การประเมินและพัฒนาหลักสูตรเตรียมอุดมศึกษาสายวิทยาศาสตร์สุขภาพและวิศวกรรมเทคโนโลยี: การประยุกต์ใช้รูปแบบการประเมินซิปป์ในการศึกษานำร่อง

Saroj  Pullteap; Kanit  Kheovichai

Authors

Saroj Pullteap Faculty of Education, Silpakorn University
Kanit Kheovichai

Keywords:

Feasibility study for initiating curriculum, Pre-University program in health science and engineering technology, CIPP model, STEAM education

Abstract

This research employed an evaluative research design incorporating a pilot study to assess the feasibility and implementation of the Pre-University Program (PU-HSET) at the Demonstration School (Secondary Division), Silpakorn University, using the CIPP Model to evaluate readiness across all 4 dimensions. The study employed a mixed-methods approach with 75 participants, including 10 curriculum development committee members, 5 external experts, 30 parents, and 30 Grade 9 students. Data were collected through questionnaires, evaluation forms, observation sheets, and in-depth interviews, with instruments demonstrating reliability coefficients ranging from 0.88 to 0.94.

Context evaluation findings revealed

Strong demand for specialized education programs among parents and teachers, with satisfaction rates of 93.3 percent and 88.7 percent, respectively. Input evaluation results indicated that the curriculum achieved an excellent overall rating of 4.52 out of 5.00 from expert panels, with the philosophy and principles dimension obtaining the highest score of 4.60. Process evaluation through classroom observations demonstrated that teachers effectively implemented research-based learning activities (4.35) and successfully integrated STEAM Education (4.22). Product evaluation showed that students attained average academic performance between 3.42 and 3.58, professional competencies between 4.10 and 4.22, with 73.3 percent achieving English language proficiency at the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: CEFR level B1, and both students and parents expressing high satisfaction at 4.35 and 4.42, respectively. The research concluded that the curriculum demonstrates high feasibility for implementation in the 2026 academic year.

References

บุญชม ศรีสะอาด. (2560). การวิจัยเบื้องต้น (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 10). สุวีริยาสาส์น.

สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. (2557). แนวปฏิบัติการวัดและประเมินผลการเรียนรู้ตามหลักสูตรแกนกลางการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน พุทธศักราช 2551. โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย.

สำนักสถิติศึกษา สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาแห่งชาติ. (2566). รายงานสถิติการศึกษา. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาแห่งชาติ.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press.

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

Drake, S. M. (2007). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum, content, assessment, and instruction. Corwin Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. W. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. McGraw-Hill.

Hakan, K., & Seval, F. (2011). CIPP evaluation model scale: Development, reliability, and validity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 592–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.146

Johnstone, I. (2023). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 34(1), yvae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvae026

Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Land, M. H. (2013). Full STEAM ahead: The benefits of integrating the arts into STEM. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Maeda, J. (2013). STEM + Art = STEAM. The STEAM Journal, 1(1), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.201301.34

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). Pearson.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning definitions. Battelle for Kids.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Qadriah, L., Wicaksono, M. B. A., Somadiyono, S., & Nindiasari, H. (2022). CIPP model as a mathematics learning evaluation model in elementary school. International Journal of Science and Society, 4(3), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.54783/ijsoc.v4i3.536

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31–62). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Coryn, C. L. S. (2014). Evaluation theory, models, and applications (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. Basic Books.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.

Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57–84.