Management of the Dual Vocational Education System in Institutions under the Office of the Vocational Education Commission, Nakhon Ratchasima Province

Background and Aims: This research aimed to study and compare stakeholders’ opinions on the administration of the dual vocational education system in institutions under the Office of the Vocational Education Commission, Nakhon Ratchasima Province, categorized by educational level and status. And to study the guidelines for promoting the administration of the dual vocational education system in institutions under the Office of the Vocational Education Commission, Nakhon Ratchasima Province. Methodology: The sample group consisted of 379 participants, including administrators, teachers, entrepreneurs, and vocational students. The research instruments included a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, which had an Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) value ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 and a reliability coefficient of 0.90, as well as a structured interview form. The data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test, F-test, and pairwise comparison using Scheffe’s method. Results: Research findings revealed that: 1. The overall administration of the dual vocational education system in educational institutions was rated at a high level. When classified by educational level and status, there were statistically significant differences at the .05 level. 2. Guidelines for improving the administration of the dual vocational education system indicated that the development of dual education should emphasize enhancing skills required by the labor market, designing curricula aligned with industrial needs, and ensuring quality assurance before implementation. In addition, continuous professional development for teachers and staff is recommended, along with regular supervision and evaluation of teaching practices. For vocational training, it is advised to establish internship agreements, conduct orientation and exit sessions to prepare students, appoint qualified trainers who meet standardized assessments, and promote internship evaluations. Appropriate welfare and support for students should also be provided. Finally, a clear assessment system should be established to support students’ ongoing development, along with implementing quality assurance mechanisms at all levels and evaluating employer satisfaction to continuously improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Conclusion: The administration of the dual vocational education system in educational institutions was found to be at a high level, with statistically significant differences based on educational level and status. Development guidelines should focus on enhancing skills demanded by the labor market, designing curricula aligned with industrial needs, and continuously developing teachers. A rigorous vocational training system should be established, with clear evaluation processes and a quality assurance system to support student development and enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning.