Volume 13, Issue 8 (August 2026), Pages: 1-10

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Developing and validating an active learning model to improve reading comprehension in lower secondary education: Evidence from Central Northeastern Thailand

 Author(s): 

Autthapon Intasena ¹, Prasart Nuangchalerm ¹, Sinthawa Khamdit ¹, Wittaya Worapun ^1, *, Chanat Intakanok ¹, Apantee Poonputta ², Sawitree Ranmechai ², Thussaneewan Srimunta ³, Nattapon Yotha ⁴, Thanakit Ritsri ⁵, Juhji Juhji ⁶

 Affiliation(s):

¹Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
²Department of Research and Development, Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
³Arts Program in Chinese, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mahasarakham Rajabhat University, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
⁴Department of Educational Measurement, Evaluation and Research, Faculty of Education, Phetchabun Rajabhat University, Phetchabun, Thailand
⁵Nachuakpittayasan School, Na Chueak, Maha Sarakham, Thailand
⁶Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Maulana Hasanuddin Banten, Banten, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-9432

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.08.001

 Abstract

This study developed and validated an active learning model to improve lower secondary students’ reading comprehension in Central Northeastern Thailand. A research and development design was conducted in four phases: (1) validating the structure of reading comprehension through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), (2) assessing instructional problems and priority needs, (3) developing and validating the instructional model and manual, and (4) piloting and implementing the model. Participants included 400 students for CFA, 273 educational stakeholders for the needs assessment, 5 experts for model validation, 30 students for the pilot phase, and 125 students for full implementation. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, CFA, the modified Priority Needs Index, E1/E2 efficiency, the effectiveness index, and paired-sample t-tests. The findings confirmed four components of reading comprehension: identifying main ideas, reasoning with supporting details, interpreting and summarizing, and analyzing relationships among ideas. The highest priority needs were assessment and evaluation, learning activities, and instructional design. The model demonstrated high content validity and feasibility (IOC = 0.80–1.00), exceeded the 80/80 criterion (E1/E2 = 83.15/82.93), and had an effectiveness index of 0.6384. Posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores (p < .001). The model provides a validated and practically tested approach for comparable lower secondary contexts.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Active learning, Reading comprehension, Instructional model, Lower secondary education, Literacy education

 Article history

Received 19 April 2026, Received in revised form 5 July 2026, Accepted 5 August 2026

 Acknowledgment

This research project was financially supported by Mahasarakham University. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Participation was voluntary. All adult participants were informed about the objectives and procedures of the study and provided informed consent prior to participation. For student participants who were minors, consent was obtained from their parents or legal guardians in accordance with institutional ethical requirements. The collected data were treated confidentially and used solely for research purposes. This study was approved by the Mahasarakham University Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Thailand (Approval No. 472-469/2025; approved on 23 July 2025). 

 Citation:

Intasena A, Nuangchalerm P, Khamdit S, Worapun W, Intakanok C, Poonputta A, Ranmechai S, Srimunta T, Yotha N, Ritsri T, and Juhji J (2026). Developing and validating an active learning model to improve reading comprehension in lower secondary education: Evidence from Central Northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(8): 1-10

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (22)

1. Almasi JF and Yuan D (2023). Reading comprehension and the COVID‐19 pandemic: What happened and what can we do about it? The Reading Teacher, 77(3): 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2254   [Google Scholar]
2. Bonwell CC and Eison JA (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, Washington, USA.  [Google Scholar]
3. Brilliananda CC and Wibowo SE (2023). Reading strategies for post-pandemic students' reading comprehension skills. International Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2): 328-334. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v7i2.59783   [Google Scholar]
4. David C (2018). Active learning with passive learners: Sociocultural challenges for English lecturers in Thai higher education. Journal of International Studies, Prince of Songkla University, 8(1): 107–124.   [Google Scholar]
5. Fornari A and Poznanski A (2021). How-to guide for active learning. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62916-8   [Google Scholar]
6. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, and Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23): 8410-8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111   [Google Scholar] PMid:24821756
7. Grabe W (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139150484   [Google Scholar]
8. Griffiths C (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667   [Google Scholar]
9. Hendy M (2022). Active learning is a pedagogical approach: The meaning and philosophy behind. BSU-Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 1(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.21608/bsujpc.2022.240473   [Google Scholar]
10. Howell RA (2021). Engaging students in education for sustainable development: The benefits of active learning, reflective practices and flipped classroom pedagogies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 325: 129318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129318   [Google Scholar]
11. Jacob M (2023). Active cognitive tasks – Synthesising frameworks for active learning online. In: Garnham W and Gowers I (Eds.), Active learning in higher education: Theoretical considerations and perspectives: 46-56. 1st Edition, Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003360032-6   [Google Scholar] PMid:38142690
12. Joomsimma N and Seubsang P (2025). Enhancing English reading comprehension through active learning: An analysis of student outcomes and satisfaction. In the International Academic Multidisciplinary Research Conference ICBTS, Beijing, China: 79-85.  [Google Scholar]
13. Kargiotidis A, Tafa E, Mouzaki A, and Manolitsis G (2026). Predicting reading comprehension difficulties in the context of an extended simple view of reading model. Reading and Writing, 39: 1829-1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-025-10677-1   [Google Scholar]
14. Köseoğlu B and Çobanoğlu AA (2025). Can active blended learning instruction enhance reading comprehension? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(4): e70066. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70066   [Google Scholar]
15. Li H, Majumdar R, Chen MRA, and Ogata H (2021). Goal-oriented active learning (GOAL) system to promote reading engagement, self-directed learning behavior, and motivation in extensive reading. Computers & Education, 171: 104239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104239   [Google Scholar]
16. Li S, Hiver P, and Papi M (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences. Routledge, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546   [Google Scholar]
17. Majdi Z, Khalili Sabet M, and Mahdavi-Zafarghandi A (2025). Exploring the effect of using active learning strategies on Iranian intermediate female EFL learners reading comprehension: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Education, 10: 1539722. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1539722   [Google Scholar]
18. Öztürk M and Çakıroğlu Ü (2021). Flipped learning design in EFL classrooms: Implementing self-regulated learning strategies to develop language skills. Smart Learning Environments, 8: 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00146-x   [Google Scholar]
19. Palinscar AS and Brown AL (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2): 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1   [Google Scholar]
20. Prince M (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3): 223-231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x   [Google Scholar]
21. Setachan T (2023). Study of improving English reading comprehension skill by using active learning based on MIAP model for grade XI students at Maryvit School, Chonburi Province. Journal of Asian Language Teaching and Learning, 4(3): 46-55.   [Google Scholar]
22. Surakarn A, Junprasert T, Chaiakkarakan N, Peungposop N, and Boonlop R (2020). Active learning and its outcomes: A case study from the education reform project in Thailand. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 15(1): 34-51. https://doi.org/10.69523/swu.tjbs.2020.15.1.3   [Google Scholar]