the effect on teaching effectiveness: a multi-level analysis · influence the teachers’ teaching...

The Effect On Teaching Effectiveness: A Multi-Level Analysis

ThanomwanPRASERTCHAROENSUK General Education Teaching Institute Khon Kaen University 40002 Khon Kaen

[email protected]

Akhachai UTTARAK Muangwanpattanasuksa School Mittraphap Road, Muangwan, Nampong

[email protected]

Keow Ngang TANG International College Khon Kaen University Thailand

[email protected] Correspondence should be directed to: Thanomwan, PRASERTCHAROENSUK [email protected]

Abstract The aim of this research was to examine the school and class factors that affecting teachers’ teaching effectiveness by investigating the relative impacts of the variables as class and school factors at the micro and macro levels respectively. This study utilized quantitative survey design using two types of questionnaires. A total of 513 respondents comprised of 68 school administrators at the macro level and 445 teaching staff at the micro level in schools under the Office of Secondary Educational Service Area 25. The ratio between of samples was 20:1 meaning that 20 samples to each observable variable. The hierarchical linear model (HML) analysis was utilized to test the fixed effect and random effect of null model, simple model, and hypothesis model. Results of null model regarding the fixed effect analysis showed the mean score of teachers’ teaching effectiveness was 3.237 (γ00=3.237 at significant level (0.01) t =99.329 (while the random effect analysis showed the statistical significance for the mean score of teachers 'teaching effectiveness was 0. 01 ) Wald Z = 3.619( ,and the variance in parameter estimation was 0.038, while the intraclass correlation coefficient )ρ) was 0.285. Next, results of the simple model regarding fixed effect analysis showed that the mean score of teaching effectiveness was 3.208 (γ00=3.208 at significant level (0.01 )t =28.480 .(Analysis of random effects from simple model showed that school differences )u0j at significant level (0.01 )Wald Z =3.106 (and a variance in parameter estimation of 0.007. Finally, relating to fixed effects showed a mean of teaching effectiveness ofresults of the hypothesis model 3.213 (γ00=3.213 at significant level (0.01 )t =6.815 (meanwhile analysis of random effects showed a decrease in values relative to the null model analysis .School differences )u0j showed at significant level (0.05 )Wald Z =1.920 (and a variance in parameter estimation 0f 0.005. Keywords: Classroom factors; school factors; teachers’ teaching effectiveness Introduction Teaching effectiveness is important because effective teaching assists student learning. According to Chianese (2015), an effective teacher can have an enriching effect on the daily lives of students and their lifelong education and career aspirations are also have a direct influence in enhancing student learning. Sirisooksilp, Ariratana, and Tang’s (2015) study found that there are two types of leadership styles namely supportive leadership and participative leadership of school administrators have significantly affecting teachers’ teaching effectiveness. They also found that these two leadership styles have jointly predicted teachers’ teaching effectiveness for 56.80 percent at the significance level as 0.01. This implies that school administrators should promote, practice, and improve these two leadership styles to increase teachers’ working effectiveness. Somprach, Prasertcharoensuk, and Tang (2016) studied on the factors that affecting the effectiveness of World Class Standard Schools in Thailand. Their findings showed that strategic planning factor were identified as most effective factor but teacher professional development factor had the least capacity. Consequently, their results revealed that there were four significant predictors namely information and communication technology, teacher professional development, internal process management, and the focus on students and stakeholder were factors that have successfully contributed 65.60 percent variance of effectiveness of Thai World Class Standards Schools. Prasertcharoensuk and Tang (2017) investigated the effect of strategic leadership factors of administrators on school effectiveness under the Office of MahaSarakham Primary Educational Service Area 3, Thailand. Findings from 510 samples indicated that all the comparison result either strategic leadership of administrators or school effectiveness was significantly difference to school size respectively. In addition, the structural equation model of strategic leadership factors which affecting school effectiveness was fitted but there was no significant effect of administrators’ strategic leadership factors toward school effectiveness at 0.05 level.

