ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION GROUP CITY 2 UNDER THE OFFICE OF LAMPANG PRIMARY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AREA OFFICE 1

Abstract

This study aimed to: 1) investigate and compare the instructional leadership of school administrators in the City 2 Educational Institution Group under the Lampang Primary Educational Service Area Office 1, classified by gender, educational level, and work experience; and 2) identify approaches for developing administrators’ instructional leadership. The population consisted of 246 teachers from 11 schools, while five school administrators with at least five years of administrative experience, a minimum master’s degree, and external quality assessment results at the “good” level or higher served as interview informants.
The findings revealed that:
1) The overall instructional leadership of school administrators was at a high level. The dimensions, ranked from highest to lowest, were development of teaching and learning processes, learning assessment and evaluation, development of instructional media and materials, educational supervision, research for educational quality development, and teaching supervision. Gender significantly affected instructional leadership only in educational supervision, whereas educational level affected all dimensions. Work experience did not significantly affect instructional leadership.
2) The approaches for developing instructional leadership in the six dimensions were as follows: 1) educational supervision emphasized systematic developmental supervision, consultative support, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs); 2) teaching and learning process development focused on student-centered learning, the use of innovation and technology, and the development of 21st-century skills; 3) instructional media and materials development emphasized budgetary support, knowledge development, integration of local wisdom, and systematic evaluation of effectiveness; 4) measurement and evaluation focused on rubric development, diverse assessment methods, and formative assessment; 5) teaching supervision emphasized systematic supervision, diverse supervisory approaches, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs); and 6) research for educational quality development promoted teachers’ awareness of the value of classroom research, supported funding and time allocation, and fostered a culture of research and innovation.