Register to read the introduction…
The problem with the CMO is that there are too many general education subjects. These are mandatory subjects to be taken yet most of the subjects involved were already take during primary and secondary levels. There is a redundancy of learning on the subjects taken. Tertiary level should be the developing of the expertise of the student and creating that level of specialization. 3) Making practicum as an elective. The beauty of Psychology is in its flexibility especially in the workplace. Limiting the number of hours (or units) in OJT greatly hampers the learning process and malleability of the learner. How can one develop his skills in the course if the contact time with real setting is limited? 4) Lack of clear guidelines in OJT/ Practicum. The only prerequisite for practicum is Psychological Assessment. This is not enough since there are other subjects that can help in his/ her practicum – not just Psychological Assessment. What if the student was able to take Psychological Assessment but not the other offered subjects? There will be a great dearth in the knowledge and fundamentals of the student. So there should be more prerequisites subjects prior to practicum setting.
By analyzing and identifying its characteristics, we can create a curriculum based on the Vision, Mission & Goals of the schools which will be aligned with the needs of the …show more content…
If the evaluation program yields that there are gross differences between your curriculum and the outside world then curriculum reengineering should be done. But I have said before, curriculum reengineering is a curriculum overhaul. It is taking up a curriculum, breaking it apart and reassembling it. This should not be happening. A curriculum should be a smooth transition from one point to another. But if this overhauling do occur, however, this means that the proper fail safe mechanisms were not established and proper checks and balances were not set-up properly. This is where curriculum evaluation takes its role as an agent of …show more content…
It is the establishing of a set of standard, conduct the evaluation, gather the necessary information, identify discrepancies and make the necessary changes based on the said discrepancy. This tool is deceivingly simple. But what it lacks in simplicity it makes up in its roughness. This is a time consuming tool and requires ‘working down in the trenches’ approach. In order for this program to be successful the standards set must be clear and achievable. The one interpreting the result must be an expert to say the least on the subject matter. Evaluation is dynamic. There’s much overlap and interplay among the stages. There are times that the developmental changes are made while the evaluation process is still ongoing. That is how stimulating the program is.
The CIPP Model’s design is unique in its own since it involves the stake holders directly in the evaluation process. Not as the one being interviewed but as an active partner of the curriculum change itself. The purpose of this is to find alternative solutions towards curriculum changes. Another unique characteristic is that its changes on the fly. As long as the program is running everything on the program can be modified. The last characteristic is the evaluation of the system as a whole. This makes the CIPP model a very useful tool since we are relying more on changes during and after the evaluation
By analyzing and identifying its characteristics, we can create a curriculum based on the Vision, Mission & Goals of the schools which will be aligned with the needs of the …show more content…
If the evaluation program yields that there are gross differences between your curriculum and the outside world then curriculum reengineering should be done. But I have said before, curriculum reengineering is a curriculum overhaul. It is taking up a curriculum, breaking it apart and reassembling it. This should not be happening. A curriculum should be a smooth transition from one point to another. But if this overhauling do occur, however, this means that the proper fail safe mechanisms were not established and proper checks and balances were not set-up properly. This is where curriculum evaluation takes its role as an agent of …show more content…
It is the establishing of a set of standard, conduct the evaluation, gather the necessary information, identify discrepancies and make the necessary changes based on the said discrepancy. This tool is deceivingly simple. But what it lacks in simplicity it makes up in its roughness. This is a time consuming tool and requires ‘working down in the trenches’ approach. In order for this program to be successful the standards set must be clear and achievable. The one interpreting the result must be an expert to say the least on the subject matter. Evaluation is dynamic. There’s much overlap and interplay among the stages. There are times that the developmental changes are made while the evaluation process is still ongoing. That is how stimulating the program is.
The CIPP Model’s design is unique in its own since it involves the stake holders directly in the evaluation process. Not as the one being interviewed but as an active partner of the curriculum change itself. The purpose of this is to find alternative solutions towards curriculum changes. Another unique characteristic is that its changes on the fly. As long as the program is running everything on the program can be modified. The last characteristic is the evaluation of the system as a whole. This makes the CIPP model a very useful tool since we are relying more on changes during and after the evaluation