Evaluation of the Chemistry curriculum at the lower secondary level: feedback from educators

References

1. Stufflebeam, DL. The CIPP model for evaluation. In: Evaluation models. Dordrecht: Springer; 2000:279–317 pp.Search in Google Scholar

2. IBE-UNESCO. Repositioning and reconceptualizing the curriculum for the effective realization of sustainable development goal four, for holistic development and sustainable ways of living. Discussion paper presented at the world education forum. Incheon, Republic of Korea: UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE-UNESCO); 2015.Search in Google Scholar

3. UNESCO. Incheon declaration: education 2030: towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO; 2015.Search in Google Scholar

4. Mauritius, S. Population and vital statistics Republic of Mauritius year 2018. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development; 2019.Search in Google Scholar

5. Ministry of Education and Human Resources, Tertiary Education and Scientific Research and Mauritius Institute of Education. National Curriculum Framework. Nine Year Continuous Basic Education. Republic of Mauritius; 2015.Search in Google Scholar

6. Ministry of Education, Culture and Human Resources. The National Curriculum Framework: Secondary. Mauritius; 2009.Search in Google Scholar

7. Oloruntegbe, KO. Teachers’ involvement, commitment and innovativeness in curriculum development and implementation. J Emerg Trends Educ Res Pol Stud 2011;2:443–9.Search in Google Scholar

8. Taole, MJ. Teachers’ conceptions of the curriculum review process. Int J Educ Sci 2013;5:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2013.11890059.Search in Google Scholar

9. Alsubaie, MA. Curriculum development: teacher involvement in curriculum development. J Educ Pract 2016;7:106–7.Search in Google Scholar

10. Snyder, J, Bolin, F, Zumwalt, K. Curriculum implementation. In: Jackson, P, editor. Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillian; 1992:402–35 pp.Search in Google Scholar

11. Maulloo, AK, Naugah, BJ. Upper secondary education in Mauritius: a case study; 2017.Search in Google Scholar

12. Bharvad, AJ. Curriculum evaluation. Int Res J 2010;1:72–4.Search in Google Scholar

13. Kabilan, MK, Khan, MA. Assessing pre-service English language teachers’ learning using e-portfolios: benefits, challenges and competencies gained. Comput Educ 2012;58:1007–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.011.Search in Google Scholar

14. Mutinga, ME, Krajenbrink, VQE, Peerdeman, SM, Croiset, G, Verdonk, P. Toward diversity-responsive medical education: taking an intersectionality-based approach to a curriculum evaluation. Adv Health Sci Educ 2016;21:541–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9650-9.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

15. Hussain, A, Dogar, AH, Azeem, M, Shakoor, A. Evaluation of curriculum development process. Int J Humanit Soc Sci 2011;1:263–71.Search in Google Scholar

16. Yazçayır, N, Selvi, K. Curriculum evaluation model-KÖNDEM. Elem Educ Online 2020;19:343–56.10.17051/ilkonline.2020.661847Search in Google Scholar

17. Peyman, N, Al-Badi, A, Riasati, MJ, Maata, RL. Educational program and curriculum evaluation models: a mini systematic review of the recent trends. Univers J Educ Res 2020;8:4048–55.10.13189/ujer.2020.080930Search in Google Scholar

18. Anh, VTK. Evaluation models in educational program: strengths and weaknesses. VNU J Foreign Stud 2018;34:140–50. 10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4252.10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4252Search in Google Scholar

19. Warju, W. Educational program evaluation using CIPP model. Innovat Vocat Technol Educ 2016;12:36–42. 10.17509/invotec.v12i1.4502.10.17509/invotec.v12i1.4502Search in Google Scholar

20. Stufflebeam, DL. The CIPP model for evaluation. In: Evaluation models. Dordrecht: Springer; 2003:279–317 pp.10.1007/0-306-47559-6_16Search in Google Scholar

21. Stufflebeam, DL. CIPP evaluation model checklist [Online]; 2007. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.401.1277&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 4 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

22. Zhang, G, Zeller, N, Griffith, R, Metcalf, D, Williams, J, Shea, C, et al.. Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. J High Educ Outreach Engagem 2011;15:57–84.Search in Google Scholar

23. Aziz, S, Mahmood, M, Rehman, Z. Implementation of CIPP model for quality evaluation at school level: a case study. J Educ Dev 2018;5:189–206. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v5i1.1553.Search in Google Scholar

24. Halverson, LR. CIPP evaluation model [Online] Available from: https://lisahalverson.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cipp-evaluation-model.pdf [Accessed 04 Apr 2020].Search in Google Scholar