The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - November 2018, Special Issue for INTE-ITICAM-IDEC Volume 2

714

Conceptual Framework And Research Hypothesis The main aim of this study was to examine the effect of school-level factors and classroom-level factors on teaching effectiveness in schools under the administration of the Office of Secondary Educational Service Area 25, Thailand. Therefore, this study was conceptualized that school-level factors and classroom-level factors influence the teachers’ teaching effectiveness at macro and micro levels. Specifically, researchers evaluated the relative impact of factors that exists at classroom and school levels of analysis on teachers’ teaching effectiveness. The variables in this study include classroom-level factors, school-level factors, and teaching effectiveness. Classroom-level factors are (i) bio-social characteristics of teachers; (ii) social support for teachers; (iii) teaching performance, and (iv) teaching atmosphere. On the other hand, school-level factors encompass (i) school size; (ii) academic leadership; (iii) school culture, and (iv) school atmosphere. Teaching effectiveness is concerned with particular teacher dealing with students in a particular environment as teacher attempts to achieve a particular instructional goal by presenting the ideas and activities involved in a teaching unit that most facilitates the regular and systematic development of the students (Thawinkarn, Tang, & Ariratana, 2018). In regard to Thawinkarn et al.’s (2018) definition, teaching effectiveness which acts as a dependent variable refers to (i) academic achievement; (ii) satisfaction of teacher’s teaching performance, and (iii) participation of parents and community. The proposed conceptual framework is shown in Figure 1 below: Macro level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Micro level

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

The first model to test is a null model which was conducted on the dependent variables without taking into account any independent variables. The null hypothesis 1 was tested on the extent that the fixed effect and random effect on teachers’ teaching effectiveness as follow: Ho1: There is no fixed and random effects of null model When the micro level variables could be used to explain the teachers’ teaching effectiveness, researchers would be able to perform to test the effects on the simple model. To what extent that the fixed and random effects on teachers’ teaching effectiveness, null hypothesis 2 was tested: Ho2: There is no fixed and random effects of simple model Finally, researchers used the multi-level analysis to test the fixed and random effects of hypothesis model on teachers’ teaching effectiveness as indicated in Ho3 Ho3: There is no fixed and random effects of hypothesis model

Independent Variables School-level factors

• School size • Academic leadership • School culture • School atmosphere

Classroom-level factors • Bio-social characteristics of teachers • Social support for teachers • Teaching performance • Teaching atmosphere

Dependent Variables Teachers’ teaching effectiveness

• Academic achievement • Satisfaction of teacher’s teaching

performance • Participation of parents and

community


715

Method Survey design was employed using questionnaire as a method to collect quantitative data. A total of 3,914 population of this study consisted of 188 administrators at the school organizational level (macro) and 3,726 teachers or teaching staff at classroom level (micro) from 28 schools under the Office of Secondary Educational Service Area 25, Thailand. Multistage sampling technique followed by proportional simple random sampling technique was administered to select samples according to the two levels. Therefore, the target groups were divided into two levels, namely school-level and classroom-level. At the school-level, there were 50 schools, with 68 administrators acting as respondents. The schools and classroom were randomly selected from different school size such as small, middle, large, and extra-large size schools. Since researchers employed Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM), a large sample size is needed in order to find accurate group variation. Hair, Back, Babin and Anderson’s (2013) proposed that the proper ratio of samples is 20:1 or 20 samples per one observable variable. Since there were 21 observable variables in this study, the required sample size was 445 samples of teachers. On this line of reasoning, simple random sampling technique was utilized to select 513 of classroom to fulfill Hair et al. (2013) suggestion that sample size should not less than 100. Two types of survey questionnaire were used in this study catering for macro and micro levels respectively. The two types of questionnaire were administered in the Thai language to ensure that the respondents could understand about the statements. This survey questionnaire method benefits this study in terms of obtaining data more efficiently as time, energy, and costs would be minimized (Wyse, 2012), hence provides an excellent means of measuring attitudes and orientation in a large population which can, therefore, be generalized to a larger population (Gay, Mills, & Arirasian, 2012). Results Of The Study Results of this study are presented in accordance with the research hypothesis that is indicated above. The initial result is the descriptive results related to the three variables namely classroom-level factors, school-level factors, and teachers’ teaching effectiveness. This is followed by results from HML analysis for null hypothesis testing. Descriptive Results Descriptive results showed that teachers’ teaching effectiveness was at moderate level. Specifically, the components of teachers’ teaching effectiveness satisfaction of teaching performance and participation of parents and community were identified at high level whereas academic achievement was at low level. Furthermore, descriptive results of school-level factors were generally evaluated to be at highest level such as academic leadership, school culture, and school atmosphere was evaluated to be at high level. Besides, 40 percent of the schools that researchers investigated are categorized as small size schools. On the other hand, the bio-social characteristics of teachers as classroom factors revealed that 70.18 percent of the teachers are female, 32.11 percent were 41 to 50 years old, 55.04 had a bachelor’s degree, and 38.30 percent had more 20 years of teaching experience. Other classroom-level factors were found at high level such as school atmosphere, teaching performance, and social support for teachers, in descending order. Null Model Analysis The micro-level analysis of HML was conducted in two steps. The first step (null model) was conducted on the dependent variables without considering any independent variables. As indicated in Table 1, the results of fixed effect test showed that the total mean score of teachers’ teaching effectiveness was 3.237 (γ00=3.237 with a (statistical significance of 0.01 .The test of random effect showed that the statistical significance for the mean of

