Main Article Content
This mixed method research with CIPP model approach, aimed to explore the opinions of 1) policy and program administrators, 2) nursing directors, 3) alumni, 4) teachers, 5) students’ supervisors and students’ colleagues, and 6) students. There were 33 sample. The measurement consisted of 4 parts; test for environment, test for input, test for process, and test for product. The content and statistical analysis were being performed. The results of the study were as follows; 1) The nursing administration program is still needed but must design the curriculum to allow learners have the required competency. 2) For results of the input, the students had highest satisfaction on measurement and evaluation that were congruent with the curriculum and study activities at private and international settings. The lowest satisfaction was the number of teachers who had provided consultation covering various fields. 3) In the process assessment, the teachers were able to provide teaching-learning experiences in accordance with the philosophy and objectives of the curriculum. However, the consultation in conducting the thesis/thematic paper, the teacher must be thorough in research process and must be able to respond to individual student’s needs. 4) For the product of the curriculum, the overall competency and the behavior of the students towards their professional responsibilities were at a very g
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความหรือข้อคิดเห็นใดใดที่ปรากฏในวารสารพยาบาลทหารบกเป็นวรรณกรรมของผู้เขียน ซึ่งบรรณาธิการหรือสมาคมพยาบาลทหารบก ไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย
The ideas and opinions expressed in the Journal of The Royal Thai Army Nurses are those of the authors and not necessarily those
of the editor or Royal Thai Army Nurses Association.
2. Patphon, M. Curriculum evaluation for learning and development. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Charan Sanitwong, printing. 2015. (in Thai)
3. Kanjanawasi, S. Curriculum evaluation: principles and practices. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. 2010. (in Thai)
4. Warju W. Educational program evaluation using CIPP model. The Innovation Journal of Technical and Vocational Education. 2016; XII(1): 36-42.
5. Buosonte R. CIPP and CIPPIEST valvation models: Mistaken and precise concepts of applications. Silpakorn Educational Research Journal. 2013; 5(2):7-24. (in Thai)
6. Office of the Hight Education Commission. Project to create new varieties of graduates and powerful manpower to meet manufacturing sector according to the policy of Thai higher Education 2017. (in Thai)
7. Somcharoen N. Patients safety curriculum guide multi-professional (WHO): learning for the 21st Century bachelor’s degree nursing curriculum. Journal of The Royal Thai Army Nurses. 2015; 16(3): 1-7. (in Thai)
8. Nursing Council. Nursing administrator competency. Nonthaburi: Gold spot. 2013. (in Thai)
9. Ritudom R. An evaluation of the bachelor of nursing science curriculum (Revised curriculum, 2012) Royal Thai Air Force Nursing College. Journal of the Royal Thai Army Nurses. 2017; 18(2): 203-11. (In Thai)
10. Iwasiw CL, Goldenberg D, Andrusyszyn Mary-Anne. Curriculum development in nursing education. 4th ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett. 2020.
11. Wiles JW, Bondi JC. Curriculum development: A guide to practice. 9th ed. London: Pearson. 2015.
12. Pornkun C. Teaching of thinking processes: Theory and development. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University publisher. 2014. (in Thai) 13. Khernest S, Techarataviroj H. The strategy focused organization. Bangkok: A.R. Business Press; 2003. (in Thai)