การศึกษาวิทยาศาสตร์แนวใหม่ : วิเคราะห์บทเรียนสู่การเปลี่ยนแปลงในระดับชาติ

Natthathida Worathao; Wasana  Keeratichamroen; Sirirat  Nakin

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e291537

Authors

Natthathida Worathao , Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8567-5922
Wasana Keeratichamroen Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8908-7242
Sirirat Nakin Faculty of Education, Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4053-5835

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e291537

Keywords:

Science Education, Inquiry-based Learning, Scientific Thinking Skills, Thai Education, Educational Reform, 21st Century Skills, PISA, Educational Assessment

Abstract

Background and Aims: Science education in the 21^st century faces challenges from rapid technological, social, and economic transformations. This article analyzes global approaches to science education and proposes a conceptual framework for reform in Thailand by studying experiences from countries achieving outstanding results in PISA and TIMSS assessments, including Singapore, Finland, and East Asian nations.

Methodology: This study employs comparative analysis through examination of international research and policy reports from 2018-2024, analyzing experiences from Singapore (ranked 1st globally), Finland (experiencing continuous decline), and ASEAN countries, and synthesizing appropriate approaches for the Thai context.

Results: Sustainable transformation requires multi-dimensional integration consisting of: 1) curriculum reform emphasizing inquiry-based learning with structured frameworks, 2) continuous teacher development focused on pedagogical content knowledge, 3) appropriate technology integration including AI-enhanced virtual reality environments, and 4) assessment system improvement focusing on thinking processes rather than content memorization. PISA 2022 results show Singapore achieved the highest scores globally (Science: 561, Mathematics: 575, Reading: 543), while Finland experienced continuous decline across all subjects, with mathematics scores dropping 79 points from 2003-2022, and Thailand's scores decreased by 4.36%, indicating an urgent need for systematic reform.

Conclusion: This research proposes systematic policy recommendations for developing Thailand's science education to align with international standards while maintaining local contexts. Reform should focus on developing an integrated curriculum incorporating 21st-century skills (4Cs: Critical thinking, Creativity, Communication, and Collaboration) through three frameworks: 1) Local Environmental Science Curriculum, 2) Thai Food Science and Technology Curriculum, and 3) STEAM-based Community Problem-Solving approach. Key policy recommendations include establishing teacher development centers, creating technology-enhanced learning environments, and developing assessment systems measuring scientific thinking processes rather than factual recall.

References

กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2566). รายงานการใช้จ่ายงบประมาณด้านการศึกษา ประจำปีงบประมาณ 2566. โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย.

มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล. (2566). การพัฒนาหลักสูตรวิทยาศาสตร์อาหารสำหรับการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล.

สถาบันส่งเสริมการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี. (2565). แนวทางการจัดการเรียนรู้วิทยาศาสตร์เพื่อพัฒนาทักษะการคิด. สถาบันส่งเสริมการสอนวิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี.

สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. (2565). แนวทางการจัดการเรียนการสอนแบบ STEAM เพื่อแก้ปัญหาชุมชน. โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย.

สำนักงานเลขาธิการสภาการศึกษา. (2566). รายงานภาวะการศึกษาไทย ปี 2566. สำนักพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.

Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Policy Pathways for Twenty-First Century Skills. In Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills: Methods and Approach (pp. 293-310). Springer.

American Library Association. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. American Library Association.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.

Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Routledge.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. W., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.

Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

Facione, P. A. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Measured Reasons LLC.

Finnish National Agency for Education. (2023). Science clubs impact assessment report: Enhancing scientific thinking through community-based learning. Finnish National Agency for Education.

Gillies, R. M. (2023). Inquiry-based science education: Promoting students’ scientific thinking and learning. Springer.

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Springer.

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2021). Well-being in schools: Three forces that will uplift your students in a volatile world. ASCD.

International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.

Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical, research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 937–958.

Martin, A. J., Nejad, H., Colmar, S., & Liem, G. A. D. (2012). Adaptability: Conceptual and empirical perspectives on responses to change, novelty and uncertainty. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 22(1), 58–81.

Morris, B. J. (2024). Comprehensive inquiry-based science education: Balancing exploration and support. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(2), 245–260.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2019). Framework for 21st century learning. Battelle for Kids.

Potter, W. J. (2004). Media literacy (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, Article 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778

Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing “intermediate constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 4(6). https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/jtla/article/view/1653/1495/0

Sclafani, S. (2008). Rethinking human capital in education: Singapore as a model for teacher development. Aspen Institute.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Waldow, F. (Eds.). (2012). World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203137628

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.

Twizeyimana, E., Stiehm, S., & Liao, S. (2024). Global perspectives on science education reform: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Science Education, 46(8), 1234–1256.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021/2: Non-state actors in education: Who chooses? Who loses? UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14108086

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. Basic Books.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

Zhao, Y. (2020). Two decades of havoc: A synthesis of criticism against PISA. Journal of Educational Change, 21(2), 245–266.

Zion, M., Cohen, S., & Amir, R. (2007). The spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447.