B. Body

P a g e | 1

PART A

CHRISTUS AUGUST HMEF5073CGS 00286006 CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

P a g e | 2

TITLE

Creating Thinking Schools to Prepare Learners for the Future.

INTRODUCTION

The definition of a thinking school that emerged is one of an educational community

in which all members share a common commitment to giving regular, careful thought

to everything that takes place. This will involve learning how to think, reflectively,

critically and creatively, and to employing these skills and techniques in the co-

construction of a meaningful curriculum and associated activities.

Successful outcomes will be reflected in students across a wide range of abilities

demonstrating independent and co-operative learning skills, high levels of

achievement, and both enjoyment and satisfaction in learning. Benefits will also be

shown in ways which all members of the community interact with and show

consideration for each other and in the positive psychological well-being of both

students and staff.

In this paper, I am going to focus what a thinking school can bring or rather the

impact that a thinking school can bring about and which fundamental part of

education in the country could gain when thinking school is put forth into the national

education scene. I would also make a bit comparison between the thinking school

that we have in Malaysia and those that the British are having in the United Kingdom.

From my point of view, a school should and must consist of a group or a community

of enthusiastic learners. Having said this, we all know that the fact teaching and

learning is and should be made pretty plain and simple so as to meet the purpose,

aim and objective of a certain targeted curriculum. For this matter, in a thinking

school, it should or rather must be that everyone is learning and where everything

that happens contributes towards this end. A school does not need to be a place


P a g e | 3

where adults, the educated teach the children, the learners. It should be a place

where we are all learners together.

What is a Thinking School?

According to Burden, R.L. & Williams, M.D. (1998), a Thinking School is 'an

educational community in which all members share a common commitment to giving

regular careful thought to everything that takes place. This will involve both students

and staff learning how to think reflectively, critically and creatively, and to employing

these skills and techniques in the co-construction of a meaningful curriculum and

associated activities.

Successful outcomes will be reflected in student’s across a wide range of abilities

demonstrating independent and co-operative learning skills, high levels of

achievement and both enjoyment and satisfaction in learning. Benefits will be shown

in ways in which all members of the community interact with and show consideration

for each other and in the positive psychological well-being of both students and staff.’

A thinking school can be a platform to promote the development of thinking skills with

the assistance of a curriculum structure that helps promote thinking skills and regular

opportunities for the teaching staff to discuss ideas, share good practice and further

enhance their continuing professional development. Hence, this can help the

educators to prepare learners to be more independent instead of being dependent on

the educators in the learning process.

That is why when a certain school wants to achieve this goal, a whole school

approach will be necessary whereby all stakeholders including parents and other

related bodies in and around the school are fully committed to the objectives behind

the school’s aims and how they can best be implemented and achieved. The

teaching staff will need to be specially trained as most of the methods will need to be

introduced into the curriculum for teaching the skills of thinking as most of the

contents are both directly and indirectly associated cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies. The widest possible application of these skills and strategies should


P a g e | 4

underpin all other aspects of the curriculum and should guide behaviour policies and

expectations about human interactions at every level and care for the environment.

Where and When it all started?

A mini-revolution in curriculum planning and delivery in British schools occur at the

helm of the 21st century. As handful of the main players were tired of the constricting

demands of an over-prescriptive National Curriculum and the invidious requirements

of teaching, many within the teaching profession have become conscious of the

transformational nature of cognitive approaches to learning as an alternative to

transmission-based teaching. The ideas of such luminaries as Matthew Lipman,

Edward de Bono and Reuven Feuerstein, previously considered to be ‘on the fringe’

of educational thinking, have increasingly come to be seen as offering valuable

insights into the fundamental connection between thinking and learning.

MAIN BODY

There is a need for the Principal/Headmaster to have made a formal commitment to

cognitive education as a means of school improvement as a central aspect of the

school’s development plans. This is because all the school

effectiveness/improvement literature identifies the crucial importance of leadership in

the change process. This is most readily shown in the printed documentation that

the school makes available to current and prospective parents and to reports to the

governors.

TSI is currently working closely with the Malaysian government on a major project, i-

THINK , to help develop thinking skills in all Malaysian schools. The Ministry of

Education & Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM) jointly created the i-THINK project to

equip Malaysia’s next generation of innovators to think critically and be adaptable in

preparation for the future. Following a three week fact-finding visit by Richard

Cummins and Nick Symes of TSI to Malaysia in September 2011, it was agreed to


P a g e | 5

begin the process of training a central team and the staff of ten pilot schools. The i-

THINK project has three main objectives:

Nurture and develop innovative human capital

Increase thinking skills amongst children

Equip future generations with Higher Order Thinking Skills

PREPARATION IN CREATING THINKING SCHOOLS

In order to be a line with the desire of being the thinking school, strategic thinking is

crucial for children as in decision making in the early age. To apply the strategy of

thinking becomes real is only when a decision to act is made. These decisions

making should be analytical, based on hunches and by placing of strategic action

considering it was made based on a positive decision making.

Decisions making and the process used to make the decision should be monitored

and improved like any other process of the creative thinking made as early as in the

school stage. Strategic thinking approaches are thinking about who to engage on

below significant matter;

multiple disciplines

multiple levels

diversity in thinking

diversity of experience

diversity of positions

dynamic network

The above aspect need to be consider in the set up of a firm thinking school whereby

it is an analogous to double loop learning in comparison to education planning which

can be equated to single loop learning. The learning levels on the implementation of


P a g e | 6

the thinking school project of for a further discussion of levels of learning and types of

learning as it was still in a very early implementation stage (Grossman, 1990).

In order building a strategic thinking school culture, there are many ways of

approaches in building thinking skills can be taken consideration. Developing an

awareness of what the narratives and the lack of critical thinking applied to an

exposure to the idea from the early stage of education level. Other than that,

understanding the human tendency towards inductive reasoning at the expense of

considering a broader range of facts and critical reasoning can be teach during the

lesson in school.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the above challenges and preparation in implementation of the thinking school

program, all manifest in the whole ethos of the schools in Malaysia, must be in the

way it conveys a positive, caring and creative atmosphere to all the involve parties

such as parents and teachers, whilst at the same time demonstrating that careful

thought has been put into its education structure and visual presentations

(Rajendran, 2000).

The positive or maybe the negative impact of the thinking school program is likely to

be shown in examples of the students result and displays that adorn the school. At

the same time the way that the teachers and parents are received and treated and

the general feedback of the way in which everyone goes about their perception is

also can be perceived after few years of the program implementation.

In conclusion, it is hard to convince all the head and teachers of schools in Malaysia

of the importance of thinking as a culture in the classrooms, since most heads and

teachers of schools were themselves unclear of its importance and its relevance to

the process of the learning to think. We have all the while relying on the text book


P a g e | 7

and learning is only based on the perception of achieving an excellent result by

memorizing the fact and not to understand the juice of the knowledge.

As a result most of the student will tend to get the advice from their teachers on how

to memorize the subject thought rather than to think and solve the problem

themselves. This is before this thinking school program being launch and whether it

will help the students to get exposed to such program, positive co-operation is need

from the educators as the traditional ways of learning finally have reach the end.

In many programs that had been introduce to education institutions, most teachers

would reject such program due to their ignorance about the importance of thinking

and meta-cognition in the learning activities. Schools that accept the program in

adapting the problem solving activities in their teaching syllabus, are those schools

where the principals and teachers would understand well the concept of

education and these positive acceptance is what the education institutions need

nowadays.


P a g e | 8

REFERENCES

Burden, R.L. & Williams, M.D. (1998) Thinking through the Curriculum, London:

Routledge.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher

education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rajendran, Nappan. (2000). Teaching higher order thinking skills in classroom:

Learning from the experiences of Malaysia. Paper presented at the Thinking

Qualities Initiative Conference Hong Kong 2000, Hong Kong.


