CURRICULUM EVALUATION MODELS: A LITERATURE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47255/7k15t620Keywords:
curriculum evaluation, evaluation models, CIPP, Tyler's model, Kirkpatrick modelAbstract
Curriculum evaluation serves as an essential instrument for determining the degree to which educational programs fulfill their intended purposes in terms of relevance, effectiveness, and overall quality. However, selecting an appropriate evaluation framework remains a persistent challenge, given the wide variety of available models and the differing contextual demands across educational settings. This study aims to analyze and compare the strengths and weaknesses of three widely recognized curriculum evaluation models Tyler's Objective-Centered Model, the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) Model, and Kirkpatrick's Four-Level Evaluation Model through a library research methodology drawing upon peer-reviewed scholarly literature. The analysis reveals that Tyler's model, while offering a clear, sequential logical structure, encounters difficulties when program objectives change and lacks sensitivity to broader contextual factors. The CIPP model presents a thorough, decision-driven evaluation framework applicable to both formative and summative purposes, although its comprehensiveness requires considerable investment of time and resources. Kirkpatrick's model, predominantly applied in training and professional development contexts, provides a practical hierarchical evaluation approach, yet has been criticized for its assumptions about causality and its limited applicability in higher education settings. The study concludes that no single model is universally superior; rather, the selection of an evaluation framework must be informed by the specific objectives, contextual conditions, and intended audience of the curriculum under review.
References
Agus, Juliadharma, M., & Djamaluddin, M. (2023). Application of the CIPP Model in Evaluation of The Inclusive Education Curriculum in Madrasah Aliyah. Nidhomul Haq : Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, 8(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.31538/ndh.v8i1.2705
Anh, V. T. K. (2018). Evaluation models in educational program: Strengths and weaknesses. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4252
Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice : the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011
Bhuttah, T. M., & Xiaoduan, C. (2019). Analysis of Curriculum Development Stages from the Perspective of Tyler , Taba and Wheeler. European Journal of Social Sciences, 58(1), 14–22.
Budiyanto, S. M. (2015). Curriculumm as a Dynamic System. Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Sosia.
Cahapay, M. B. (2021). Kirkpatrick Model: Its Limitations as Used in Higher Education Evaluation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.856143
Gunung, I. N., & Darma, I. K. (2019). Implementing the Context , Input , Process , Product ( CIPP ) Evaluation Model to Measure the Effectiveness of the Implementation of Teaching at Politeknik Negeri Bali ( PNB ). International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 14(1), 33–39. http://www.ijese.net/makale/2101.html
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Pavement Analysis and Design. In Pearson/Prentice Hall (p. 775). https://books.google.co.id/books?id=hURlQgAACAAJ
Iqbal, Z., Anees, M., Khan, R., Wadood, A., & Malik, S. (2021). A Comparative Analysis Of The Efficacy Of Three Program-Evaluation Models –A Review On Their Implication In Educational Programs. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 9, 326–336. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9333
Keating, C. (2006). Why and how the silent self speaks volumes: Functional approaches to nonverbal impression management (pp. 321–340). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976152.n17
Lau, N. C., Lim, L. P., Weinstein, E. G., & Bartel, D. P. (2001). An Abundant Class of Tiny RNAs with Probable Regulatory Roles in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science, 294(5543), 858–862. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1065062
Lee, S. Y., Kim, H. U., Chae, T. U., Cho, J. S., Kim, J. W., Shin, J. H., Kim, D. I., Ko, Y.-S., Jang, W. D., & Jang, Y.-S. (2019). A comprehensive metabolic map for production of bio-based chemicals. Nature Catalysis, 2(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-018-0212-4
Maryati, M., Ferianto, F., Suryana, S., Makbul, M., & Munafiah, N. (2024). Curriculum Evaluation and Development: A Systematic Approach to Literature Review in Educational Management. QALAMUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, Dan Agama, 16(1), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.37680/qalamuna.v16i1.4947
Marzooghi, R. (2016). Curriculum typology. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(7), :166-166. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n7p166
Mulenga, I. M. (2018). Conceptualization and Definition of a Curriculum. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology, 2(2), 1–23. https://journals.unza.zm/index.php/jlt/article/view/76
Nouraey, P., Al-Badi, A., Riasati, M. J., & Maata, R. L. (2020). Educational Program and Curriculum Evaluation Models: A Mini Systematic Review of the Recent Trends. In Universal Journal of Educational Research (Vol. 8, Issue 9). https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080930
Paudel, P. (2022). Models of Evaluating Curriculum for Language Education in Higher Education. AWADHARANA, 7(1980), 140–162. https://doi.org/10.3126/awadharana.v7i1.49158
Paull, M., Whitsed, C., & Girardi, A. (2016). Applying the Kirkpatrick model: Evaluating an Interaction for Learning Framework curriculum intervention. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3), 490–507.
Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2000). The Assessment of Personality Constructs in Industrial-Organizational Psychology BT - Problems and Solutions in Human Assessment: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy. In R. D. Goffin & E. Helmes (Eds.), Springer US (pp. 215–248). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4397-8_10
Sari, F. A., Rizal, F., Budi, S., Handayani, R., & Padang, U. N. (2025). Trends and Developments in Educational Program Evaluation Models in the Digital Era: A Systematic Literature Review. International Conference on Interdisciplinary Studies, 01(01), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.31316/icis.v1i1.9282
Snyder, H. (2021). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP Model for Evaluation BT - Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Springer Netherlands (pp. 279–317). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47559-6_16
Taylor, Richard. (1990). Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/875647939000600106
Toosi, M., Modarres, M., Amini, M., & Geranmayeh, M. (2021). Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluation Model in medical education: A systematic review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1115_20
Ullah, H., Huma, S., & Yasin, G. (2024). Curriculum and program evaluation in medical education : a short systematic literature review. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 86(10), 5988–5994. https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000002518
Umam, K. A., & Saripah, I. (2018). Using the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model in the Evaluation of Training Programs Umam, K. A. 1 , Saripah, I. 2 1. Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2(July), 183–194.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Lisa Apriliana (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
