Developing and Validating an EE–SEP Administration Model for Thai Primary Schools

Abstract

This study aimed to (a) develop a primary school administration model that integrates Entrepreneurship Education (EE) with the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP), and (b) evaluate its effects on teachers’ EE–SEP instructional competencies. Seven in-service teachers and 31 students participated. Quantitative analyses (means, standard deviations, paired t-tests and ANOVA) and qualitative analyses (thematic analysis) were conducted. Five experts rated the model very highly (M = 4.51, SD = 0.70). Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, teachers completed an EE–SEP conceptual test, submitted lesson plans, and were observed in class. After implementation, teachers’ EE–SEP understanding improved significantly (t = 8.401, p < 0.01). Their lesson plan quality and EE–SEP instructional management competency both increased significantly from the beginning to mid- and end of semester (p < 0.05). Moreover, students’ EE–SEP comprehension increased significantly following instruction (t = 20.380, p < 0.001). These results support the model’s validity and its effectiveness in enhancing EE–SEP pedagogy in Thai primary schools.

1. Introduction

Recent economic and social shifts in Thailand have coincided with rising unemployment and increasing household debt, in part due to unequal access to up-to-date knowledge and innovation. According to the National Economic and Social Development Council’s 2021 Social Situation Report, the employed population declined by 1.0% to 37.9 million, while unemployment rose to 630,000 (1.64%) (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2022). Among the jobless, 380,000 had previously been employed—a 21.7% decrease in re-employment—even as newly entering labor-market participants who secured work increased by 4.1%. Together, these data highlight a widening disconnect between Thailand’s workforce capabilities and its available economic opportunities.

The national pattern of precarious employment is reflected in local graduate outcomes. A three-year survey at Bannongmasaew School (Kindergarten 2 through Grade 6, Sri Saket District Educational Service Area Office 1) shows graduate numbers halving—from 19 in 2021 to just 9 in 2023—and persistently constrained post-primary trajectories. Only one student per cohort pursued further study, while permanent employment declined from two graduates in 2021 to none by 2023. Self-employment remained negligible, and most alumni became day laborers (13 in 2021; 9 in 2022; 6 in 2023), with two graduates unemployed each year. These figures demonstrate that even primary-level institutions struggle to shield students from broader labor-market volatility and underscore the urgent need to strengthen programs—such as Entrepreneurship Education (EE)—that can provide graduates with more stable, skilled career pathways (Bannongmasaew School, 2022).

These local outcomes underscore the urgent need for comprehensive policy measures that equip future graduates with the resilience and skills required for stable, skilled careers. In response, Thailand’s economic and social development agenda—embodied in the Thailand 4.0 vision—advocates building a workforce grounded in innovation and entrepreneurship. Central to this vision is human capital development: fostering a growth mindset, cultivating essential 21st-century competencies (such as critical thinking and adaptability), and promoting lifelong learning and self-development to produce Thai citizens capable of pursuing careers aligned with their interests (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2018). In the following sections, we first explore the theoretical potential of EE and then provide an overview of the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) as complementary frameworks for addressing these challenges.

EE plays a pivotal role in realizing Thailand 4.0 by equipping learners with the innovation and business acumen required for the modern economy. Although the Ministry of Education’s 2018 report highlights EE’s established presence in tertiary curricula, research shows its effectiveness across all educational levels: Lackéus (2015) documents EE’s adaptability for learners of any age, and Johansen and Schanke (2013) illustrate its successful integration in European primary and secondary schools. By promoting creativity, practical engagement, and reflective problem-solving, EE not only enhances student motivation but also fosters critical 21st-century competencies—entrepreneurship itself being identified by Gautam (2015) as essential for global learners. Yet, despite strong policy support for both EE and SEP, no framework currently exists to guide Thai primary school educators in merging these two approaches.

Historically, Thai families have regarded formal education chiefly as a gateway to government service or stable salaried employment, with entrepreneurship viewed as a marginal pursuit (Jeerapattanatorn & Chiewchan, 2018). Today’s Generation Z—those born after 1998—exhibits a substantially stronger entrepreneurial orientation than their predecessors (Schawbel, 2014), reflecting global trends in countries such as the United States, where schools at every level now embed entrepreneurship training to bolster both individual outcomes and broader workforce readiness (Chareonwongsak, 2016).

