Results of Teachers' Implementation of Stages of the Teaching and Learning Process

Table 2.3. Results of teachers' implementation of stages of the teaching process

Status

Implement the stages of the teaching process

Level of implementation

Object

F-test

Good

Weak

CBQL

Shared

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Implement vocational training goals towards developing the capacity of

Students according to output standards

7.1

70.0

22.9

1.94

0.43

1.82

0.39

1.85

0.61

1.88

0.52

0.49

0.61

Implement the shift in teaching content from focusing on teaching content to focusing on capacity development.

student

3.6

56.4

40.0

1.90

0.47

1.71

0.47

1.50

0.57

1.68

0.55

7.75

0.00

Diversify teaching methods of theory, practice, extracurricular activities, and training

practice vocational skills, practice experience and creativity for students

3.6

57.0

45.7

1.88

0.53

1.53

0.51

1.43

0.53

1.62

0.56

9.54

0.00

Use active teaching methods aimed at development

student capacity

24.3

53.6

22.1

2.54

0.50

2.35

0.49

1.57

0.56

2.05

0.71

48.1

0.00

Search and use teaching aids, equipment, and information technology to develop capacity.

student

2.9

48.6

1.33

0.52

1.47

0.51

1.78

0.52

1.57

0.56

10.3

0.00

Conduct tests, exams, and evaluate students' learning outcomes based on

Requirements and criteria for developing student capacity according to output standards

20.0

105

75.0

5.0

2.19

0.45

2.12

0.49

2.10

0.51

2.14

0.48

0.45

0.64

GPA

1.96

0.48

1.83

0.48

1.71

0.55

1.82

0.56

Maybe you are interested!

Note: High score: 2.15-3; Average: 1.54-2.15; Low: 1-1.54

From the results in Table 2.3, it can be seen that the implementation of objectives, contents, and vocational training programs are assessed as relatively average.

* Based on the general sample:

The highest result is concentrated in the expression "Conducting tests, exams, and evaluating students' learning outcomes based on the requirements and criteria for developing students' capacity according to output standards", with GPA = 2.14 points, 28 subjects commented at a good level, 105 subjects commented at an average level. It can be affirmed that the subjects all aim at the quality of vocational training for students through output results, this is one of the evaluation trends not only in vocational training but has become a common training trend for all industries. This manifestation is quite important but the results are not high, the implementation of other stages such as: "Using active teaching methods towards developing students' capacity", GPA = 2.05 in 2nd place, in which 34 subjects evaluated the implementation results at a good level, but 31 opinions evaluated it at a weak level, in 3rd place is the evaluation result of the stage "Implementing vocational training goals towards developing students' capacity according to output standards" with the result with GPA = 1.88 points, mainly evaluated at an average level of 98 opinions and 32 opinions at a weak level. Illustrating the opinion on the above situation, teacher Le Minh T, a teacher of the affiliated unit said: "In general, teachers are quite proactive in implementing teaching and learning to develop students' capacity, but students at the Center are quite passive, the facilities do not meet the teaching requirements, so the learning results of students are still quite limited".

The most obvious limitation can be seen in the stage of "Searching for and using teaching aids, equipment, and information technology to develop students' capacity", with GPA = 1.57 points and 68 subjects rated as weak. This is also a clear limitation of the Center at present in vocational training for students, which is modern equipment for teaching and learning. Although the Center has been gradually equipped and purchased, many of the equipment are quite expensive, the number of students attending is not much, leading to the above difficulties not being overcome or not being invested in properly.

* Considered by type of object

If we consider the types of objects: teachers, managers and students, we can see that teachers' evaluations are superior to those of managers and students, specifically, the average teacher = 1.96 points, the average manager = 1.83 points and the lowest is the average student = 1.71 points. It can be seen that the evaluation results between teachers and students are quite different.

Teachers and administrators focused on affirming the results of the implementation of the expression "Using active teaching methods aimed at developing learning capacity".

"members" with the highest result, GPA = 2.54 points, the management staff also tended to evaluate quite similarly to the teachers' evaluation, GPA = 2.35 points. The reason is that at the Center, vocational students are still quite limited in terms of knowledge, so teachers focus relatively on developing the students' learning ability, the management staff also pay attention to directing at this stage. This is consistent with the current vocational teaching reality at the Center. Student Trieu Minh P gave his opinion: "We only learn in class, rarely practice, although we understand the profession, but if we practice, we do not do well, we hope that the teachers will let us practice more".

