The Development of Participatory Academic Administration Guidelines for District Learning Encouragement Center under Mahasarakham Provincial Office of Learning Encouragement

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to investigate the current conditions, desired conditions, and needs for participatory academic administration at District Learning Promotion Centers under the Mahasarakham Provincial Office for the Promotion of Learning and 2. to develop a participatory academic administration approach for these centers. A mixed-methods approach was employed. This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. The research instruments used were questionnaires and interview forms. The sample consisted of 175 school administrators and teachers, determined using the table developed by Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Additionally, the target group comprised 11 individuals selected through purposive sampling. The data collected from the questionnaires were analyzed using statistical methods, including percentage, mean, standard deviation, and the Priority Needs Index (PNI). The data obtained from the interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Research findings 1) The current state of participatory academic administration at District Learning Promotion Centers was rated at a high level overall (x̅= 3.61, S.D. = 0.73). The desired conditions were rated at the highest level in all aspects (x̅= 4.68, S.D. = 0.50) Regarding priority needs, the most critical areas for development, in descending order, were: (1) curriculum development (2) instructional management (3) academic supervision (4) development of instructional media, innovations, and educational technology and (5) assessment, evaluation and credit transfer and 2)The developed participatory academic administration approach consisted of five components and 28 development strategies: seven strategies for curriculum development, six for instructional management, five for academic supervision, five for development of instructional media, innovations and educational technology, and five for assessment, evaluation and credit transfer. The overall evaluation indicated that the approach was highly appropriate and feasible.