Complementing this shift, Thailand’s SEP, promulgated by King Bhumibol Adulyadej, instills moderation, reasoned planning, and risk management as guiding principles for sustainable living. SEP’s three pillars encourage balanced production and consumption, foresighted decision-making, and proactive preparation for uncertainty. Underpinning these pillars are two prerequisites—interdisciplinary knowledge for rigorous planning and the cultivation of virtues such as honesty, patience, perseverance, and wisdom—that together foster resilience, genuine happiness, and long-term well-being.

Thailand has translated SEP’s foundational principles—moderation, reasoned planning, and risk management—into a national educational framework by formally embedding its competencies across school curricula and teaching methods (Khammanee, 2016). As of 2014, this initiative has established 14,580 Sufficiency Economy Schools and 47 dedicated Sufficiency Economy Education Centers nationwide (Thammapiya, 2014), illustrating the government’s commitment to fostering collective progress through structured, values-driven pedagogy.

Recent evaluations by the Regional Education Office No. 2 demonstrate that SEP implementation fosters strong collaboration among staff, students, and school boards, with these cooperative practices persisting even amid leadership changes (Regional Education Office No. 2, 2019). Despite this progress, many stakeholders continue to associate self-sufficiency narrowly with agricultural work, neglecting the broader applications of SEP in school and community settings. This misunderstanding has deprived students of valuable opportunities to internalize and enact SEP’s principles. To remedy this, educators must integrate SEP more thoroughly into the curriculum—ensuring that students not only learn the philosophy but also engage in practical exercises that embody its moderation, reasoned planning, and risk-management tenets.

Although SEP principles are embedded in Thai schools, the national curriculum remains narrowly focused on literacy and numeracy, limiting opportunities to cultivate complementary entrepreneurial skills. This omission is striking given SEP’s core emphasis on prudence, self-reliance, and balanced decision-making—attributes that underpin entrepreneurial mindsets. To bridge this gap, Thailand should integrate Entrepreneurship Education (EE) into its SEP framework, drawing on models such as Finland’s early-primary program, which seamlessly combines theoretical knowledge with hands-on practice (Ruskovara & Pihkala, 2015). By doing so, Thai students would not only internalize SEP’s values but also acquire practical, marketable competencies from the outset of their education.

EE fosters creativity by challenging learners to devise novel solutions that account for resource constraints and societal considerations. This approach aligns with the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy’s pillar of moderation, as sustainability-guided ideation ensures innovations remain both original and judicious. EE also hones critical thinking through rigorous analysis, evidence-based reasoning, and reflective judgment—competencies that directly support SEP’s principle of reasoned planning by enabling students to evaluate alternatives systematically, anticipate risks, and formulate comprehensive action plans. By weaving creativity and critical thinking into instructional programs, educators can develop entrepreneurial graduates who not only generate new venture ideas but also execute them with balanced decision-making and strategic foresight, thereby embodying the shared values of EE and SEP.

Embedding EE–SEP competencies throughout school systems ensures that SEP values inform the daily practices of administrators, teachers, staff, and students. This approach directly supports Thailand’s National Education Plan 2017–2036 by fostering quality education, lifelong learning, and responsible citizenship rooted in SEP’s principles (Office of the Education Council, 2017). Under this plan, Thai learners are expected to exemplify virtue, develop essential 21st-century skills, and fulfill competencies prescribed by the Constitution, the National Education Act, the 20-Year National Strategy, and Thailand 4.0. By cultivating a “sufficiency mindset and behavior,” schools build resilience, adaptability, and ethical leadership—traits essential for navigating future challenges and advancing sustainable national development (Thammapiya, 2014).

