Abstract:
The present research consists of 7 objectives: 1) to study academic achievement of over-all performance of 4-year curriculum students, academic achievement of those in general education and those in teacher education of each field, 2) to study academic achievement of students in each field for required courses in general education, 3) to compare academic achievement of students for all required courses in general education, 4) to study academic achievement of the students in each field for all required courses in teacher education, 5) to compare academic achievement of students in each field for all required courses of teacher education, 6) to study interrelationship between academic achievement of over-all curricula performance, of total performance of general education area, and of total performance of teacher education area among students in each field, and 7) to find out patterns (multiple regression equation) of relationship between academic achievement of the over-all curriculum performance and academic achievement of general education area and academic achievement of teacher education area of students in each filed for the purpose of study and prediction. Research Method: The researcher utilized the grade results of 288 students majoring in education (for the identification code of 234 ) or 91.14 percent of the total of 316 students for computation by means of percentage, arithmetic means, standard deviation, one-way analysis of variance and after test by Scheffe's method, correlation and test of statistical significance, Research result is presented in the charts, tables, and descriptive explanation. Research Result: 1. Highest scores performance in general education and teacher education courses were students field in secondary education (Science), while the lowest scores in general education were those field in teaching of special subjects (Physical Education), the lowest scores in teacher education were those field in teaching of special subjects (Music), shile the over-all performance highest scores were of those in secondary education (human-social), and the lowest scores were those in teaching of special subjects (Business). 2. From the three-dimensional pattern of academic achievement, it is revealed that the field that had an average value above mean total of all fields were secondary education (human-social), non-formal education, and elementary education. Whereas the filed that had below mean score than the average mean were teaching of special subjects (music, physical education and arts education). The field that had high academic achievement score throughout the curriculum but lower academic achievement score in general education and teacher education was kindergarten education field. On the other hand, the field that had lower academic achievement score throughout the curriculum but high academic achievement score in both of them was secondary education (science). The field in teaching of special subjects (business) had only academic achievement score in general education but below the mean score on teacher education and academic achievement throughout the curriculum. 3. Under general education, there was one field with excellent effectiveness score, two fields with best scores, two fields with good scores and two fields with rather good scores and one field with average score. Fields with excellent academic achievement scores were secondary education (science) while fields with lowest and average scores were teaching of special subjects (physical education) 4. Almost all courses under general education got excellent to good scores except the courses; Civilization (110 180), the course that got good to poor scores, Society and Culture (313 183) and Natural Science (260 150), the courses that got excellent to very poor scores, Thai Politics and Government (311 113), the course that got excellent to average scores, Fundamental English 1 (092 101), the course that got excellent to very poor scores, and Fundamental English 2 (092 102), all fields git very poor scores. 5. Form one-way analysis of variance, it was found that the over0all scores of general education, in all fields were significant difference at the .01 level as it was hypothesized. The field with together scores than any were secondary education (Sceince), nopn-formal education and secondary education (human-social). 6. From one-way analysis of variance of each required course of general education, it was found that each course had significant difference at the .01 level as previously hypothesized for 8 courses: Civilization (110 180) Society and Culture (313 183), Natural Science (260 150), Thai Politics and Government (311 113), Fundamental English 1 (092 101), Fundamental English 2 (092 102), Thai Language 3 (411 238) and Thai Language 4 (411 239). While course that had significant level at .05 was Thai Language 2 (411 131). 7. Under teacher eduation area, all had very excellent scores. 8. Almost all required courses under teacher education area, all had very excellent to goof scores except Orientation to Education (411 101). Each field had academic achievement score from excellent to average score. Psychological Foundation of Education (417 214) had good to weak scores, Psychology for Teachers (417 215) and Evaluation of Learning (412 240) had excellent to rather good grades. For Research Method in Education (412 520) those who were in non-formal education field got rather good scores. 9. Form one-way analysis of variance, it was found that all fields had a total score in teacher education part at a significant difference level at .01 as earlier hypothesized. Also the fields that had higher score than any other were secondary education (science) non-formal education. 10. From one-way analysis of variance of each required course under teacher education part, it was found that each filed had a significant difference at the .01 level as earlier hypothesized. For the following courses, the students showed different effective scores; Orientation to Education (411 101), Psychological Foundation of Education (417 214), Psychology for Teachers (417 215), Evaluation of Education (412 240), Instructional Media (418 330), Curriculum-instruction in secondary education (410 331), Professional Experience (410 480), Seminar in Education (410 331), Professional Experience (410 480), Seminar in education (410 490) and Curriculum-Instruction Elementary Education (413 202). 11. The relationships of an over-all performance of all courses in each field between three matches, General Education teacher Education, General Education-Score throughout the Curriculum, and Teacher Education-Score throughout the curriculum, had coefficient of correlations at 0.68, 0.73 and 0.80 respectively. Each pair had a significant level at .01 and had shown a very high to high relationship. 12. The multiple regressive equation of each field were as follows: (x[subscript1-p] = academic achievement scores throughout the curriculum, x[subscript 2] = academic achievement scores of general education, x[subscript 3] = academic achievement scores of teacher education) 12.1 Kindergarten Education, x[subscript1-p] = 0.15x[subscript2]+0.14x[subscript3]+2.13. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variant correctly at 72.25 percent. 12.2 Elementary Education, x[subscript1-p]=0.31x[subscript2]+0.8x[subscript3] + 1.85. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 96.04 percent. 12.3 Secondary Education (Science), x[subscript 1-p] = 0.12x[subscript2]+0.35x[subscript3]+ 1.28. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 57.76 percent. 12.4 Secondary Education (Human-Social), x[subscript1-p] = 0.11x[subscript 2]+0.34x[subscript3] + 1.64. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 98.01 percent. 12.5 Teaching of Special Subjects (Physical Education), x[1-p] = 0.08x[subscript 2]+ 0.22x[subscript 3] + 1.97. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 72.25 percent. 12.6 Teaching of Special Subjects (Art Education), x[subscript 1-p] = 0.06x[subscript 2] + 0.19x[subscript 3] + 2.04. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 59.29 percent. 12.7 Teaching of Special Subjects (Music), x[subscript 1-p] = 0.07x[subscript 2] + 0.05x[subscript 3] + 2.13. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 43.96 percent.12.8 Teaching of Special Subjects (Business), x{subscript 1-p] = 0.16x[subscript 2] + 0.15x[subscript 3] + 1.72. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 57.76 percent. 12.9 Non-Formal Education, x[1-p] = 0.15x[subscript 2] + 0.14x[subscript 3] + 2.13. The two independent variables could explain the dependent variables correctly at 60.84 percent. 13. The multiple regression equation of all field in the Faculty of Education, x[1-p] = 0.12x[subscript 2] + 0.23x[subscript 3] + 1.85. The two independent variables could explain academic achievement for an over-all performance throughout the curriculum correctly at 68.89 percent. Also academic achievement under teacher education has influenced over an over-all performance of general education area at the significant level of .01.