Development of Learning Package for Prototype Sunday Buddhist Study Center to Support a Dynamic Society

Abstract

The purpose of this research article aimed to develop a learning package of a prototype Sunday Buddhist Study Center to support a dynamic society. It was an action research using in-depth interviews with 9 key informants, organizing a community forum, and developing an online learning package. The population used in the study was the people in Nong Nom Wua Subdistrict, Lat Yao District, Nakhon Sawan Province. The research instruments were in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, field notes, and elective subject learning package evaluation forms, and descriptive content analysis techniques. The research results found that it consisted of the following methods and processes: 1) analysis and joint goal setting consisted of key information provider activities on government policy and project, representatives of the Sangha and stakeholders in driving the center's activities. The results received were the Logic Model, joint goals (educational activities, training, supporting factors, behaviors and goals) and the Readiness Building System, readiness analysis (general abilities, motivation and specific abilities), 2) (drafting) local learning packages consisted of activities of organizing a forum to listen to opinions and design mechanisms and processes for (drafting) local learning packages and determining the framework of local learning content and jointly drafting the local learning packages. The results were local learning packages based on community soft power, 3) development of online learning packages consisted the development of online learning packages, compulsory subjects (Dhamma Study, primary school level) (work and career learning area defined as a learning package according to the philosopher), learner development activities, and knowledgeable people maps. The results of the evaluation of online learning packages found that the learning management plan, learning management activities, and measurement and evaluation of all aspects of the evaluation were at a very good level, with an average of 3.75.