Evaluation of the School-Based Curriculum of Science Mathematics and Technology (SMT) Program Using Robert E. Stake’s Curriculum Evaluation Model

Authors

  • Sasithorn Assawaphum Master Student in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University
  • Mattanawan Prajannuan Master Student in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University
  • Tiparat Bangkom Master Student in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University
  • Jiramet Anupansawang Master Student in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University
  • Thanchanok Madasri Master Student in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University
  • Sitthipon Art-in Associate Professor (Ph.D.) in Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Khon Kaen University

Keywords:

curriculum evaluation, SMT program, Robert E. Stake’s curriculum evaluation Model

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the school-based curriculum of Science, Mathematics, and Technology (SMT) program using Robert E. Stake’s curriculum evaluation model consisting of three aspects: 1) Antecedents, 2) Transactions, and 3) Outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was employed. The target groups were 37 participants consisting of 8 administrators and teachers, and 29 grade 12 students from a school in Mukdahan. The instruments used for data collection included questionnaires, assessment forms, school self-assessment reports (SAR) records, attitude measurement, and in-depth interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed by mean, standard deviation, and percentage, while qualitative data were analyzed by content analysis. The findings revealed that 1) antecedents were at a very good level (M = 4.45, SD = 0.66). The school environment was appropriate for curriculum implementation, 2) Transactions were at an excellent level (M = 4.57, SD = 0.70), learning processes were systematically structured and implemented effectively, and 3) outcomes, 3.1) The students’ academic achievement was 89.50 percent (GPA = 3.58), which met the required standard 3.2) students’ learning attitudes were at a very good level. (M = 3.52, SD = 1.43), 3.3) students achieved the required standards in reading, analytical thinking, and writing at 100 percent, 3.4) 82.61 percent of teachers received awards at the educational service area level and higher levels, and 3.5) the school earned a total of eight awards at the educational service area level and higher levels. These results met the evaluation criteria and were consistent with the objectives of the SMT program as established by the school.

References

ภาษาไทย

สิทธิพล อาจอินทร์. (2563). การประเมินหลักสูตร: ทฤษฎีและปฏิบัติ. คณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยขอนแก่น.

สำนักบริหารความเป็นเลิศด้านวิทยาศาสตร์ศึกษา. (2566). คู่มือโครงการห้องเรียนพิเศษวิทยาศาสตร์ คณิตศาสตร์ เทคโนโลยี และสิ่งแวดล้อม. https://esmte.in.th/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/เล่มคู่มือห้องเรียนพิเศษ-2.pdf

ภาษาอังกฤษ

Avcı, N., Erikçi, B., & Ok, A. (2021). The evaluation of secondary education basic mathematics curriculum through Stake’s responsive evaluation model. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 2021(27), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.27.2

Fadil, I., Zamroni, Z., & Sumarno, S. (2021). Evaluation program Ma’had Ali using evaluation model of countenance Stake. Psychology and Education, 58(5), 496-504. https://psychologyandeducation.net/pae/index.php/pae/article/view/5299/4583

Fatima, N., Malik, S., Abid, U., & Nayab, D. (2016). Early childhood special education program at the outcome phase: An evaluation from Stake’s countenance model perspective. Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(2), 281-292. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210287.pdf

Galang, J. (2023). Countenance model evaluation of a non-graded school: Basis for program sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Community Development (JSCD), 5(1), 108-122. https://doi.org/10.32924/jscd.v5i1.90

Harjanti, R., Supriyati, Y., & Rahayu, W. (2019). Evaluation of learning programs at elementary school level of “Sekolah Alam Indonesia (SAI)” (Evaluative research using countenance Stake’s model). American Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-7-2-2

Komarasari, R., Firmansyah, D., & Utomo, H. B. (2019). Implementation of the countenance Stake model in evaluating the effectiveness of text-based Indonesian learning in junior high schools. East African Scholars Journal of Education, Humanities and Literature, 2(2), 52–55. https://easpublisher.com/media/features_articles/EASJEHL_22_52-55_c_OAFtIsy.pdf

Kuiper, W., & Berkvens, J. (2013). Balancing Curriculum Regulation and Freedom across Europe. SLO.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/06/the-future-of-education-and-skills_5424dd26/54ac7020-en.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Curriculum (re)design: A series of thematic reports from the OECD education 2030 project. https://www.nobelphd.com/report/r04.pdf

Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. & Robinson, S. (2013) Teachers as agents of change: teacher agency and emerging models of curriculum. In. M. Priestley & G. J. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: new trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 187-206). Bloomsbury Academic.

Retnowati, H., Kuswarsantyo, Y., Prihadi, R., Wulandari, A., Alya, A., & Rafika, R. (2023). Evaluation of the use of e-learning in the implementation of the stake’s countenance model in the era of the Covid-19 pandemic. IMAJI: Jurnal Seni dan Pendidikan Seni, 21(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.21831/imaji.v21i1.54425

Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2018/05/world-class_g1g8d583/9789264300002-en.pdf

Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68(7), 523–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816706800707

Stufflebeam. D. L. Foley. W. J. Gephart. W. J. Guba. E. G. Hammond. R. L. Merriman. H. O. & Provus. M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and decision making. Peacock Publisher.

Thijs, A., & van den Akker, J. (2018). Curriculum in development. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2019). Global education monitoring report summary 2019: Migration, displacement and education: building bridges, not walls. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265996

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=en

Downloads

Published

2026-06-19

How to Cite

Assawaphum, S., Prajannuan, M., Bangkom, T., Anupansawang, J., Madasri, T., & Art-in, S. (2026). Evaluation of the School-Based Curriculum of Science Mathematics and Technology (SMT) Program Using Robert E. Stake’s Curriculum Evaluation Model. An Online Journal of Education, 21(1), 1–17. retrieved from https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/OJED/article/view/284553

Issue

Section

Research Articles