Ralph Tyler's 1949 model evaluates a curriculum by comparing actual learning outcomes against:

The curriculum's originally stated objectives

Job-market outcomes years later

The evaluator's own undisclosed criteria

An evaluation model that stresses being responsive to the actual concerns of teachers, students and parents, and comparing intended versus observed antecedents, transactions and outcomes, is:

Stake's responsive/countenance model

Michael Scriven's distinction between ongoing, improvement-oriented evaluation conducted during a curriculum's development and a final judgement of worth made after completion is the distinction between:

Formative and summative evaluation

Academic and competency-based approaches

Among the factors driving curriculum change, a shift in national education policy is classified as:

A stakeholder role, not a factor

Curriculum Studies II: Instructional System, Approaches to Curriculum Evaluation, and Curriculum Change

The second half of Unit 5 covers how curriculum is delivered and judged: the instructional system that transacts it, the academic-versus-competency approaches to curriculum and instruction, the four named models of curriculum evaluation, and how and why curriculum changes over time. The paper asks which evaluation model a described study follows and which factor or stakeholder role a described scenario illustrates in curriculum change; every model and role here carries its author and its defining focus.

1. Instructional system, media and techniques in curriculum transaction

The instructional system is the organised set of components — objectives, learner characteristics, content, methods, media, environment and assessment — arranged to bring about intended learning, forming the practical bridge between a designed curriculum on paper and actual teaching. Instructional media are the channels through which content reaches the learner: print (textbooks, worksheets), audio-visual (charts, models, films, television), and increasingly digital (interactive software, online video, simulations), each with its own strengths for a given kind of content and learner. Instructional techniques are the methods that organise a lesson's interaction — lecture, demonstration, discussion, project work, laboratory work, role play — chosen to fit the objective, the content's nature and the learners' developmental level.

Academic and competency-based approaches to curriculum and instruction
Approach	How teaching and evaluation are organised
Academic approach	Instruction transmits an organised body of disciplinary knowledge and evaluation checks retained understanding of that content, typically through written examinations weighted toward recall and conceptual grasp; mirrors the academic/discipline-based curriculum-design model from the previous chapter applied specifically to how a lesson is taught and assessed
Competency-based approach	Instruction targets specific, observable competencies and evaluation is performance-based — the learner must demonstrate the competency directly (solving a real problem, conducting a procedure) rather than answer questions about it, echoing the competency-based curriculum-design model and CBTE from teacher education (Unit 4)

🎯 Why the same academic/competency split appears three times in this course

Teacher education (Unit 4) asked whether a trainee teacher's own preparation should be organised by discipline knowledge or by demonstrable competency; curriculum design (previous chapter) asked the same question about what a school curriculum should be organised around; this chapter asks it a third time about how a single lesson is taught and assessed. The recurrence is not accidental — it is one underlying tension (content mastery versus demonstrated performance) running through every level of the education system the syllabus describes, and recognising the pattern is worth more than memorising each instance separately.

2. Models of curriculum evaluation: Tyler, Stake, Scriven, Kirkpatrick

Four models of curriculum evaluation
Model / author	Core logic
Tyler's objectives model (Ralph Tyler, 1949)	Evaluation is simply the comparison of actual learning outcomes against the curriculum's originally stated behavioural objectives — a curriculum succeeds to the degree those pre-set objectives were achieved; the oldest and still the most widely used model, but criticised for ignoring unintended outcomes and for assuming objectives were the right ones to begin with
Stake's responsive/countenance model (Robert Stake, 1967)	Evaluation should be responsive to the actual concerns and questions of the curriculum's real stakeholders (teachers, students, parents) rather than only the evaluator's pre-set criteria, and should compare intended versus observed antecedents, transactions and outcomes side by side ('countenance' meaning the full face of the programme, not just its objectives)
Scriven's goal-free/formative-summative model (Michael Scriven, 1967)	Named formative evaluation (ongoing, improvement-oriented, conducted during development) and summative evaluation (final judgement of worth after completion); also proposed goal-free evaluation, examining a programme's actual effects without being told its stated objectives beforehand, to avoid tunnel vision that a Tyler-style objectives check can produce
Kirkpatrick's four-level model (Donald Kirkpatrick, 1959)	Evaluates training/curriculum at four rising levels: Reaction (did learners like it), Learning (did they gain the intended knowledge/skill), Behaviour (did they apply it on the job or in life afterward), and Results (did it produce the larger organisational or societal outcome intended) — originally built for corporate training evaluation and widely borrowed into education