There are differences in the assessment of limitations in the implementation of the stages of the teaching and learning process. Teachers and managers assessed the implementation results of the stage "Searching for and using teaching aids, equipment, and information technology to develop students' capacity" at a very weak level, with the average score of teachers = 1.33 points and the average score of managers = 1.47 points, while students said that the implementation results of "Diversifying the forms of theoretical, practical, extracurricular teaching, vocational skills training, experience training, and creativity for students" had the lowest results, with the average score = 1.43 points. This may be because teachers and managers are quite aware of the limitations of equipment for teaching and learning, but students are more focused on the need for practice, vocational skills training, and experience. This may stem from the deep limitation of funding for vocational training at the Center at present. Therefore, the assessment of the limitations in the implementation of the stages of vocational training between teachers and managers with students at the Center has many points of incompatibility. This result is explained through the F-test, which shows that the difference only occurs in two stages: "Implementing the goal of vocational training in the direction of developing students' capacity according to the output standard requirements" and "Conducting tests, exams, and evaluating students' learning outcomes based on the requirements and criteria for developing students' capacity according to the output standard".

Thus, the implementation of all stages of the teaching and learning process is at an average level. In order, "Conducting tests, exams, and evaluating students' learning outcomes based on the requirements and criteria for developing students' capacity according to output standards" is rated the best and the most limited is the expression "Searching for and using teaching aids, equipment, and information technology to develop students' capacity". Teachers and managers have quite similar results and evaluation directions in some outstanding stages and some limited stages. On the contrary, students pay more attention to extracurricular activities, practice, and professional training, which is also a legitimate need of learners. The assessment results also show some manifestations with significant differences.

2.2.2. Conduct vocational training organization forms according to the competency-based approach for students

Table 2.4. Results of implementation of using teaching organization forms

Status

Forms of teaching organization

Level of implementation

Object

F-test

Good

Weak

CBQL

Shared

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Integrated teaching,

differentiation

6.4

62.9

30.7

1.83

0.48

1.53

0.62

1.80

0.61

1.78

0.57

1.94

0.15

Organize teaching activities vividly through practical forms,

reality

7.9

68.6

23.6

2.17

0.48

1.88

0.49

1.62

0.49

1.86

0.54

17.21

0.00

Group study, group discussion, study club activities

practice

7.9

59.3

32.9

1.75

0.44

1.41

0.51

1.95

0.65

1.80

0.58

6.48

0.00

Guide and promote self-study, self-solving, self-testing and self-assessment capacity.

price

30.7

60.0

9.3

2.44

0.58

2.18

0.39

2.03

0.58

2.21

0.59

6.98

0.00

GPA

2.05

0.50

1.75

0.50

1.85

0.58

1.91

0.57

Note: High score 2.12-3; Average 1.75-2.12; Low 1-1.75.

The data in Table 2.4 show that

* Based on general sample

The current situation of using teaching organization forms according to the competency approach is shown at an average level of GPA = 1.91 points (because 1.75 points ≤ GPA ≤ 2.214 points). Among the teaching organization forms, the form of "Guiding and promoting self-study, self-solving, self-testing, and self-assessment capacity" is the most prominent, with GPA = 2.21 points, with 43 opinions rated as good (accounting for 30.7%), the remaining 84 opinions rated as average (accounting for 60%).

Teachers use active teaching methods such as integrated and differentiated teaching with relatively low effectiveness. The lowest survey result (average score = 1.78 points), teachers' evaluation mainly focused on the average level of 62.9% of opinions and the weak level of 30.7%. Evaluation of other forms such as group discussion, club activities... showed that they have not brought about practical effectiveness.

* Considered by type of object

The synthesis of the evaluation results of the types of objects shows that there is a relatively clear difference between teachers, managers and students. The reason why teachers give the highest evaluation (average = 2.05) is because they are the ones directly involved in the teaching and learning process, so they clearly understand the effectiveness of using teaching and learning organization forms. However, managers and students may have set higher requirements than teachers' evaluation, so there is a difference in results as above. This is demonstrated through the F-test in most of the forms presented in the data table. Illustrating this idea, teacher Nguyen Duc T, a teacher of the Center, affirmed: "Through monitoring the teaching and learning at the Center, I see that teachers mainly use traditional teaching methods, almost never mentioning active teaching methods, leading to limited problem-solving ability of students".

In summary, teachers' use of active teaching methods has not brought about the desired results. Teachers have not paid attention to the synchronous use of active teaching methods, although they have paid attention to the form of guiding self-study, self-solving, self-testing, and self-assessment. The three groups of subjects have not yet reached a consensus in evaluating the results of implementing active teaching methods.

