Vitalizing the evaluation of curricular implementation: a framework for attending to the “how and whys” of curriculum evolution

As curricular reforms are implemented, there is often urgency among scholars to swiftly evaluate curricular outcomes and establish whether desired impacts have been realized. Consequently, many evaluative studies focus on summative program outcomes without accompanying evaluations of implementation. This runs the risk of Type III errors, whereby outcome evaluations rest on unverified assumptions about the appropriate implementation of prescribed curricular activities. Such errors challenge the usefulness of the evaluative studies, casting doubt on accumulated knowledge about curricular innovations, and posing problems for educational systems working to mobilize scarce resources. Unfortunately, however, there is long-standing inattention to the evaluation of implementation in health professions education (HPE). To address this, we propose an accessible framework that provides substantive guidance for evaluative research on implementation of curricular innovations. The Prescribed-Intended-Enacted-Sustainable (PIES) framework that is articulated in this paper, introduces new concepts to HPE—with a view to facilitating more nuanced examination of the evolution of curricula as they are implemented. Critically, the framework is theoretically grounded, integrating evaluation and implementation science as well as education theory. It outlines when, how, and why evaluators need to direct attention to curricular implementation, providing guidance on how programs can map out meaningful evaluative research agendas. Ultimately, this work is intended to support evaluators and educators, seeking to design evaluation studies that provide more faithful, useful representations of the intricacies of curricular change implementation.