Although SEP values are woven throughout Thai curricula and EE successfully cultivates vital 21st-century skills, no existing framework guides Thai primary school administrators to integrate EE with SEP. Despite rich strands on EE and SEP, the literature offers few school-level administration models that (a) explicitly derive their phases from EE and SEP foundations, (b) provide replicable implementation detail (e.g., professional development sequence, supervision tools, fidelity), and (c) report contextualized, primary-level evidence from Thai schools. As a result, schools face difficulty translating EE–SEP principles into day-to-day administrative practice and judging what appropriate implementation looks like. To fill this gap, we developed and piloted an innovative administrative model that integrates EE and SEP, enabling teachers to deliver cohesive, value-driven instruction. Utilizing a research and development approach—with iterative expert review and a mixed-methods evaluation of teacher competencies—we confirmed the model’s design validity and practical impact in Thailand’s primary school context. By instilling both an entrepreneurial mindset and sufficiency principles from the earliest grades, this integrated strategy not only enhances teacher effectiveness but also lays the foundation for resilient, skilled career pathways among at-risk graduates. Therefore, this study has two objectives: (1) to develop the EE–SEP administration model tailored to Thai primary schools; and (2) to evaluate the effects of EE–SEP model on teachers’ EE–SEP instructional competencies and on students’ comprehension of EE–SEP concepts. The next section reviews EE and SEP foundations and positions the EE-SEP model within educational administration models.

2. Literature Review

This review synthesizes key scholarship on EE and SEP, examining their theoretical foundations, pedagogical models, and empirical outcomes in both global and Thai educational contexts.

2.1. Entrepreneurship Education (EE)

Understanding entrepreneurship merely as a vocation reserved for business founders offers a narrow view. In fact, entrepreneurship can be defined more broadly as “the process of successfully executing work,” implying that anyone who applies this process qualifies as an entrepreneur. Moreover, one’s entrepreneurial journey may begin at any age—some engage in entrepreneurial activities during childhood, while others embark on ventures during their university years (Jeerapattanatorn, 2021). Building on this expansive definition, the precise framing of entrepreneurship—its aims and methods—depends on individual objectives and the context in which it is practiced.

The purpose of entrepreneurship varies by goal and setting, encompassing processes such as innovation, value creation, and personal growth. Accordingly, EE addresses multiple dimensions—including management skills, opportunity recognition, venture initiation, personal attributes, intentions, values, and behaviors—that together foster an entrepreneurial mindset (Gautam, 2015). EE therefore extends beyond teaching business ownership; it cultivates environments for experimentation, stimulates creativity, encourages independent thinking, embraces responsible risk-taking, and values diversity. Having outlined EE’s multidimensional scope, it is important to recognize how these strategies empower learners in practice.

By fostering creativity, proactivity, and adaptability, EE empowers individuals to pursue life goals with self-reliance and ambition (Ememe et al., 2013). Beyond business contexts, it nurtures a pervasive entrepreneurial culture—championing innovation, promoting new ventures, and building confidence across all pursuits. Gautam (2015) identifies key EE features as: Fostering Innovation; Promoting Leadership; Enhancing Success Factors; Building Organizations; Linking Creation and Business Operations; Enabling Business Creation and Operations; Establishing Sustainability and Growth; Transforming Attitudes, Enhancing Risk Management Abilities, and Translating Ideas into Practice. Given these foundational elements, EE is a vital mechanism for cultivating an innovative ecosystem and shaping learners’ lifelong trajectories—particularly when introduced early in their education.

EE equips young learners with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential for innovation and leadership, thereby fostering a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem. As a catalyst for personal and societal transformation, EE should be embedded throughout the educational journey, beginning at the primary level. Recognizing its role in building competence, confidence, and competitiveness, educators and policymakers have increasingly prioritized early EE integration. By serving as a foundational platform for experimentation and skill development, primary-level EE not only nurtures future entrepreneurs but also cultivates critical life skills that benefit all students (Jusoh, 2012).

Recent high-impact work clarifies how EE develops entrepreneurial mindset and competencies. Longitudinal evidence from an experiential course shows students cycle through critical incidents (often failures), transforming negative emotions into learning and an entrepreneurial mindset over time (Crosina et al., 2024). In parallel, a technology-empowered systematic review maps seven current EE themes (gender and pedagogy, tech transfer, intention, etc.) and emphasizes design features that matter for outcomes (Anubhav et al., 2024). A comprehensive 2025 review further argues for “reshaping” EE around integrative, practice-rich models and offers an updated research agenda (Passarelli & Bongiorno, 2025). Finally, inclusivity has emerged as a core design concern in 2024, with new work showing where access and participation gaps persist in EE provision and how programs can address them (Henry et al., 2024).

