Name: Keneth James S.

Estañero

Course/Year: BEED-3

Subject: Prof ed

Comprehensive summary

Chapter 1: CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT

Curriculum development models are based on a clear and consistent understanding of various
scholars of the nature of curriculum as a discipline and as a study of the field. Different models are
described based on the different views and processes of curriculum development they offer these
models have been recognized and accepted by curriculum scholars as effective and appropriate for
developing curriculum at any level

I. Tyler’s Rational linear model

The linear models of curriculum development prescribe a rational step-by-step procedure for
curriculum development starting objectives. Ralph Tyler at the University of Chicago developed the first
model of curriculum development, this model was presented in his book Principle of Curriculum and
instruction published in 1949. Tyler argued that to develop a curriculum, curriculum workers should
respond to four basic questions:

1. What educational purpose should the school seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences are likely to attain these objectives?
3. How can these educational experiences be organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

Aside from these four questions, Tyler also identified three curriculum sources: Society,
Students, and subject matter.

II. Taba’s Grassroots Rational Model

A follower of Tyler is another curriculum scholar, Hilda Taba. Tba represented her model in her
book Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice in 1962. Her model is a modified version of Tyler’s
Model. Taba argued that curriculum development should follow a sequential and logical process. Taba
also claimed that all curricula are composed of fundamental elements. in her model, Taba outlined
seven steps that should be followed when developing a curriculum:

1. Diagnosis of models
2. Formulation of objectives
3. Selection of content
 4. Organization of content
5. Selection of learning experiences
6. Organization of experiences
7. Determination of what to evaluate and ways and means of doing it

III. Standards-based curriculum development

Allan Glatthorn developed the standard-based curriculum development model. The model was
intended for developing curriculum standards for any discipline from basic education to higher
education. Glatthorn identified three phases to be followed standard-based curriculum, and these three
phases are: Develop Standards, Developing Benchmarks, and Developing final production.

Robert (2003) stressed that in curriculum studies. As in many other domains of human activity,
one of the few constants is change. Robert further explained his idea that as a field of inquiry, the
curriculum should allow new theories to emerge and new insights to flourish to make the curriculum
field more vibrant and dynamic. Analyzing the different curriculum standards that are not just focused
on a specific discipline, but also consider the important role of the learners and the society in curriculum
development.

IV. Understanding by Design Model (UBD)

Understanding by Design is a book written by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe that offers a
framework for designing courses and content units called “Backward Design.” Instructors typically
approach course design in a “forward design” manner, meaning they consider the learning activities
(how to teach the content), develop assessments around their learning activities, then attempt to draw
connections to the learning goals of the course. In contrast, the backward design approach has
instructors consider the learning goals of the course first. These learning goals embody the knowledge
and skills instructors want their students to have learned when they leave the course. Once the learning
goals have been established, the second stage involves the consideration of assessment. The backward
design framework suggests that instructors should consider these overarching learning goals and how
students will be assessed before consideration of how to teach the content. For this reason, backward
design is considered a much more intentional approach to course design than traditional methods of
design.

The backward design had three stages: the Identify desired results, Determining acceptable evidence,
and planning the learning experiences and instruction.

Stage One – Identify Desired Results:

In the first stage, the instructor must consider the learning goals of the lesson, unit, or course.
Wiggins and McTighe provide a useful process for establishing curricular priorities. They suggest that the
instructor ask themselves the following three questions as they progressively focus on the most valuable
content:
  What should participants hear, read, view, explore or otherwise encounter?
 What knowledge and skills should participants master?
 What are big ideas and important understandings participants should retain?

Stage Two – Determine Acceptable Evidence:

The second stage of backward design has instructors consider the assessments and
performance tasks students will complete to demonstrate evidence of understanding and learning. In
the previous stage, the instructor pinpointed the learning goals of the course. Therefore, they will have a
clearer vision of what evidence students can provide to show they have achieved or have started to
attain the goals of the course. Consider the following two questions at this stage:

 How will I know if students have achieved the desired results?

 What will I accept as evidence of student understanding and proficiency?

Stage Three – Plan Learning Experiences and Instruction:

The final stage of backward design is when instructors begin to consider how they will teach.
This is when instructional strategies and learning activities should be created. With the learning goals
and assessment methods established, the instructor will have a clearer vision of which strategies would
work best to provide students with the resources and information necessary to attain the goals of the
course. Consider the questions below:

 What enabling knowledge (facts, concepts, principles) and skills (processes, procedures,
strategies) will students need to perform effectively and achieve desired results?
 What activities will equip students with the needed knowledge and skills?
 What will need to be taught and coached, and how should it best be taught, in light of
performance goals?
 What materials and resources are best suited to accomplish these goals?

