Theory and Practice in the Curriculum

Theory and Practice in the Curriculum

Analyzing Needs Assessment Models in the Applied Science Higher Education System: Bridging Theory and Practice

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Saeed Ashrafi 1
Mohamad Reza Neyestani 1
Negin Barat Dastjerdi 1
Reza Norouzzadeh 2
1 Department of Education, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Center for Supervision, Evaluation, and Quality Assurance of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology
10.22034/cstp.2025.524114.1074
Abstract
This study aimed to identify and validate needs assessment models and examine the gap between current and desired states in curriculum planning within applied science higher education. Given rapid changes in the labor market, the emergence of new technologies, and the necessity of aligning the educational system with real-world needs, identifying effective needs assessment models has become increasingly critical. Accordingly, by integrating and adapting various models to national standards and emerging market trends, an indigenous and operational framework was proposed for the applied science higher education system.

The research employed an exploratory mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 curriculum specialists to identify and categorize needs assessment indicators. In the quantitative phase, these indicators were validated using a researcher-made questionnaire administered to 61 experts, with validity and reliability confirmed via a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = 0.70. The current state of these indicators was then evaluated using a separate questionnaire completed by 24 specialists, and the data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

The results revealed four key models—CEBT, DACUM, occupational standards, and systematic review of experiences—as significantly more effective in the desired than in the current state. Integrating components of DACUM and CEBT, along with identifying occupational and educational standards and reviewing experiences, can more effectively address the needs of the applied science higher education system. The study concludes with practical recommendations for policymakers and researchers, emphasizing continuous model updates and enhanced university-industry collaboration to improve educational effectiveness.
Keywords
Needs Assessmentt
Curriculum Planning
Applied Science Higher Education
Model Validation
Current-Desired Status Gap

Subjects

Alizadeh, M. (2020). Standardization in vocational education: A case study of healthcare. Global Journal of Educational Standards, 12(2), 89–104.[In Persian]
Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2015). Purposes of needs assessment. In Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future (pp. 43–54). Sage.
Bano, S., & Rashid, H. (2024). Innovations in competency-based curriculum design: Lessons from emerging economies. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research, 30(1), 15–33.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44.
Chen, Y., & Liu, H. (2023). Integrating DACUM with emerging technologies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(1), 22–41.
European Commission. (2021a). Integrating knowledge, skills, and attitudes in vocational education: A global perspective. Publications Office of the EU.
European Commission. (2021b). Skills for the future: Managing transition in vocational education. Publications Office of the EU.
Garcia, P., López, M., & Chan, K. (2022). Systematic reviews in curriculum design: Lessons from interdisciplinary fields. Educational Research Review, 29, 100–115.
Gholami, A., & Rahbar, M. (2023). Localization of CEBT model for Iranian technical universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy Studies, 15(4), 201–220. [In Persian]
Grant, G. E., Gardner, J., Geddes, C., & Steeves, L. (2000). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Hanushek, E. A., Schwerdt, G., Woessmann, L., & Zhang, L. (2017). The knowledge capital of nations. MIT Press.
Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping – A tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123–137.
Harvard Graduate School of Education. (2019). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Harvard University Press.
Hassanpour, A. (2019). Application of CEBT model in agricultural training: Challenges and opportunities. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Extension and Education Research, 11(3), 45–60. [In Persian]
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.
Johnson, R. (2019). DACUM as a collaborative tool for curriculum development. Engineering Education Review, 33(4), 78–95.
Kaufman, R. (2000). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Sage Publications.
Kearney, J., Lai, J., & Wakefield, C. (2020). Adapting higher education to the digital age. Springer.
Khademi Kolahlou, M., Rahimi, B., & Rahimi, M. J. (2023). Proportion of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) and distribution of employment in Iran. Strategic Research on Social Problems, 12(4), 73–100. [In Persian]
Mahmoudi, S. (2021). DACUM implementation in service-oriented occupations: A case from Iran’s hospitality sector. Journal of Technical and Vocational Education Studies, 9(2), 101–118. [In Persian]
Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University Publishing.
McGrath, S. (2020). Integrating systematic reviews with stakeholder analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy, 44(3), 201–220.
McKillip, J. (2017). Needs analysis: Process and methods. Sage Publications.
Norton, R. E. (1997). DACUM handbook. The Ohio State University.
OECD. (2018). Higher education in the digital era. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). Vocational education and training for the future of work. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2022). Stakeholder engagement in vocational education: Lessons from global practices. OECD Publishing.
Pilz, M. (2016). Vocational education and training in times of economic crisis. Springer.
Rivenbark, W. C., & Jacobson, W. S. (2020). Competency-based education in the public sector. Springer.
Roberts, L. (2020). Dynamic competency frameworks in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology, 18(2), 45–67.
Rossett, A. (1999). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Schmidt, A., & Wagner, R. (2020). Industry-aligned curriculum design: A case study of FH München. Journal of Applied Higher Education, 12(1), 57–73.
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.
Sharifi, H. (2020). Systematic review practices in Iranian vocational higher education. Iranian Journal of Educational Research, 22(4), 77–95. [In Persian]
Smith, J., Clark, P., & Zhao, L. (2021). Competency-based education in technical fields: Bridging the skills gap. Journal of Vocational Education, 45(3), 112–130.
Tuning Project. (2003). Tuning educational structures in Europe. University of Deusto.
UNESCO. (2020a). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2020b). Vocational education and workforce development: Global trends and case studies. UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. (2021). Micro-credentials and modular learning in vocational education: Global practices. UNESCO Publishing.
Theory and Practice in the Curriculum
Volume 12, Issue 24
February 2025
Pages 139-162