This provocation focuses on the problems that may emanate from the consideration of differences between stakeholders–teachers’ and students’ evaluation of recommended textbooks for informed curricular decision making. The article draws on empirical data from a study on the evaluation of recommended senior secondary financial accounting textbooks in Southwestern Nigeria. It highlighted the emergence of four dilemmas and describes how a focus on resolving them can proffer remedy for the perennial worrying about the contemptuous misconstructions in the consideration of curriculum (evaluation) outcomes. The article also offers an open discourse for evaluative research practitioners.
AndyF. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drug and rock “n” roll) (3rd ed.). SAGE.
2.
ArendsenN. (2014). Evaluation and ethics: An investigation of ethical dilemmas in evaluating applied theatre [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Utrecht.
3.
BradleyL. H. (1985). Curriculum leadership and development handbook. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. (n.d.). Definition of dilemma. Cambridge University Press. www.dictionary.cambridge.org
5.
CamfieldL. (2014). Reflections on broadening the ethical debate. In BarnettC.MunslowT. (Eds.), Policy anticipation, response and evaluation (Evidence report No. 98) (pp. 11–12). Institute of Development Studies.
6.
ClarkC.BrodyM.DillonJ.HartP.HeimlichJ. (2007). The messy process of research: Dilemmas, process, and critique. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12(1), 110–126.
7.
EgonG.LincolnY. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30, 233–252.
8.
EisnerE. W. (1983). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. In MadausG. F.ScrivenM.StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.), Evaluation models. Kluwer-Nijhoff.
9.
EisnerE. W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: A personal view. Falmer Press.
10.
EisnerE. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
11.
FelderR. M.BrentR. (2008). Student ratings of teaching: Myths, facts, and good practices. Chemical Education, 42(1), 33–34.
GurungR. A. R.MartinR. C. (2011). Predicting textbook reading: The textbook assessment and usage scale. Teaching of Psychology, 38(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628310390913
14.
HarbemasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.
15.
KirkpatrickD. L. (1998). The four levels of evaluation. In BrownS. M.SeidnerC. J. (Eds.), Evaluating corporate training: Models and issues. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, vol 46. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4850-4_5
16.
LawrenceW. P. W. (2011). Textbook evaluation: A framework for evaluating the fitness of Hong-Kong New Secondary School (NSS) curriculum. Unpublished master thesis, Department of English, City University of Hong Kong.
17.
LeonardoZ. (2004). Critical social theory and transformative knowledge: The functions of criticism in quality education. Educational Researcher, 33(6), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033006011
18.
LeonardoZ. (2016). Educational criticism as a new specialization. Research in Education, 96(1), 87–92.
MunslowT. (2014). Landscaping studies. In BarnettC.MunslowT. (Eds.), Policy anticipation, response and evaluation (Evidence report No. 98) (pp. 5–6). Institute of Development Studies.
21.
ParlettM.HamiltonD. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs [An occasional paper]. Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, University of Edinburg.
22.
ProvusM. N. (1969). Discrepancy evaluation model. Pittsburg Public Schools.
23.
RandJ. (2017). Misunderstandings and mismatches: The collective disillusionment of written of written summative assessment feedback. Research in Education, 97(1), 33–48.
24.
RegelskiT. A. (2000). Critical education, culturalism and multiculturalism. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 1(1), 2–40.
25.
ScrivenM. S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In StakeR. E. (Ed.), AERA Monogragh Series on curriculum Evaluation: Vol. 1. Curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Rand McNally.
26.
SimanA. (1975). Barriers to knowledge for practice: The casework effectiveness dilemma. The. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 2(4), 488–498.
SimonsH. (2006). Ethics in evaluation. In ShawI. F.GreeneJ. C.MarkM. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 213–232). SAGE.
29.
SimonsH. (2014). The meaning and value of ethics in evaluation. In BarnettC.MunslowT. (Eds.), Policy anticipation, response and evaluation (Evidence report No. 98) (pp. 9–10). Institute of Development Studies.
30.
SmithM. K. (2005). Elliot W. Eisner, connoisseurship, criticism and the art of education. In The encyclopaedia of informal education. www.infed.org/thinkers/eisner.htm
31.
SmithM. K. (2011). Donald Schon: Learning, reflection and change. In The encyclopaedia of informal education. www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm
32.
StakeR. E. (1975, November). Program evaluation: Particularly responsive evaluation (Occasional paper No. 5). Western Michigan University Evaluation centre.
33.
StradlingR. (2001). Teaching 20th-century European history. Council of Europe.
34.
StufflebeamD. L. (1971, February). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. American Association of School Administrators.
35.
TooleyJ.DarbyD. (1998). Educational research—A critique. Office for Standards in Education.
36.
TylerR. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
