ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 796
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
The Problems of Qualitative– Descriptive Evaluation in Relation to the Curriculum
Elements
Seyed Hossein Ebadi
Ph.D student of curriculum planning, Azad Islamic univ., Khorasgan, Isfahan, Iran
ABSTRACT
This investigation, performed to examine the problems in implementation of qualitative- descriptive evaluation
(QDE)(gradually substituting the quantitative/ score –oriented evaluation in Iranian grade schools as related to other
curriculum elements) uses the descriptive-survey method. The population was limited to the first- third grade
teachers and principals of the schools implementing the QDE plan in district 4, Isfahan (, Iran) (663 individuals).
Data were collected through responses of 113 teachers and 27 principals, selected by stratified random sampling, to
a researcher-made questionnaire, validity of which was confirmed by experts; and reliability , determined to 0..875
using Cronbach alpha. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and independent t-test as well
as single-variable t-test for two-level variables and variance analysis for multi-level variables. The results indicate
many problems in implementing QDE regarding other curriculum components (objectives, content,
teaching/learning methods, and timing) or inconsistency of this evaluation method with other curriculum elements .
Keywords: Academic Achievement Evaluation, Traditional Evaluation, Qualitative-Descriptive evaluation
1. Introduction
The evaluation methods have been subject to dramatic changes and innovation along with the advancements in
psychology and proposition of novel theories on learning. The ultimate goal of the shift from traditional evaluation
methods in educational systems is to enhance the learning experience at school and to achieve better results
throughout the learning process (West & Crigton,1999).
New approaches to the evaluation of academic achievement rely on various and documented evidence and
information continuously collected and organized in the learning/teaching process, fully reflecting the
multidirectional learning and apparent performance of the learners. Such a view considers the evaluation as an
integral and inseparable part of learning process and instead of trying to classify the learners with labels of grade
points and scores, would commit itself to direct their learning.
Positive, motivating feedback and lack of emphasis on memory-orientation, process-thinking and continuous and
step-by-step assessment are some of the most important traits of a new approach to the academic achievement
evaluation (Black & Etal, 2000), traits which have been represented to a high extent in the new evaluation approach
used at Iranian grade schools, known as the qualitative-descriptive evaluation. The effective role of class evaluation
and how it used to be implemented during the recent years have received a lot of attention from the experts to the
extent that in the new approaches to learning/teaching it is emphasized that teachers, changing their attitudes and
practices towards the academic evaluation, may turn it into a useful instrument to improve the pupils‟ learning.
Therefore, considering the pathological studies of the traditional system of academic achievement evaluation and by
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 797
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
tracking the shortcomings undermining the dynamism, efficiency and effectiveness of our educational system,
finally the revision of academic achievement evaluation methods was proposed in early 2000‟s, making the
qualitative-descriptive method the official evaluation program for the first to fifth grades in 2012.
The qualitative-descriptive evaluation is a more complete version of continuous evaluation which, by shifting from
final evaluation and tendency toward developmental and process-based evaluation, by using qualitative-descriptive
feedback and by applying a qualitative scale (very good, good, acceptable, requiring more effort) instead of
quantitative scale or the grade points (0-20), employs many instruments to gather and organize the needed
information for judgment about the pupils‟ academic achievement so that it considers some room for self
assessment and peer assessment , too.
Apart from either integrationist or separationist approaches to the teaching and learning area, the former supporting
the interweaving of the two and the latter denying any necessary links between them (Mehre Mohammadi, 2008)
desirable implementation of descriptive evaluation requires an understanding of the very close relationship between
curriculum elements. Although there is no consensus on what such elements are, and they include a broad range
from one to nine, the most common approach in this area considers the curriculum as containing four elements:
goals/objectives, content, learning/teaching methods and evaluation (Mehre Mohammadi, 2008). Frances Klein
identifies the curriculum with nine elements: objectives, content, learning activities, teaching methods, learning
materials and resources, evaluation, timing, space or environment, and grouping (Maleki, 2007).
A desirable curriculum is a balanced, coherent and cohesive combination of all the mentioned elements which has
been formulated logically during the curriculum planning process. Obviously, every teaching method will not
achieve the curriculum objectives and any content requires a particular method of teaching. The effects of
appropriate timing and environment on any of curriculum elements can not be ignored, though; and one may design
and offer suitable content presentation methods, with attention to other elements, only by using various learning
activities, from written and illustrated forms to out-of-school activities such as visits and excursions. On the other
hand, the learners evaluation should be proportional to the objective, content, learning/teaching methods, offered
learning activities, timing and environment. No doubt the qualitative evaluation is not consistent with traditional
teaching methods, lectures and monologic explanations by the teachers because an education system‟s identity is not
separated from its meaning, curriculum areas and objectives. Therefore any innovation in evaluation methods would
fail without a revision of content, teaching/learning methods and curriculum objectives. While the curricula are still
being formulated with contents and objectives adopted from behavioral approaches, one may not hope to obtain any
outcomes from the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation which has originated from a constructivistic
approach, focusing on assessment of thought, understanding, reasoning, problem-solving and application of the
things learned. The physical and psychological atmosphere of the classroom, too, should be organized appropriately
to the new evaluation approach in a flexible and alterable manner to realize various and multi-layer activities and
objectives of qualitative-descriptive evaluation; and only in this case the classroom‟s physical and psychological
environment will enhance the pupils‟ self-esteem, self-control, prosocial behavior, sexual identity, logic thinking,
creativity and problem-solving capability (Whitebread, 2000). Now the question is, whether or not relevant changes
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 798
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
has been made in other elements of curriculum along with the changes in the traditional evaluation method and
introduction of qualitative-descriptive method as an alternative approach in Iran‟s grade schools; whether or not
Iranian educational system‟s fascination towards quick promotion of descriptive evaluation method has led to
inconsistencies between evaluation elements and other curriculum elements of elementary program. Considering
questions like the foregoing, the present paper tries to find the problems raised in implementation of descriptive
evaluation in terms of other curriculum elements.
2. Literature Review
An examination of the studies performed in the qualitative-descriptive evaluation area indicates that although many
investigations have focused on the comparison of score-oriented traditional evaluation and descriptive evaluation
since 2003 (the plan‟s onset year) , generally supporting the positive impact of the new approach on issues such as
psychological health and pupils‟ learning improvement, little attention has been paid to the issues treated by the
present paper (Ebadi, 2011).
One may briefly list the most important difficulties of qualitative-descriptive evaluation in terms of attention to other
curriculum elements, reported in domestic investigations as secondary findings, as follows:
2.1. The massive amount of textbook contents and their contradictions with the objectives of descriptive evaluation
(Khosh Kholgh and Pasha Sharifi, 2010).
2.2. Discord between traditional teaching methods nad descriptive evaluation (Khosh Kholgh and Pasha Sharifi,
2010).
2.3. Lack of precise and comprehensive criteria for curriculum objectives formulation (Khosh Kholgh and Pasha
Sharifi, 2010).
2.4. Intrinsic discord among effective components of curriculum planning and inconsistency between descriptive
evaluation requirements and the actual curriculum (Mohaghegh Moiin,2003; Amini,2003)
2.5. The time consuming nature of descriptive evaluation and disproportionality of teaching‟s timing and
application of its varied tools (Hasani and Ahmadi, 2004).
In the instigations abroad in the descriptive evaluation area- not as a new evaluation model but as a version of
developmental evaluation- some studies investigating the qualitative feedbacks in the pupils‟ academic achievement
evaluation have been reviewed by the researcher.
Similarly to the domestic investigations, Turner (2000), Black and William (1998), Fuchs et al.(1999), Lachiver and
Taradif, Moya and Malley (1994), Eggen and Kauchak (2001), Lan, Park and Stone (2002) have demonstrated the
positive impact of qualitative evaluation – accompanied by descriptive feedbacks- on pupils‟ cognitive, affective
and psychomotor development and learning enhancement.
