Learning Administration Model of Thai Higher Education in the Digital Age

Abstract

          The objectives of this research were (1) to compare the opinions of faculty members toward learning administration in higher education in the digital age, and (2) to propose the model of learning administration in higher education in the digital age in Thailand. The questionnaire was used to collect data from 400 faculty members from public and private universities. The statistics used to analyze the data were descriptive statistics for percentages, means, and standard deviation, and inferential statistics for t-test, One-way ANOVA and LSD, followed by exploratory factor analysis.  The results showed General management with the highest mean ranking for learning administration in higher education in the digital age, followed by Curriculum and instructional management, Educational evaluation, and Research. First, the aspects of General management included the collaboration among university members, policy planning and making, appropriate and selections of technological devices for learning in the digital age.  Second, the aspects of Curriculum and instructional management focused on learning activities, online learning using different teaching software, learning outcomes emphasizing on ethical and moral development, instructional media development, new knowledge construction, and online learning preparation for both faculty and students. Third, the aspects of Educational evaluation emphasized formative evaluation, problem solving skills, innovation, and creativity. And fourth, the aspects of Research focused on collaborative research projects between institutions, collaborative research projects across different departments in the same institution to examine the impacts of learning and teaching in the digital age in Thailand. The researcher found differences of faculty members at the statistically significant level .05, by age, education level, position, university type and experience. Based on gender, males and females differed in all aspects except in general management. Participants with a Ph.D. and M.A. in public and private universities had different opinions in the aspects of curriculum and instructional management.  Those in administrative positions and non-administrator positions differed in the aspects of general management and educational evaluation. Since the highest mean ranking for the learning administration in higher education in the digital age was General management followed by Curriculum and instructional management, Educational evaluation, and Research, the proposed model was GCER.