Volume 13, Issue 9 (September 2026), Pages: 8-16

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

 Original Research Paper

A development model for preservice language teachers to promote active learning management

 Author(s): 

Autthapon Intasena ¹, Wittaya Worapun ¹, Chanat Intakanok ¹, Apantee Poonputta ^2, *, Thussaneewan Srimunta ³, Nattapon Yotha ⁴

 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

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-7333

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.09.002

 Abstract

Active learning has become essential in 21st-century education because it promotes learner engagement and higher-order thinking, while structured development models can support preservice teachers in effectively managing active learning environments. The purposes of this study were to: (1) examine and validate the components of active learning management competency; (2) investigate the current and desirable states and identify development needs; (3) develop a model to enhance active learning management competency; and (4) evaluate the effectiveness of the developed model. The participants included more than 300 undergraduate students for construct validation, 39 participants for needs analysis, 5 experts for model evaluation, and 60 preservice teachers for model implementation. The research instruments included a competency assessment form, a needs assessment questionnaire, a model evaluation form, a cognitive achievement test, and a satisfaction questionnaire. The data were analyzed using percentage, mean, standard deviation, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the Modified Priority Needs Index (PNI_modified), and a paired-samples t-test. The results showed that active learning management competency consisted of six components, the developed model demonstrated a good fit with the empirical data, all components required development, and implementation of the model significantly improved preservice teachers’ cognitive achievement and active learning management competency, with satisfaction at the highest level. This study contributes by providing a validated and practical model for systematically developing active learning management competency in teacher education.

 © 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, Teacher education, Preservice teachers, Competency development, Instructional model

 Article history

Received 15 May 2026, Received in revised form 13 August 2026, Accepted 1 September 2026

 Acknowledgment

This research project was financially supported by Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI). 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

The study was reviewed and approved by the Mahasarakham University Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Thailand, under Approval No. 847-784/2025. The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles for research involving human subjects. Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained as appropriate, and all data were treated confidentially and used solely for research purposes. 

 Citation:

Intasena A, Worapun W, Intakanok C, Poonputta A, Srimunta T, and Yotha N (2026). A development model for preservice language teachers to promote active learning management. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(9): 8-16

  Permanent Link to this page

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

 References (19)

1. Anthony G (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31: 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00369153   [Google Scholar]
2. Bautista A, Estrada C, Jaravata AM, Mangaser LM, Narag F, Soquila R, and Asuncion RJ (2024). Preservice teachers' readiness towards integrating AI-based tools in education: A TPACK approach. Educational Process: International Journal, 13(3): 40-68. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.133.3   [Google Scholar]
3. Belda-Medina J and Calvo-Ferrer JR (2022). Preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward digital-game-based language learning. Education Sciences, 12(3): 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030182   [Google Scholar]
4. Bell S (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2): 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415   [Google Scholar]
5. Candel EC, de-la-Peña C, and Yuste BC (2024). Pre-service teachers’ perception of active learning methodologies in history: Flipped classroom and gamification in an e-learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 29: 3365-3387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11924-0   [Google Scholar]
6. Chaipibal L and Chittranun T (2025). A program of active learning management for primary teachers. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 6(3): 90-96. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v6i3.111   [Google Scholar]
7. Fidan M (2023). The effects of microlearning-supported flipped classroom on pre-service teachers’ learning performance, motivation and engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 28: 12687-12714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11639-2   [Google Scholar] PMid:37361810 PMCid:PMC10011779
8. 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]
9. Guo L (2014). Preparing teachers to educate for 21st century global citizenship: Envisioning and enacting. Journal of Global Citizenship & Equity Education, 4(1): 1-23.   [Google Scholar]
10. Halimi F, Tryzna M, and Brunstein A (2024). Motivational orientation and perception of active learning instruction by pre-service language teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1307733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1307733   [Google Scholar] PMid:39764071 PMCid:PMC11700737
11. Hastomo T, Mandasari B, and Widiati U (2024). Scrutinizing Indonesian pre-service teachers’ technological knowledge in utilizing AI-powered tools. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 18(4): 1572-1581. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i4.21644   [Google Scholar]
12. Intasena A, Worapun W, and Poonputta A (2025). Enhancing Thai language teachers' learning management skills through a TPACK, PBL, CBL, and CLIL model. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(1): 256-262. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.01.024   [Google Scholar]
13. Ishii K (2017). Active learning and teacher training: Lesson study and professional learning communities. Scientia in Educatione, 8: 101-118. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.734   [Google Scholar]
14. Kaoropthai C and Boonmoh A (2023). Challenges of teacher education programs in Thailand: Voices of CALL instructors from an under-represented context. In: Tafazoli D and Picard M (Eds.), Handbook of CALL teacher education and professional development: Voices from under-represented contexts: 245–260. Springer, Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0514-0_15   [Google Scholar]
15. Kim SW (2024). Development of a TPACK educational program to enhance pre-service teachers’ teaching expertise in artificial intelligence convergence education. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 14(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.14.1.19552   [Google Scholar]
16. Nasri NM (2019). Self-directed learning through the eyes of teacher educators. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(1): 164-171.   [Google Scholar]
17. Prahani BK and Cheng TH (2020). “New normal” in learning and teaching. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 1(2): 63-65. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v1i2.41   [Google Scholar]
18. Pusing N (2026). The competency of active learning management using the professional learning community process of teachers in the new normal era, Chaiyaphum Province, Thailand. Higher Education Studies, 16(2): 275-288. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v16n2p275   [Google Scholar]
19. Tondeur J, Scherer R, Siddiq F, and Baran E (2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap! Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3): 46-60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3504   [Google Scholar]