P a g e | 9

PART B


P a g e | 10

INTRODUCTION

Daniel L. Stufflebeam, a professor at Western Michigan University had created a

model called Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. This model had created a positive impact

especially in the learning approach. CIPP is an acronym that stands for the following;

C : Context

I : Inputs

P : Processes

P : Products

Based on the article done by Amy McLemore on February 04, 2009, she said that

each of the aspect contributes to a different learning evaluation. Context evaluations

help in prioritizing goals while an input evaluation helps in assessing different

approaches. Process evaluations contribute in assessing the implementation of plans

and finally product evaluations helps in assessing the outcomes which both intended

and not intended. These four aspects of the model help in maximizing the impact of

the learning approaches.

While Guili Zhang (2001) said that this model is mostly being used to evaluate both

formative and summative assignments. Among the formative evaluation function is

useful in the activity of analyzing learning materials, analyzing student learning and

achievements as well as the teacher effectiveness. Besides that formative evaluation

is primarily contribute in the building process which then will accumulates a series of

components consist of new materials, skills, and problems that converted into an

ultimate meaningful whole (Misanchuk, 1978).

Summative evaluation consist of all assessments that have the potential to serve a

summative function, however, only some summative evaluation have the additional

capability of serving formative functions (Scriven, 1967). This contributes to the CIPP

model that advocates the purpose is not to prove, but to improve. Learning approach

consistent with this model as during the learning progress, the objective is to improve

self skills and knowledge and not to prove the learning had been conducted.


P a g e | 11

STUFFLEBEAM’S CIPP MODEL FOR EVALUATION

In the beginning of the introduction of the model that was formerly devised by Guba

and further developed then by Stufflebeam in the 1960s. Amy (2009) add that the

model had arose from the continues observation that had found traditional

approaches in evaluation design were to limited and also often too rigid in evaluating

a dynamic social contexts (Stufflebeam, 1966). This model emphasizes on the

concept of evaluation that underlies the Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. It is also

supported by the checklist that assessing and provide report on the following

aspects;

1. Entity's merit

2. Worth and significance

3. Lessons learned

Moreover, according to Guili (2001) the model evaluations and applications of the

checklist should have met the Joint Committee (1994) in regards of the following

standards;

utility

feasibility

propriety

accuracy

The model's main objective is that emphasizing on the evaluation's as the most

important purpose is not to prove, but to improve through learning approach. While

other evaluation model that similar to the CIPP model and each has its own unique

value strength, still the model focuses on providing the foundation for deriving.

Besides that the model also focuses on validating particular evaluative criteria

through an effective interactive relationship between the evaluator and the client. The

model was formerly founded on a constructivist approach that requires the involve

evaluator to operate and emphasizes on a foundation of trust besides showing


P a g e | 12

respect to all clients involve regardless of power, gender and culture backgrounds

(Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). Particularly, the model also provides a framework

for detecting any unexpected defects and strength during the evaluation process.

THE FOUR COMPONENTS OF STUFFLEBEAM’S CIPP MODEL

The four components of the model can be implemented by doing interview with the

members of the learning program in order to develop an understanding of the

problems that the learning program is designed to solve. The interview is one from an

important element of understanding the learning program context that is one of the

key components of the Stufflebeam’s CIPP model (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007).

A next aspect is by compiling a list of available resources from the learning program

that will be use to address the expected arise problem (Randall, 1969). This is where

the inputs is being practice as that is one of the components of the model. A learning

program requires inputs, such as in the activity of funding and personnel to support

the model in achieving its goals.

Next step is to monitor and document the learning program's activities and this is the

process component of the model. Gaining information according to Amy (2009) on

the learning program's process can be done through the following variety of methods,

including;

Surveys

Interviews

Participant observation

Finally, the last aspect to be done is analyzing program outcomes and impacts,

which encompass the product component of the model. It is important to the

participants to keep the program's goals and objectives in mind when assessing the

outcomes of the learning program.


P a g e | 13

Compiling a comprehensive evaluation report that addresses the four major

components of the model will contribute too many learning approaches added by

Guili (2001). This is to organize an evaluation report based on the model by making

each of the four components, a major section is in one method.

Fig. 1: Key components of the Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model and associated

relationships (Stufflebeam, 2003)


P a g e | 14

CONCLUSION

In the evaluation process, while there is no set formula by which to design a proper

evaluation study, CIPP model had been providing the present related research and

finding with a versatile framework. According to Guili (2001), the model had help in

the preparation of the education evaluation for the improvement to the aspect of

learning approach.

In combination with rigorous instructions on the evaluation aspect, it allow an

evaluator to adapt it according to a project‘s particular purpose including to the

learning approaches. According to Amy (2009), significantly, the model aims to

improve, rather than prove to any aspect of the study and this will impact the

approaches taken by any evaluator.

The model had been expanding the impact configured for use in internal evaluations

conducted by an organization's evaluators and even in self-evaluations conducted by

project teams or individual service providers as well as in contracted external

evaluations.

Those applying the model or contracting others to do the same, have included the

following area;

government officials

foundation officers

program and project staffs

international assistance personnel

school administrators

physicians

military leaders

evaluators


P a g e | 15

CIPP Evaluation Model is quite comprehensive and consists of all the required

aspect need by an evaluator, and often being used for every part of the CIPP Model

in a single evaluation. Training program in an organization would be gaining a fruitful

outcome where the evaluator is using through all four steps or parts of the CIPP

Model.

However, there are two different ways to view the CIPP model that are;

four distinct kinds of evaluation

steps or stages in a comprehensive evaluation model

The CIPP Model generally useful in helping the evaluator to focus on some very

important evaluation questions and issues. It is also to help the evaluator to think

about some different types or stages of evaluation in improving their approach

(Stufflebeam, 1966).

Finally, The Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model is a simple systems model applied to program

evaluation using the four basic open systems. The basic open system includes input,

process, and output while Stufflebeam added context, included input and process,

and relabeled output with the term product.


P a g e | 16

REFERENCES

Amy Mclemore (2009). CIPP Model.

Guili Zhang, Nancy Zeller, Robin Griffith, Debbie Metcalf, Jeniffer Williams, Christine

Shea, and Katherine Misulis (2011). Using the Context, Imput, Process, and Product

Evaluation Model (CIPP) as a Comprehensize Framework to Guide the Planning,

Implemenattion, and Assssment of Servive-learning Programs. Journal of Higher

Education Outsearch and Engagement, Volume 15, Number 4, p. 57.

Misanchuk, E. R. (1978). Uses and Abuses of Evaluation in Continuing Education

Programs: On the Frequent Futility of Formative, Summative, and Justificative

Evaluation. Adult Education Research Conference, April, San Antonio, Texas.

Randall, RS 1969, ‘An operational application of the Stufflebeam-Guba CIPP model

for evaluation,’ The American Educational Research Association Convention.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, &

M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand

McNally.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1966). A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory Into

Practice, 5(3), 121-133.

Stufflebeam, DL & Shinkfield, AJ 2007, ‘Evaluation theory, models, and applications,’

in, Jossey-Bass, California,USA.


P a g e | 17

PART C


P a g e | 18

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia is as of the present moment, moving towards producing an ICT literate

generation in line with the vision of developing human capital as stated in the

Education Development Master Plan 2006-2010. With view to this, steps and

approaches have been taken to endow pupils with the capability to use ICT

competently and efficiently This would necessitate equipping pupils with the skills to

think creatively, act rationally and practise lifetime learning skills.

The accessibility of the internet and hardware such as computers in schools will

provide opportunities for teachers and pupils to expand their teaching and learning

experiences in ICT.

In Malaysia today, many schools are equipped with computer laboratory and ICT

based resources. With these services teachers and pupils are expected to fully make

the most of the hardware and software during the teaching and learning process.

In view of this, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has initiated Information and

Communication Technology Literacy (ICTL) for Primary Schools curriculum. This

curriculum is implemented in stages beginning with Year 1 in 2005 and to be

completed for Year 6 in 2010. The curriculum consists of a new educational

approach that will organise the pupils’ concept, logic, and the way of reasoning in line

with the use of technologies and communication.

