, 1998). Though it can be said that evaluation can refer to small-scale activities which involves basically a teacher and his\her students, it can also refer to large-scale studies which involves many schools and teachers. Despite this lack of consensus about the phenomenon, Talmage (1982) defines evaluation as the act of rendering judgments to determine value-worth and meritwithout questioning or diminishing the important roles evaluation plays in decision making.
Cronbach (1991) makes a distinction among three types of decisions that requiresevaluation:
1) Course improvement: deciding what instructional materials and methods aresatisfactory and where change is needed.
2) Decisions about individuals: identifying the needs of the pupil for the sake ofplanning his instruction, judging pupil merit for purposes of selection andgrouping, acquainting the pupil with his own progress and deficiencies.
3) Administrative regulation: judging how good the school system is, how goodindividual teachers are, etc.
Evaluation was conceptualized by Ralph Tyler (1991) as a process essential tocurriculum development. The purpose of evaluation was stated as to determine theextent to which the curriculum had achieved its stated goals. Evaluation was the basisfor the identification of strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum, followed by replanning,implementation and evaluation (Gredler, 1996). Similarly, Worthen andSanders (1998) stated that evaluation is the formal determination of the quality,effectiveness or value of a program, product, project, process, objective orcurriculum. In addition, there are several judgment methods that are used forevaluation during this determination process. These are mainly determining standardsfor judging quality and deciding whether those standards should be relative orabsolute. Secondly, collecting relevant information and finally applying the standardsto determine quality. Hence, in the light of these definitions related to evaluation, itcan be concluded that Program Evaluation is therefore a systematic inquiry designedto provide information to decision makers and/or groups interested in a particularprogram, policy or other intervention. This inquiry might be exemplified as ‘Howdoes the program work?’, ‘Does the program produce unintended side effects and soon?’ (Cronbach, 1980, p. 87) Program Evaluation generally involves assessment ofone or more of five program domains. a) the need for the program b) the design ofthe program c) the program implementation and service delivery d)the programimpact or outcomes and e) program efficiency (cost effectiveness). Similarly, thenature of program evaluation is described as
Program evaluation is not determination of goal attainment
Program evaluation is not applied social science
Program evaluation is neither a dominant nor autonomous field of
evaluation (Payne, 1994, p. 15).
Mackay (1994) states that in the field of foreign language teaching, the term ‘programevaluation’ is used to a wide variety of activities, ranging from academic, theory -driven research to informal enquiries carried out by a single classroom. Thus,evaluation may focus on many different aspects of a language program such ascurriculum design, classroom processes, the teachers and students.
2.5.1.The Needs for Curriculum Evaluation
Evaluation is a central component of the educational process. Thus, it is certainly acritical and challenging mission. Kelly (1999) defines curriculum evaluation as theprocess by which we attempt to gauge the value and effectiveness of any particularpiece of educational activity. The two common goals of program evaluation, as statedby Lynch (1996) are evaluating a program’s effectiveness in absolute terms and/orassessing its quality against that of comparable programs. Program evaluation notonly provides useful information to insiders on how the current work can be improvedbut also offers accountability to outside stakeholders.It aims to discover whether the curriculum designed, developed and implemented isproducing or can produce the desired results. The strengths and the weaknesses of thecurriculum before implementation and the effectiveness of its implementation can be highlighted by the help of evaluation (Ornstein and Hunkins, 1998). Thus, asystematic and continuous evaluation of a program is significant for its improvement,which ultimately leads to the need for curriculum evaluation.
2.5.2. Summative Evaluation and Formative Evaluation
A different way of analyzing curriculum evaluation is in terms of the timing of theevaluation, the ways in which it is made, the instruments used and the purpose forwhich the results are used.
Scriven (1991) introduced into the literature of evaluation the concept of Formativeand Summative Evaluation. Formative evaluation requires collecting and sharinginformation for program improvement. While a program is being installed, theformative evaluator works to provide the program planners and staff with informationto help adjust it to the setting and improve it (Morris and Fitz-Gibbon, 1978).Formative evaluation is typically conducted during the development or improvementof a program or product or person and so on and it is conducted often more than once(Scriven, 1991). The purpose of formative evaluation is to validate or ensure that thegoals of the instruction are being achieved and to improve the instruction if necessaryby means of identification and subsequent remediation of problematic aspects(Weston, Mc Alpine and Bordonaro, 1995). Therefore, it is apparent that formativeevaluation provides data to enable on-the-spot changes to be made where necessary.Students’ learning activities can be refocused and redirected and the range and depthof instructional activities of a curriculum can be revised in ‘mid-stream’ (Tunstalland Gipps, 1996). Hence, it applies to both course improvement and students’growth, although some writers tend to concentrate only upon the former (Pryor andTorrance, 1996). In brief, formative evaluation is conducted during the operation of aprogram to provide program directors evaluate information useful in improving theprogram. For example, during the development of a curriculum package, formativeevaluation would involve content inspection by experts, pilot tests with smallnumbers of children and so forth. Each step would result in immediate feedback tothe developers who would then use the information to make necessary revisions.
Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is conducted at the end of a program toprovide potential consumers with judgments about that program’s worth or merit. Forexample, after the curriculum package is completely developed, a summativeevaluation might be conducted to determine how effective the package is with anational sample of typical schools, teachers and students at the level for which it wasdeveloped (Worthen and Sanders, 1998). The summative evaluator’s function is notto work with the staff and suggest improvements while the program is running butrather to collect data and write a summary report showing what the program lookslike and what has been achieved. Summative Evaluation is the final goal of aneducational activity. Thus, summative evaluation provides the data from whichdecisions can be made. It provides information on the product’s efficacy. Forexample, finding out whether the learners have learnt what they were supposed to learn after using the instructional module. Summative evaluation generally usesnumeric scores or letter grades to assess learner achievement.While formative evaluation leads to decisions about program development includingmodification, revision and the like, summative evaluation leads to decisionsconcerning program continuation, termination, expansion, adoption and so on.
Audiences and uses for these two evaluation roles are also very different. Informative evaluation the audience is program personnel or those responsible fordeveloping the curriculum. On the other hand, summative evaluation audiencesinclude potential consumers such as students, teachers and other professionals,funding sources and supervisors. However, it is a fact that both formative andsummative evaluation are essential because decisions are needed both during thedevelopmental stages of a program to improve and strengthen it and again when ithas stabilized to judge its final worth or determine its future.
2.6. Different Evaluation Approaches
Evaluation models differ greatly with regard tocurriculum evaluation approaches. Due to this diversity in curriculum evaluation, it is not possible to come up with only onesingle model. As Erden (1995) states, researchers can choose the most appropriatemodel in terms of their purposes and conditions during their curriculum evaluationmodels or they can develop a new one making use of the existing ones.
Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (1998) classify the evaluation approaches under thecategories of objectives oriented evaluation approach, management orientedevaluation approach, consumer oriented evaluation approach, expertise orientedevaluation approach, adversary oriented evaluation approach and participant orientedevaluation approach.
2.6.1.Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches:
The distinguishing feature of an objectives-oriented evaluation approach is that thepurposes of some activity are specified and then evaluation focuses on the extent towhich those purposes are achieved.
2.6.2 Management- Oriented Evaluation Approaches
Its rationale is that evaluative information is an essential part of good decision makingand that the evaluator can be most effective by serving administrators, policy makers,boards, practitioners, and others who need good evaluative information.
2.6.3.Consumer-oriented Evaluation Approaches
Independent agencies or individuals who take responsibility to gather information oneducational or other human services products, or assist others in doing so, support theconsumer-oriented evaluation approach. These products generally include: curriculumpackages, workshops, instructional media, in-service training opportunities, staff evaluation forms or procedures, new technology, software and equipment, educational materials and supplies, and even services to agencies.
2.6.4Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approach
It depends primarily upon professionalexpertise to judge an institution, program, product or activity.
2.6.5.Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches:
Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approach in its broad sense refers to all evaluations inwhich there is a planned opposition in the points of view of different evaluators orevaluation teams.
2.6.6. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches
Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approach aims at observing and identifying all of theconcerns, issues and consequences integral to human services enterprise.Worthern, Sanders and Fitzpatrick (1998) highlighted the aspect of each approachunder eight headings such as proponents, purpose of evaluation, distinguishingcharacteristics, past uses, contributions to the conceptualization of an evaluation,criteria for judging evaluations, benefits and limitations.
2.7. Evaluation Models
Evaluation has a long history, which ultimately lead to the use of various evaluationmodels by curriculum specialists. While the models differ in many of their details, the decision to choose an evaluation model depends on a few important factors such as the evaluation questions, the issues that must be addressed, and the available resources (Madaus and Kellaghan, 2000).
2.7.1. Franklin Bobbitt
Franklin Bobbitt played a leading role during the first three decades of the twentieth century in establishing curriculum as a field of specialization within the discipline of education. Bobbitt is best known for two books, the Curriculum (1918) and How to Make a Curriculum (1924).Bobbitt concerned himself with the development of specific activities that he believed contributed to the adjustment of the individual to society. The procedure for curriculum planning which Bobbitt referred to as job analysis, were adapted from Taylor’s work and began with the identification of the specific activities that adults undertook in fulfilling their various occupational citizenship, family and other social roles. The resulting activities were to be the objectives of the curriculum. The curriculum itself, Bobbitt noted, was comprised of the school experiences that educators constructed to enable children to attain those objectives. Bobbitt argued that the content of the curriculum was not self-evident in the traditional disciplines of knowledge, but had to be derived from objectives that addressed the functions of adult work and citizenship.
Education was not important in its own right for Bobbitt its value lay in the preparation it offered children for their lives and as adults.
Bobbitt along with other early-twentieth-century efficiency-oriented school reformers made the case that the curriculum ought to be differentiated into numerous programs, some academic and preparatory and others vocational and terminal, and that students ought to be channeled to these tracks on the basis their abilities.