Based on our analysis of key EE characteristics drawn from a comprehensive literature review (European Commission, 2016; Gautam, 2015; Johansen & Schanke, 2013; Jeerapattanatorn & Chiewchan, 2018; Jenukorn & Inrak, 2018; Piyasant, 2013; Wattanatanawuth et al., 2018), we identify five essential EE management dimensions: (1) student entrepreneurial attributes, (2) curriculum development, (3) pedagogical entrepreneurial knowledge (PEK) for learning management, (4) guidance and monitoring, and (5) evaluation of EE effectiveness.

2.2. The Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP)

At its core, SEP articulates a set of guiding principles—moderation, reasoned planning, and risk management—that serve as the ethical and practical bedrock for both individual conduct and national policymaking (Chaipattana Foundation Office, 1999). Moderation cautions against overconsumption or overinvestment in any single area, encouraging Thais to live within their means and to seek balance between ambition and sustainability. Reasoned planning insists on decisions driven by robust information, long-term vision, and stakeholder consultation, fostering policies and personal choices grounded in realistic goals. Risk management requires anticipating potential shocks—economic downturns, natural disasters, global market fluctuations—and building buffers (financial, social, or environmental) that allow communities to absorb and adapt to unforeseen challenges. Together, these principles function much like the central pillar of a house: unseen in everyday life yet indispensable for structural integrity and resilience.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) first presented SEP publicly on 18 July 1974 at Kasetsart University, framing it as a paradigm shift from rapid, unbridled development toward a “step by step” approach. He emphasized that before nations or individuals pursue aggressive economic expansion, they must first secure “sufficiency in basic needs”—food security, affordable housing, and essential services—through resource-efficient methods and community cooperation. This foundation of sufficiency acts as a stable platform from which higher-order aspirations—such as industrialization or technological innovation—can be sustainably pursued. Rama IX’s cautionary message remains timely: economies that leapfrog foundational requirements without regard to local conditions risk imbalances—excessive debt, environmental degradation, or social dislocation—that can precipitate severe downturns.

While frequently associated with economic policy, SEP’s reach extends well into social, political, and environmental spheres. In social policy, moderation translates into welfare programs calibrated to local capacities, avoiding overreliance on external aid and promoting community self-help. Politically, reasoned planning manifests as participatory governance models that solicit feedback from diverse stakeholders, ensuring that legislation reflects ground-level realities. Environmentally, risk management drives proactive conservation efforts—watershed protection, reforestation, and climate resiliency planning—that safeguard natural capital. By applying SEP’s three pillars across sectors, Thailand seeks to cultivate a society that not only grows economically but does so in a manner that is equitable, participatory, and ecologically sound.

Recognizing that lasting cultural change begins in the classroom, Thailand has woven SEP into its national education system (Regional Education Office No. 2, 2019). At the institutional level, school administrators and committees revise strategic plans to reflect SEP’s tenets: budget allocations favor energy-efficient facilities and community gardens, while teacher training programs emphasize project-based learning in which students must plan, execute, and reflect on resource-sensitive initiatives. In daily routines, teachers embed case studies of local sufficiency-based enterprises and facilitate student-led risk assessments of school events (e.g., budgeting for a cultural fair). Through these practices, schools not only impart SEP theory but also model its application, producing graduates who understand how to balance ambition with sustainability, make informed decisions, and anticipate challenges in their future personal and professional lives.

SEP’s three pillars—moderation, reasonableness, and risk management—are supported by two enabling conditions that ensure their effective enactment. First, interdisciplinary knowledge equips individuals and institutions with the analytical tools—economic literacy, environmental science, and social research methods—needed to plan comprehensively and adaptively. Second, the cultivation of virtue (honesty, patience, perseverance, and wisdom) anchors decision-making in ethical considerations, ensuring that the pursuit of sufficiency does not compromise social trust or long-term well-being. When these conditions are met, SEP fosters resilience at every level: families that maintain diversified livelihoods, communities that share resources equitably, and governments that enact policies safeguarding future generations. Over time, this integrated framework produces a virtuous cycle of stability, adaptability, and sustainable prosperity.

Beyond its historical roots, SEP’s present-day policy salience is documented in the Thailand Human Development Report 2025, which frames SEP as a tool for local resilience and SDG alignment (UNDP, 2025). Empirically, 2024 studies integrating SEP with community-based programs demonstrate health and behavior benefits when SEP principles are operationalized through participatory action (Sathirapanya et al., 2024). From a comparative-education perspective, recent analyses discuss how Thailand’s “sufficiency education” discourse intersects with UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) agenda and classroom practice (Tan, 2024).