25. Palinkas, LA, Horwitz, SM, Green, CA, Wisdom, JP, Duan, N, Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Pol Ment Health 2015;42:533–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

26. Javadi, M, Zarea, K. Understanding thematic analysis and its pitfall. J Client Care 2016;1:34–40. https://doi.org/10.15412/j.jcc.02010107.Search in Google Scholar

27. Sandelowski, M, Voils, CI, Knafl, G. On quantitizing. J Mix Methods Res 2009;3:208–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

28. Maguire, M, Delahunt, B. Doing a thematic analysis: a practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Irel J Teach Learn High Educ 2017;9:3351–4.Search in Google Scholar

29. Benyon, L. Curriculum continuity. Education 3–13 2007;9:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004278185200201.Search in Google Scholar

30. Hopwood, B, Hay, I, Dyment, J. The transition from primary to secondary school: teachers’ perspectives. Aust Educ Res 2016;43:289–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-016-0200-0.Search in Google Scholar

31. Coad, J, Jones, K. Curriculum continuity in mathematics: a case study of the transition from primary to secondary school; University of Southampton Centre for Research in Mathematics Education Working Paper. Southampton: University of Southampton Centre for Research in Mathematics Education; 1999. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242279644_Curriculum_continuity_in_mathematics_a_case_study_of_the_transition_from_primary_to_secondary_school [Accessed 12 May 2021].Search in Google Scholar

32. Bennetts, T. The links between understanding, progression and assessment in the secondary geography curriculum. Geography 2005;90:152–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2005.12094128.Search in Google Scholar

33. Tsurusaki, BK, Calabrese Barton, A, Tan, E, Koch, P, Contento, I. Using transformative boundary objects to create critical engagement in science: a case study. Sci Educ 2013;97:1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21037.Search in Google Scholar

34. Anilan, B, Atalay, N, Kiliç, Z. Teacher candidates’ levels of relating the scientific knowledge to their daily lives. Int J InStruct 2018;11:733–48.10.12973/iji.2018.11446aSearch in Google Scholar

35. Childs, PE, Hayes, SM, O’dwyer, A. Chemistry and everyday life: relating secondary school chemistry to the current and future lives of students. In: Relevant chemistry education. Netherlands: Brill Sense; 2015:33–54 pp.10.1007/978-94-6300-175-5_3Search in Google Scholar

36. Sharon, AJ, Baram‐Tsabari, A. Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Sci Educ 2020;104:873–94.10.1002/sce.21581Search in Google Scholar

37. Lagowski, JJ. The role of the laboratory in chemical education. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nizar_Matar/post/Any_paper_modeling_the_quality_dimensions_of_a_university_lab_course/attachment/59d62f10c49f478072e9f867/AS%3A273537049268229%401442227722911/download/jjl+Lab+Education.pdf [Accessed 02 Apr 2021].Search in Google Scholar

38. Tobin, K. Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. Sch Sci Math 1990;90:403–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.x.Search in Google Scholar

39. Hofstein, A, Lunetta, VN. The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty‐first century. Sci Educ 2004;88:28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106.Search in Google Scholar

40. Hume, A. Authentic scientific inquiry and school science. Teach Sci J Aust Sci Teachers Assoc: J Aust Sci Teach Assoc 2009;55:35–41.Search in Google Scholar

41. Emendu, NB, Okoye, CM. Identifying problems associated with studying of chemistry in anambra state, Nigeria. Int J Sci Res Publ 2015;6:1–7.Search in Google Scholar

42. Broman, K, Ekborg, M, Johnels, D. Chemistry in crisis? Perspectives on teaching and learning chemistry in Swedish upper secondary schools. NorDiNa 2011;1:7.10.5617/nordina.245Search in Google Scholar

43. Chambers, E. Work-load and the quality of student learning. Stud High Educ 1992;17:141–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079212331382627.Search in Google Scholar

44. Rusmansyah, R, Yuanita, L, Ibrahim, M, Isnawati, I, Prahani, BK. Innovative chemistry learning model: improving the critical thinking skill and self-efficacy of pre-service chemistry teachers. J Technol Sci Educ 2019;9:59–76. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.555.Search in Google Scholar

45. Rahayu, S. Promoting the 21st century scientific literacy skills through innovative chemistry instruction. AIP Conf Proc 2017;1911:1–8:020025.10.1063/1.5016018Search in Google Scholar

46. Zorluoglu, SL, Kizilaslan, A, Yapucuoglu, MD. The analysis of 9th grade chemistry curriculum and textbook according to revised bloom’s taxonomy. Cypriot J Educ Sci 2020;15:9–20. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i1.3516.Search in Google Scholar