Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10, 324-333 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 8 August 2025; Revised: 18 September 2025; Accepted: 22 September 2025; Published: 8 October 2025 * Correspondence: boonchan.si@kmitl.ac.th A quality management model for English program curricula in Thai secondary bilingual schools Nanteya Suwan1, Boonchan Sisan2* 1,2School of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, 10520, Thailand; nanteya.su@kmitl.ac.th (NS) boonchan.si@kmitl.ac.th (BS). Abstract: This study aimed to develop and validate a quality management model for administering English program curricula in bilingual public schools at the secondary level in Thailand. Using a mixed- methods approach, the model was developed based on a systematic content analysis and synthesis of the relevant literature, documents, and the CIPP (Context-Input-Process-Product) model. The model’s quality was then evaluated by a panel of nine experts through a focus group discussion, considering four dimensions: usefulness, feasibility, appropriateness, and accuracy. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Findings provide a robust model with three core factors of academic quality administration: (1) Input – leadership, strategic planning, systematic processes, human resources; (2) Process – curriculum development, instructional management, assessment, supervision, educational technology, quality assurance, utilizing the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle; and (3) Output – stakeholder focus, learner quality, knowledge management, and continuous improvement. The experts validated the model, confirming its high quality overall (M = 4.77, SD = 0.29), with usefulness and accuracy being the highest-rated dimensions. The study successfully developed and validated a holistic, systems-based model for academic quality management, providing educational administrators with a practical, evidence-based framework to systematically enhance the quality and effectiveness of English bilingual programs in public secondary schools. This model offers a useful, validated framework for administrators to improve the quality and effectiveness of English bilingual programs systematically. Keywords: Academic quality management, bilingual secondary schools, curriculum management, English program, OBEC, Thailand. 1. Introduction The significance of English as an international lingua franca highlights the importance of global English proficiency. It is the predominant language of international journals and a medium of tertiary- level textbooks and publications in all disciplines [1, 2]. As a global language, English language proficiency is viewed as an important qualification for individual academic success and the well-being of nations. Language learning, especially English, is generally accepted as one of the most important skills for optimizing societal development and community advancement [3]. Providing instruction in English according to international standards becomes a crucial mission of education systems worldwide. It is to prepare learners to be capable and ethical global citizens [4]. In this sense, understanding academic English can be vitally important for acquiring various academic knowledge and information [5, 6]. Furthermore, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) emphasizes that bilingual or multilingual education at all educational levels is essential for promoting social equity [7]. In response to this international trend, Thailand’s Ministry of Education’s Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) has implemented a policy to reform English language teaching [8]. The reform is characterized by the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference 325 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate for Languages (CEFR) [9, 10] and the move towards Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) [11]. One key implementation plan is to promote the regular English programs (EPs), which offer the national curriculum in English. The objective is to enhance the potential of Thai learners in the global world in alignment with the national core curriculum. However, research findings reflect the same systemic problems, indicating that action is urgently required to improve teaching materials and resources, and the administration of bilingual programs should purposively manage academic work systems to enhance learning processes, transform curricula, and establish suitable criteria for student assessment [12]. These difficulties underscore the fact that there is a significant gap in the quality management of bilingual schools in many academic administrations [13]. Effective academic administration constitutes the core of any education quality since what students and teachers do hinges on what is produced for them by academics and ultimately affects students' achievement and learning [14]. At the same time, the task of administering a bilingual curriculum is unique and complex. It requires an administrative framework that can manage the pursuit of both linguistic and academic aims through two different and intertwining academic pathways [15]. Even though using the quality management concept in academic administration is considered beneficial [16]. In addition, various effective leadership models in academic administration have been proposed in previous studies [17]; the specific situation of Thai public bilingual secondary schools characterizes a lack of a comprehensive and empirically tested quality management model. Therefore, to bridge this gap and offer a systematic response to the documented quality problems, this study aims to develop and validate a quality management model for the academic administration of English Program curricula. To this end, this research is guided by the following research objectives and questions: • Research Objective 1: To construct the administrative model of academic quality in the English Program curriculum for the bilingual school at the secondary level [18]. • Research Objective 2: To examine the quality of the constructed model in accordance with its usefulness, feasibility, appropriateness, and accuracy [19]. • Research Question 1: What are the essential elements of an appropriate administrative model for ensuring academic quality in the English Program curriculum? • Research Question 2: How do experts perceive the extent of the quality of the administrative model in terms of its utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy [19]? The study's findings are expected to effectively provide school administrators and policymakers with a practical, evidence-based framework to systematically enhance the quality and effectiveness of English bilingual programs in public secondary schools under Bangkok’s OBEC. 2. Theoretical Framework This paper employs Systems Theory as the primary theoretical lens to develop and understand the comprehensive administration of academic quality in English Program curricula. Systems Theory posits that complex entities are best understood as integrated and interconnected wholes, where the inputs, processes, and outputs are dynamically related and function together to achieve a common purpose [14]. The developed three-factor model (Input-Process-Output) is inherently systems-based, emphasizing that effective academic administration is not a collection of isolated tasks but a cohesive, cyclical system. The theory emphasizes that the quality of the inputs, such as strategic leadership, human resources, and planning, is crucial for the overall effectiveness of the system [17, 20], directly influences the efficiency of the Processes, including curriculum development, instruction, and quality assurance operating under a PDCA (plan, do, check, action) cycle for continuous improvement [16, 21, 22]. Finally, these processes generate outputs (e.g., learner quality, stakeholder satisfaction), which provide essential feedback to inform and refine the initial inputs, creating a dynamic loop of perpetual 326 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate enhancement [14]. Based on this framework, the central assumption of this study is that the academic quality of an English Program will be significantly enhanced when administered as a unified, purpose-driven system, rather than through disparate or siloed initiatives. The framework makes professional demands on administrators and policymakers to move beyond a focus on individual components and instead adopt a holistic, systematic approach that ensures all elements of the bilingual program are aligned, coherent, and mutually reinforcing to achieve the ultimate goal of educational excellence. 3. Methods 3.1. Step 1: Model Development The first step in developing a model for administering the academic quality of English program curricula in Thai secondary-level bilingual schools involved the following: Data Sources: Documents and research related to models for administering the academic quality of English Program curricula, sourced from books, journals, and domestic and international databases. Research Instrument: A form for analyzing and synthesizing relevant documents and research. Data Collection: Data were gathered from books, journal articles, and theses whose content and methodologies were relevant to models for administering the academic quality of English Program curricula. These were obtained from libraries and websites. Information was recorded using the analysis and synthesis form. The essential information from these records, covering publications from 2015 to 2025, was compiled. The selection criteria were based on keywords in titles relevant to the research issues. Data Analysis: Content analysis and synthesis were used to evaluate the data [23]. 3.2. Step 2: Model Evaluation The second step entailed the evaluation of the proposed model for administering the academic quality of English program curricula in Thai secondary-level bilingual schools involved the following: Participants: Nine experts recruited via purposive sampling, consisting of school directors, deputy directors of academic affairs, heads of English Program curriculum departments, teachers in the English Program, educational supervisors, and university lecturers in English and international programs. Research Instrument: The developed administrative model quality assessment form, rated by experts, used a 5-level Likert-type rating scale consisting of 18 items under four aspects. These principal components were usefulness, feasibility, appropriateness, and accuracy. After the experts' evaluations using the index of item congruency (IOC), all items were calculated to range from .60 to 1.00. Data Collection: Expert connoisseurship with a focus group discussion, which took place on September 6th, 2025. After the experts provided recommendations for the developed model, they filled out the assessment form for the developed model. Data Analysis: All nine distributed assessment forms were returned; the experts' response rate was 100%, with M and SD used for data analysis. The experts evaluated the developed model's quality using a five-point Likert scale. The interpretation of mean scores was based on the following predetermined range of scores: a mean score from 4.50 to 5.00 indicated the highest level of quality; 3.50 to 4.49 signified a high level; 2.50 to 3.49 signified a moderate level; 1.50 to 2.49 signified a low level; and a mean score from 1.00 to 1.49 indicated the lowest level. 