CARRICULUM EVALUATION

Essay structure in general:

Compare and contrast two different views of curriculum thought and relate them to your own perception of curriculum practice. Identify the underlying assumptions of these two views and your own assumptions of curriculum practice (i.e. What is considered important knowledge and why? What are the purposes of curriculum? Why certain subject/ learning areas are chosen?)

Your essay should consider the following:

  1. A critical examination of the literature covering both particular conceptions of curricula
  2. Examples of where (i.e. which nations) these kinds of curricula are evident and an examination of the similarities and differences and the possible reasons for them
  3. A critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in these curriculum approaches particular focussing on which students these kinds of curricula serve best and those they serve the least or even disadvantage.
  4. Your conclusion on how you would incorporate these ideas, or parts of them, into your own curriculum practice.

 

Essay structure in details:

  • Introduction:
  • General idea aboutcurriculum and what are the different kind of curriculum ideologies such as:

 

  • The Scholar Academic Ideology.
  • The Social Efficiency Ideology.
  • The Learner centred Ideology.
  • The Social Reconstruction Ideology.

 

  • In this essay will compare and contrastbetween:

 

  • The Learner centred Ideology.
  • The Scholar Academic Ideology.

 

  • Body paragraph 1:
  • Define and describe theLearner centred Ideology.
  • History about Learner centred Ideology.
  • Examples of where (i.e. which nations) these kinds of curricula are evident.
  • Focussing on which students these kinds of curricula serve.

 

  • Body paragraph 2:
  • The Strengths and Weakness oftheLearner centred Ideology.

 

  • Body paragraph 3:
  • Define and describe the Scholar Academic Ideology.
  • History about Scholar Academic Ideology.
  • Examples of where (i.e. which nations) these kinds of curricula are evident.
  • Focussing on which students these kinds of curricula serve.

 

  • Body paragraph 4:
  • The Strengths and Weakness ofthe Scholar Academic Ideology.

 

  • Body paragraph 5:
  • similarities and differences between:
  • The Learner centred Ideology.
  • The Scholar Academic Ideology.

 

  • The possible reasons for them.

 

  • Conclusion:
  • Summary the key point in the assignment.
  • How you would incorporate these ideas, or parts of them, into your own curriculum practice.

 

  • Important information:

 

  • The paper is to be a maximum of 2000 words (marks will be penalised by 10% for over or under the word count).

 

  • Assignment must have a Titlepage and a Contents page.

 

  • The word count DOES NOT include the Title page, Contents page, Reference page.

 

  • The referencing style is APA 6th Ed., I attached the guide of the referencing style.

 

 

Resources:

 

Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4th Edition). New York, NY, USA:Routledge

 

 

Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum theory : conflicting visions and enduring concerns / Michael Stephen Schiro (2nd ed.. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Thousand Oaks, Calif. : SAGE Publications.

 

 

Other resources

 

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). The unintended, pernicious consequences of “staying the course” on the United States’ No Child Left Behind policy. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership. 4 (6), 1 – 13.

 

 

Apple, M.(2013). Knowledge, power, and education: The selected works of Michael W. Apple. New York: Routledge.

 

 

Apple, M. (1980). Analysing determinations: Understanding and evaluating the production of social outcomes in schools. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(1), 55-75.

 

 

Christie, C.A. & Fierro, L.A. (2010). Program Evaluation. In E.Baker, B.McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd Ed.) (pp.706-712). Elsevier.

 

 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of the ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race, Ethnicity and Education. 10 (3), 245 – 260.

 

 

Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.

 

 

Eisner, E. &Vallance, E. (eds). (1974). Conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Berkley, California:

 

 

Fusarelli, L.D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 71 – 94.

 

 

Glatthorn, A.A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B.M. &Boschee, B.F. (2012) Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation, (3rd Edition). SAGE.

 

 

Gorur. R. (2011). ANT on the PISA trail: Following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 43 (1), 76- 93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00612.x

 

 

Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal. 13 (1). 58 – 72. DOI: 10.1177/0895904803260025

 

 

Gorur, R. (2014). Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol. ? (?),1 – 18. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2015.974942

 

 

Hopman, S. T. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 17 (4), 459 – 478.

 

 

Kennedy, K.J. (2010). School-based curriculum development for new times:a comparative analysis. In E, Hau-fai Law & N. Nieveen(Eds).Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on school-based curriculum development (Chapter 1, pp. 3 –20).Rotterdam. Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Available at – https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/907-schools-as-curriculumagencies.

pdf ]

 

 

Lee, V. &Zeldin, D. (1982). Planning in the curriculum. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton and Open University.

 

 

Levin, B. (2012). System-wide improvement in education, Education Policy Series, 13, Paris/Brussels: International Academy of Education/ UNESCO.

 

 

Lundgren, U.P. (2009). Evaluation and educational policymaking. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (Chap. 28, pp.501 -510). Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications Inc.

 

 

Marsh, C.J. (2010). Re-examining the conceptual models for school-based curriculum development. Chapter 17, p. 287 – 290. In Hau-faiLaw, E. &Nieveen, N. (Eds).Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on school-based curriculum development.Rotterdam. Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Available at – https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/907-schools-as-curriculumagencies.

pdf ]

 

 

Mathison, S. (2009). Serving the public interest through educational evaluation: Salvaging democracy by rejecting neoliberalism. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (Chap. 30, pp.525 -538). Thousand Oaks:SAGEPublications Inc.

 

 

Moore, A. (2015). Understanding the school curriculum:Theory, politics and principles.London: Routledge.

 

 

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey &Company.

 

 

Pinar, W. et al. (Eds). (1981). Curriculum and instruction: Alternatives in education. Berkley, California: McCutchan.

 

 

Phelps, R. (2011). Improving practice through program evaluation, Centre for Children and Young People: Background Briefing Series, No.8.,Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia.

 

 

Thomas, S. M. (2010). Assessment and the evaluation of institutional effectiveness. In B. McGaw, P. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd edition). Elsevier

 

 

Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932 – 989.

 

 

Ryan, K.E. & Cousins, J. Bradley. (2009).The SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. [This is available online through the Curtin library]

 

 

Ryan, K. E. & Feller, I. (2009). Evaluation, accountability, and performance measurement in national education systems:Trends, methods and issues. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (Chap.10, pp.171 -191).

Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications Inc.

 

 

Skilbeck, M. (1990). Curriculum reform: An overview of trends. Paris: OECD.

Smith, D. L. &Lovat, T.J. (1990). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.

 

 

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Torrance, H. (2009). Pursuing the wrong indicators:The development and impact of test-based accountability. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international

handbook of educational evaluation (Chap. 27, pp.483 -503). Thousand Oaks:SAGEPublications Inc.

 

 

Tyler, L.L. (1986). Meaning and schooling.Theory into Practice, 25(1),53-57.

 

 

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Walker, D.F. (1975).Straining to lift ourselves: A critique of the foundations of the curriculum field. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 3-26.

 

 

Walker, D. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

 

 

Please try to use these Resources

 

 

find the cost of your paper