|
An analysis of artificial intelligence competency development needs and instructional practices for teachers in Thailand |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Title | An analysis of artificial intelligence competency development needs and instructional practices for teachers in Thailand |
| Creator | Jutamas Putneam |
| Contributor | Arthitaya Narathakoon, Advisor |
| Publisher | Thammasat University |
| Publication Year | 2568 |
| Keyword | Artificial intelligence, UNESCO AI framework for teachers, Instructional practices |
| Abstract | Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed education from a traditional teacher-student dynamic into an instructor-AI-student interaction. Therefore, it is timely to reconsider the role of educators. Following the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) AI Competency Framework for Teachers, the National AI Strategy and Action Plan (2022–2027) and Thailand’s Ministry of Education policy aim to enhance teachers’ AI competencies. Despite the increasing policy emphasis on AI education, empirical evidence on educational AI capacity building in Thailand remains limited, especially among secondary school teachers in Thai government schools. Thus, AI competency development needs may be insufficiently identified. This mixed-methods study explores AI competency development needs and instructional practices among teachers working within the Secondary Educational Service Area Office of Sing Buri and Ang Thong. Data were collected through an open and closed-ended questionnaire from 103 teachers at 20 schools under Secondary Educational Service Area Office of Sing Buri and Ang Thong and were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. The findings indicated that the highest level of teachers’ need for AI competency development was in the area of AI ethics (M=4.62) and the lowest level of need was in AI for professional development (M= 4.30). Additionally, teachers most frequently used AI to enhance student motivation (M = 3.99), while teachers’ AI practices related to student assessment were reported least frequently (M = 3.50). |
