การพัฒนาความสามารถด้านการอ่านและเขียนภาษาอังกฤษโดยใช้การจัดการเรียนรู้แบบโครงงานเป็นฐาน ของนักเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาปีที่ 6

Kittiya Wangklumklang; Sunan  Siphai

doi:10.60027/iarj.2026.e295783

Authors

Kittiya Wangklumklang Chaiyaphum Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2141-9961
Sunan Siphai Chaiyaphum Rajabhat University, Thailand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-1103

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60027/iarj.2026.e295783

Keywords:

Project-Based Learning (PBL), English Reading, English Writing

Abstract

ackground and Aims: English is an international language that plays a crucial role in communication, education, and careers in the 21st century. Therefore, learners need to be able to use English effectively, especially reading and writing skills, which form the foundation for learning and academic communication. This study aimed (1) to compare students’ English reading ability before and after learning through Project-Based Learning (PBL), (2) to compare students’ post-instruction English reading ability with the 70 percent criterion, (3) to compare students’ English writing ability before and after learning through PBL, and (4) to compare students’ post-instruction English writing ability with the 70 percent criterion.

Methodology: This study employed an experimental research design. The sample consisted of 35 students in Grade 12/3 (Matthayom 6/3) at Satree Chaiyaphum School, Chaiyaphum Province, under the Chaiyaphum Secondary Educational Service Area Office, during the first semester of the 2025 academic year (B.E. 2568). The participants were selected using cluster random sampling. The research instruments included: (1) four lesson plans on English reading and writing for Grade 12, totaling 10 hours of instruction. The appropriateness evaluation of the lesson plans yielded a mean score of 4.54, indicating the highest level of appropriateness. (2) A reading ability test with an index of item-objective congruence (IOC) ranging from 0.60 to 1.00. The test initially contained 50 items, from which 30 items meeting the criteria were selected. The difficulty indices ranged from 0.27 to 0.75, and the discrimination indices ranged from 0.25 to 0.46. The reliability coefficient of the reading test was 0.96. (3) A writing ability test in the form of one constructed-response (essay) item, with IOC values ranging from 0.80 to 1.00. The difficulty indices ranged from 0.611 to 0.667, the discrimination indices ranged from 0.528 to 0.667, and the overall test reliability was 0.92.

Results: The results indicated that: (1) students’ English reading ability after learning through PBL was significantly higher than before learning at the .05 level; (2) students’ post-instruction English reading scores were significantly higher than the 70 percent criterion at the .05 level; (3) students’ English writing ability after learning through PBL was significantly higher than before learning at the .05 level; and (4) students’ post-instruction English writing scores were significantly higher than the 70 percent criterion at the .05 level.

Conclusion: The findings showed that the mean English reading ability score after instruction (24.22) was significantly higher than the pre-instruction score (16.42) at the .05 level, and it was also significantly higher than the 70 percent criterion. Similarly, the mean English writing ability score after instruction (22.87) was significantly higher than the pre-instruction score (15.33) at the .05 level, and it also exceeded the 70 percent criterion. These results demonstrate that Project-Based Learning can effectively enhance Grade 12 students’ English reading and writing abilities.

References

วรรณี วรรณตรง. (2556). การอ่านและการคิดเชิงวิพากษ์. สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัย.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson: D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In: D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). Longman.

Baker, W. (2012). English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70.

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/eltj/cci024

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415

Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

Blumenfeld: 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.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson: D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.

Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Khamkhien, A. (2010). Teaching English speaking and English-speaking tests in the Thai context: A reflection from Thai teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 184–190.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789888028795.001.0001

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld: C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge University Press.

Larmer, J., Mergen Doller, J. R., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project-based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction. ASCD.

Ministry of Education. (2017). Basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (2008) (Revised edition B.E. 2560 [2017]) [Curriculum]. Ministry of Education.

Nation, I. S.: (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.

Stoller, F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett &: C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19–40). Information Age Publishing.

Stoller, F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett & P. C. Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and foreign language education: Past, present, and future (pp. 19–40). Information Age Publishing.

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk Foundation. http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.