Assessing the General Education Curriculum (Revised 2017) of Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University by Applying Alexander Astin’ s i-e-o Model
The main purpose of this research is to assess the general education curriculum (revised 2017), by separating the process into two phases: curriculum analysis in the first phase, and curriculum assessment in the second phase. Data collection is conducted among students, professors, teaching assistants (TA), and participants in curriculum application. Statistical methods used in data analysis are percentage, mean, and standard deviation. Tools used in this research are curriculum analysis, questionnaires, interview, and preliminary test. For this research, we introduce the study result of the second phase, curriculum assessment, by applying Alexander Astin’s I-E-O Model.
The assessment of Inputs that in terms of the characteristics during the initial phase of learning, students participating in the curriculum possessed the qualification of admission required by the university, and had high expectations of professors and the curriculum. In terms of performance in high school, the students met the requirement of the university, scoring at 78.33 percent. Finally, in terms of the characteristics of professors and teaching assistants, their qualification/teaching experience met the requirement of the university. However, the ratio of teachers and assistants to students did not conform with the requirement provided by Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC).
The assessment of Environment & Process revealed that in terms of the environment, which includes physical and mental environment, the assessment result was at high level. In terms of learning management process, interviews with the professors and teaching assistants revealed that learning activities conformed with the curriculum objective. However, in some of the subjects there are limitations of the number of students, causing the results of activities to be inconsistent with the curriculum objective.
The assessment of learning output and outcome revealed that in terms of the performance of students in three subjects, students who had a grade of Faccounted for 1.27 percent, and retention rate of the students who fully attended the curriculum accounted for 87.20 percent of all students. In terms of effective learning, the assessment of opinions regarding the learning process revealed that opinions in general are at high level. Opinions on the curriculum regarding the learning result in accordance with TQF revealed that the factor with the highest mean was human relationship and responsibility.
Astin, A. W. (2012). Assessment for excellence. New York: Macmillan.
Kaewpanchaung, S. (2007). Development of English speaking skills of students Secondary 6 (S6) By using language activities for communication. Master thesis, M.Ed. (Higher Education). Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Kanrawee Boonyanusit. (2011). Development of Instruction Model for Enhancing Respectful Mind and Ethical Mind Based on Teaching and Learning via Service Learning for Undergraduate Students. Dessertation, Ed.D. (Curriculum Research and Development). Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Leonard Debra. (2004). A Study of General Education Assessment. Electronic Thesesand Dissertations. (Online).
Ministry of Education. (2005). Standard criteria for Bachelor degree programs 2005. http://www.mua.go.th.
Pattamat boonsong. (2012). Instructional Management of General Education in Bachelor’s Degree Program of Thammasat University as Perceived by Students. Master thesis, M.Ed. (Higher Education). Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Ritcharoon, P. (2007). Principles of educational Measurement and evaluation. (4thed). Bangkok: houses of Kermit
Ritcharoon, P. (2015). Course Assessment: Concepts Process and use of evaluation results. Journal of Education, STOU, 8(1), 13 -28.
Sinlarat, P. (2007). Thailand Qualifications Framework. Journal of Education.38 (2), 104 -117
Suwanwong, W. (2006). Environmental Management in Benjamaracharangsit 2 School as Perceived by Teachers. Master thesis, M.Ed. (Course Management). Bangkok: Graduate School, BuraphaUniversity.
Thai GE network. (2013) Report Thailand Qualifications Framework 2009. http://www.mua.go.th/users/tqf-hed/
Warangkhana Riansut. (2558). Academic Probation’s Probability Forecasting Model For Undergraduate Students At Thaksin University. Reserch report, Department of Statistics Faculty of Science Thaksin University. Sinlarat, P. (20Higher Education Standards Framework. Journal of Education. 38(2), 104 -117.
Copyright (c) 2020 Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์เป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของ สถาบันวิจัยและพัฒนา มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฎสวนสุนันทา
ข้อความที่ปรากฏในบทความแต่ละเรื่องในวารสารวิชาการเล่มนี้เป็นความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฎสวนสุนันทา และคณาจารย์ท่านอื่นๆในมหาวิทยาลัยฯ แต่อย่างใด ความรับผิดชอบองค์ประกอบทั้งหมดของบทความแต่ละเรื่องเป็นของผู้เขียนแต่ละท่าน หากมีความผิดพลาดใดๆ ผู้เขียนแต่ละท่านจะรับผิดชอบบทความของตนเองแต่ผู้เดียว