4. Results 4.1. The Model’s Framework The study developed a 3-factor model for assessing the academic quality of the curriculum in the English Program within secondary-level bilingual schools, based on the three core components of 327 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Input, Process, and Output, as illustrated in Figure 1. Input, Process, and Output served as program administrative indices in this model, which is an adaptation of Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model [24, 25]. The components were assumed to be core elements of quality management that align with systems- based approaches to organizational academic administration [14]. Figure 1 illustrates the developed 3-factor administrative model. The model is arranged as a dynamic, ongoing mixture of ideas starting with Input factors. These include organizational leadership, strategic planning, systematic process management, and human resource focus, which set the primary conditions for all activities. Systematic process management in this context refers to the organized, methodical, and structured coordination of tasks, projects, and instructional activities to ensure operational efficiency and effectiveness. It involves establishing clear procedures, schedules, and evaluation mechanisms. Then, these inputs flow into the process factor, where the main academic activities include curriculum development, instructional management, assessment, supervision, technology development, and internal quality assurance are implemented. A highlighting feature of this interface is that all processes run under the PDCA cycle, allowing organizations to reflect and adapt [16, 21, 22]. The results of these processes are obtained in the Output factor, defining success through stakeholder focus, learner quality, knowledge management, and continuous improvement. Again, the outputs of these factors flow back to close the loop and renew the inputs, aiming for continuous quality improvement. Figure 1. The 3-Factor Quality Management Model for the English program academic administration. 4.2. Input Factors The input factor provides the necessary foundation for a successful English program, a stage crucial to the complexity involved in bilingual program management [15]. It consists of four essential elements: 328 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.2.1. Leadership and Strategic Direction This element emphasizes the role of administrators in providing academic leadership, which is fundamental to guiding ethical and practical institutional practices [17, 26]. Key actions include developing individual English communication skills, forging partnerships, and memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with external organizations. This step also involves clearly communicating policy and vision. Leaders must also foster professional behavior among staff, build understanding of the bilingual school's development goals, and provide continuous supervision and monitoring. 4.2.2. Strategic and Tactical Planning This involves a collaborative process where administrators, teachers, and stakeholders utilize data from the school's operations [27], such as the data from student academic performance and policy imperatives, to develop strategic plans that demonstrate a recognition of the importance of data-driven decision-making in educational contexts [28-30]. These plans are then operationalized into specific activities for developing the English program. 4.2.3. Systematic Process Management This component ensures operational efficiency by tasking the program committee to manage projects, activities, and instruction. Key systematic practices include reviewing the curriculum at least once a year, developing course descriptions, developing teaching plans, implementing continuous instructional supervision, and implementing strong measurement and evaluation processes. Therefore, it is essential to structure a systematic approach to guarantee quality [22]. 4.2.4. Human Resource Focus Schools must analyze the capabilities of their teaching staff, ensure appropriate staffing ratios, and set specific qualifications, such as requiring Thai teachers to be able to communicate in English. This includes managing personnel systems effectively, promoting continuous professional development, and maintaining staff morale, which addresses a key need identified in prior research. 4.3. Process Factors: The PDCA Cycle in Action The process factor encompasses the core academic activities, all utilizing the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle as a tool for quality management in academic contexts [16, 21, 22]. It includes six key operational areas. These are: 4.3.1. Institutional Curriculum Development Schools should create dedicated units to help, search, and design the curriculum, enlisting teachers, parents, and stakeholders in a cooperative effort in the curriculum’s development. Afterward, it should be tested on a pilot group, and its implementation should be continuously monitored. This becomes an indispensable practice for relevant and practical bilingual education [31]. 