teaching effectiveness was 0. 01 ) Wald Z = 3.619( ,and the variance in parameter estimation was 0.038, while the intraclass correlation coefficient )ρ) was 0.285. The school variance was 28.50 percent meaning that the classroom variables were able to indicate teaching effectiveness. Therefore, researchers were able to use the simple model analysis for the second step (simple model). Table 1: Results of null model from fixed effect and random effect Fixed effect β Standard Error t-test df p-values INTRCPT, γ00 3.237** 0.033 99.329 48.961 <0.001 Random effect β Standard Error Wald Z p-values School differences (U0j) 0.038** 0.011 3.619 <0.001 Classroom differences (rij) 0.096 0.007 13.9927 <0.001 **p<0.001


716

Simple Model Analysis Based on Table 2, the results of fixed effect test showed that the total mean of the teachers’ teaching effectiveness was 3.208 (γ00=3.208 with a statistical significance of (0.01 )t =28.480 .(Independent variables at the classroom-level that provided positive effects on teaching effectiveness were social support for teachers ,teaching performance ,and teaching atmosphere ,with every factor having a statistical significance of 0.01 .The regression coefficient of each factor was 0.333, 0.113, dan 0.171 ,respectively .This implies that promotion of social support for teachers ,of teaching performance ,and of teaching atmosphere can improve teaching effectiveness. Analysis of random effect showed that school differences(U0j) having a statistical significance of 0.01 (Wald Z = 3.106) and a variance in parameter estimation of 0.007. Independent variables at the classroom-level showed variance of dependent variables at 52.62 percent, as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Results of simple model from fixed effect and random effect Fixed effect β Standard Error t-test df p-values INTRCPT,γ00 3.208** 0.113 28.480 416.934 <0.001 WOMEN, γ10 0.033 0.022 1.494 414.632 0.136 AGE2, γ20 -0.056 0.048 -1.178 418.658 0.239 AGE3, γ30 -0.084 0.056 -1.495 417.087 0.136 AGE4, γ40 -0.114 0.065 -1.770 419.628 0.077 BHD, γ50 -0.001 0.105 -0.012 410.120 0.990 MD, γ60 0.020 0.105 0.193 410.663 0.847 EXP2, γ70 0.040 0.051 0.784 421.422 0.433 EXP3, γ80 0.096 0.056 1.698 421.119 0.090 EXP4, γ90 0.095 0.063 1.516 421.993 0.130 EXP5, γ100 0.126 0.066 1.894 421.991 0.059 SPON, γ110 0.333** 0.028 11.770 421.959 <0.001 BEHAV, γ120 0.113** 0.035 3.234 415.828 0.001 TEAAT, γ130 0.171** 0.034 5.064 407.545 <0.001 Random effect β Standard Error Wald Z p-values School differences (U0j) 0.007** 0.00237 3.106 0.002 Classroom differences (rij) 0.041** 0.00292 13.892 <0.001 **p<0.01

