Analysis, Validation, and Evaluation of Curriculum Indicators in the Applied Science Higher Education System

Abstract:

The Applied Scientific Higher Education (ASHE) system, as a key pillar of human resource development, plays a pivotal role in cultivating a skilled and experienced workforce. Designed to address the dynamic and evolving demands of the labor market, this educational framework seeks to integrate theoretical knowledge with practical and applied requirements. To achieve this, curricula must be meticulously structured to not only convey theoretical foundations but also foster practical competencies among students. In this context, the identification and strategic utilization of effective components and indicators within the curriculum serve as critical instruments for ensuring the efficacy of the ASHE system. Curriculum indicators, as measurable criteria reflecting the alignment of educational programs with authentic labor market needs, can enhance educational quality, elevate student proficiency, and position the ASHE system as a bridge between academia and industry. Ultimately, this facilitates sustainable community growth and development.
Materials and Methods:
This study, adopting a mixed-methods (qualitative-quantitative) and developmental approach, pursued three essential phases to propose actionable solutions for establishing an efficient and responsive educational system. First, curriculum indicators for ASHE were identified through semi-structured interviews employing qualitative methodology. Second, these indicators were validated via a researcher-constructed questionnaire to assess content validity and congruence with real-world demands. Third, the current status of validated indicators was evaluated using quantitative data collected through the same researcher-constructed instrument. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 experts (including 7 ASHE specialists, 7 curriculum planning committee members, and 6 experienced academic faculty members) to identify indicators of an ideal curriculum model. Qualitative data were analyzed through thematic content analysis, with credibility ensured via source triangulation, participant validation, negative case analysis, and multi-source data cross-referencing. In the quantitative phase, a researcher-constructed questionnaire—confirmed for content validity by 10 specialists and demonstrating reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89)—was administered to 61 experts for indicator validation. Subsequently, to evaluate the current status, the questionnaire was completed by 164 instructors, 272 students and graduates, and 24 experts. Quantitative data were analyzed using one-sample t-test and independent t-test at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Qualitative analysis revealed 22 key indicators organized into five core components (content, teaching-learning activities, materials and resources, spatial and environmental conditions, and instructional scheduling) as fundamental criteria for ASHE curriculum design. Validation results confirmed that all components and indicators exceeded the acceptable validity threshold. Comparative analysis of the ideal state (derived from expert consensus) and the current status demonstrated that perceived levels of the ideal state significantly surpassed the existing conditions across nearly all indicators (p < 0.05). This discrepancy underscores the imperative for systematic revision of curriculum components to align more effectively with labor market dynamics, technological advancements, and stakeholder expectations. The study identified a profound structural gap between the current and ideal states of ASHE curriculum planning. In the content component, misalignment between instructional materials and scientific progress, emerging occupational demands, and technological innovations reflects deficiencies in curriculum design.
Despite the theoretical robustness of existing frameworks, implementation faces barriers including inadequate coordination between educational institutions and industry, resistance to pedagogical innovation, and resource constraints. Within teaching-learning activities, a significant disparity exists between ideal and current practices: student evaluations of instructional methods were predominantly average and unsatisfactory, while instructor assessments (marginally higher) indicated that traditional approaches, such as unidirectional lectures, fail to address labor market needs. Materials and resources exhibited structural inadequacies, with instructors rating available resources as severely deficient and students providing only moderate evaluations. The spatial and environmental conditions component (e.g., workshops and laboratories) was assessed as insufficient and non-standard, while instructional scheduling was deemed inflexible and impractical. To transform ASHE into a catalyst for economic development, curricula must be redefined through market-oriented, flexible, and technology-integrated approaches. Achieving this necessitates active collaboration among stakeholders (universities, industry, and government), adequate resource allocation, and infrastructural modernization. Implementing the proposed model can mitigate skill gaps and ensure educational alignment with authentic economic imperatives, thereby reinforcing the ASHE system’s role in sustainable national development.