Being developed by a group of primary school teachers gathered nationwide and

MOE officers, the curriculum, which has now reached Stage 2 of its implementation,

is build on and extends upon the skills introduced in Stage 1. In Stage 2, pupils will

master the use of basic computer applications, internet skills and webpage building.


P a g e | 19

These small steps, though small, would narrow the digital divide between those who

have and those who cannot afford to enjoy such technologies, thus preparing them

for the challenges of the “Information Age” and the ICT subject that these pupils

would take up when they enter secondary school.

The primary school system comprises two stages. Stage 1 (Year 1, Year 2 and Year

3) and Stage 2 (Year 4, Year 5 and Year 6). ICT Literacy (ICTL) for Primary Schools

is a curriculum designed to lay the foundation for all pupils to develop their ICT

capabilities in future. Through this curriculum, basic ICT literacy is packaged in

teaching and learning modules appropriate for pupils according to their academic

levels. The programme consists of ICT skills that are fundamental and necessary in

the use of computer hardware and software applications. These basic ICT skills

ensure that pupils acquire sufficient knowledge and understanding of ICT. That is

why the ICTL for Primary Schools curriculum is developed so as it can enable pupils

to master basic ICT skills first, before applying them in the respective subjects.

ANALYSIS

Stufflebeam (1971) recognized the need for evaluation to be more holistic and

transparent in its approach in order to reach the objectives of the evaluation. The

CIPP model has also been used and contributes for accountability purposes in

providing a record-keeping framework that facilitates and help in contribution to the

public review of educational covering the aspect of;

1. needs

2. objectives

3. plans

4. activities

5. outcomes


P a g e | 20

The education institution has found that this approach is useful in meeting public

demands on information as it caters the requirement of the education approach

(House, 1980). It also represents a rationale for assisting and become the reference

for the educators to be accountable for the decisions on the evaluation that they have

made in the course of implementing a relevant programme. Stufflebeam’s CIPP

model covers the following approaches;

Content Analysis

Here, we will see the aims of the curriculum both stages, namely stage 1 and stage

2.

Firstly we study the aim of the curriculum for Stage 1 is to enable pupils to use basic

computer applications and devices while the objectives are that by the end of the

Stage 1 programme, pupils should be able to:

• identify the main parts of a computer system;

• explain the concept of operating system and computer application;

• use basic operating system and computer application;

• use function keys on a keyboard;

• use basic typing techniques; and

• do basic maintenance work.

Next, we look into the aims and the objectives of the curriculum in stored for Stage 2

primary school pupils. The aim of the curriculum for Stage 2 pupils is to enable pupils

to master the use of basic computer applications, internet and creating webpage.


P a g e | 21

While as for the objectives, it stated that by the end of the targeted curriculum, the

pupils should be able

• perform steps in maintaining the computer system and in handling data;

• use the computer in a proper manner;

• develop a basic webpage;

• carry out internet activities; and

• abide by and practise netiquette and copyright policy.

Input

The Content Specifications for the Information and Communication Technology

Literacy for Primary Schools contains the basic requirements for primary school

pupils to attain computer literacy.

The level of ICT literacy differs from Stage 1. However, some domains and topics are

repeated with different levels of complexity. For example, pupils will be introduced to

a new topic which is Programming in Computer Software domain.

These content specifications cover five main domains. The domains are Computer

Lab Management, Computer Hardware, Computer Software, Internet and

Maintenance.

The domains are presented in three sections. The sections are Learning Areas,

Learning Outcomes and Suggested Learning Activities. The activities suggested in

the Suggested Learning Activities section are only recommendations proposed by


P a g e | 22

the Curriculum Development Division. Teachers can devise their own activities but

they have to adhere to the topics and contents prescribed in the specification.

Teachers need to identify the domain and topic to be taught. They will then plan their

teaching activities based on the intended Learning Outcomes. Learning modules are

provided for certain suggested activities. The learning modules are meant to serve as

a guide for teachers

Process

The ICTL for Primary Schools curriculum in national (SK) and national type schools

(SJK) is introduced after the Transition Programme in Year 1. The curriculum for this

programme is implemented from Year 1 to Year 6, for 720 minutes per year in a

continuous three-month period. Two teaching periods or 60 minutes of the timetable

are allocated for this programme. It is to be carried out during the English Language

period for SK and the Chinese Language or Tamil Language periods for SJKC and

SJKT.

The success of the programme depends highly on teacher readiness and the

availability of ICT facilities. For the well-being of the pupils and for the smooth

running on the implementation of the curriculum, the teachers need to supervise

them during computer classes by using appropriate methods and approaches such

as working in groups. Teachers are encouraged to get pupils to produce a folio.

Product

Teachers are expected to conduct their own school based assessment. Pupils’

competencies are graded accordingly, that is according to the learning outcomes.

Teachers may use the pupils’ folio as part of the school-based assessment. This is


P a g e | 23

where the process evaluation objective helps to identify and predict defects on

design or implementation and record, as well as judging procedural activities.

STRENGTH

Even though CIPP model may have too much bias toward the concerns and the

values of the educational establishment, it stills the relevant model of evaluation

especially in education institution. The model gradually disfavor not because it was a

bad model, but partly because the subject of evaluation were unable or unwilling to

examine their own operations as part of the evaluation.

This is supported by the process evaluation decision made such as;

The curriculum is carried out in such a unified way. All schools nationwide are

implementing the programmes put stated in the curriculum accordingly.

Uniformity is at helm here.

Process control is at hand as teachers are guided closely on the

implementation level. Apart from that, workshops and sharing sessions are

conducted for group and self enhancement.

Information gategered and gauge during the workshop and the sharing

sessions can be utilize in interpreting outcomes and also for further

enhancement of the curriculum.

IMPROVEMENT

Stufflebeam has been improving the model in both formative meta-evaluation and

summative meta-evaluation (Stufflebeam, 1974). The model has made extensive use

of checklists to evaluate evaluation plans regardless in aspects of various institutions

and operations. Stufflebeam argued that the writing of formal evaluation can


P a g e | 24

contracts helps in ensuring the viability and quality of evaluation projects is done

accurately. This demands firm decisions that cover;

To continue

Terminate

Modify

Refocus

Present record of effects

Stufflebeam believed that meta-evaluation should be a form of communication of

evaluation that considering the aspect of a technical and data-gathering process. He

also had realizes that there could be problems with meta-evaluation that can be

improve as a method of exposing weaknesses in the primary evaluation so that

meta-evaluations themselves are free from prone error.

CONCLUSION

There is still a need for more research to be undertaken in the field of evaluation

based on CIPP model. The success story of the curriculum will depends upon the

situational characteristics.

Evaluation models themselves are idealizations of evaluation approaches and will be

exposing to changes according to the update requirement. The model had

contributed to developing the curriculum in terms of measuring and interpreting

attainment at end of the evaluation of a project cycle.

Stufflebeam's contribution to evaluation has been most valuable as it is the process

to see the effectiveness of the development and the implementation of a curriculum.

Besides the CIPP model, attempt to increase and improve the field through

numerous writings had been done continuously. Collaboration with others in the

profession in relating with Scriven's Countenance Model had broadened the field and

aided communication.


P a g e | 25

REFERENCES

Berk, R.A. (1981). Introduction. In R.A. Berk (Ed.). Educational Evaluation: The state

of the art. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Curriculum Development Division(2010). Information and Communication

Technology Literature for Primary Schools. The Ministry of Education, Malaysia

Stufflebeam, D.L. (1968). Evaluation as enlightenment for decision-making.

Columbus, Ohio: Evaluation Center, Ohio State University.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (1981). Metaevaluation: Concepts, Standards, and Uses. In R.A.

Berk (Ed.). Educational Evaluation: The state of the art. London: Johns Hopkins

University Press.

Stufflebeam, D.L. & Madaus, G.F. (1983). The Standards for Evaluation of

Educational Program, Projects, and Materials: A description and summary. In G.F.

Madaus, M.S.

Stufflebeam, D.L. & Webster, W.J. (1983). Alternative Approaches to Evaluation. In

G.F.


P a g e | 26


P a g e | 27


B. Body

Documents

Transcript of B. Body