2.7.2. Tyler’s Model(Framework)
Tyler’s model is the most influential theoretical formulation in the field of curriculum. It is sometimes known as the ‘Tyler Rational’ or the ‘Objective Model’. The model provides a framework of how to construct a plan curriculum.
Tyler’s rational revolves around four central questions which Tyler feels need answers if the process of curriculum development is to proceed. The questions which are posted in Tyler’s well-known book basic principles of curriculum and instruction are as follows:
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?
The questions provide a four-step approach which is logical, sequential and systematic, moreover they may be reformulated into the familiar four-step process by which a curriculum is developed: stating objectives, selecting experiences, organizing experiences, and evaluating. The most crucial step is obviously the first since all the others proceed from the statement of objectives.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between the questions and four-step process:
Figure1: the Tyler Model of Curriculum Development
ObjectivesWhat educational goals should the school
Seek to attain?

Selecting experiencesWhat educational experiences can be
provided that are likely to attain these
purposes?
Organizing experiencesHow can these educational experiences
be effectively organized?
evaluatingHow can we determine whether these
purposesare being attained?
2.7.2.1. The selection of educational objectives
Tyler’s section on educational objectives is a description of the three sourcesof objectives: studies of learners, studies of contemporary life, and suggestionsfrom subject-matter specialists, as well as an account of how data derived fromthese “sources” are to be “filtered” through philosophical and psychological”screens.” The three sources of educational objectives encapsulate severaltraditional doctrines in the curriculum field over which much ideological bloodhad been spilled in the previous several decades. The doctrines proceeded fromdifferent theoretical assumptions, and each of them had its own spokesmen, itsown adherents, and its own rhetoric. Tyler’s proposal accepts them all, whichprobably accounts in part for its wide popularity.While we are aware that compromise is the recourse frequently taken in thefields of diplomatic or labor negotiation, simple eclecticism may not be the mostefficacious way to proceed in theorizing. When Dewey, for example, identifiedthe fundamental factors in the educative process as the child and the “valuesincarnate in the matured experience of the adult,” the psychological and thelogical, his solution was not to accept them both but “to discover a reality towhich each belongs.” (Dewey,1964). In other words, when faced with essentially the sameproblem of warring educational doctrines, Dewey’s approach is to creativelyreformulate the problem; Tyler’s is to lay them all out side by side.
2.7.2.2. Subject Matter as a Source of Objectives
Of the three “sources” — studies of the learners themselves, studies of contemporarylife, and suggestions about objectives from subject-matter specialists—the last one seems curiously distorted and out of place. Perhaps this isbecause Tyler begins the section by profoundly misconceiving the role andfunction of the Committee of Ten. He attributes to the Committee of Ten a set ofobjectives which, he claims, has subsequently been followed by thousands ofsecondary schools. In point of fact, the notion of objectives in the sense thatTyler defines the term was not used and probably had not even occurred to themembers of the Committee of Ten. What they proposed were not objectives, but“four programs”: Classical, Latin-Scientific, Modern Languages, and English.Under each of these rubrics is a listing of the subjects that constitute eachof the four courses of study. This recommendation is followed by the reports ofthe various individual committees on what content should be included and whatmethods should be used in the various subject fields. Unless Tyler is using theterm “objective” as being synonymous with “content” (in which case it wouldlose all its importance as a concept), then the use of the term “objectives” in thecontext of the report of the Committee of Ten is erroneous. Probably the onlysense in which the term “objective” is applicable to the Committee of Ten reportis in connection with the broad objective of mental training to which it subscribes.
An even more serious error follows: “It seems clear that the Committee ofTen thought it was answering the question: What should be the elementaryinstruction for students who are later to carry on much more advanced work inthe field. Hence, the report in History, for example, seems to present objectives[sic] for the beginning courses for persons who are training to be historians.Similarly the report in Mathematics outlines objectives [sic] for the beginningcourses in the training of a mathematician.” (Tyler, 1950: p. 17)
As a matter of fact, one of the central questions that the Committee of Tenconsidered was, “Should the subject be treated differently for pupils who aregoing to college, for those who are going to a scientific school, and for those,who, presumably, are going to neither.?” The Committee decided unanimouslyin the negative. The subcommittee on history, civil government, and politicaleconomy, for example, reported that it was “unanimously against making such adistinction” and passed a resolution that “instruction in history and relatedsubjects ought to be precisely the same for pupils on their way to college or thescientific school, as for those who expect to stop at the end of grammar school, orat the end of the high school.” Evidently, the Committee of Ten was acutelyaware of the question of a differentiated curriculum based on probable destination.It simply rejected the doctrine that makes a prediction about one’s futurestatus or occupation a valid basis for the curriculum in general education. Theobjective of mental training, apparently, was conceived to be of such importanceas to apply to all, regardless of destination.Tyler’s interpretation of the Committee of Ten report is more than a trivialhistorical misconception. It illustrates one of his fundamental presuppositionsabout the subjects in the curriculum. Tyler conceives of subjects



قیمت: تومان

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید