EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING MAJOR CURRICULUM AT SRINAKHARINWIROT UNIVERSITY PRASARNMIT DEMONSTRATION SCHOOL (SECONDARY) USING THE CIPP MODEL
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research article aimed to 1) evaluate the school curriculum of the Artificial Intelligence Engineering major at Srinakharinwirot University Prasarnmit Demonstration School (Secondary Division) using the CIPP evaluation model in four aspects: 1) context, 2) input, 3) process, and 4) product, and 2) to track the characteristics and knowledge abilities of students who graduated from the Artificial Intelligence Engineering major curriculum. The sample consisted of students, alumni, parents, and teachers, totaling 135 participants. Data were collected using questionnaires and interviews. Data analysis was conducted using mean, standard deviation, and content analysis. The research findings revealed that 1) the overall curriculum evaluation based on the CIPP model was at a high to the highest level of appropriateness. The context aspect of the curriculum was rated at a high level, particularly in terms of alignment with students’ needs and societal demands. The input aspect showed that teachers were of high quality, well prepared for instructional management, and supportive of integrated learning management. The process aspect revealed that teachers promoted participatory learning and organized learning activities aligned with students’ interests. The product aspect indicated that students demonstrated project-based skills, analytical thinking skills, and the ability to apply knowledge to real-life situations at the highest level. And 2) the follow-up of graduates’ characteristics and pathways to further education showed that most graduates were able to pursue higher education successfully, with 89.02% of graduates continuing their studies in fields aligned with the objectives of the curriculum. This reflects the effectiveness of the curriculum in preparing students with the knowledge, abilities, and skills necessary for further education.
Article Details
References
มารุต พัฒผล. (2566). การประเมินหลักสูตรเพื่อการเรียนรู้และพัฒนา. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 5). กรุงเทพฯ: จรัลสนิทวงศ์การพิมพ์.
ธนันท์รัฐ สินธุประสิทธิ์. (2564). ความสำคัญของ Gamification และแรงจูงใจสู่ผลลัพธ์ในแวดวงการศึกษา. วารสารบริหารการศึกษาบัวบัณฑิต, 21(2), 29-40.
ศิริชัย กาญจนวาสี. (2552). ทฤษฎีการทดสอบแบบดั้งเดิม. (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 6). กรุงเทพฯ : โรงพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
วิชญะ น้อยมาลา. (2564). ทักษะจำเป็นของการทำงานในศตวรรษที่ 21. วารสารวิชาการ รัตนบุศย์, 3(1), 45-57.
สุทธิดา เชื่อมกลาง. (2563). การพัฒนารูปแบบการบริหารจัดการ STEM Education ที่เหมะสมสำหรับประเทศไทย. วารสารวิจัย มข. สาขามนุษศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์ (ฉบับบัณฑิตศึกษา), 8(1), 1-12.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of
learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1–14.
Pellegrino, J. W., Hilton, M. L., & Dede, C. (2020). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Research Council.
Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the Curriculum (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The Relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for Educational Accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5, 19-25.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass.