2.3. Managing SEP Schools

Framing school implementation through a Whole-Institution/Whole-School Approach (WIA) to UNESCO’s ESD, recent work shows that aligning leadership, operations, curriculum, partnerships, and monitoring yields measurable gains in sustainability learning. Mapping SEP onto this WIA evidence base, and building on Thai administrative guidance, we distill seven mutually reinforcing characteristics for managing schools under SEP (Thammapiya, 2014; Phumkerd, 2019; Center for Driving Development According to the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy in Education, 2021; Regional Education Office No. 1, 2018; Regional Education Office No. 2, 2019), we distilled seven core characteristics of managing schools under SEP:

• Awareness Building: Administrators proactively prepare teachers and students to understand SEP principles and integrate them seamlessly into daily life.
• Holistic Institutional Management: School leaders ensure that all aspects of operations—from budgeting to facility maintenance—adhere to SEP tenets.
• Curriculum Integration: Teachers design and deliver a comprehensive curriculum that embeds SEP concepts across subjects.
• Activity Planning: Educators organize targeted activities and projects that reinforce SEP values and demonstrate their practical application.
• Resource Development: Institutions acquire and develop learning materials, tools, and environments that support SEP-aligned teaching and learning.
• Network Cultivation: Schools establish internal and external partnerships—among staff, parents, community organizations, and other institutions—to promote SEP adoption and exchange best practices.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Administrators implement robust assessment systems to measure the impact of SEP initiatives, enabling data-driven refinement and scaling of effective practices.

This WIA–SEP alignment is consistent with UNESCO’s current ESD guidance and recent validation of WIA as an effective, measurable approach; it also resonates with contemporary analyses of Thailand’s sufficiency education discourse and SEP’s policy salience for community empowerment and SDG alignment.

2.4. Administration Model

Administration model means a theoretically informed representation of how a school is organized and led to achieve intended outcomes—specifying key actors, processes, decision rules, structures, and feedback loops that guide action. In educational research, models are commonly distinguished from theories and frameworks: theories aim to explain and predict, models offer narrower depictions of core constructs and relations for operation or design (often descriptive or normative), and frameworks provide heuristic categories to guide implementation and inquiry (Nilsen, 2015; Luft et al., 2022).

Classic educational management scholarship situates such models within recognizable traditions. Bush (2020) synthesizes school management into families—formal, collegial, political, subjective, ambiguity, and cultural—each highlighting different assumptions about decision-making, authority, and meaning in schools, and providing a conceptual home for “administration models” that articulate how schools are steered.

Positioned within this landscape, the EE–SEP Administration Model is hybrid. It exhibits collegial and cultural features (shared values, participation, meaning-making anchored in SEP’s ethics) and formal/system features (structured supervision, role clarity, and cyclical evaluation consistent with schools as open social systems) (Bush, 2020; Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Accordingly, EE–SEP is a normative administration model. It specifies phased processes (i.e., Awareness, Holistic Approach, and Assessment), decision routines (e.g., internal supervision), and system supports (PD, resources, networks) intended to embed EE–SEP across the organization, while remaining compatible with descriptive accounts of school organization and culture (Hoy & Miskel, 2013; Owens & Valesky, 2022).

3. Materials and Methods

This study employed a two-cycle Research and Development (R&D) methodology. In Loop 1 (Research 1 Development 1 or R1D1), the focus was on designing a prototype EE–SEP school administration model: first, through a diagnostic Research Phase (R1) to examine existing practices, challenges, and needs; and then, through a Development Phase (D1) to construct the initial model. In Loop 2 (R2D2), an evaluative Research Phase (R2) measured teachers’ competencies in implementing EE–SEP instruction and assessed student learning outcomes, which informed the subsequent Development Phase (D2) used to refine and enhance the model.

3.1. R1: Developing the EE–SEP Administration Model

The primary research question for R1 was: What are the current practices, challenges, and perceived needs associated with implementing EE–SEP administration? The corresponding objective was to collect empirical data on these dimensions within primary school settings to guide the design of the EE–SEP model. We employed a mixed-methods survey design, combining quantitative questionnaires with qualitative focus group discussions (FGDs).

