Assessment and Evaluation in Thai Classrooms: A Comparative Study of Traditional and Competency-Based Approaches

บทคัดย่อ

Background: Thai education has historically emphasized traditional assessment methodologies prioritizing rote memorization and standardized testing, pedagogical approaches that inadequately develop critical thinking, problem-solving capabilities, and real-world skill application essential for 21st-century success. These conventional evaluation practices, characterized by teacher-centered instruction and summative examinations measuring factual recall, create high-pressure environments where learning outcomes focus on knowledge retention rather than competency mastery, limiting student engagement and failing to accommodate diverse learning styles.

Purpose: This comparative study examined traditional and competency-based assessment approaches in Thai classrooms, analyzing their differential impacts on student engagement, learning outcomes, and educational equity, evaluated strengths and limitations of standardized testing versus skill mastery evaluation methodologies, and developed comprehensive recommendations for educational reforms integrating competency-based assessments while addressing implementation challenges including teacher preparedness deficiencies and resource constraints.

Methods: The research employed mixed-methods comparative analysis integrating quantitative performance metrics with qualitative stakeholder perspectives. Data collection encompassed systematic examination of student achievement outcomes, analysis of engagement indicators, teacher interviews exploring implementation experiences and professional development needs, policy document review assessing current Thai educational regulations, and international comparative analysis examining successful competency-based models.

Results: Traditional assessment demonstrated significant limitations: standardized testing emphasized surface-level recall inhibiting deep understanding, high-stakes environments generated performance anxiety, and uniform criteria inadequately accommodated diverse learners. Competency-based implementations revealed substantial advantages: mastery-focused progression allowed personalized learning paces, authentic assessment measured real-world skill application, formative feedback fostered self-directed learning, and flexible frameworks promoted educational equity. Teacher perspectives identified implementation challenges: inadequate professional development, increased workload demands, cultural resistance, and unclear competency definitions. Student outcome comparisons demonstrated competency-based participants exhibited enhanced critical thinking, superior knowledge retention, greater engagement, and improved workforce preparation.

Conclusions: Transforming Thai assessment practices requires systematic reforms embracing competency-based frameworks while strategically integrating traditional assessment strengths through comprehensive teacher professional development, hybrid assessment models, technology integration, policy reforms establishing clear competency standards, and phased transition strategies supporting sustained pedagogical innovation.