Hypothetical Model Analysis Hypothetical model analysis includes all the independent variables for every level. Analysis of the fixed effects showed a mean of teachers’ teaching effectiveness as 3.213 (γ00=3.213 at a statistical significance of (0.01 )t =6.815 .(The school-level factors )macro-level independent variables( on teaching effectiveness was not statistically significant. However, the school-level factors that provided a positive effect on teachers' teaching effectiveness were: being a large- size school and having 5-10 rienceyears of teaching expe , with a statistical experience, with a statistically significance of 0.05 (γ83=0.430, t = 1.998), and being an extra-large size school and teaching performance with a statistically significance of 0.01 (γ123=0.385, t = 2.891). However, being an extra-large size school and teaching atmosphere was shown to provide a negative effect on teachers’ teaching effectiveness, with a statistically significance of 0.05 (γ133= 0.244, t = -1.986). Analysis of random effects showed a decrease in values relative to the null model analysis. School differences (U0j) showed a statistically significance of 0.05 (Wald Z = 1.920) and a variance in parameter estimation of 0.005. The classroom model (micro level) indicated a 37.50 percent variance of dependent variable, as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Results of hypothesis model analysis from fixed effects and random effects Fixed effects β Standard error t-test df p-values INTRCPT, γ00 3.213** 0.471 6.815 334.049 <0.001 Being a small size 0.278 0.732 0.379 330.709 0.705 school,γ01 Being a large size -0.100 0.183 -0.548 321.031 0.584 school, γ02 Being an extra large size -0.167 0.505 -0.330 335.603 0.742 size school, γ03 Being an academic -0.370 1.071 -0.346 327.762 0.730 leader, γ04


717

School culture, γ05 0.054 0.036 0.162 317.670 0.871 School atmosphere,γ06 0.290 0.328 0.884 330.381 0.377 WOMEN, slope β1j, γ10 -0.033 0.064 -0.517 332.387 0.605 Being a small size -0.042 0.085 -0.491 337.496 0.624 school, γ11 Being a large size 0.087 0.086 1.008 340.740 0.314 school, γ12 Being an extra large 0.144 0.078 1.856 339.291 0.064 size school, γ13 Being an academic 0.117 0.144 0.813 340.114 0.417 leader, γ14 School culture, γ15 -0.122 0.203 -0.600 340.312 0.549 School atmosphere, γ16 -0.047 0.203 -0.230 340.993 0.818 AGE2, slopeβ2j, γ20 0.049 0.124 0.396 339.471 0.693 Being a small size -0.240 0.169 -1.421 337.359 0.156 school, γ21 Being a large size -0.113 0.176 -0.641 338.771 0.522 school, γ22 Being an extra large -0.145 0.170 -0.850 339.506 0.396 size school, γ23 Being an academic 0.028 0.318 0.089 334.728 0.929 leader, γ24 School culture, γ25 -0.053 0.449 -0.119 332.652 0.905 School atmosphere, γ26 -0.046 0.440 -0.105 339.026 0.916 AGE3, slopeβ3j, γ30 0.022 0.145 0.149 338.368 0.882 Being a small size -0.084 0.196 -0.430 339.581 0.667 school, γ31 Being a large size -0.139 0.206 -0.673 331.028 0.501 school, γ32 Being an extra large -0.110 0.199 -0.551 334.211 0.582 size school, γ33 Being an academic 0.234 0.382 0.613 338.354 0.540 leader, γ34 School culture, γ35 0.118 0.525 0.226 337.871 0.822 School atmosphere, γ36 -0.104 0.500 -0.209 340.935 0.835 AGE4,slopeβ4j, γ40 -0.086 0.172 -0.497 338.574 0.620 Being a small size -0.053 0.236 -0.222 336.471 0.824 school, γ41 Being a large size -0.080 0.234 -0.343 335.287 0.732 school, γ42 Being an extra large -0.014 0.230 -0.060 335.955 0.952 size school, γ43 Being an academic 0.058 0.429 0.136 340.923 0.892 leader, γ44 School culture, γ45 0.047 0.593 0.078 339.600 0.937 School atmosphere, γ46 0.256 0.573 0.447 340.985 0.655 BHD,slopeβ5j, γ50 0.119 0.454 0.262 326.195 0.794 Being a small size -0.244 0.713 -0.342 326.346 0.733 school, γ51 Being a large size -0.053 0.081 -0.652 340.638 0.515 school, γ52 Being an extra large -0.106 0.476 -0.222 326.446 0.824 size school, γ53 Being an academic 0.195 1.045 0.187 323.945 0.852 leader, γ54 School culture, γ55 -0.157 0.179 -0.877 339.725 0.381 School atmosphere, γ56 0.084 0.209 0.401 336.488 0.689


