The Development Model of Innovative Leadership toward Quality Education in Thailand 4.0 Era for Educational Administrators under Kalasin Secondary Education Area Office
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research and development intended to achieve the following objectives: 1) Investigating the actual and desirable conditions of innovative leadership toward quality education in Thailand 4.0 era for educational administrators under Kalasin Secondary Education Area Office. The key informants included 9 experts chosen by purposive sampling. A sample group included 160 educational administrators chosen by stratified random sampling, as well as administrators from 3 educational institutions with best practice approach who were chosen via purposive sampling; 2) Developing and examining the model. The key informants were 7 experts chosen via purposive sampling; 3) Experimenting the model. The key informants comprised 8 educational administrators who were willing to participate in the study; and 4) Evaluating the efficiency of the model. The following tools were used in the study: 1) a factor evaluation form; 2) a questionnaire inquiring about current conditions with a reliability of 0.93 and a discrimination value of 0.55 - 0.85, as well as a questionnaire inquiring about desirable conditions with a reliability of 0.95 and a discrimination value of 0.51 - 0.88; 3) an interview form; 4) a test; 5) a behavioral test; 6) an efficiency survey; and 7) a satisfaction survey. The statistics used in the study were percentage, mean, standard deviation, and priority needs index (PNI).
From the study, the following results were found: 1) The current conditions are at a high level, whereas the desirable conditions are at the highest level. The first priority needs index is the innovative vision; 2) The model consists of the following 5 parts namely, (1) model principles and objectives, (2) model content, (3) model development process, (4) model evaluation, and (5) conditions for success. The model is of propriety and feasibility at the highest level; 3) The posttest of knowledge and the posttest of behavioral level are both higher than the pretest. The discrimination value is at the highest level; and 4) The accuracy, utility, and satisfaction levels of the model are at the highest levels.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions expressed in the articles published by The Journal of MCU Peace Studies, are of responsibility by such authors but not the editors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
References
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and Climate for Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43.
Alharbi, I. B. A. (2021). Innovative Leadership: A Literature Review Paper. Open Journal of Leadership, 10, 214-229.
Asio, J. M. R., & Bayucca, S. A. (2021). Spearheading Education During the COVID-19 Rife: Administrators’ Level of Digital Competence and Schools’ Readiness on Distance Learning. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 3(1), 19-26.
Borwonchaidet, R. (2017). The Developing Program to Enhance the Effective School Leadership for the School Principals under Provincial Administrative Organization. (Doctoral Dissertation). Mahasarakham University. Mahasarakham.
De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How Leaders Influence Employees' Innovative Behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64.
Haseesuk, S. (2022). Model of Teaching Management on the Concept of Understanding, Connecting, Develop for Banmuangkae School under the Buriram Primary Educational Service Area Office 4. Journal of Social Innovation and Mass Communication Technology, 5(2), 1-10.
Higgins, J. M. (1995). Innovate or Evaporate: Test & Improve Your Organization’s IQ-Its Innovation Quotient. New York: New Management Publishing Company.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Lindegaard, S. (2009). The Open Innovation Revolution: Essentials, Roadblocks and Leadership Skills. New Jersey: Wiley.
Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the Learning Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Educational Development Plan of the Ministry of Education No. 12 (2017 - 2021). Bangkok: Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education.
Moonsrikaew, N. (2020). Developing a Program to Strengthen Innovative Leadership of Secondary School Administrators under the Office of Basic Education Commission. (Doctoral Dissertation). Mahasarakham University. Mahasarakham.
Neuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for Student Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 9-12.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. (2017). National Economic and Social Development Plan No. 12. Bangkok: Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board.
Patel, E. (2012). The Essentials of School Leadership. London: Paul Chapman.
Pawabutra, Ch., Dungchatom, S., & Hansuri S. (2020). Technological Leadership Development Model for the School Administrators in the Digital Age. Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership, 9(33), 1-11.
Pongsri, S. (2019). The Effectiveness Supervision Model in Thai Instruction of Private Primary School in The Northeastern Part of Thailand. (Doctoral Dissertation). Mahasarakham University. Mahasarakham.
Runcharoen, T. (2014). Professionalism in Organizing and Managing Education During the Second Round of Education Reform and the Third Round of External Evaluation. (8th ed.). Bangkok: Khao Fang.
Srisa-ard, B. (2017). Preliminary Research. (10th ed.). Bangkok: Suviriyasan.
The Secondary Educational Service Area Office Kalasin. (2022). Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2022 (B.E. 2565). Kalasin: Secondary Educational Service Area Office Kalasin.
Wannasee, J. (2021). Educational Management in the Digital Era. Phitsanulok: Rattanasuwan Printing 3.
Yusuf, H. (2019). Education Management in the Age of Digitality and Social Media: Exploring the Utilization of Digitality and Social Media to Improve the Management of Further Education from a Methodological Perspective. (Master’s Thesis). The University of Boston. USA.
