Assessment of Teacher Education Program Outcomes: Analyses on the Importance and Perceived Achievement of the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) Program Learning Outcomes and Implications for Curriculum (Re)Design

This study examined the alignment between the perceived importance and the perceived achievement of the Program Outcomes (POs) of the Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) program at the University of San Agustin, as prescribed by CHED CMO No. 74, s. 2017. Using a descriptive research design, self-report data were gathered from 17 graduating BEEd students at a single institution through a structured questionnaire measuring six POs: understanding of learner diversity, pedagogical content knowledge, utilization of assessment and evaluation tools, communication and higher-order thinking, positive professional attributes, and continuous professional development. Descriptive statistics — frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation — were used to analyze responses. All six POs were rated Highly Important (M = 3.71–3.82) and, in students' self-perception, Highly Achieved (M = 3.47–3.82). PO F (continuous professional development) received the highest perceived-achievement rating, while PO C (assessment and evaluation) received the lowest, with the greatest response variability. Because the data are self-reported perceptions rather than direct or objective measures of competence, the findings should be read as preliminary and context-specific rather than as evidence of actual student performance or program effectiveness. Given the small, single-institution sample, results are not generalizable beyond this context. The study proposes a preliminary, context-specific curriculum (re)design framework informed by these perceptions and recommends that future program reviews triangulate student self-report with performance-based assessment, practicum and cooperating-teacher evaluations, teaching portfolios, licensure examination results, faculty assessment, and stakeholder feedback.

BEEd program outcomes, perceived achievement, importance, curriculum (re)design, self-report assessment

1. 1) Afkar, R., Béteille, T., Breeding, M. E., Linden, T., Mason, A. D., Mattoo, A., Pfutze, T., Sondergaard, L. M., & Yarrow, N. (2023). Fixing the foundation: Teachers and basic education in East Asia and Pacific. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/40332 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 2) Almazroa, H., & Alotaibi, W. (2023). Teaching 21st century skills: Understanding the depth and width of the challenges to shape proactive teacher education programmes. Sustainability, 15(9), 7365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097365 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. 3) Andriani, R., Mellyzar, M., Lukman, I. R., Muttakin, M., Pasaribu, A. I., & Fadli, M. R. (2024). A review of digital assessment in education: Tools, features, and effectiveness. Proceedings of Malikussaleh International Conference on Education Social Humanities and Innovation (MICESHI). https://proceedings.unimal.ac.id/miceshi/article/view/4904 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. 4) Atjonen, P., Kontkanen, S., Ruotsalainen, P., & Pöntinen, S. (2024). Pre-service teachers as learners of formative assessment in teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2338840 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. 5) Bahian, M. E. V., Con-ui, S. B., & Pagaran, F. L. (2025). The LET passing rates of teacher education graduates from Western Leyte College, Ormoc City (2018–2023). International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3S). https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0464 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. 6) Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). A review of the literature on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. In Teaching for excellence and equity (pp. 7–17). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16151-4_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. 7) Cahapay, M. B. (2020). The responsiveness of Bachelor of Elementary Education curriculum: An illuminative evaluation. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 743–750. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20649 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. 8) Commission on Higher Education. (2017). Policies, standards and guidelines for Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) (CMO No. 74, s. 2017). Philippine Government. https://ched.gov.ph/cmo-74-s-2017/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. 9) Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie, R., Salmi, J., & Scott, P. (2015). The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. 10) Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID… and beyond. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1816961 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. 11) Del Canto Viterale, F. (2018). University as a global actor in the international system of the 21st century. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6(1), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-6(1)-2018pp169-198 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. 12) Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Decker, A.-T., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2019). The effects of teacher competence on student outcomes in elementary science education: The mediating role of teaching quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. 13) Ghaly, S. (2020). Indirect evaluation of program educational objectives and student outcomes for engineering programs: A case study. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 10(5), 6209–6213. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3751 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. 14) Gobbi, M. (2023). Student and teacher perceptions and experiences: How do they align? Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 10(2), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.2749 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. 15) González Ferreras, J. M., & Wagenaar, R. (2023). Tuning in higher education: Ten years on. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.2879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. 16) González, J., & Yarosh, M. (2013). Building degree profiles: The tuning approach. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1(1), 37–69. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-1(1)-2013pp37-69 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. 17) Grose, R. (2015). Program learning outcomes analysis in higher education [Unpublished manuscript]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. 18) Hobbs, L., & Porsch, R. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching out-of-field: Exploring internationally relevant issues and systemic responses. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1985280 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. 19) Kimhi, Y., & Bar Nir, A. (2025). Teacher training in transition to inclusive education. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1510314 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. 20) König, J., Heine, S., Kramer, C., Weyers, J., Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Großschedl, J. (2023). Teacher education effectiveness as an emerging research paradigm: A synthesis of reviews of empirical studies published over three decades (1993–2023). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2023.2268702 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. 21) Lithoxoidou, A., & Georgiadou, T. (2023). Critical thinking in teacher education: Course design and teaching practicum. Education Sciences, 13(8), 837. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080837 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. 22) Lokhoff, J., Wegewijs, B., Durkin, K., Wagenaar, R., González, J., Isaacs, A. K., Dona delle Rose, L., & Gobbi, M. (Eds.). (2010). A tuning guide to formulating degree profiles: Including programme competences and programme learning outcomes. Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto. https://tuningacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A-Guide-to-Formulating-DPP_EN.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. 23) Loyalka, P., Popova, A., Li, G., & Shi, Z. (2019). Does teacher training actually work? Evidence from a large-scale randomized evaluation of a national teacher training program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 128–154. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. 24) Luckay, M. B. (2018). The re-design of a fourth year Bachelor of Education programme using the constructive alignment approach. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-6(1)-2018pp143-167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. 25) Luu, L., & Phan, L. (2020). The process of evaluating students based on university program learning outcomes. Vietnam Journal of Education, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2020.86 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. 26) Mai, L. (2020). Stakeholder perspectives on general competences: The case of graduates of Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 7(2), 91–139. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-7(2)-2020pp91-139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. 27) Marshall, D., Jankowski, N., & Vaughan III, T. (2017). Tuning impact study: Developing faculty consensus to strengthen student learning. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590524.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. 28) Nasser, R., & Mohd, B. (2022). A systematic and quantitative method to measure the achieved program learning outcomes in higher education. TEM Journal, 11(2), 574–584. https://www.temjournal.com/content/112/TEMJournalMay2022_574_584.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. 29) Ronfeldt, M. (2021). Links among teacher preparation, retention, and teaching effectiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(6), 14–19. https://naeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NAEd-EITPP-Paper-Ronfeldt.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. 30) Salendab, F. A., Ocariza-Salendab, R. L. A., & Sanchez, R. D. (2023). Employers' feedback on the performance of Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEEd) graduates in the workplace: A pre-deployment training remediation implications. ETCOR Educational Research Center Journal, 2(3). https://etcor.org/storage/iJOINED/Vol.%20II(3),%20882-897.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. 31) Santiago, M. V. R. (2024). Assessing pedagogical approaches in Bachelor of Elementary Education: A focus on practical outcomes. Journal of Innovation and Practice. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0395 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. 32) Terry, R., Wilding, W., Lewis, R., & Olsen, D. (2007). The use of direct and indirect evidence to assess university, program and course level objectives and student competencies. Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, Hawaii. https://peer.asee.org/2564 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. 33) UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study