Chapter 5: CURRICULUM
IMPLEMENTATION

Curriculum Implementation, from the term itself, focuses on the actual implementation of the
curriculum from the national level to the local school context. It describes the dynamics of how various
curriculum workers strive to do their functions to attain educational goals, programs, and policies set by
the country, region, division, district, and down to the local school level. Each of these levels has specific
functions to do.

 Teachers – the most visible among the curriculum workers. Their role as implementers of the
curriculum is very crucial.
 Principal – the chief academic and administrative officer of the school. they provide curricular
and instructional leadership and supervision to the teachers and other school personnel in the
local school context.
 Curriculum consultant – individuals with rich experience in doing curriculum projects related to
curriculum planning, curriculum development, and curriculum evaluation.
 District supervisors – responsible for supervising the implementation of the curriculum at the
district level. They help public school principals in ensuring that the programs of the department
of education are implemented in their respective schools.
 Education supervision – assigned to specific subject areas in basic education. They help the
district office of the department of education in supervising the implementation of projects and
programs specific to each subject area.
 Division superintendent – the chief academic officer of each division. They supervise the
implementation of the DepEd curriculum, programs, and projects at the division level both
public and private schools.
 Regional directors – manage the program and projects of the department of education at the
regional level.
 Education Program Specialist – work at the national level or central offices of the commission on
higher education and the department of education. They assist the two government agencies in
the development of curriculum policies that will help teachers and other curriculum leaders in
the implementation of the curriculum.
 Technical panels and technical committees – professors and individual experts from different
disciplines and fields that assist the Commission on Higher Education in developing curriculum,
formulating curriculum policies, and evaluating the compliance of higher education institutions
to CHED program standards.

List of curriculum implementation

To ensure the smooth implementation of the curriculum, each department or ministry of

education in any country has established a system that will take charge of the whole work of planning.,
development, implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum.

National Level

Through the leadership of the secretary of Education, the undersecretaries, assistant secretaries,
and different bureau officers are responsible for the following:

 Formulating national educational policies;

 Formulating a national basic education plan;
  Promulgate national education standards;
 Monitoring and assessing national learning outcomes;
 Undertaking national educational research and studies;
 Enhancing the employment status, professional competence, welfare, and working
conditions of all personnel of the Department of Education; and
 Enhancing the total development of learners through local and national programs
and/or projects.

Regional Level

Consistent with the national education policies, plans, and standards, the regional office
under the Regional Director shall be responsible for the following:

Division Level

A division consists of a province or a city. Consistent with the national educational policies,
plans, and standards, the division level through the leadership of the division superintendent shall be
responsible for all the following:

 Developing and implementing division education development plans;

 Planningandg managing the effective and efficient use of all personnel, physical, and fiscal
resources of the division, including professional staff development;
 Hiring, placing, and evaluating all division supervisor and school district supervisors as well as all
employees in the division, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including school heads,
except for the assistant division superintendent;
 Monitoring the utilization of funds provided by the national government and the local
government units to the schools and learning centers
 Ensuring compliance of quality standards for basic education programs and this purpose
strengthening the role of division supervisors are subject area specialists;
 Supervising the operation of all public and private elementary, secondary, integrated schools,
and learning centers.
 Promoting awareness of and adherence by all schools and learning centers to accommodation
standards prescribed by the secretary of education;

D. School District Level

A school district through the leadership of the District Supervisor is responsible for the following;

 Providing professional and instructional advice and support to the school heads and
teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or cluster thereof; and
 Curricula supervision.

School Level
Consistent with the national educational policies, plans, and standards, the school level through the
leadership of school heads is responsible for the following;

 Setting the mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the school;

 Creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning;
 Implementing the school curriculum and being accountable for higher learning outcomes;
 Developing the school education program and school improvement plan;
 Offering educational programs, projects, and services that provide equitable opportunities for all
learners in the community;
 Introducing new and innovative modes of instruction to achieve learning outcomes;
 Administering and managing all personnel, physical, and fiscal resources of the school;
Recommending the staffing complement of the school based on its needs;
 Encouraging staff development;
 Establishing school and community networks and encouraging the active participation of
teacher’s organizations, non-academic personnel of public schools, and parents-teachers-
community association; and
 Accepting donations, gifts, bequests, and grants to upgrade teachers’ learning facilitators’
competencies, improve and expand school facilities, and provide instructional materials and
equipment.

