Personal Factors and Academic Administration Factors Affecting Teacher's Active Learning Management Competencies under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office Nonthaburi

Abstract

The purposes of this research were 1) to investigate the level of proactive learning management competence among teachers, as well as the level of academic management within the jurisdiction of the Nonthaburi Secondary Educational Service Area Office; 2) to examine the relationship between academic administration and teacher’s proactive learning management competencies; 3) to explore the relationship between personal factors and teacher’s proactive learning management competencies; and 4) to study the factors affecting teacher proactive learning management competencies. The sample group for this research consisted of 320 teachers in basic education schools. The tools used for data collection was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire with an IOC (Item Objective Congruence) value of 0.50 or higher. The statistical analyses used included percentage, mean, standard deviation, Pearson correlation coefficient, and enter multiple regression.
The findings revealed the following:
1. The levels of teachers' proactive learning management competencies and academic administration within the Nonthaburi Secondary Educational Service Area Office, when considered by specific aspects, were at the highest level.
2. Personal factors and academic administration factors were related to the proactive learning management competencies of teachers in schools. The correlation coefficients for all variables ranged from -0.072 to 0.86, with some sub-component pairs not showing statistical significance.
3. Academic administration factors could predict 52.20% of the variance in the proactive learning management competencies of teachers in schools.
4. Personal factors and academic administration factors together could predict 56.70% of the variance in the proactive learning management competencies of teachers in schools, with the prediction equation being statistically significant at the .001 level. Educational level was not statistically significant. Academic administration factors had a positive influence, significant at the .05 level, with one area, educational supervision, not showing statistical significance.