Background: This study aims to examine the current criteria for evaluating graduates and develop new criteria based on the competency approach. It seeks to identify limitations, existing aspects, and reasons for ineffective student evaluation. Objectives: The primary objective is to assess the awareness of teachers and students regarding the role and importance of evaluating graduates using the competency approach. Additionally, it aims to explore factors influencing the assessment results and the difficulties teachers face in this process. Furthermore, it seeks to gauge student satisfaction with the assessment outcomes and determine the requirements for developing a new set of evaluation criteria. Method: The study employs interview methods and statistical analysis to gather data and select a suitable set of criteria for evaluating students. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives of both teachers and students. Results: The results indicate varying levels of awareness among teachers and students regarding the role and significance of evaluating graduates based on the competency approach. Factors influencing assessment outcomes and the challenges encountered by teachers are identified. Additionally, the satisfaction level of students with the assessment results is assessed. The study also highlights the necessity of developing new evaluation criteria and outlines the requirements for these criteria as perceived by teachers and students. Conclusion: Based on the findings, there is a clear need to improve the evaluation process for graduates using the competency approach. Developing a new set of criteria aligned with the competency approach is essential for enhancing teaching skills and students' vocational competencies. This study provides valuable insights that can serve as a practical foundation for refining the evaluation system and ultimately improving the quality of education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hung et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: