Prioritizing Educational Needs: A Needs Analysis for Curriculum Development in the English Education Program at Phetchaburi Rajabhat University Using the Priority Needs Index
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2025.285487คำสำคัญ:
Curriculum Development, Needs Analysis, English Education, Stakeholder Feedback, Priority Needs Index (PNI)บทคัดย่อ
Background and Aims: The increasing globalization of education and the rising demand for English proficiency necessitate continuous curriculum enhancement in English education programs. The English Education Program at Phetchaburi Rajabhat University (PBRU) must align with stakeholder expectations and evolving professional, societal, and global requirements. This study aims to assess the needs and expectations of key stakeholders—alumni, current students, program instructors, and employers—and to identify priority areas for curriculum development using the Priority Needs Index (PNI).
Methodology: A mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 223 stakeholders, including 139 alumni, 54 current students, six program instructors, and 34 employers. The collected data were analyzed using the PNI framework to prioritize curriculum components based on the gap between their perceived importance and current performance. Statistical and thematic analyses were applied to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of stakeholder feedback.
Results: Findings revealed key areas requiring curriculum enhancement, including language skills development, integration of digital tools, ethical and professional education, and practical teaching skills. Alumni rated the need for experiential learning at (x̄ = 4.02, S.D. = 0.74, while employers highlighted the importance of industry-relevant competencies (x̄ = 4.18, S.D. = 0.69). Current students advocated for inclusive and engaging learning environments (x̄ = 3.95, S.D. = 0.81), and instructors identified gaps in instructional resources and professional development (x̄ = 4.11, S.D. = 0.76). The PNI analysis indicated that digital integration and practical skill development ranked as the highest-priority areas for improvement, with PNI scores of 0.178 and 0.162, respectively.
Conclusion: This study underscores the significance of stakeholder engagement in curriculum reform and highlights the effectiveness of the PNI methodology in identifying priority areas for enhancement. By addressing stakeholder concerns and implementing targeted improvements, the English Education Program at PBRU can better prepare graduates for professional and global challenges while maintaining academic excellence. Future research should explore long-term curriculum adaptations to ensure ongoing relevance and effectiveness.เอกสารอ้างอิง
Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. UNESCO.
Banks, J. A. (2009). Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching. Routledge.
Brown, J. D. (1995). The Elements of Language Curriculum: A Systematic Approach to Program Development. Heinle & Heinle.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. Teachers College Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press.
Gordon, J. (2014). The Skills Gap and the Changing Workforce: Perspectives and Solutions. Palgrave Macmillan.
Graves, K. (2000). Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers. Heinle & Heinle.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. Routledge.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. SAGE Publications.
Levin, B. (2008). How to Change 5000 Schools: A Practical and Positive Approach for Leading Change at Every Level. Harvard Education Press.
Mansfield, B. (2020). Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump’s EPA. Social Studies of Science, 51(1), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720970284
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle.
Perrin, P. B. (2019). Bridging the Skills Gap: A Guide for Educators and Industry. Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. Orion Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2010). Transforming Professional Development into Student Results. ASCD.
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, J. (2006). The Impact of Alumni Feedback on Curriculum Development. Educational Research Journal.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers College Press.
Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). The Ethics of Teaching. Teachers College Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2014). Developing Materials for Language Teaching. Bloomsbury Academic.
Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications.
ดาวน์โหลด
เผยแพร่แล้ว
รูปแบบการอ้างอิง
ฉบับ
ประเภทบทความ
สัญญาอนุญาต
ลิขสิทธิ์ (c) 2025 Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal
อนุญาตภายใต้เงื่อนไข Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ลิขสิทธิ์ในบทความใดๆ ใน Interdisciplinary Academic and Research Journal ยังคงเป็นของผู้เขียนภายใต้ ภายใต้ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License การอนุญาตให้ใช้ข้อความ เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ของสิ่งพิมพ์ ผู้ใช้ใดๆ เพื่ออ่าน ดาวน์โหลด คัดลอก แจกจ่าย พิมพ์ ค้นหา หรือลิงก์ไปยังบทความฉบับเต็ม รวบรวมข้อมูลเพื่อจัดทำดัชนี ส่งต่อเป็นข้อมูลไปยังซอฟต์แวร์ หรือใช้เพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ทางกฎหมายอื่นใด แต่ห้ามนำไปใช้ในเชิงพาณิชย์หรือด้วยเจตนาที่จะเป็นประโยชน์ต่อธุรกิจใดๆ
