Main Article Content
The purposes of this research were 1) to develop a learning paradigm that promotes higher-order thinking skills in the Age of Education 4.0 among education students; 2) to compare the students’ knowledgef Curriculum Development before and after instruction using a learning paradigm ; 3) to study students’ ability to develop a curriculum and 4) to investigate students’ opinions of the instruction. Cluster Random sampling was used to select a sample of 28 students majoring in Early Childhood at the Faculty of Education, University of Nakhon Phanom, in the 2018 academic year. Research instruments were tests and a questionnaire. The obtained data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, percentage, and dependent t-test. The research came to the following conclusions:
- The developed paradigm consists of three key elements: 1) an analysis of learning needs, which comprises two sub-elements, namely establishing learning objectives and determining the level of learning quality in the form of workload; 2) praxis, which comprises three sub-elements, namely instructional design or learning strategy selection, the development of self-directed learning skills, and the integration of knowledge through collaboration; and 3) learning assessment, which comprises two sub-elements, namely reflective assessment and assessment for comparison with the various standards. The paradigm that has been developed proves to be efficient, according to the 80/80 criteria, scoring 80.95/81.36 on the E1/E2 efficiency assessment. It also has an Effectiveness Index (E.I.) value of 0.63, which is above the requirement of 0.5
- The students’ scores based on their knowledge of Curriculum Development before and after instruction show a statistically significant difference at the .01 level.
- The students’ ability to develop a curriculum was at a good level.
- The students’ opinions of the instruction were at the “strongly agree” level.
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group).
Bel E. and Mallet M. (2006). Constructionist Teaching in The Digital Age- A Case Study. IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006) :371-375.
Bellnca J., Brandt R. (2010) 21st century skills : rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN :Solution Tree Press.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., &Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).“Taxonomy of educational objectives”. : Handbook I , cognitive domain. New York : David Mckay
Education reform to make officials accountable Jun 03. 2018 https://www.nationthailand.com/national/30346892
Edward L. Pizzini, Daniel P. Shepardson and Sandra K. Abell. (1989). “A Rationale for and the Development of a Problem Solving Model of Instruction in Science Education”. Science Education 73(5) :523-534
Harkins, A.M. (2008). “ Leapfrog Principles and Practices”. Core Components of Education 3.0 and 4.0. Future Research Quarterl. 24(1) : 19-32
Hovland, Lumsdaine and Sheffield. (1949). Cited in Goodman, R.I.,Fletcher, K.A. and Schneider, E.W. 1980. The effectiveness Index as a comparative measure in media product evaluation. Educational Technology. 20(09): 30-34.
Johnson, David W., Johnson Roger T., and Johnson Edythe, H. (1994). The New Circles of Learning Cooperation in the Classroom and School. Alexandria Virginia : ASCD.
Joyce, B, & Weil, M. (1996). Model of Teaching. 5th ed. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (2000). Models of Teaching. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. (online) Learning : the
treasure within; https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000109590.
Independent Committee for Education Reform (ICER) online Digital Platform Retrieved May 3.
2018 from https://www.moe.go.th/moe/th/news/detail.php?NewsID=51205&Key=news2
Murphy, E. (1997). Characteristics of constructivist teaching and learning. constructivism: From philosophy to practice. Intelligence Organizes the World by Organizing Itself.
Osborne And Wittrock. (1983 ). “Osborne, R. and Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning Science: A Generative Process”. Science Education.67(4) : 489-508.
Ruangrit, N. (2018). “ The research and development of instructional design model for
Massive Open Online Course in Higher Education for Educational Courses”. Veridian
E - Journal, Silpakorn University (Humanities, Social Sciences and arts 11(4) : 950 –
961 (in Thai)
Runcharoen, T. (2017) Direction of Educational toward Education 4.0 in the Digital Age. Nakornratchsima :Nakornratchsima College (in Thai)
Songserm, U. (2012). The Development of Learning Outcome in Local Curriculum of Third Grade Students in Curriculum Development Subject Taught by Using Cooperative Learning in Team Game Tournament Technique. Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University (in Thai)
Khemmani, T. (2008). Teaching Strategies: Knowledge for Effective. Learning Process. 8th edition. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Publishing. (in Thai)
Uamcharoen, S. Lowriendee, W. and Mongkol, P. (2016). “The Development of Constructivist Learning Model for the Student Teachers”. Silpakorn Educational Research Journal, 8(1) : 28-46 (in Thai)
Wright, S. Paul, Horn, Sandra P. and Sanders, William L. (1997). “Teacher and Classroom
Context Effects on Student Achievement : Implications for Teacher Evaluation”.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11(1): 57-67.