2.2.3. Current status of implementing teaching methods towards approaching students' learning capacity

a. Current status of implementing teaching methods

There is a large difference in the assessment of the implementation of teaching methods.

study. Reality

porch

all teaching methods

study

shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Results of implementing teaching methods

Status	Implement teaching methods	Level of implementation						Object								Inspection F
		Good		TB		Weak		GV		CBQL		HV		Shared		Inspection F
		SL	%	SL	%	SL	%	Average	DLC	Average	DLC	Average	DLC	Average	DLC	F	p
1	Teaching methods traditional (presentation, explanation...)	88	62.9	48	34.3	4	2.9	2.60	0.49	2.65	0.49	2.53	0.62	2.58	0.56	0.37	0.69
2	Teaching method stated and problem solving	27	19.3	97	69.3	16	11.4	2.31	0.51	2.29	0.47	1.90	0.51	2.11	0.54	10.13	0.00
3	Method of exploration, discovery, experience, creative	7	5.0	93	66.4	40	28.6	1.87	0.49	1.94	0.56	1.65	0.55	1.78	0.54	3.40	0.04
4	Group discussion, study group	7	5.0	87	62.1	46	32.9	1.65	0.48	1.71	0.59	1.83	0.59	1.74	0.55	1.60	0.21
5	Practice and field trips to various practice facilities and production facilities associated with practice. job	0	0	60	42.9	80	57.1	1.50	0.51	1.53	0.51	1.35	0.48	1.43	0.50	1.61	0.20
GPA								1.99	0.50	2.02	0.52	1.85	0.55	1.93	0.54

Note: High score: 2.60-3; Average: 1.43-2.60; Low: 1-1.43

* Considered according to general model

The results in Table 2.5 show that the highest value is 2.15 points and the lowest average score is 1.54 points. Up to 62.9% of opinions said that: Traditional teaching methods (presentations, explanations...) are implemented at a good level and 34.3% of opinions rated it at an average level and only 2.9% of opinions rated it at a poor level and the overall result with GPA = 2.58 points. This method is considered the main teaching method and is used the most compared to other methods in vocational training for students.

The results in Table 2.5 also show that "Practice, diverse field trips to practice facilities, production facilities associated with professional practice" was assessed with the lowest result, with 57.1% of the students assessing it as weak, so the overall GPA was quite low at 1.43 points. Talking about the above limitations, teacher Nguyen Thanh D, an officer at the Center said: "We also hope to take students on field trips to production facilities, but due to lack of funds, students mainly study theory in class".

* Considered by type of object

Looking at the results in Table 2.5, it is easy to see that the overall assessment results between the target groups including teachers, managers and students have an insignificant difference , the average score of teachers = 1.99 points, the average score of managers = 2.02 points and the average score of students = 1.85 points, the difference is quite clear.

All three groups of subjects highly evaluated the performance of “Traditional teaching methods (lectures, lectures, etc.)” at a high level. This method has many advantages, but also has limitations such as not stimulating students’ creativity, but because it is easy to apply, teachers have used it frequently. The F-test results showed that there was no difference in the evaluation results of the three groups: teachers, managers and students.

Due to the emphasis on using traditional teaching methods, active teaching methods such as problem-solving and inquiry-based learning, and discovery methods are rarely used, especially according to the assessment of managers and students. The most limited method is the "Practice and field trips to various practice facilities and production facilities associated with professional practice" method.

All three groups of subjects had quite consistent assessments, the F-test showed no difference (p = 0.20). This shows that the visits, reality, and practice associated with the students' profession need to be focused on more, making the output products able to meet the requirements of the labor market.

In summary, the overall assessment of the use of teaching methods is at an average level, but according to each specific method, traditional teaching methods are most widely used, which limits the use of other active teaching methods. The most obvious limitation is shown in the assessment results of the use of practical and real-life methods in vocational training institutions. In general, teachers have better assessment results than managers and students.

2.2.4. Current status of implementing teaching measures

The results of implementing vocational training measures at Yen Lap District Continuing Education Center are shown in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6. Results of implementing teaching measures

Status

Implement teaching measures

Level of implementation

Object

Check

F definition

Good

Weak

CBQL

Good

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Average

DLC

Stimulate interest,

student's passion for learning

5.7

60.7

33.6

1.88

0.49

1.59

0.51

1.68

0.62

1.74

0.57

2.32

0.10

Create conditions for students to actively and proactively complete learning tasks and

self-study

8.6

105

75.0

8.6

2.19

0.45

1.94

0.43

2.07

0.52

2.10

0.48

1.88

0.16

Using active teaching methods, guiding students to raise and solve problems themselves, and actively reading on their own.

documents, questions

22.1

58.6

19.3

2.46

0.50

2.24

0.44

1.73

0.61

2.08

0.64

24.08

0.00

Testing, exams, and assessment of learning outcomes stimulate creativity and encourage ability.

student self-study

26.4

61.4

12.1

2.50

0.51

2.24

0.44

1.93

0.61

2.19

0.61

14.26

0.00

GPA

2.26

0.49

2.00

0.46

1.85

0.59

2.03

0.58

Note: High score: 2.14-3; Average: 1.72-2.15; Low: 1-1.72.

Comment