Validation of the general and professional education areas of the college of education’s retention examination

Inputs to assessment of learning

Keywords: assessment, retention, teacher education, validation

Abstract

Part of the goals of the College of Education of Tarlac State University is to be recognized by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as one of the Centers of Excellence in Teacher Education Program in Region III and in the whole country and to be awarded level 4 program accreditation by the Accrediting Agencies of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP), Inc. In order to fulfill these noble targets, the college has embarked on the idea of implementing a retention policy to ensure excellent students and competent graduates who are considered to be highly motivated, committed, skilled, research-oriented and globally competitive imbued with positive values. In this regard, this study was conceptualized to validate initially the College Retention Examination (CRE) particularly the subject areas on General Education and Professional Education using content and face validity, item analysis and reliability coefficient. The validation process was a big step to ensuring quality instruction and applying a thorough assessment of learning. The validated CRE would pave the way towards sustaining the standards set by the CHED, AACCUP and other quality assurance agencies in the country as well as international organizations.

References

1. Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education. New Jersey: Allyn & Bacon.

2. Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1992). Educational research: An introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

3. CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 30 (2004). Revised policiesand standards for undergraduate teacher education curriculum. Retrieved from http://ched.gov.ph/cmo-30-s-2004/

4. Defensor, N. P. (2010). Challenges and issues in RP higher education. 21st Century trends, issues and challenges in Philippine education (95-102). Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

5. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in eduction. New York: McGraw Hill.

6. Gutierrez, D. S. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes (affective & psychomotor domain). Malabon City: Kerusso Publishing House.

7. Navarro, R. L. (2010). Total quality management in graduate teacher education. 21st century trends, issues and challenges in Philippine education (46-51). Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

8. Palma, J. C. (1992). Curriculum development system. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

9. Rosas, N. L. (2010). The never-ending quest for quality teaching. 21st century trends, issues and challenges in Philippine education (156-166). Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.

10. Sicat, L. V. (2009). Worktext in research writing. Tarlac City: Tarlac State University Press.

11. Vega, V. A., Prieto, N. G., & Carreron, M. L. (2006). Social dimensions of education. Quezon City: Lorimar Publishing Co., Inc.

12. Zulueta, F. M. (2006). Principles and methods of teaching. Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.
Published
2017-12-18
How to Cite
Corpuz, N. B., David, S. M. O., Mendoza, J. P., & Punzalan, J. Y. (2017). Validation of the general and professional education areas of the college of education’s retention examination. University of the Visayas - Journal of Research, 11(1), 69-76. Retrieved from http://uvjor.ph/index.php/uvjor/article/view/147