Main Article Content
This research applied mixed method research methodology. The objectives of this research were 1) to study the current and desirable states of area-based teacher development: a case study of Bangkok Metropolis and surrounding areas; and 2) to develop the area-based teacher development paradigm, model and mechanism. The informants were divided into 3 groups: The first group consisted of 49 informants from teacher training Institutions. The second group consisted of 249 informants from schools. The third group consisted of 17 informants who were experts and stakeholders. There were five data collecting instruments as follows: 1) a form for collecting data form teacher training institutions, 2) a form for collecting data from schools, 3) a questionnaire for teacher training institutions, 4) a questionnaire for schools, and 5) an evaluation form to assess appropriateness and feasibility of the drafted paradigm, model and mechanism of area-based teacher development. The statistics used in data analysis were the frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, content analysis, and PNImodified.
The research revealed that current state of the teacher development paradigm was a traditional paradigm while the desirable state was a new paradigm. The current state of teacher development model was offline - off the job training, while the desirable state was offline - on the job training. The current state of teacher development mechanism was organization mechanism, while the desirable state was network mechanism. Thus, the finding on area based teacher development paradigm was Teacher Competencies and Quality from within Enablement towards Learner’s Outcome in accordance with the needs of Community and Industrial Sectors The model for area-based teacher development was Blended Offline to Online and Co-Research Action Learning, and the mechanism was Five-Party Network of School, University, Private Sector, Local Communities and Provincial Education Authority.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
I and co-author(s) certify that articles of this proposal had not yet been published and is not in the process of publication in journals or other published sources. I and co-author accept the rules of the manuscript consideration. Both agree that the editors have the right to consider and make recommendations to the appropriate source. With this rights offering articles that have been published to Panyapiwat Institute of Management. If there is a claim of copyright infringement on the part of the text or graphics that appear in the article. I and co-author(s) agree on sole responsibility.
Butcher, J., Howard, P., Labone, E., Bailey, M., Groundwater Smith, S., McFADDEN, M. A. R. K. & Martinez, K. (2003). Teacher Education, Community Service Learning and Student Efficacy for Community Engagement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 109-124.
Cavanagh, D. (1983). Teacher Development: Curricular Problems and Paradigm Possibilities. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 8(2), 7.
Chu, S., Fong, N. S. N. & Tang, S. Y. (2010). Applying Outcomes-based Teaching and Learning Framework in the BSc Information Management Program in the Faculty of Education. The 2010 International Conference on Enhancing Learning Experiences in Higher Education (pp. 1-18). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Professional Development Schools: Schools for Developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davidson, M., JENSEN, B., Klieme, E., Vieluf, S. & Baler, D. (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris: OCDE
Down, B., Hogan, C. & Madigan, R. (1995). School-based Teacher Education: The Lived Experience of Students, Teachers and University Staff. In Summers, L. (Ed), A Focus on Learning. The 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum (pp. 62-66). Perth: Edith Cowan University.
Dyson, A., Kerr, K. & Raffo, C. (2012). Area-based Initiatives in England: Do They Have a future? Revue française de pédagogie. Recherches en éducation, (178), 27-38.
Fielding, A. J., Cavanagh, D. M. & Widdowson, R. E. (1978). Diploma in Education? Rethinking the Curriculum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 3(2), 1.
Fielding, T. (1983a). Personal Construct Theory as a Basis for a Non-Deterministic Model of Teacher Development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 8(2), 2.
Fielding, T. (1983b). The Theme of Teacher Development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 8(2), 1.
Furlong, J., Whitey, G., Whiting, C., Miles, S., Barton, L. & E. Barret. (1996). Redefying Partnership: Revolution or Reform in Initial Teacher Education? Journal of Education for teaching, 22(1), 39-55.
Jennings, C. & Wargnier, J. (2011). Effective Learning with 70: 20: 10. The New Frontier for the Extended Enterprise. Retrieved Aug 9, 2018, from https://www.crossknowledge.net/ crossknowledge/whitepapers/ effective-learning-with 70 20 10-whitepaper.pdf
Lawson, M. J. & Askell-Williams, H. (2007). Outcomes-based Education. Association of Independent Schools of South Australia (AISSA): Australia.
Lu, M., Loyalka, P., Shi, Y., Chang, F., Liu, C. & Rozelle, S. (2017). The Impact of Teacher Professional Development Programs on Student Achievement in Rural China: evidence from Shaanxi Province. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 11(2), 105-131.
Mack, O., Khare, A., Krämer, A. & Burgartz, T. (Eds.). (2015). Managing in a VUCA World. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Malan, S. P. T. (2000). The New Paradigm of Outcomes-based Education in Perspective. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 28(1), 22-28.
McNamara, D. (1983). Less Idealism and More Realism: The Programme for Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 8(2), 5.
Metzler, J. & Woessmann, L. (2012). The Impact of Teacher Subject Knowledge on Student Achievement: Evidence from Within-Teacher Within-Student Variation. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 486-496.
Narintarangkul-Na-Ayudhaya, S. (2018). Paradigm, Model and Mechanism for Area-Based Teacher Development. Educational Management and Innovation Journal, 1(3), 82-100. [in Thai]
Office of the Education Council. (2015). Status of Teacher Production and Development in Thailand. Bangkok: Prik Wan Graphic. [in Thai]
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council. (2016). The Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017-2021). Bangkok: Office of the Prime Minister. [in Thai]
Sanderson, D. R. (2016). Working Together to Strengthen the School Community: The Restructuring of a University-School Partnership. School Community Journal, 26(1), 183-198.
Sheehan, B. A. & Lewis, R. (1983). Some Implications of a Non-Deterministic Model of Teacher Development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 8(2), 8.
Siribanpitak, P., Xupravati, P., Usaho, C., Chamchoy, S. & Narintarangkul-Na-Ayudhaya, S. (2018). The Development of Teacher Education and Teacher Development System Drive Mechanism for High Performance Teacher under Thailand 4.0. Bangkok: Prik Wan Graphic. [in Thai]
Snoek, M. & Wielenga, D. (2001). Teacher Education in the Netherlands Change of gear. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from https://www.efa.nl/publicaties/unesco-cepes/fulltext.doc
Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. American Association of School. Arlington, U.S.: Administrators.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration Wellington. Wellington, New Zealand: the Ministry of Education.
Trent, J. & Lim, J. (2010). Teacher Identity Construction in School–University Partnerships: Discourse and Practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1609-1618.
Tsui, A. B. & Law, D. Y. (2007). Learning as Boundary-Crossing in School–University Partnership. Teaching and teacher education, 23(8), 1289-1301.