Dual Master’s Degree Program in Public and Business Administration Course Assessment (Course Improvement 2023)
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to evaluate the Dual Master’s Degree Program in Public Administration and Business Administration (Revised Curriculum 2023) in terms of context, input, process, and output based on the CIPP Model, and to examine the causal relationship between graduate attributes and employer satisfaction. This was a quantitative research study. The sample consisted of 321 current students and alumni, 154 employers, and 16 faculty members. The research instrument was a set of three questionnaires, which were validated for content validity and demonstrated high reliability (α = 0.973). Data were analyzed using percentage, mean, standard deviation, and multiple regression analysis.
The research findings revealed that 1) The program objectives were highly consistent with current societal needs and practical implementation 2) Teaching media and learning support facilities were evaluated at a high level 3) Teaching activities and assessment were rated at a high level 4) Graduate attributes were highly consistent with societal needs and were practical 5) The five dimensions of graduate attributes significantly influenced employer satisfaction at the 0.05 level, explaining 70.10% of the variance in satisfaction (R² = 0.701). Among these, intellectual skills were identified as the strongest predictor of employer satisfaction (b = 0.210).
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความที่ปรากฏในวารสารนี้ เป็นความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียน ซึ่งสมาคมนักวิจัยไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วยเสมอไป การนำเสนอผลงานวิจัยและบทความในวารสารนี้ไปเผยแพร่สามารถกระทำได้ โดยระบุแหล่งอ้างอิงจาก "วารสารสมาคมนักวิจัย"
References
Glatthorn, A. A. (1984). Differentiated supervision. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jearrajinda, N., Thasansombat, V., & Vetsoonthontap, V. (2018). Duo master’s degree in public and business administration course assessment (course improvement 2018). Kasem Bundit Journal, 19(Special Issue), 295–311. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jkbu/article/view/145568
Oliva, P. F. (2009). Developing the curriculum (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Posner, J. G. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68(7), 523–540.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5, 19–25.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1957). The curriculum then and now. In Proceedings of the 1956 conference on testing problems (pp. 79–94). Educational Testing Service.
Wongyai, W. (2011). Higher education curriculum development (2nd ed.). R & Print.