718

MD,slopeβ6j, γ60 0.097 0.452 0.214 326.713 0.831 Being a small size -0.196 0.713 -0.275 327.620 0.783 school, γ61 Being an extra large -0.066 0.473 -0.140 326.544 0.888 size school, γ63 Being an academic 0.171 0.103 0.165 323.740 0.869 leader, γ64 EXP2,slopeβ7j, γ70 -0.147 0.144 -1.019 340.260 0.309 Being a small size 0.119 0.189 0.627 340.269 0.531 school, γ71 Being a large size 0.174 0.211 0.822 340.942 0.412 school, γ72 Being an extra large 0.406* 0.185 2.198 338.297 0.029 size school, γ73 Being an academic 0.185 0.333 0.556 336.794 0.578 leader, γ74 School culture, γ75 0.293 0.442 0.664 340.764 0.507 School atmosphere, γ76 -0.437 0.419 -1.043 340.841 0.298 EXP3,slopeβ8j, γ80 -0.095 0.170 -0.557 335.536 0.578 Being a small size 0.107 0.214 0.501 340.394 0.617 school, γ81 Being a large size 0.266 0.225 1.185 340.597 0.237 school, γ82 Being an extra large 0.430* 0.215 1.998 340.645 0.047 size school, γ83 Being an academic 0.264 0.357 0.741 339.971 0.459 leader, γ84 School culture, γ85 -0.084 0.535 -0.156 340.863 0.876 School atmosphere, γ86 -0.218 0.516 -0.422 340.909 0.673 EXP4,slopeβ9j, γ90 -0.130 0.182 -0.716 339.689 0.474 Being a small size 0.115 0.237 0.484 339.767 0.629 school, γ91 Being a large size 0.239 0.247 0.970 340.600 0.333 school, γ92 Being an extra large 0.432 0.232 1.857 339.802 0.064 size school, γ93 Being an academic 0.053 0.413 0.128 338.487 0.898 leader, γ94 School culture, γ95 0.136 0.596 0.228 338.908 0.820 School atmosphere, γ96 -0.327 0.583 -0.561 335.489 0.575 EXP5,slopeβ10j, γ100 -0.006 0.196 -0.028 340.373 0.978 Being a small size 0.039 0.257 0.150 340.995 0.881 school, γ101 Being a large size 0.107 0.261 0.410 340.072 0.682 school, γ102 Being an extra large 0.348 0.246 1.415 339.978 0.158 size school, γ103 Being an academic 0.140 0.423 0.332 339.521 0.740 leader, γ104 School culture, γ105 -0.061 0.624 -0.098 340.990 0.922 School atmosphere, γ106 -0.577 0.628 -0.919 340.342 0.359 SPON, slopeβ11j, γ110 0.379** 0.099 3.833 330.088 <0.001 Being a small size 0.052 0.130 0.398 335.688 0.691 school, γ111 Being a large size -0.058 0.125 -0.462 336.437 0.644 school, γ112 Being an extra large -0.060 0.113 -0.526 333.902 0.599


719

size school, γ113 Being an academic -0.144 0.179 -0.804 340.716 0.422 leader, γ114 School culture, γ115 0.013 0.259 0.052 331.438 0.959 School atmosphere, γ116 -0.014 0.316 -0.045 337.716 0.964 BEHAV, slopeβ12j, γ120 -0.154 0.111 -1.386 340.561 0.167 Being a small size 0.089 0.156 0.570 331.336 0.569 school, γ121 Being a large size 0.195 0.135 1.445 339.291 0.149 school, γ122 Being an extra large 0.385** 0.133 2.891 340.815 0.004 size school, γ123 Being an academic 0.143 0.228 0.626 338.651 0.532 leader, γ124 School culture, γ125 -0.323 0.291 -1.112 340.701 0.267 School atmosphere, γ126 0.077 0.350 0.221 337.870 0.825 TEAAT, slopeβ13j, γ130 0.317** 0.107 2.957 338.552 0.003 Being a small size -0.052 0.153 -0.338 340.831 0.736 school, γ131 Being a large size -0.076 0.133 -0.569 334.930 0.570 school, γ132 Being an extra large -O.244* 0.123 -1.986 335.963 0.048 size school, γ133 Being an academic 0.081 0.208 0.389 338.185 0.698 leader, γ134 School culture, γ135 0.174 0.274 0.635 340.725 0.526 School atmosphere, γ136 0.039 0.305 0.127 340.976 0.899 Random effect β Standard Error Wald Z p-values School differences (U0j) 0.005* 0.002 1.920 0.049 Classroom differences (rij) 0.042** 0.003 12.498 <0.001 **p<0.01; *p<0.05 Discussion And Conclusion Descriptive results showed that the overall teachers’ teaching effectiveness was at moderate level. However, two of the components of teachers’ teaching effectiveness showed at highest level namely satisfaction of teaching performance and the participation of parents and community. Nevertheless, low academic achievement was initially indicated by the low 2016 O-NET scores, thus low academic achievement as a component of teachers’ teaching effectiveness was an inevitable result. This result is consistent with Sirisooksilp et al. (2015). School-level factors are naturally generated by school administrators, teachers, and the involved personnel, as mentioned by Somprach et al. (2016). Somprach et al. revealed that school-level factors such as leadership, management of resources, and organizational atmosphere were significantly affecting school effectiveness while classroom-level and student-level factors are at second and third place, respectively. Classroom-level factors were generally identified at high level and arranged in descending order as teaching atmosphere, teaching performance, and social support for teachers. This implies that good cooperation between teachers and students can generate effective teaching and learning. This is supported by Thawinkarn et al.’s study (2018) who emphasized that a safe learning environment, with no disruptions to teaching and learning, and clear school vision are important elements to improve teachers’ teaching effectiveness. Besides, teachers have to play their essential roles in the direction of teaching, priority setting, assessment process, and showing leadership in teaching. Nevertheless, school administrators should be open-minded and able to adapt to any strategy that assists the school in creating an effective teaching environment. School administrators should create an atmosphere of high expectations, requiring teachers to indicate their success with students’ learning that resulting in all basic skills. Meanwhile, teachers should show their dedication to teaching by planning activities in basic skill learning for students and also by regularly following up on students’ progress. This implies that positive bonds between school and homes would encourage parents to support the school mission in order to accomplish optimal results.


720

Results of fixed effect analysis revealed that the overall teachers’ teaching effectiveness was 3.206 with a statistically significance of 0.01. This implies that classroom-level factors which acted as independent variables that provided a positive effect on teachers’ teaching effectiveness were social support for teachers, teaching performance, and teaching atmosphere at significant level as 0.01. It can be concluded that promotion of social support for teachers, teaching performance, and teaching atmosphere can improve teachers’ teaching effectiveness. This result is supported by Prasertcharoensuk and Tang (2017). The school-level factors analysis showed that the mean of teachers’ teaching effectiveness was 3.213 with a statistical significance of 0.01. The effect of school-level factors failed to affect teachers’ teaching effectiveness when taking into account the constants in the analysis. On the other hand, school-level factors are subordinate factors that help teachers in their classroom management. Researchers would like to suggest the Office of Secondary Educational Service Area 25 to incorporate teacher development strategies to enhance their knowledge, communication skills, and teaching competencies in order to improve the educational quality. On top of that, a demonstration of various teaching techniques and assessments has to implement and improve individual academic achievement among students. Friendly supervision and suitable information technology has to be introduced to elevate teachers’ teaching effectiveness. In addition, school administrators, teachers, and other involved parties should form networking to establish a learning community so that enable the Thai society to respond to the concept of an Asian Community. Moreover, good teaching morale and ethics have to be continuously supported in order to build pride in the teaching occupation, as well as to lead students by example. References Chianese, G. (2015). Developing and assessing teaching effectiveness. Procedia – Social and Behavioural

Sciences, 191, 692-695. doi: 10.1016/jsbspro.2015.04.218 Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research competencies for analysis and

application (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hair, J.F., Back, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). [Kindle

version]. Retrieved from http:www.amazon.com/ Prasertcharoensuk, T. & Tang, K. N. (2017). The effect of strategic leadership factors of administrators on

school effectiveness under the Office of MahaSarakham Primary Educational Service Area 3. Kasertsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38, 316-323.

Sirisooksilp, S., Ariratana, W., & Tang, K. N. (2015). The impact of leadership styles of school administrators on affecting teacher effectiveness. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 1031-1037. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.022

Somprach, K., Prasertcharoensuk, T., Tang, K. N. (2016). Factor affecting the effectiveness of Thai secondary world class standard school. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 20-29.

Thawinkarn, D., Tang, K. N., & Ariratana, W. (2018). Relationship between perceived directors’ leadership and classroom quality of primary schools in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 230-235.

Wyse, S.E. (2012). 4 main benefits of survey research. Retrieved from www.snapsurveys.com/


721

the effect on teaching effectiveness: a multi-level analysis · influence the teachers’ teaching...

Documents