Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 151–157 | Cite as

An example of evaluation in the development of a tertiary physics programme

  • R. Hirst
  • C. Malcolm
  • J. Owen
Article

Conclusion

As stated in the introduction, an integral part of the philosophy of school or institutional based curriculum development is that staff involvement in ongoing evaluation will lead to programme improvement. In this case, the results outlined above were used by the staff as a basis for discussing the future structure of first year Physics courses at MSC. The outcome was that the rationale, design and implementation of the new course was adopted for the entire first year course. Development of the course continues.

Keywords

Programme Improvement Curriculum Development Physic Programme Ongoing Evaluation Staff Involvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AHLGREN, A. Evaluation of Harvard Project Physics Course. Paper presented to the American Association of Physics Teachers, February, 1969. (Held at Melbourne State College).Google Scholar
  2. HALL, W.C. Models for curriculum development.Vestes 1975, XVIII, 1, 62–69.Google Scholar
  3. HUGHES, P.W., RUSSELL, N.A. & McCONACHY, D. Curriculum evaluation in the 1980s. Paper given at the Annual Conference of the South Pacific Association of Teacher Education. Perth, May 1980.Google Scholar
  4. LYNCH, P.P. The aims of first year chemistry course, the expectation of new courses and subsequent course influences.Research in Science Education, 1977, 7, 173–180.Google Scholar
  5. MALCOLM, C. Discipline versus professional oriented science courses, curriculum problems.Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Improving University Teaching, Aachen, West Germany, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. NUNNALLY, J.C.Psychometric Theory. New York, USA: McGraw Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. SMOLICZ, J.J. Fragmentation in science and education. In Murray-Smith, S. (Ed.)Melbourne Studies in Education. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. PARSONS, C. The new evaluation: A cautionary note.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1976, 8, 125–138.Google Scholar
  9. SKILBECK, M. School based curriculum development. InSupporting Curriculum Development. The Open University Course E203. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. TYLER, R.W.Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  11. WELCH, W.W. Curricular decisions—How can evaluation assist science teachers?The Science Teacher, 1968, 35, 8, 14–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Science Research Association 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hirst
  • C. Malcolm
  • J. Owen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations