EVALUATING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE INTENDED AND ENACTED SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULA USING SEITZ’S METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Emie Joane M. Guintu

Curriculum has three components, namely: intended, enacted, and assessed curricula (English, 1992, 2000; Porter, 2002). The degree to which these components work together to facilitate the students’ achievement of desired goals is called curriculum alignment (Webb, 1997; Ananda, 2003; Resnick, Rothman, Slattery, & Vranek, 2003; Roach, Niebling, & Kurz, 2008). In the Philippines, misalignment between the intended and enacted curricula can occur because of the difficulties encountered by the teachers as they unpack the K-12 Curriculum from DepEd (Urbiztondo, 2017). This problem can be addressed by alignment studies since the results of an alignment study might be helpful in achieving curriculum alignment (Tindal, Cipoletti, and Almond, 2005). However, most of the studies conducted focus only on the alignment between the intended and the assessed curricula.

This study aims to determine whether Seitz’s Methodological Framework can be used to evaluate alignment between the intended and enacted school-based Araling Panlipunan 3 curricula in a Chinese Christian school in Taguig City. Moreover, its usefulness in evaluating the alignment between the intended and the enacted curricula will be examined using the following criteria adopted from Na?sstro?m (2008) and Hauenstein (1998), namely: applicability, total inclusivity, and mutual inclusivity.