DEVELOPMENT OF A SCHOOL MANAGEMENT MODEL BASED ON THE LMPLo CONCEPT TO ENHANCE LEARNER QUALITY DURING THE EDUCATIONAL RECOVERY PHASE: A CASE STUDY OF CHUMCHON BANNONGWAENGNOI PRIMARY SCHOOL
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to develop a school management model based on the LMPLo concept to enhance learner quality during the educational recovery phase at Chumchon Bannongwaengnoi primary school. The study employed a multi-phase methodology consisting of four key stages:1) Study of the current conditions and components of the educational management model during the recovery period, divided into sub-processes: (1) a document and literature review, and a focus group discussion with 13 purposively selected educational stakeholders, analyzed through thematic synthesis; and (2) a survey using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire with reliability coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.93. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM).2) Model Construction and Quality Validation The proposed model was reviewed through an expert seminar involving 8 purposively selected specialists. The validation instrument assessed model appropriateness, with results analyzed using descriptive statistics, 3) Model Implementation and the model was trialed with a total population of 14 teachers and 122 students during the 2023 academic year. Effectiveness was evaluated using score recording tools and descriptive statistical analysis. 4) Model Evaluation and Refinement Feedback was collected from 14 teachers and 8 school board members, selected purposively. Data were analyzed using content analysis and basic statistics to refine the model.
The findings revealed that 1) early childhood learner assessment must reflect authentic conditions, and development activities should emphasize active learning experiences. At the primary level, academic achievement should be elevated across all grades. The LMPLo framework comprises four dimensions: Leadership (L), Management (M), Participation (P), and Learning Organization (Lo). 2) The developed model consists of six components: (1) Principle refers to management behaviors that ensure school stability; (2) Objectives refers to developing administrators’ academic and strategic capabilities; (3) Content refers to the administrators’ roles in improving student quality during the recovery period; (4) Implementation refers to strategies and actions for student development; (5) Mechanism refers to the integration of LMPLo components; and (6) Evaluation refers to integrated input, process, and output factors that drive systematic management. The model’s suitability was confirmed at 100%. and Expert validation confirmed the model’s full appropriateness (100%). 3) implementation showed significant improvements: early childhood development increased; academic achievement in grades 1–6 improved; RT scores exceeded district and national averages; NT and O-NET scores rose; reading, analytical thinking, writing, key competencies, and desirable traits all improved. Students, teachers, the community, and the school received awards at both district and national levels. And 4) The results of the manual development indicated that the overall appropriateness was rated at the highest level, with a mean score of 4.71 When analyzed by aspect, all components were also rated at the highest level; Feasibility (mean = 4.80), Accuracy (mean = 4.72), Comprehensiveness (mean = 4.68) and Usefulness (mean = 4.64)
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ. (2564). แนวทางการจัดการเรียนการสอนในสถานการณ์การแพร่ระบาดของโรคติดเชื้อไวรัสโคโรนา 2019. สืบค้นจาก https://sp.moe.go.th/web.
กองทุนเพื่อความเสมอภาคทางการศึกษา. (2564). แผนกลยุทธ์ กสศ.: ปลดล็อกความเหลื่อมล้ำ เหนี่ยวนำความร่วมมือ 2565–2567. กรุงเทพฯ: บิ๊กแด๊นซ์สตูดิโอ จำกัด.
วิจารณ์ พานิช. (2565). Learning loss ภาวะการเรียนรู้ถดถอย. สืบค้นจาก https://research.eef.or.th/learning-loss-recession/.
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. (2559). คู่มือบริหารจัดการเวลาเรียน ตามนโยบาย “ลดเวลาเรียน เพิ่มเวลารู้” (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 1). กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักวิชาการและมาตรฐานการศึกษา.
Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). London, England: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London, England: SAGE Publications.
Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 397–406.
Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, H. B. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.
Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M. S., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
MacNeill, N., Cavanagh, R. F., & Silcox, S. (2003). Principal leadership for quality learning: A framework for successful learning. Practising Administrator, 25(2), 10–12.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1989). SuperLeadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Northouse, P. G., & Lee, M. (2019). Leadership case studies in education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. & updated ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Smith-Menzies, L., Menzies, H. M., Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Ruth, K., & Cantwell, E. D. (2018). Active supervision: An effective, efficient, low-intensity strategy to support student success. Beyond Behavior, 27(3), 153–159.
Supovitz, J. A., & Poglinco, S. M. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO. (2020). Education: From COVID-19 school closures to recovery. สืบค้นจาก https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
United Nations. (1981). Planned population distribution of development. New York, NY: United Nations.
Yadav. (1980). Local level planning and rural development alternatives strategy. New Delhi, India: Concept Publishing Company.