Currently, the different offices of the Department of Education are doing their best in ensuring a smooth
and efficient implementation of the K12 Education program in the Philippines. Under the Republic Act,
10533, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, Kindergarten and senior high school were added to
the Philippine basic education system. This ensures that our education system for basic education is at
par with international standards and prepares Filipino students to meet the needs and demands of a
knowledge-based society.

For the higher education institution (HEI) in the country, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
was established under Republic Act No. 7722, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994.
contrary to DepEd, the CHED has two levels Central Office(National Level) and Regional Office. The CHED
Central office focuses on the development of policies and sets the National direction for higher
education in the country.
The CHED office for program standards (OPS)is responsible for curricular matters. The CHED issues a
memorandum order (CMO)per program to serve as a guide to HEIs on the courses that should be
offered per program, admission and retention policies, administrative requirements, faculty
requirements, library and laboratory requirements, and others.

The regional office of CHED is responsible for the monitoring and implementation of policies and
guidelines developed by the Central Office. The monitoring work is done with help of regional experts in
different fields known as the Regional Quality Assurance Teams (RQuaT). They must ensure that all HEIs
in their regions comply with CHED requirements and policies.

State colleges and universities must seek the approval of their academic councils and their
corresponding board of regents for any curriculum changes and curriculum proposals before these
curriculum proposals are sent to CHED for approval.

In this process The University of the Philippines is exempted from this system, because the UP system
does not follow the CHED-prescribed curriculum, for UP, any curriculum proposal must be approved by
its university council and the UP board of regents.

Private HEIs may also add more subjects as institutional requirements per program based on the mission
and vision, philosophy of the HEIs concerned. For state universities and colleges, individual charters
guide their program offering.

This process is shown in the figure below, the regional offices of CHED check the compliance of these
HEIs to the CMO issued by the commission.
 Commission on higher
education
(National Level)

CHED Regional Offices

Higher Education,
institutions
(Colleges, Professional,
Institutes, Universities)

The academic freedom of individual HEI and faculty members also highly influences curriculum
development in higher education. Curricular revisions are presented and approved by the university
council in the case of state universities and colleges. For Private HEIs, the curriculum committee and the
council of deans presided over by the Vice President for Academic Affairs approve any curriculum
proposal made in any department or college. Each faculty member, whether in public or private HEI,
develops a syllabus for his or her subject guided by the faculty’s expertise and academic freedom.

For the vocational and technical courses, the Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
is the government agency that prescribes the curriculum and the other requirements for the
implementation of the program. Each course is implemented through modules, designed and
implemented based on specific competencies prescribe. All the specific requirements and facilities,
including the required training and certification for each faculty who will teach each course, are
prescribed by TESDA.

“Things to Consider in Implementing the Curriculum”

 Government Requirements – Include memoranda, policies, guidelines, and requirements from

the department of education, commission on higher education, and technical education skills
development.

 School Philosophy, Vision and Mission, and core – must be considered at the school level,
especially when selecting the specific contents and learning experiences for all students enrolled
in each program.
 Learning Environment – includes the various school facilities required for the implementation of
each program.
 Need and Demands of the Society – the needs and demands of the society that the curriculum
must respond to, curriculum can address these needs and demands at the macro level by adding
subjects or content.
 Needs of students – including interests, are considered when the school develops academic
policies and in the preparation of course syllabi.
 Faculty Expertise – the faculty is considered the most important asset of each school, college, or
university.
 The Changing Nature of knowledge – includes the theories and research from different areas
and professional organizations in the academe that are also influential in the implementation of
important topics or subjects and additional facilities.

This Factor was emphasized by different curriculum experts and these are Tyler, 1949; Sowell, 1996;
Ornstein & Hunkins 1993; March 2004; Tanner & tanner, 2007. as influential in planning, developing,
implementing, and evaluating a curriculum.
 Chapter 6: CURRICULUM

EVALUATION

In general, evaluation is concerned with giving value or making a judgment. Consequently, a person acts
as an evaluator when he or she attributes worth or judgment to an object, a place, a process, or a
behavior. Usually, evaluation is done using a set of criteria. This enables the evaluation process to be
always objective rather than objective.

