Development of Learning Management Model by Integrating PhenoBL Approach and DTP to Promote Curriculum Knowledge, Innovative Thinking Ability and Achievement Motivation of Thai Pre-Service Teachers
Keywords:
Phenomenon–based learning, Design thinking, Curriculum knowledge, Innovative thinkingAbstract
This research aims to (1) study problems and needs in learning management of Curriculum Design and Development (CDD) course, (2) develop learning management model by integrating Phenomenon – Based Learning (PhenoBL) approach and Design Thinking Process (DTP) and (3) study results of learning management model implemented. Participants were 3 groups – (1) target groups who gave data about problems and needs were 20 undergraduate students, 4 major instructors and 3 administrators, (2) target group who evaluated the quality of model was 6 experts and (3) experimental sample group was 30 second year undergraduate students from The Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University (CMU), Thailand who registered for the CDD course in the first semester of 2018 academic year. This section of students had mixed majors. They were chosen by cluster random sampling. This research was operated based on research and development (R&D) process. Research findings found that (1) students did not have important basic knowledge and were assigned to a lot of tasks in each of the courses. Major instructors and administrators identified that course instructor must organize learning to enhance curriculum understanding and develop achievement motivation of students, (2) learning management model, developed by researcher, consisted of 6 components - (i) purpose, (ii) principles, (iii) process in 5 stages - considering phenomenon (CP), analyzing related knowledge (AK), designing innovation (DI), criticizing innovation (CI) and improving and presenting innovation (IPI), (iv) roles of the students and instructors, (v) learning media and resources, and (vi) measurement and evaluation of the learning which verified the quality at a high level and (3) results of model implementation - students had curriculum knowledge, innovative thinking ability, and achievement motivation after learning were higher than prior to learning at the .01, .05 and .01 level of significance in sequence. The results show that the learning management model, developed by researcher, possessed appropriateness and applied to use in developing students’ learning quality
References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. New Jersey, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Bamiro, A. O. (2017). Effects of guided discovery and think-pair-share strategies on secondary school students’ achievement in Chemistry. In M. Arief (Ed.), Teaching and Learning in Practice. New York, NY: Magnum Publication LLC.
Blaz, D. (2016). Differentiated instruction: A guide for world language teachers. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Buason, R. (2015). Qualitative research in education. (5th ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Butgatanyoo, O. (2018). Phenomenon based Learning for developing a learner’s holistic views and engaging in the real world. Journal of Education Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 46(2), 348-365.
Chookumpang, C. (2016). Curriculum research and development concept and process. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, Special Issue 3(1), 188–198.
De Jager, C., Muller, A., & Roodt, G. (2013). Developing creative and innovative thinking and problem-solving skills in a financial services organisation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management,11(1), 1-10.
Dechakup, P., & Yindeesuk, P. (2018). Collaborative active learning and PLC for development. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2016). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus on self-regulation learning. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University. (2016). Philosophy, vision, mission and aim. Retrieved April 1, 2019, from http://www.edu.cmu.ac.th/viewdetail.php?cID=55
Intasingh, S. (2016). Alternative education: Differentiated curriculum and instruction. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University, 9(2), 1188-1206.
Khemmanee, T. (2015). Decode philosophy of sufficiency economy to teach thinking process. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Kidjawan, N. (2018). Design thinking process: New perspective in Thai Healthcare System. Thai Journal of Nursing Council, 33(1), 5-14.
Kuha, A. (2018). Psychology for everyday life. (3rd ed.). Sonkgkla: Neo Point (1995). Lang, J. M. (2016). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Laohajaratsang, T. (2018). Innovative educational information technology for Thailand 4.0 era. Chiang Mai: Tong Sam Design.
Mahavijitr, P. (2017). Educational innovation from Finland. IPST Journal, 46(209), 40-45.
Mahavijitr, P. (2019). Application of phenomenon-based learning and active learning in elementary education course to enhance 21st century learning skills. Journal of Education Khon Kaen University, 42(2), 73-90.
Mohr, K. A. J., & Mohr, E. S. (2017). Understanding generation Z students to promote a contemporary learning environment. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 1(1), 9.
Nasongkhla, J. (2018). Digital learning design. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Office of the Higher Education Commission. (2017). Handout of internal educational quality assurance in higher education level. (3rd ed.). Bangkok: Parppim. Oliva, P. F., & Gordon II, W. R. (2013). Developing the curriculum. (8th ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues. (7th ed.). New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Panich, V., & Susinvorn, V. (2017). Sciences and arts of teaching. Bangkok: Parppim.
Panich, V., & Susinvorn, V. (2018). A little improvement of teaching, big impact. Bangkok: Parppim.
Panmanee, A. (2014). Practice to think, think to creative. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Pescarmona, I. (2016). Status problem and expectations of competence: A challenging path for teachers. In W. Jolliffe (Ed.), Learning to learn together: Cooperation, theory, and practic. Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Phornkul, C. (2018). Knowledge construction process of teacher: Case study with Integration. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Phuvipadawat, S. (2011). Teaching principles for student development and authentic assessment. Bangkok: Doungkamon Publishing.
Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Student motivation in the college Classroom. In K. W. Prichard, & R. M. Sawyer (Eds.), Handbook of college teaching: Theory and application. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Pirunthananon, N., Jongchaigit, M., & Neelakup, S. (1999). Standard-based education: Approach to practice. Bangkok: Mac.
Pothisita, C. (2019). Sciences and arts of qualitative research: Guides for social science students and researchers. (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing.
Raviv, D., Barak, M., & VanEpps, T. (2009). Teaching innovative thinking: Future directions. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from https://peer.asee.org/teaching-innovative-thinking-future-directions.pdf
Sakama, N., Mori, H., & Iba, T. (2017). Creative systems analysis of design thinking process. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs17), 14th -17th September 2017, Detroit, Michigan, USA. Retrieved February 3, 2018, from http://detroit17.coinsconference.org/papers/COINs17_paper_17.pdf
Sanders, J. R. (1994). The program evaluation standards. California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Silander, P. (2015). Rubric for phenomenon based learning. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from http://www.phenomenaleducation.info/phenomenon-basedlearning.html
Sinlarat, P. (2018). Principles of curriculum and instruction management. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Steiner, D. (2018). Curriculum literacy in schools of education?: The hole at the center of American teacher treparation. Retrieved September 30, 2018 from https://learningfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Curriculum-literacyin-schools-of-education-FINAL-2911.pdf
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sutthirat, C. (2017). Curriculum development: Theory to practice. (6th ed.). Bangkok: V Print (1991).
Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. Retrieved October 5, 2016, from http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/czasopismo/article/view/458
Vianna, M., Vianna, Y., Adler, I., Lucena, B., & Russo, B. (2015). Design thinking. London: MJV Press.
Wiriyawechkul, C. (2016). Teaching techniques for teachers. (3rd ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Wongyai, W. (2011). Curriculum development in higher education. (2nd ed.). Bangkok: R & Print.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1 All articles will undergo a formal peer-review. A panel of experts from within or without the university will examine the article; approval from a minimum of two experts is required for publication. Revisions posed by the experts must be completed by the research prior to publication.
2 Once published in the ASEAN Journal of Education, the article becomes intellectual property of Suan Dusit University. Duplication, in full or part, requires permission from Suan Dusit University.
3 Excluding errors incurred during printing, author(s) are responsible for the content of their articles.
