SYNTHESIZING THEORY AND CONCEPTS TO DEVELOP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN FOOD AND BEVERAGE MANAGEMENT COURSES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to examine the development of guidelines for creating learning indicators for the course Food and Beverage Operations and Service. The study synthesizes concepts and theories of modern learning management, including Active Learning, Experiential Learning, and Place-Based/Community-Based Learning, as well as Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive learning behaviors. These frameworks are applied to design indicators that comprehensively reflect learners’ competencies in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, aligning with the nature of the course that integrates theoretical knowledge with practical skills in both simulated and real professional contexts. The developed indicators consist of four dimensions, 1) Knowledge indicators, emphasizing comprehension, analysis, and application of knowledge related to food and beverage service, organized according to the progressive levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. 2) Practical skill indicators, reflecting learners’ abilities in food preparation, service operations, problem-solving, and teamwork, in accordance with the principles of Experiential Learning, which promotes learning through hands-on practice. 3) Attitude and ethics indicators, focusing on developing professional attitudes, responsibility, discipline, service-mindedness, and appreciation of local wisdom, with the learning process integrating the Thai-Yuan culinary context of Rang Bua Subdistrict. and 4) Overall performance indicators, used to assess learners’ abilities to integrate knowledge and skills to create food and beverage service work that meets professional standards. The assessment methods include observation, simulation-based assessments, portfolios, reflective practice, and tests. The synthesis highlights that developing indicators based on this integrated framework enhances the quality of learning management to meet the needs of the modern service industry, supports the development of learners’ competencies in all three domains, and fosters a sense of community and cultural appreciation, ultimately contributing to learners’ readiness for professional practice with quality.
Article Details
References
ทิพย์วรรณ สุวรรณศรี. (2562). ภูมิปัญญาอาหารไทย - ยวนกับการอนุรักษ์วัฒนธรรมท้องถิ่นจังหวัดราชบุรี. วารสารศิลปวัฒนธรรมไทย, 15(2), 45-60.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Block, J. H. & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. Review of research in education, 4(1976), 3-49.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans.
Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Washington, District of Columbia: The George Washington University: School of Education and Human Development.
Brown, J. S. et al. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Freeman, S. et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (2009). Models of teaching. (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Joyce, B. et al. (2015). Models of teaching. (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (2nd ed.). California: Berrett-Koehler.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.7275/gcy8-0w24.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York: Grossman Publishers.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge.
Silberman, M. L. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, G. A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 584-594.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Boston: The Orion Society.
Theobald, P. & Curtiss, J. (2000). Communities as curricula. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 15(1), 106-111.
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. California: Jossey-Bass.
Walker, J. R. & Lundberg, D. E. (2005). Managing food and beverage operations. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