4.3.2. Instructional Management A system for managing teaching and learning is essential as well. As such, one must be developed, which entails a process that analyzes curriculum objectives, collaborates with stakeholders to plan instruction, and assesses student learning. This aligns with strategies crucial for improving English competency in bilingual settings. 4.3.3. Measurement, Evaluation, and Credit Transfer Each school must have a detailed and transparent system for student assessments, allowing the smooth transfer of academic credits per the Thai Ministry of Education guidelines. This ensures accountability and standardization across the program. 329 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.3.4. Educational Supervision A supervisorial system is essential for continuously assessing academic and instructional work. This includes creating supervision plans, developing evaluation tools, and building awareness among staff. 4.3.5. Development of Educational Media, Innovations, and Technology Institutions must create labs for research, production, and educational media and technology evaluation. This involves creating an effective information system for these resources, which is increasingly important in modern education [29]. 4.3.6. Development of the Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) System Finally, it is recommended that a unit be created to promote and research the IQA system as mandated by regulations. Key activities include building understanding of the IQA system across the institution and developing guidelines for its implementation, a critical component for sustained educational quality [22]. 4.4. Output Factors: Measuring Success and Impact The output factor defines the intended results and measures of success for the English program, focusing on four critical outcomes [32]. 4.4.1. Stakeholder Focus The program should generate information from its stakeholders, particularly through feedback mechanisms. Success is measured by levels of satisfaction from parents and students, a key concern identified in studies on bilingual education [33], as well as the establishment of collaborative networks. 4.4.2. Learner Quality and Operational Results The ultimate goal is students who demonstrate academic excellence and enhanced English language skills (measured by standardized tests like CEFR) [9, 10]. Key performance indicators include graduation rates and standardized test results, which are concrete measures of program efficacy [34]. 4.4.3. Knowledge and Information Management Effective schools will demonstrate robust information management [35], transferring staff knowledge and synthesizing data from various sources to create new knowledge and foster educational innovation. 4.4.4. Continuous Improvement The institution must demonstrate evidence of utilizing the PDCA cycle to measure performance, employing information systems to analyze results, and informing ongoing refinement. This process completes the loop in the quality management system and ensures that the model remains dynamic and responsive [16]. This integrated model provides a clear and actionable roadmap, grounded in established academic literature, for schools to systematically enhance their English programs' academic quality and management. 4.5. Quality of the Developed Administrative Model Nine experts evaluated the quality of the developed model. Based on the demographic profile of the experts involved, most were women (66.67%), the highest level of education was a doctoral degree (55.56%), and they had various professional expertise. This panel of experts consisted of teachers/head of department (33.33%), university lecturers (33.33%), deputy directors/directors (22.22%), and educational supervisors (11.11%), which provided a comprehensive benefit for the evaluation process, in terms of both theoretical and practical value. 330 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.6. Expert Model Evaluation As presented in Table 1, the experts evaluated the overall quality of the developed model at the highest level (M = 4.77, SD = 0.29). All individual dimensions were also rated at the highest level when broken down by aspect, with usefulness (M = 4.80, SD = 0.32) being evaluated as most essential, closely followed by accuracy (M = 4.80, SD = 0.35). Feasibility was next (M = 4.78, SD = 0.32), and finally propriety (M = 4.67, SD = 0.31). This indicates a strong consensus among the experts that the model is theoretically sound, highly practical, and applicable in real-world educational settings. Table 1. Mean scores, SDs, and ranking of the model's quality as evaluated by experts (n=9). Aspect M SD Level Rank Usefulness (Utility) 4.80 0.32 Highest 1 Accuracy 4.80 0.35 Highest 2 Feasibility 4.78 0.32 Highest 3 Appropriateness (Propriety) 4.67 0.31 Highest 4 Overall 4.77 0.29 Highest - 5. Discussion The primary outcome of this research was the development and validation of a three-factor administrative model for enhancing academic quality in secondary-level bilingual schools' English programs. This model directly addresses the documented gaps in curriculum implementation, teacher support, and the need for consistent management and assessment within the Thai context. 5.1. The Three-Factor Model Structure The structure of the model aligns with established systems theory and quality management frameworks, such as the Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model [24, 36], which has been used in numerous studies globally to evaluate curricula, teaching programs, and educational policies [37, 38]. 