🧠 Four one-line cues for four models

'Did we hit the stated objectives' → Tyler (1949). 'What do the actual stakeholders — teachers, parents — think, and how do intended and observed compare' → Stake's countenance (1967). 'Ongoing improvement during development' → Scriven's formative; 'final verdict after completion' → Scriven's summative; 'evaluating effects without knowing stated goals beforehand, to avoid bias' → Scriven's goal-free, all 1967. 'Liked it, learned it, used it, it worked at scale' in that rising order → Kirkpatrick's four levels (1959): Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results.

3. Meaning and types of curriculum change, and factors affecting it

Curriculum change is any planned modification to the objectives, content, methods or evaluation of an existing curriculum, ranging along a spectrum from small-scale addition or substitution (adding a new chapter, swapping a textbook) through alteration (adjusting an existing element's emphasis or sequence) and restructuring (reorganising how the curriculum's parts relate to each other, such as moving from subject silos to integrated themes) to full-scale value-orientation change (a fundamental shift in the philosophy underlying the whole curriculum, such as a move from a purely academic to a socially reconstructive orientation). The larger the type of change, the more resistance and the longer the timeline it typically requires.

External factors — policy shifts (a new NEP), demographic and economic change, technological advance, international benchmarking pressure, and societal demand (parental, community or employer expectation) all press curricula to change from outside the classroom.
Internal/pedagogical factors — new research on how children learn (Unit 3), evaluation findings that show a current curriculum is not working (the evaluation models above), and a discipline's own internal growth (new knowledge that a syllabus has not yet absorbed) drive change from within the education system itself.

Students — as the curriculum's direct recipients, their engagement, feedback and (in higher grades) formal representation on academic bodies feeds evaluation and signals where a curriculum is failing to reach them.
Teachers — as the ones who transact the curriculum daily, they hold practical knowledge of what works in a real classroom that no committee document can fully anticipate, and their buy-in is usually decisive for whether a change actually succeeds rather than being resisted or quietly ignored.
Educational administrators — provide the resources, training and institutional authority a change needs to move from document to practice, and mediate between policy-level intent and school-level implementation.

⚠️ Change type versus stakeholder role — different questions

A question describing what KIND of change happened (a new chapter added, or an entire philosophy shift) wants addition/substitution, alteration, restructuring or value-orientation change. A question describing WHO drove or resisted a change wants students, teachers or administrators. Do not answer a 'what type of change' question with a stakeholder name, or a 'who is responsible' question with a change-type label — the syllabus lists them as two separate sub-items for exactly this reason.

4. Scope of curriculum research and types of research in curriculum studies

Curriculum research studies the design, transaction, evaluation and change of curricula themselves — a distinct field from research on any single subject's content, closer in spirit to the research-in-education themes of the next unit but applied specifically to curriculum questions. Its scope covers historical study of how a curriculum evolved, comparative study across states or countries, evaluative study of a curriculum's actual effects (using the four models above), developmental study that designs and pilots a new curriculum element, and implementation study of the gap between an intended and an enacted curriculum in real schools.

🎯 Why this unit ends on research rather than a final model

Everything this unit has covered — design foundations, transaction, evaluation models, change — is itself an object that can be studied, and the syllabus closes the unit by naming that reflexive move explicitly: curriculum studies is not just a set of tools for building and judging curricula, it is also a field of inquiry in its own right, which is exactly the bridge to Unit 6's full treatment of educational research methodology.

Key takeaways

The instructional system links designed curriculum to actual teaching through media (print, audio-visual, digital) and techniques (lecture, demonstration, discussion, project, laboratory, role play); the academic-versus-competency split recurs from teacher education and curriculum design into how a single lesson is taught and assessed.
Four evaluation models: Tyler's objectives model (1949, outcomes against stated objectives), Stake's responsive/countenance model (1967, stakeholder concerns and intended-versus-observed), Scriven's formative/summative/goal-free evaluation (1967), and Kirkpatrick's four levels — Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results (1959).
Curriculum change ranges from addition/substitution through alteration and restructuring to full value-orientation change, driven by external factors (policy, demography, technology, society) and internal/pedagogical factors (new learning research, evaluation findings, disciplinary growth), with students, teachers and administrators each playing a distinct role.
Curriculum research studies curriculum itself — historical, comparative, evaluative, developmental and implementation study — bridging into the fuller research methodology of the next unit.

Practice questions (8)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

Ralph Tyler's 1949 model evaluates a curriculum by comparing actual learning outcomes against:
1. The curriculum's originally stated objectives
2. Stakeholder satisfaction alone
3. Job-market outcomes years later
4. The evaluator's own undisclosed criteria
Show answer
Answer: A — The curriculum's originally stated objectives
Tyler's objectives model compares outcomes to stated objectives. Stakeholder concern is Stake's focus; job-market outcomes years later resembles Kirkpatrick's Results level; undisclosed criteria describes Scriven's goal-free evaluation, not Tyler's.
An evaluation model that stresses being responsive to the actual concerns of teachers, students and parents, and comparing intended versus observed antecedents, transactions and outcomes, is:
1. Tyler's objectives model
2. Stake's responsive/countenance model
3. Scriven's goal-free evaluation
4. Kirkpatrick's four-level model
Show answer
Answer: B — Stake's responsive/countenance model
Stake's 1967 countenance model is stakeholder-responsive and compares intended versus observed. Tyler checks against pre-set objectives alone; Scriven's goal-free evaluation deliberately avoids knowing stated goals; Kirkpatrick uses four fixed levels rather than stakeholder responsiveness.
Michael Scriven's distinction between ongoing, improvement-oriented evaluation conducted during a curriculum's development and a final judgement of worth made after completion is the distinction between:
1. Formative and summative evaluation
2. Reaction and Results levels
3. Academic and competency-based approaches
4. Addition and restructuring
Show answer
Answer: A — Formative and summative evaluation
Formative (ongoing, during development) versus summative (final, after completion) is Scriven's distinction. Reaction and Results are two of Kirkpatrick's four levels; academic/competency-based are approaches to instruction; addition and restructuring are types of curriculum change.
Kirkpatrick's four-level evaluation model, originally built for training evaluation, orders its levels Reaction, Learning, Behaviour and:
1. Results
2. Retention
3. Revision
4. Relevance
Show answer
Answer: A — Results
Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results (1959) — the fourth level checks whether the intended larger organisational or societal outcome was actually produced.
A fundamental shift in the underlying philosophy of a whole curriculum, such as moving from a purely academic orientation to a socially reconstructive one, is best described as:
1. Addition or substitution
2. Alteration
3. Restructuring
4. Value-orientation change
Show answer
Answer: D — Value-orientation change
Value-orientation change is the full-scale end of the spectrum, a shift in underlying philosophy. Addition/substitution and alteration are smaller-scale; restructuring reorganises how parts relate without necessarily changing the underlying philosophy itself.
Among the factors driving curriculum change, a shift in national education policy is classified as:
1. An internal/pedagogical factor
2. An external factor
3. A stakeholder role, not a factor
4. An evaluation model
Show answer
Answer: B — An external factor
Policy shifts are named as an external factor pressing curricula to change from outside the classroom. New learning research and evaluation findings are internal/pedagogical; stakeholder roles (students, teachers, administrators) are a separate sub-item; evaluation models are a different section entirely.
A stakeholder role described as holding practical knowledge of what works in a real classroom, whose buy-in is usually decisive for whether a curriculum change actually succeeds, is:
1. Students
2. Teachers
3. Educational administrators
4. Curriculum researchers
Show answer
Answer: B — Teachers
Teachers transact the curriculum daily and hold this practical knowledge, making their buy-in decisive. Students are direct recipients who feed evaluation; administrators provide resources and authority; curriculum researchers study the process rather than enact it.
An instructional approach in which evaluation requires the learner to directly demonstrate a specific, observable skill — such as actually conducting a laboratory procedure — rather than answer written questions about it, is the:
1. Academic approach
2. Competency-based approach
3. Goal-free evaluation
4. Restructuring
Show answer
Answer: B — Competency-based approach
The competency-based approach requires direct performance-based demonstration of a competency. The academic approach evaluates retained understanding through written examination; goal-free evaluation and restructuring are unrelated evaluation/change concepts from other parts of this chapter.