Development of Profeffional Competency Evaluation Model of Student Technical Education Course

Abstract

The present study sought to development of professional competency evaluation model of Student Technical Education Course. Phase 1 involved examining components, indicators and methods for evaluation of professional competency among the students in the technical education program through analysis of principles, concepts, theories and related studies as well as interviews with experts. 2 entailed developing an evaluation model of the students’ professional competency by the criticism and connoisseurship method. Phase 3, the evaluation model developed in the prior phase was tried out with the technical education students in the Faculty of Technical Education, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan Khon Kaen campus, who did professional practicum in seven subjects at schools during the academic year of 2022. Phase 4 was concerned with assessment of the evaluation model based on the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation’s four aspects of criteria with the same raters in Phase 3. The statistics for data analysis comprised mean, standard deviation, median, interquartile range, the Mann–Whitney U test.

The results of the research were as follows. 1) The results demonstrated that there were two aspects of competency, five components, and 34 indicators of professional competency of the technical education students. 2) The developed evaluation model of the students’ professional competency comprised evaluation objectives, evaluation goals, components, indicators, and criteria. Based on the raters’ evaluation, the evaluation model was considered suitable and feasible in all aspects. 3) In relation to the implementation of the developed evaluation model, it was uncovered that the students in the high group achieved higher scores for all components of professional competency than those in the low group did at a statistical significance level of .05; this finding indicated that the model had divergent validity. 4) Finally, The raters considered that the evaluation model was suitable, feasible, accurate, and beneficial at a high level ( =4.49, S.D.=0.16).