Main Article Content
The purposes of the research were 1) to investigate influential types of academic leadership affecting the effectiveness of basic education school administrators under Secondary Educational Service Area Office 22 and 2) to assess the influential academic leadership types affecting the effectiveness of basic education school administrators under Secondary Educational Service Area Office 22 with the empirical data. The sample subjects of the study were three hundred and forty one personnel of basic education schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office 22. Krejcie & Morgan table was employed for calculating the sample size. They were selected by simple random sampling. The target population was nine specialists in
educational administration selected by purposive sampling. The research instrument was a 5-point-rating scale with open-ended questionnaire and in-depth interview form for nine informants. The SPSS computer program was used to analyze data through descriptive statistics, correlation, and factor analysis. 1. The research findings showed that the academic leadership of the basic education school administrators under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office 22 consisted of three major factors with thirteen minor factors. The 1st major components were knowledge, tasks and skills. The 2nd major components was academic effectiveness of the basic education school administrators with five subcomponents: teaching profession development, collaborative goal setting, monitoring and feedback of teaching and learning management, environment development and school learning culture and maintaining the good relationships among teachers, students, students’ parents, and community. The 3rd major factors of learning community development with five minor factors: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking respectively. 2. The findings indicated that that the chi-square values were not significantly different from the centers. The X value was 90.88, the degree of freedom (df.) was 72 and the p-value was
0.066. The harmonious index (GFI) was 0.967. The harmonic index (AGFI) was 0.930, and the average index of RMR was 0.006. The results indicated that the influential types of academic leadership were consistent with the empirical data. Keywords : Academic Leadership, Effectiveness of Secondary Schools
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
2.Cotton. F., and Ashley. B. (2003). Instruction leadership Proficiencies of elementary.
3.Damri Boonchoo. (2003). Learning Process of Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2544 (2001). Academic Journal 6
4.Deal, T. E. and Peterson, K. D. (1990). The Principal’s role in shaping school culture. Washington D.C.:Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
5.Department of Academic Affairs, Ministry of Education. (2003). Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2542 (1999) and
Amendments of Second Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Organization of Product and Material Supply Transfer.
6.Glickman. (1990). Supervision Instruction: A Developmental Approach. 2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc.
7.Krejcie, R.V., and D.W. Morgan. (1970). “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities”. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 30(3) : 607 - 610.
8.Kangpeng, S. (2008). Administrative Factors Affecting the School Effectiveness : Validity Development and
Assessment. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree in Educational Administration, Khonkaen University.
9.Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (1991). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice. 4th ed. Singapore,
10.Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and Practice. 8th ed. New York:
11.Mueangthong, W. (2000). Roles of School Administrators Affecting Katz. R.L. (1955). “Skill of effective admini
strator.” Harvard Business Review. 12(1) : 33-42
12.Michel, A. (1995). Social psychology at work : Essays in honour of Michel Argyle.New York: Routledge. Ministry of Education. (2002). National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999) and National Education Act. B.E.2542 (1999) and Amend ments of Second National Education Act .B.E. 2545 (2002). Bangkok: Organization of Product and Material Supply Transfer.
13.National Institute of Educational Testing Service (Public Organization). (2019). O-NET Report. [Online].
14.Office of Education Council. (2005). Strategic Plan for Civil Servant Development in 2005-2008. Prigwan Graphic Limited.
15.Office of Non - formal Education Administration. (2007). Strategies and Focus on Non-Formal and Informal Education Management in 2008. Bangkok:Office of Non - formal Education Administration.
16.Mueangjan, W. (2000). Roles of the School Administrators Affecting the Achievement in Institutional Administration. Witayajarn. 10(2):45-46.
17.Namsiri, S. (2009). Academic Affair Development of Small Sized Schools by Integrating the Principles: Participatory
Action Research. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree in Educational Administration, Khonkaen University
18.Pengsawat, R. (2002). School Curriculum Management. Bangkok: Bookpoint. Peter M. Senge. (1990). The Fifth
Discipline. New York: Doubieday.
19.Pengswat, W. (2006). Developing a Model for Linear Structure Relations of the Effectiveness of School Admini
strators in Leadership Affecting the Effectiveness of Schools. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree in Educational Administration, Khonkaen University.
20.Pongpaiboon, P. (2001). A Report of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education on “The Dawn of the
Environment”. Academic Journal of the Civil Service Commission. 21 (5) : 9-12. Available. htt://www.niets.
21.Ratsameekaew, P. (2008). Leadership Characteristics of Qualified School Administrators. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree in Educational Administration, Silpakorn University
22.Reid, Ken, Hopkins, David and Holly ,Peter. (1988). Toward the Effective School. Oxford: Basic Blackwell Ltd.
23.Ruenthong, N. (2007). A Model for Effective Educational Administration. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree in
Educational Administration, Silpakorn University.
24.Sanguanam, J. (2002). Theories and Practical Guidelines for Educational Administration. Bangkok: Bookpoint.
25.Sanongpan, P. and Sirisooksil. S. (2014). Skills of the 21st century School Administrators under Udornthani
Primary Educational Service Area office 3. Journal of Education, Khonkaen University 37(4) October-December : 42-50.
26.Sheive, Linda T. and Schoenhe Manan B. (1987). Vision and The work Life of Educational Leadership Examining
the Elusive. New York: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development.
27.Skerlavaj, M., Song, J. and Lee, Y. (2010). Organizational learning culture, innovative culture And innovations
in south Korean firms. Journal Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 6390–6403.
28.Suriyawong, B. (2001). Relationships between Academic Administration with Quality Standards of ISO 9002 of
Secondary Schools under Department of Education. Academic Journal, 4: 68.
29.The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2013). STEM Education in the 21st Century. Academic Journal of IPST. No. 42 Vol. 186 January-February 2013.
30.Wiratchai, N. (2000). Knowledge of Research and Statistics. Chonburi: Public Administration College, Burapha
31.Wiriyapan, T. (2007). Skills for School Administrators. G. P. Cyber Press.