Various curriculum scholars define curriculum evaluation based on how they view curriculum, the
purpose of curriculum, curriculum influences, and how the curriculum is implemented. Basically,
curriculum evaluation is:

 the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing information useful for making decisions and
judgments about curricula (Davis, 1980); the process of examining the goals, rationale, and
structure of any curriculum (Marsh, 2004);
 the process of assessing the merit and worth of a program of studies, a course, or a field of
study (Print, 1993);
 the means of determining whether the program is meeting its goals (Bruce Tuckman, 1985);
 the broad and continuous effort to inquire into the effects of utilizing content and processes to
meet clearly defined goals (Doll, 1992); and
 the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful information for judging decision
alternatives (Stufflebeam, 1971).
 In this book, curriculum evaluation is defined as the process of making an objective judgment
about a curriculum-its philosophy, goals and objectives, contents, learning experience, and
evaluation

Purposes of Curriculum Evaluation

Print (1993) identified several important purposes and functions of evaluation in the school
setting:
 Essential in providing feedback to learners - provides useful information in
helping the students improve their performance and helps teachers identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the learners
 Helpful in determining how well learners have achieved the objectives of the
curriculum - describes whether the students learned or mastered the desired
outcomes and objectives of the curriculum
 To improve curriculum - the result of evaluation serves as basis for improving
curriculum and for suggesting innovations to improve learning

Curriculum school Evaluation in the Classroom

 Doll(1997) asserted that the classroom in fact could be the first site for gathering important data
that will lead to curriculum evaluation. Within the classroom, teachers and administrators can
collect data using several instruments like:
 test results;
 anecdotal records;
 checklists;
 interview guides;
 observation guides;
 personality inventories;
 rating scales;
 IQ tests;
 and interest inventories.

Teachers play an important role in conducting curriculum evaluation in the classroom room
level. They must be guided in gathering data from these instruments and in interpreting the data
the results of classroom based evaluation may help in improving instructions and in the
effective implementation of curriculum.

Curriculum evaluation at the School or School systemLevel

curriculum evaluation is done mostly school or school system level. This is usually, done to
evaluate how the curriculum goals are attained in the macro level. At this level, the following
instruments can be use to gather data for the evaluation of the curriculum:
 opinions polls
 surveys

Purposes of Curriculum Evaluation

Print (1993) identified several important purposes and functions of evaluation ina school
setting:
 Essential in providing feedback to learners - provides useful information in helping the
students improve their performance and helps teachers identify the strengths and
weaknesses of the learners
 Helpful in determining how well learners have achieved the objectives of the curriculum
- describes whether the students learned or mastered the desired outcomes and
objectives of the curriculum
 To improve curriculum - the result of evaluation serves as basis for improving curriculum
and for suggesting innovations to improve learning.

Models of Curriculum Evaluation

Curriculum scholars and curriculum workers have identified various models that can be used for
evaluating curriculum. Each of these models is a product of endless works of curriculum scholars trying
to assess the value of a particular curriculum.

A. Provus' Discrepancy Evaluation Model

This model for curriculum evaluation was developed by Malcolm Provus (1971) to evaluate projects
under the Elementary-Secondary Education Act in the United States. Using the taxonomy of program
content developed by Robert Stake,

B. Tyler Model of Curriculum Evaluation

Aligned to evaluating his model of curriculum: curriculum development, Ralph Tyler (1950) proposed
seven steps:

 Establishment of goals and objectives

 Classification of the objectives
 Definition of the objectives in behavioral terms
 Identification of situations in which achievement of the objectives could be shown
 election of criterion of measurement procedures
 Collection of data about pupil performance
 Comparison of findings with the stated objectives

The completion of the seven stages will lead to the revision of the objectives. This evaluation model is a
cyclical type of model.

C. Stufflebeam's CIPP Model

The Phi Delta Kappa National Study Committee on Evaluation, chaired by Daniel L. Stufflebeam,
developed and published a curriculum evaluation model known as the CIPP (context, input, process,
stufflebeam (2001) define evaluation as the process of delineating.

D. Stakes' Congruency-Contingency Evaluation Model

Robert Stake (1975) claimed that curriculum evaluation is not complete unless are categorys of data are
made available. These categories of data are:

 Antecedents - include data on students and teachers, the curriculum to be evaluated, and the
community context
 Transactions - include time allotment, sequence of steps, social climate, and communication
flow
 Outcomes - encompass students' learning in the form of understandings, skills, and values or
attitudes, as well as the effects of the curriculum on the teachers, students, and the school
The data gathered will provide the necessary information for the evaluation process. The term
congruency refers to the degree of alignment between what was desired and what was actually
achieved. Contingency refers to the relationship between one variable and the other, for example,
between the curriculum and the community context.

E. Eisner's Educational Connoisseurship Model

Elliot Eisner (1985) provides a qualitative way of evaluating a curriculum. This model does not have
methodological procedures compared with other evaluation models.
Overall curriculum evaluation is important as it is intended to provide meaningful information in
almost every aspect of the curriculum. These information or results of evaluation provide strong
bases for all decisions done about the planning .