Leahy, Lyon, Thompson and William (2005) and Patton (2010) have reported similar results. Hebdige (2003) and
Waddell (2004) also obtained similar results. On the other hand, teachers‟ failure in applying appropriate evaluation
methods in accord with the curriculum content has been reported by Gioka (2006) (Ebadi, 2011).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 799
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
3. Research Purpose
The general goal of the present paper is to determine the problems raising during the implementation o qualitative –
descriptive evaluation in Iran in terms of its consideration of curriculum elements (goals, content, learning/teaching
methods, timing) and solutions to improve it. To achieve this, the following questions have been taken into
consideration:
3.1. To what extent is the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation problematic in association wit other
elements of curriculum (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing)? Is the qualitative –s=descriptive
evaluation in Iranian schools consistent with other curriculum elements?
3.2. Are there any differences among the teachers‟ and principals‟ views concerning the first question above in
terms of demographic factors (sex, position, educations and service records)?
4. Research Methods
As the present paper tries to reflect and describe the views of grade school teachers and principals of district four of
the city of Isfahan (Iran) concerning the executive/operational problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation as
related to other curriculum components, it is a descriptive paper; and given the examination of respondents‟
comments in the mentioned area, is a survey-type one.
5. Population, Sample and Sampling Method
The population for the present investigation includes all the teachers of first to third grade and principals of
elementary schools throughout the fourth district of the city of Isfahan, who have evaluated the pupils‟ academic
achievements using the qualitative-descriptive approach during the academic year 2011-12, whose total number,
based on the official statistics of the General Office of Education in the province of Isfahan, is 663. From them, 533
are teachers and the remaining 130, principals. In order to predict the sample size, a preliminary study was
performed on 30 grade school teachers and principals of Isfahan‟s fourth district and using variance estimation and
Cochran formula, the sample size was determined to include 113 the teachers and 27 principals. It must be noted
that stratified random sampling, proportional to the population, has been used due to heterogeneities in teaching
grades (position) and sex.( Table 1)
6. Data Collection Tool
Considering the previous studies and due to the lack of a standardized questionnaire for the present paper‟s purpose,
a researcher-made questionnaire containing 11 closed answer was used for data collection. The questionnaire‟s
formal and content validity was confirmed using the comments of educational professionals and university
professors and its reliability was verified in two stages. In the first stage, after preliminary administration, Cronbach
alpha was 0.974; and after final administration, it was 0.875 which indicates the tool‟s proper reliability.
7. Data Analysis Method
The research data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests in descriptive and inferential levels. For
descriptive analysis of the data produced by the research tool, appropriate descriptive statistics such as ratio,
percentage, classification and statistical tests such as chi-square were used for a preliminary description of results. In
the inferential analysis, after an examination of the scores‟ distribution normality through Kolmogorov - Smirnov
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 800
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
test, relevant parametric tests such as single variable t-test and independent t-test were used for two-level variables;
and variance analysis test (F), for multi-level variables; and Mann- Ehitney U and Kruskal – Wallis non-parametric
tests were used for more certainty.
8. Findings
8.1. The first question (3.1)
An analysis of the respondents‟ answers to the items relating to this question and the average weight of 4.40 out of 5
indicate ( Table 2) that respondents believed that the implementation of qualitative- descriptive evaluation has
many problems in terms of its consideration of other curriculum elements.
The highest average (4.60) belongs to items 3 and 10; and the lowest (4.16), to item 4.
For inferential analysis purposes, first the normality of the scores‟ distribution was confirmed using Kolmogorov -
Smirnov test, and then the single-variable t-test (Table 3) was applied.
The results of inferential analysis indicate a significance level of <0.0005; and since this value is smaller than 0.01,
therefore the observed difference is statistically significant in 99% certainty level. In other words, the respondents
believed that the implementation of qualitative-descriptive evaluation has serious problems/shortcoming in terms of
its consideration of curriculum elements (goals, content, teaching/learning method and timing). That is, the
qualitative- descriptive being performed in Iranian grade schools is not consistent with other elements of the
curriculum.
8.1.1. Item-by-Item Analysis Results
The followings are the results obtained from the analysis of individual items .( Table 4)
According to the inferential analysis results in all items, the significance level was lower than 0.05 that is, the results
are statistically significant in 95% certainty level. In other words, in all the items, the difference observed between
assumed average and average was significant. That is, the evaluations of items, indicate by „high‟ and „very high‟,
are significant.
8.1.2. Other Findings
8.1.2.1. Rating the Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation with the Curriculum
Elements
Friedman test was used to rate the problems and shortcomings of qualitative- descriptive evaluation‟s
implementation I n relation to the elements of curriculum (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing).
The results are presented below.
8.1.2.1.1. Descriptive Results
Table 5 summarizes the results of rating the executive problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation in relation with
the curriculum elements. Considering the fact that the larger the average ratings, the more serious the impact of that
particular problem, here the problem outlined by Item 10 has the highest rating (impact) and the one indicated by
Item 4 has the lowest rating (impact).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 801
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
8.1.2.1.2. Inferential Results
Freidman test revealed( Table 6) that the difference between average ratings obtained was statistically significant in
99% certainty level.
Results of Freidman test indicated that the problem outlined in Item 10 had the highest rating (impact) and the ones
presented by Items 6 and 7 occupied the second and third positions, respectively.
8.2. Second Question (3.2)
The following statistical hypothesis was verified in order to answer the second question of the present
investigation, pointed out in the section 3.2 above.
8.2.1. Statistical hypothesis:
There is no significant differences among the respondents‟ views on the executive problems of descriptive
evaluation as related to curriculum elements in terms of demographic factors (sex, position, educations and work
records). The results did not reject the above statistical hypothesis. In other words, male and female respondents
with different education background and work records, provided the same comments about any of the research
questions.
8.2.1.1. Sex
This result on the sex variable was supported both by independent t-test (first assuming variances equality by the
aid of Levene‟s test and then by assuming the averages equality for both variance equality and inequality modes)
and non-parametric Mann–Whitney U -test.
According to results (Tables 7&8) the assumption of variances equality applies because in this question the
significance level (p value) is bigger than 0.05. Thus one could say that variances are equal and therefore the
information test has been written assuming the equality of variances.
Also, according to above table, the difference observed between male and female averages is not significant because
in these questions the significance level is higher than o.05. that is, male and female respondents have provided the
same comments. It should be noted that the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U demonstrates the same results.(
Table 9)
Based on the multi-valued nature of other demographic variables (position, educations, work records)the F-test or
ANOVA was used.
8.2.1.2. Position
Tables 10& 11 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the position variable ANOVA results
concerning the first research question.
Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different positions is not significant (p>0.05)
that is, respondents with different positions have provided similar comments. It must be noted that since the
averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine which averages
were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 12)
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 802
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
8.2.1.3. Educations
Tables 13&14 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the educations variable ANOVA results
concerning the first research question .
Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different educations is not significant
(p>0.05) that is, respondents with different academic degrees have provided similar comments. It must be noted that
that since the averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine
which averages were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 15)
8.2.1.4. Work Records
Tables 16&17 summarize Frequency, average and standard deviation for the Work Records variable and ANOVA
results concerning the first research question .
Based on the results, the difference observed between respondents with different Work Records is not significant
(p>0.05) that is, respondents with different work records have provided similar comments. It must be noted that that
since the averages difference was not significant, there was no need for use of follow-up tests to determine which
averages were different. Also, the non-parametric Kruskal – Wallis yielded the same results. (Table 18)
9. Discussion and Conclusion
The accelerated spread of qualitative- descriptive evaluation in Iran‟s educational system is an indication of the
authorities‟ decisiveness towards ending the 100-year long prevalence of traditional score-oriented evaluation
approach and establishing the new approach making it the alternative evaluation system even in guidance and high
schools. This approach seeks to return the role of assessment and evaluation to the scene of pupils‟ learning and its
goals, principles, features, methods, data gathering and information organizing tools all serve a better and more
sustainable learning.
Relative achievement of such objectives, together with improvement of psychological health in the learning
environment and the positive effect on the pupils‟ cognitive, affective and psychomotor characteristics have been
proved by domestic studies which, as in the present paper, have called the education experts and professionals
through a presentation of opportunities and threats and pointing out some executive problems of qualitative-
descriptive evaluation, challenging the unconditional interest of our educational system in replacing a fully
qualitative evaluation system. This does not mean that the values of courage, innovation and change-which are
necessary for the dynamism and health of any educational system- are ignored but is a reminder of the need of the
educational system for receiving constructive feedback and criticisms so that the qualitative-descriptive would
actually serve the learning and advancement of the society throughout the nation. The present investigation was
performed aiming at determination of problems in qualitative-descriptive evaluation as related to other curriculum
elements (goals, content, teaching/learning methods, and timing) using the comments of teaches and principals who
put their hopes in resolution of problems and growth of the academic evaluation system with their 8-year experience
in performing it and with their efforts and patience. The results indicated that the level of problems in qualitative-
descriptive evaluation in terms of its consideration of other curriculum elements was high, requiring serious
monitoring by those involved in order to prevent the repetition of problems and shortcomings of traditional score-
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 803
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
oriented evaluation and emergence of the academic achievement evaluation deficiency phenomenon by tracing such
problems and considering the presented solutions. Coordination and proportionality of curriculum elements, as an
inevitable requirement, is emphasized by many educational experts and scholars. The results of the present research
showed that qualitative-descriptive evaluation faces many problems in the mentioned area (coordination with other
curriculum elements). As one major factor in emergence of this problem one may pint out the fact that the
qualitative-descriptive evaluation originates from the constructivism approach in learning while the contents of
many elementary textbooks have been formulated based on the behavioral objectives and the teachers insist on
entering the information into the pupils‟ minds using the traditional teaching/ learning activities. Another example
of the inconsistency between the new evaluation method and the curriculum elements is the time- disproportionality.
The qualitative-descriptive evaluation, due to its process-based nature and its emphasis on continuous and step-by-
step evaluation tools and methods, requires a timing more extended than the one currently made available by the
grade schools‟ daily executive calendar and this time limitation threatens the effectiveness and efficiency of the new
approach. Another part of emerged discords is a consequence of inappropriate actual organization of textbook
contents and a result of insistence on traditional teaching methods.
The results of the present paper indicated that among the executive problems corresponding to the curriculum
elements, the “disproportionality of timing and learning opportunities” had the highest rating (impact); and the “lack
of change and innovation inn learning/teaching activities along with the changes in evaluation approach” and the
“lack of revision and change while organizing of teaching methods” had the second and third ratings, respectively.
These findings are consistent with those obtained by the investigation titled “assessing the pilot implementation of
descriptive evaluation in fourth and fifth grades elementary in some educational regions of Iran” performed in 2010
with the endeavors of Dr. Iraj Khosh Kholgh and the supervision of Dr. Hassan Pasha Sharifi. According to the said
investigation, the qualitative-descriptive evaluation faces some problems in its implementation including
contradictions between textbooks‟ sizes and contents as well as its non-coordination with traditional
teaching/learning methods.
Also, the present findings are consistent with those of Mohaghegh Moiin (2003) and Amini (2003) which point out
the discrete structural link with the curriculum and the internal discord between effective curriculum elements as the
implementation problems of qualitative-descriptive evaluation, respectively.
No doubt the discord between the qualitative –descriptive evaluation element with other actual curriculum elements
of elementary program will be removed by revising the contents, goals, teaching methods and class timings and the
required coherence will be achieved. The following suggestions are presented based on the present findings.
9.1. Revising the elementary curriculum goals and goal-setting to meet the learners‟ eventual needs towards
sustainable learning (comprehension, inference, judgment, evaluation, problem-solving,…)
9.2. Revising the sizes and contents of elementary textbooks so that they would provide for the evaluation
opportunities simultaneously with the teaching/learning activities
9.3. Reformulating the lessons so that to teach them would require modern teaching methods and urge the teachers
to this new area
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 804
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
9.4. Revising the class calendar and providing for the opportunities to perform the tasks which are appropriate to
the descriptive evaluation
9.5. Decentralization in textbook compilation and participation of lower organizational levels for curriculum
planning and for the design of localized projects based on the learners‟ regional and local conditions
9.6. Professional training for the teachers in application of novel teaching/learning methods and revising the
teacher training programs incorporating novel evaluation methods
9.7. Restructuring the learning environment, class and school and providing for healthy physical and
psychological environments appropriate to the novel teaching/learning activities
9.8. Preparing teachers’ guides in national level containing lists of behaviors, performance tests, and challenging
tasks for each lesson, meeting the teachers‟ needs and saving their planning times to the teaching time‟s interest,
thereby relatively removing the problem of time-consuming nature of descriptive evaluation
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 805
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
References
1. Amini Tehrani, Manoochehr (2003), “an assessment of qualitative-descriptive evaluation‟s automatic
enhancement (goals, principles and approaches)”, educational management M.A. dissertation, Isfahan, Management
and Planning org. for the province of Isfahan
2. Hasani, Mohammad and Ahmadi, Hossein (2004), “ report of pilot implementation of descriptive evaluation plan
in Iran‟s selected schools in academic year 2003-4”, Tehran, Education research center
3. Khosh Kholgh, Iraj and Sharifi, Hassan Pasha (2007), “an assessment of trial implementation of descriptive
evaluation in primary schools of some regions of Iran (2005-6)”, education quarterly, no.4, vol. 22, pp 117-147
4. Khosh Kholgh, Iraj and Sharifi, Hassan Pasha (2010), “a report of assessment results of trial implementation of
descriptive evaluation (in fourth and fifth grades primary schools of some regions of Iran (2005-6)”, Tehran ,
education research center
5. Ebadi, Seyed Hossein (2011), “ a study of qualitative-descriptive evaluation problems in the views of grade
school teachers and principals of Isfahan‟s fourth district”, curriculum planning M.A. dissertation
6. Mohaghegh Moiin, Mohammad Hossein (2003), “an assessment of pre-trial implementation of descriptive
evaluation plan: an investigative report”, Tehran, Academic and educational evaluation office, general education
Vice Ministry of Education
7. Maleki, Hassan (2007), “curriculum planning”, 9tth edition, Tehran, Payame Andisheh publishers
8. Mehre Mohammadi, Mahmood et al. (2009), “curriculum planning and its relationship with other majors in
educational sciences”, research paper published in “Curriculum: views, approaches and perspectives”, Tehran,
Astane Ghodse Razavi publishers
10. Block. M. E etal (2002) coping with conflicting demands: student assessment in Dutch primary school, studies
in educational evaluation, V. 28,pp. 177-188
11. Eggen. P, kauchak.D.(2001). Edicational psychology.(5th
ed). Upper saddle river, NJ: prentice hall.
12. Fuchs.L&Fuchs. D., karnes, K. hanlett, C., & katzararoff, M.(1999). Mathematics performance assessment in
the classroom, effects on theacher planning and student problem solving. American educational research journal, 36,
609-646.
13. Lachiver, R. & Taradif, G. L. (2002). Teacher evaluation, student self-evaluation. Journal of Learning
disabilities, 13(5).
14. Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & William, D.(2005) classroom assessment: minute by minute, day by
day. Educational headership. 63, PP:19-24.
15. Moya, N. & Malley, G. (1994). A portfolio assessment model for ESI. Educational Issues. Spring, 18-36.
16. Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to enhance innovation and
use. NewYork: Guilford press.
17. Turner, C.E (2000). Investigating washback from empirically derived rating scales: background and initial step
in a study focusing on ESL speaking at the secondary level in Quebec schools, paper presented at the annual
language testing research collo quium, van couver, BC.22,nd
.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 806
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
18. West, R&crighton, J.(1999). Examination reform in central and eastern Europe issues and trends assessment in
Education. Vol, No. 2. PP 35-45.
19. Whitebread ,D.(2000)The psychology of teaching and learning in the primary school,Cambridge: Cambridge
university press
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 807
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
Annexure
Stratum title
(position)
Male Female Total
Population Sample Population Sample Population Sample
First grade
teachers
15 3 231 49 246 52
Second grade
teachers 17 4 224 47 241 51
Third grade
teachers
15 3 31 7 46 10
Principals 67 14 63 13 130 27
Total 114 24 549 116 663 140
Table 1. Frequency Distribution of the Population in terms of Sex, grade and Position
In your view, which of the followings may represent
one of the qualitative evaluation‟s executive
problems?
Very
low
Low Medium High Very
high
Average
1. Impossibility of using the
descriptive evaluation approach in all
subject matters
Frequency 0 1 19 72 48
4.19
Percentage 0 .7 13.6 51.4 34.3
2. Inconsistency between the
implementation of descriptive
evaluation and the actual contents of
elementary text books
Frequency
0
1
7
70
62
4.38
Percentage 0 .7 5 50 44.3
3. Unachievement of descriptive
evaluation goals due to the actual size
and variety in the textbooks
Frequency 0 0 8 40 92 4.60
Percentage 0 0 5.7 28.6 65.7
4. Non-achievement of elementary
curriculum objectives through
descriptive evaluation
Frequency 0 3 22 65 50 4.16
percentage 0 2.1 15.7 46.4 35.7
5. Inconsistency between descriptive
evaluation and elementary education
goals as compared with the score-
oriented evaluation
Frequency 0 1 17 75 47 4.20
Percentage 0 .7 12.1 53.6 33.6
6. Lack of changes and innovations in Frequency 1 1 15 45 78 4.41
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 808
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
learning process along with the
changes in evaluation approach
Percentage .7 .7 10.7 32.1 55.7
7. Lack of revisions and changes in
teaching methods for desirable
implementation of descriptive
evaluation
Frequency 0 3 11 53 73 4.40
Percentage 0 2.1 7.9 37.9 52.1
8. Inappropriateness of actual
organization of elementary textbooks
for desirable implementation of
descriptive evaluation
Frequency 0 1 8 44 87 4.55
percentage 0 .7 5.7 31.4 62.1
9. Unachieved objectives of
descriptive evaluation regarding
special pupils (special needs, learning
disorders,…)
Frequency 2 5 12 47 74 4.33
Percentage 1.4 3.6 8.6 33.6 52.9
10. Non-proportionality of timing and
educational opportunities for
implementation of descriptive
evaluation compared with the timing
assigned to learning/teaching process
Frequency 0 1 2 35 95 4.60
Percentage 0 .7 6.4 25 67.9
11. Undesirable efficiency and
effectiveness of descriptive
evaluation without extended teaching
times
Frequency 0 0 8 41 91 4.59
Percentage 0 0 5.7 29.3 65
Total (curriculum elements including:
goals, content, teaching/learning
methods, and timing)
Average
frequency
0 2 12 53 73 4.40
percentage 0 1.4 8.6 37.9 52.1
Table 2. Respondents’ Answers to the First Question’s Items
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 809
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
Assumed
average
Average Standard
deviation
t df Significance
4 4.40 .362 13.099 139 <.0005
Table 3. Results of Single-Variable t-Test as Related to the First Question
Items Average Standard
deviation
t df Significance level Evaluation
Item 1 4.19 .688 3.317 139 .001 High
Item 2 4.38 .617 7.258 139 <.0005 High
Item 3 4.60 .597 11.885 139 <.0005 Very high
Item 4 4.16 .761 2.443 139 .016 High
Item 5 4.20 .670 3.532 139 .001 High
Item 6 4.41 .768 6.383 139 <.0005 High
Item 7 4.40 .728 6.504 139 <.0005 High
Item 8 4.55 .638 10.194 139 <.0005 Very high
Item 9 4.33 .855 4.393 139 <.0005 High
Item 10 4.60 .644 11.028 139 <.0005 Very high
Item 11 4.59 .599 11.720 139 <.0005 Very high
Table 4. Results of Single-Variable t-Test, Comparing the Average with the Assumed Average 4 in Individual Items
Related to the First Question
Item Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation
with the Curriculum Elements
Average Rating Rating
10 Non-proportionality of timing and educational opportunities for
implementation of descriptive evaluation compared with the timing
assigned to learning/teaching process
6.89 1
11 Undesirable efficiency and effectiveness of descriptive evaluation without
extended teaching times
6.83 2
3 Non-achievement of descriptive evaluation goals due to the actual size
and variety in the textbooks
6.79 3
8 Inappropriateness of actual organization of elementary textbooks for
desirable implementation of descriptive evaluation
6.63 4
6 Lack of changes and innovations in learning process along with the
changes in evaluation approach
6.07 5
7 Lack of revisions and changes in teaching methods for desirable 6.02 6
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 810
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
implementation of descriptive evaluation
9 Unachieved objectives of descriptive evaluation regarding special pupils
(special needs, learning disorders,…)
5.96 7
2 Inconsistency between the implementation of descriptive evaluation and
the actual contents of elementary text books
5.75 8
5 Inconsistency between descriptive evaluation and elementary education
goals as compared with the score-oriented evaluation
5.06 9
1 Impossibility of using the descriptive evaluation approach in all subject
matters
5.03 10
4 Non-achievement of elementary curriculum objectives through
descriptive evaluation
4.96 11
Table 5. Rating the Executive Problems of Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation in Relation with the Curriculum
Elements
Curriculum elements Number df Chi-square Significance level
140 10 104.423 <.0005
Table 6. Freidman Test Results
Sex Frequency Average Standard Deviation
Male 24 4.43 .362
Female 116 4.40 .364
Table 7. Frequency, Average and Standard Deviation, Differentiated by Sex
Levene’s Test (Variances Equality) t-Test (Averages Equality)
F Sig t df Sig 2. Taol d
.068 .795 .396 138 .693
Table 8. Independent t- Test Results for the Sex Variable
Asymp. Sig z Wilcoxon W Mann-Ehitney U
.741 .331 8118.5 1332.5
Table 9. A Summary of Mann–Whitney U Data for the Sex Variable
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 811
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
Position Frequency Average Standard Deviation
1st Grade Teacher 52 4.40 .356
2nd
Grade Teacher 51 4.43 .359
3rd
Grade Teacher 10 4.51 .433
Principal 27 4.31 .357
Table 10. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Position
Origin of
Changes
Sum of Squares df Squares
Average
F Sig
Inter-group .367 3 .122
.930
.428
Intra-group 17.897 136 .132
Total 18.264 139
Table 11. ANOVA Results (Position Variable)
Asymp.Sig df Chi-Square
.448 3 2.654
Table 12. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data (Position Variable)
Degree Frequency Average Standard Deviation
High school diploma 15 4.42 .412
Junior college diploma
(undergraduate)
58 4.47 .363
Bachelor‟s 65 4.34 .342
Master‟s and higher 2 4.09 .386
Table 13. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Educations
Origin of
Changes
Sum of Squares df Squares
Average
F Sig
Inter-group .736 3 .245
1.904
.132
Intra-group 17.528 136
.129 Total 18.264 139
Table 14. ANOVA Results for Educations Variable
Asymp.Sig df Chi-Square
.084 3 6.650
Table 15. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data for Educations Variable
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 812
MARCH 2013
VOL 4, NO 11
Work Records
(in years)
Frequency Average Standard Deviation
1 - 10 6 4.38 .352
11- 20 42 4.40 .336
21 - 30 92 4.40 .378
Table 16. Frequency, average and standard deviation for the First Question, Differentiated by Educations
Origin of
Changes
Sum of Squares df Squares
Average
F Sig
Inter-group .004 2 .002
.013
.987
Intra-group 18.261 137
.133 Total 18.264 139
Table 17. ANOVA Results for Work Records Variable
Asymp.Sig df Chi-Square
.941 2 .121
Table 18. Summary of Kruskal – Wallis Test Data for Work Records Variable