5.1.1. Input Factors Input factors entailing leadership, strategic planning, systematic process management, and human resource focus were determined to be an essential foundation strongly supported by the literature. Studies consistently reaffirm that effective leadership and strategic vision are universally recognized prerequisites for successful educational innovation [39, 40]. Without committed leadership and a dedicated, well-supported workforce, even the best-designed pedagogical processes will likely falter. 5.1.2. Process Factors The process factors, operating under the PDCA cycle, translate these inputs into action. PDCA is crucial as it embeds a mechanism for continuous reflection and adaptation, moving beyond a static plan to a dynamic, living system of improvement, a cornerstone of modern quality management in educational settings [16, 22]. 5.1.3. Output Factors Finally, the Output factors ensure the system remains accountable and focused on its ultimate goals: stakeholder satisfaction [33], student achievement, and organizational learning. This closed-loop system ensures that outputs inform future inputs, creating a cycle of perpetual refinement often absent in struggling programs. This study's primary output validates the three-factor administrative model for enhancing academic quality in secondary-level bilingual schools' English programs. This model aims to address issues concerning curriculum implementation, teacher support, and reliable management. The structure parallels systems theory and quality management models, such as Stufflebeam’s CIPP Model. 331 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 5.2. Expert Validation of Model Quality The results of the expert validation indicated that the model is not only theoretically sound but also has high utility value. This is particularly evident in the Usefulness and Feasibility dimensions, which gathered the highest scores from the experts who themselves are school officials and teachers. The experts saw the model as a practical tool that can help solve concrete problems of resource allocation, teacher readiness, and inconsistent management in bilingual program implementation [15]. The overall high rating for accuracy also reflects the model’s use in fulfilling the need for academic quality management. It accurately synthesizes the requirements of the Thai National Curriculum, OBEC’s policies, and specific pedagogical and administrative challenges of bilingual education. Although slightly lower, appropriateness may subtly hint at the well-documented challenges of resource allocation or the cultural adaptation of international models within specific Thai school contexts. However, the consensus affirms that the model is suitably designed for its intended environment. 6. Conclusion and Implications This study successfully achieved its objectives by developing and validating a model for administering academic quality in English Program curricula. The concluded model is built on three interdependent pillars: Input Factor: Providing the foundational drive through leadership, strategic planning, systematic procedures, and a focused investment in human resources. Process Factor: Executing the core academic functions through the continuous improvement mechanism of the PDCA cycle. Output Factor: Measuring success through stakeholder focus, learner quality, knowledge management, and a commitment to continuous improvement. The expert evaluation confirms that the model is of the highest quality, deemed particularly useful, accurate, and feasible for implementation. This suggests a significant potential in the model's ability to address critical gaps in the current administration of bilingual English programs in Thailand. 7. Implications for Practice and Future Research For educational administrators and executive policymakers, the model describes an explicit and practical guideline for improving quality in their English Program (EP) schools. Specifically, the model can be used as a self-evaluation tool and a strategic planning guideline. It is also helpful as a guideline in organizing systematic professional development programs for overcoming weaknesses in specific input, process, or output domains. For scholars, this study generates numerous potential prospects for future research. Naturally, a logical next step is to implement this model in a pilot study to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model on concrete outcomes, such as students’ English language proficiency test scores (TOEIC, TOEFL, or CEFR level examinations), instructor retention, and stakeholder satisfaction [33]. Further studies should also explore the specific challenges and creative approaches to implementing each aspect of the proposed model in different schools and contexts, with varying sizes and levels of resources, since “one-size-fits-all” is indeed one of the common pitfalls of educational change and reform [15]. Finally, exploring the role of new technology in facilitating the processes brought about by the model [29] is one promising way forward. Institutional Review Board Statement: This research did not engage with vulnerable groups, collect identifiable personal information, or implement any intervention. Consequently, in accordance with Thailand's Guidelines for Conducting Human Subjects Research in Behavioral Science, Social Sciences, and Humanities [41], the study was exempt from the requirement for formal ethics review. 332 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Ajarn Charlie for his Thai-to-English translation and English language editing support for the manuscripts. Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] K. Dewiloh and U. Tawilapakul, "The effects of data-driven learning (DDL) on the teaching of English phrasal verbs to Thai EFL secondary students," Thammasat University, Doctoral Dissertation, 2022. [2] M. W. Puagtes, "Secondary students in a bilingual school," Thammasat University, Doctoral Dissertation, 2020. [3] U. Samoh and S. Premsrirat, "The complexity of languages and scripts used in Thailand’s deep south," Journal of Language and Culture, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 167-190, 2021. [4] N. Sakdapat, P. Ngamcharoen, R. Cheewakoset, and D. E. Bhanthumnavin, "Guidelines for the development and promotion of global citizenship behavior among undergraduate students in Thailand," ArtsEduca, vol. 41, no. 41, pp. 137–148, 2024. [5] W. Grabe and F. L. Stoller, Teaching and researching reading, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2019. [6] Y. Ozek and M. Civelek, "A study on the use of cognitive reading strategies by ELT students," The Asian EFL Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-26, 2006. [7] M. Brenzinger, "Language vitality and endangerment," presented at the Int. Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, France, 2003. [8] G. M. Flores, R. Tupas, A. Kirkpatrick, H. T. M. Nguyen, and L. J. Zhang, English education in Southeast Asian contexts: Policy, practice, and identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2024. [9] P. Eiadkaew, K. Sermsook, and R. Nakplad, "Enhancing lecturers’ English proficiency according to common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR) for English test," KKU International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 46-81, 2025. [10] S. Tangsakul and K. Poonpon, "Aligning academic reading tests to the common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR)," rEFLections, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 614-638, 2024. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v31i2.275057 [11] V. Kelasi, "Effectiveness of communicative language teaching in Thai classrooms," Journal of Asian Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 77-83, 2025. [12] A. Moe, "The role of English in Thailand’s education system and globalization," Journal of Asian Language Teaching and Learning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 62-69, 2025. [13] P. Sangnark, "Bridging the gap: How limitations in Thailand’s English language teaching impact tourism professionals’ communication, career, and income," M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Jyväskylä, Finland, 2025. [14] L. Sibanda, C. G. Iwu, and O. H. Benedict, "Academic success factors: implications for teaching, learning and academic administration," International Journal of Educational Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 269-279, 2015. [15] E. C. Baca, "From compliance to resistance: Administrator perspectives on implementing structured English immersion and dual language bilingual education programs," International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 786-799, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1943303 [16] U. Dirnagl, C. Kurreck, E. Castaños‐Vélez, and R. Bernard, "Quality management for academic laboratories: Burden or boon? Professional quality management could be very beneficial for academic research but needs to overcome specific caveats," EMBO Reports, vol. 19, no. 11, p. e47143, 2018. [17] S. Niewiesk and E. G. Garrity‐Rokous, "The academic leadership framework: A guide for systematic assessment and improvement of academic administrative work," Global Business and Organizational Excellence, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 50-63, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22083 [18] L. Zhibin, "A management perspective on academic achievement: The impact of bilingual education policies in Chinese primary schools," Peta International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-18, 2024. [19] P. Pimdee, O. Wuttikamonchai, A. Sukkamart, C. Meedee, and S. Meekhobtong, "Improving Thai undergraduate students’ web design skills for smartphones through a collaborative blended learning approach," Frontiers in Education, vol. 10, p. 1522793, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1522793 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v31i2.275057 https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2021.1943303 https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22083 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1522793 333 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 10: 324-333, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i10.10406 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [20] C. Kanawapee, S. Petsangsri, and P. Pimdee, "Thai ‘Healthy Schools’ teacher professional competency needs development analyses," Ilkogretim Online, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1461-1471, 2021. [21] M. Pietrzak and J. Paliszkiewicz, "Framework of strategic learning: The PDCA cycle," Management (18544223), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 135–149, 2015. [22] K. Gray and A. Radloff, "Quality management of academic development work: Implementation issues and challenges," International Journal for Academic Development, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 79-90, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440600924397 [23] A. Klarin, "How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: Guidelines and contributions of content co‐occurrence or co‐word literature reviews," International Journal of Consumer Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, p. e13031, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13031 [24] D. L. Stufflebeam and G. Zhang, The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. New York: Guilford Publications, 2017. [25] T. Kantathanawat, A. Ussarn, M. Charoentham, and P. Pimdee, "Integrating mastery adaptive and problem-solving (MAPS) digital technology skills into a Thai community college student learning model," Educational Process: International Journal, vol. 14, p. e2025013, 2025. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.13 [26] A. Cook-Sather and P. Felten, Ethics of academic leadership: Guiding learning and teaching. In M. Baik, C. Ploner, & M. Shah (Eds.), Cosmopolitan perspectives on academic leadership in higher education. London, England: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017. [27] K. Singsungnoen and N. Jeerungsuwan, "The study of competency of instructors toward teaching and learning in the 21stCentury," in The Twelfth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 2015. [28] B. I. Chigbu and S. L. Makapela, "Data-driven leadership in higher education: Advancing sustainable development goals and inclusive transformation," Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 3116, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073116 [29] I. M. S. Sudana, K. B. Utomo, and G. Abdullah, "Information technology integration for academic administration optimization," STABILITY: Journal of Management and Business, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 94–101, 2025. https://doi.org/10.26877/jgxr0h67 [30] F. W. Fitriana, E. Mulyadi, and D. E. Hardian, "Evaluation of the implementation of digital-based academic administration in the society 5.0 era," Journal of English Language and Education, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 459-466, 2025. [31] E. N. M. de Diezmas, "Students, teachers and management teams in bilingual programmes: Shared perceptions and areas for improvement," Journal of English Studies, vol. 17, pp. 277-297, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3564 [32] P. Tharmalee, P. Chusorn, and C. Sirisuthi, "Development of academic administration system for excellence of mid- sized schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office in the Northeast," International Journal of Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 211, 2023. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v12n5p211 [33] L. M. Dos Santos, "Bilingual English education: Expectation of parents who Enrol their children in Bilingual primary schools," International Journal of Instruction, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 747-766, 2019. [34] P. Bishop, S. Phusee-Orn, and A. Malasri, "Development of evaluation indicators for foreign teachers teaching English subject in the basic education level of Thailand," Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 247-261, 2016. [35] K. Louka, "Information management in schools in the digital age," European Journal of Innovative Studies and Sustainability, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 13-20, 2025. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejiss.2025.1(3).02 [36] E. Nurhasanah, I. G. Ratnaya, I. G. L. A. Parwata, and I. D. A. M. Budhyana, "The implementation of context, input, process, product evaluation model for assessing educational programs," JETAL: Journal of English Teaching & Applied Linguistic, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 55-71, 2025. https://doi.org/10.36655/jetal.v7i1.1925 [37] S. Sopha and A. Nanni, "The CIPP model: Applications in language program evaluation," Journal of Asia TEFL, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1360–1367, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.19.1360 [38] P. Somintara, A. Sukkamart, and P. Pimdee, "Strengthening Thai 7th grade student creative thinking skills: A curriculum development model," Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 152–163, 2018. https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1172 [39] F. L. Stoller, Innovation as the hallmark of effective leadership. In M. A. Christison & D. Murray (Eds.), Leadership in English Language Education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times. New York: Routledge, 2012. [40] K. A. Ayyaswamy, N. Kathirvel, V. M. Gobinath, and C. P. Maheswaran, Effective leadership strategies for enhancing student success in higher education. In New Horizons in Leadership: Inclusive Explorations in Health, Technology, and Education. Hershey, PA, United States: IGI Global, 2025. [41] P. Phuangsuwan, P. Limna, and S. Siripipatthanakul, "Ethics in the social sciences research," Advance Knowledge Executive, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1-11, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440600924397 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13031 https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2025.14.13 https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073116 https://doi.org/10.26877/jgxr0h67 https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3564 https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v12n5p211 https://doi.org/10.59324/ejiss.2025.1(3).02 https://doi.org/10.36655/jetal.v7i1.1925 https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.4.19.1360 https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1172