การพัฒนารูปแบบสมรรถนะผู้บริหารโรงเรียนคุณภาพวิทยาศาสตร์ คณิตศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี ระดับมัธยมศึกษา สังกัดสำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน

Sirikwun Kwunmuang; Sinchai Suwanmanee; Rungchatchadaporn Vehachart

Authors

Sirikwun Kwunmuang Thaksin University
Sinchai Suwanmanee Thaksin University
Rungchatchadaporn Vehachart Thaksin University

Keywords:

Competency, Competency Model of Administrators, Science, Mathematics, and Technology Quality of the Schools

Abstract

Objectives of this research article were: 1. To develop a competency model for the administrators of science, mathematics, and technology quality secondary schools 2. To evaluate the developed model and propose the guidelines for model application. The data were collected in two rounds using in-depth interviews and a questionnaire. In the first round, seven experts were semi-structured interviewed, and in the second round, there were twenty experts examined by a questionnaire. The Delphi technique was used for data collection. All data were used for evaluating appropriateness and possibility, including guidelines for the model application using a focus group discussion using nine specific experts. The statistics used for data analysis were percentage, median, interquartile range, mean, and standard deviation.

The research findings revealed that: 1. The competency model consists of 6 main components, 22 sub-components, and 118 indicators, which were result-based leadership, academic leadership, strategic management, using digital technology for communication, and teacher and student development, and 2. Appropriateness evaluation and probability that were at the high level. There were two ways to develop the administrators’ competency, which were the administrators of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Quality Secondary Schools would develop the competency with 118 indicators whilst the administrators of Princess Chulabhorn Science School would develop the competency with 66 indicators.

References

Aiamsiri, Y. (2019). The participatory administrative model for gifted students’ scientifically psychological characteristics development at Princess Chulabhorn College, Loei. Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership, 8(32), 242–252.

Amoli, S. J. & Aghashahi, F. (2016). An investigation on strategic management success factors in an educational complex. ScienceDirect, 9(3), 447–454.

Azar, A. S. & Adnan, E. J. (2020). The impact of effective educational leadership on school students’ performance in Malaysia. Education Quarterly Reviews, 3(2), 146–155.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery evaluation comment, centre for the study of instruction program. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

Boonananwong, Ch. et al. (2017). The Analysis of the Components of Strategic Management Model in Secondary Under the Office of the Basic Education Commission, Bangkok Metropolis. Dusit Thani College Journal, 11(2), 318-333.

Bunmee, U. (2018). Morality and ethics for administrators in accordance with organization governance. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 11(3), 1399-1408.

Choomwong, N. (2020). Model of the strategic management for private schools under Office of the Private Education Commission in Nonthaburi Province. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Rajapruk University, 6(3), 91-108.

Herdiana, Y. & Khairuddin. (2021). Principal communication management to improve teacher performance. Al- Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(1), 78–87.

Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2020). PISA evaluation result 2018: What do 15-year Thai students know and do?. Retrieved January 7, 2020, from https://shorturl.asia/zSXsR

Komolwanich, S. et al. (2020). Digital leadership of school administrator under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office 23. 21st National Postgraduate Research Conference, 1(1), 1–8.

Mahaphromwan, N. et al. (2018). The model of competency for private school leaders towards the international standard. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Thonburi University, 13(2), 138-150.

Ministry of Education. (2018). Entrepreneurship Education. Bangkok: Prikwan Graphic.

Nathamphloi, Ch. (2019). Achievement management in current social society. Journal of Educational Innovation and Research, 3(3), 171–178.

Pattrawiwat, K. et al. (2016). Guideline development of quality gifted education in science, mathematics, and technology by using the application of futures research. Journal of Behavioral Science for Development, 8(2), 151–168.

Rukwong, K. (2019). The development of an administration model for the quality of secondary science schools in Thailand (Ph.D. dissertation in Educational Administration). Chonburi: Burapha University.

Saengsarnpan, K. (2019). The development of academic leadership competency indicators of secondary school administrators under the Office of Basic Education Commission (Ph.D. Dissertation in Educational Administration). Chonburi: Burapha University.

Sarikaya, N. & Erdogan, C. (2016). Relationship between the instructional leadership behaviors of secondary school principals and teacher’s organizational commitment. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 7-18.

Sheninger, E. C. (2014). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. California: Corwin.

Srisa-ard, B. (2004). Statistical methodology for research (4th ed.). Bangkok: Suweeriyas.

Tufai, I. & Mahmood, M. K. (2020). Teaching methods preferred by school science teachers and students in their classrooms. International Journal of Teaching, Education, and Learning, 4(3), 332–347.

Vosniadou, S. (2019). The Development of Students’Understanding of Science. Frontiers in Education, 4(32), 1–6.