In quantitative research, two parallel questionnaires—one for school leaders (n = 38) and one for teachers (n = 32), both recruited via purposive sampling—used a five-point Likert scale across three domains (current practices: 12 items; challenges: 12 items; needs: 7 items) and included an open-ended section for recommendations. To enrich these findings, FGDs were conducted with 18 school leaders and 7 teachers to explore themes that emerged from the survey data.

Two research instruments were developed and rigorously validated. The School Administrator Questionnaire comprised 31 items in three sections: demographics (4 items), EE–SEP administration (31 items divided into practices, challenges, and needs), and an open-ended recommendations section. A panel of five experts (doctoral-level scholars or associate professors with ≥5 years’ EE–SEP experience) assessed content validity via the Item–Objective Congruence (IOC) index, yielding scores of 0.98 for practices, 0.97 for challenges, and 0.98 for needs. Following their feedback, we refined demographic items and expanded the administration section from 23 to 31 items. Pilot testing with 38 administrators produced Cronbach’s α coefficients of 0.95 (practices), 0.83 (challenges), and 0.90 (needs).

The Teacher Questionnaire mirrored this structure with 27 items: demographics (4 items), EE–SEP administration (practices: 12, challenges: 8, needs: 7), and open-ended recommendations. The same expert panel validated its content, with IOC scores of 0.98 (practices), 0.98 (challenges), and 0.97 (needs). After revising item definitions and reallocating questions, a pilot test with 31 teachers yielded Cronbach’s α coefficients of 0.97 (practices), 0.91 (challenges), and 0.91 (needs).

Both instruments were administered to purposively selected participants—38 school administrators and 32 teachers, each with at least five years of relevant EE or SEP experience. Quantitative data (Sections 1 and 2) were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. The results from 5-point Likert-type scale are reported descriptively without categorical interpretation. Open-ended responses (Section 3) underwent thematic analysis to identify key insights for model refinement.

The qualitative component of this study utilized Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to elicit in-depth practices, challenges, and needs about the implementation of EE–SEP–based school administration. Participants were encouraged to speak freely and engage openly with their peers, fostering a rich dialog on current practices, challenges, and perceived needs.

FGDs were conducted separately with two stakeholder groups. Eighteen school administrators participated in discussions guided by an 11-item semi-structured protocol, which included four questions on current practices, two on challenges, and five on perceived needs related to integrating entrepreneurship education with the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy. Seven teachers took part in a parallel FGD, responding to a 13-item guide consisting of six questions on current practices, two on challenges, and five on needs.

Both FGD guides underwent expert review by a panel of five scholars (each holding a doctoral degree or associate professorship and at least five years of relevant EE–SEP experience). Content validity was confirmed using the Item–Objective Congruence (IOC) index, with all question clusters achieving IOC scores between 0.80 and 1.00—well above the acceptable threshold. Based on expert feedback, the guides were revised for clarity and completeness, then pilot-tested with three non-sample administrators and three non-sample teachers from similar schools to verify question wording and optimize discussion dynamics.

Participants were selected via purposive sampling to ensure that each had a minimum of five years’ experience in either school leadership or teaching within EE or SEP frameworks. Administrators (n = 18) and teachers (n = 7) were recruited from primary schools in the Sri Saket educational service area.

FGD transcripts were examined using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase thematic analysis: first, familiarization, involving immersion in the data through repeated readings; second, coding, which generated initial codes for salient data segments; third, theme development, in which related codes were collated into preliminary themes; fourth, theme review, refining these themes by merging, discarding, or splitting to ensure coherence; fifth, defining themes, articulating the essence and boundaries of each theme; and finally, reporting, during which thematic insights were integrated into a cohesive narrative for the research report. This rigorous FGD methodology yielded a nuanced understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on EE–SEP school administration, directly informing model refinement.

The authors utilized data from surveys, FGDs, and literature review to develop the first draft of EE–SEP administration model and asked a panel of five experts to evaluate its Propriety, Accuracy, Feasibility, and Utility (MacMillan & Schumacher, 2001).

3.2. R2: Validating the EE–SEP Administration Model

This study aims to investigate the effects of implementing the EE-SEP school administration model on teachers’ competencies in managing instruction according to the EE–SEP framework and students’ understanding of EE-SEP. The researchers utilized a pre-experimental one-group pre-test–post-test experimental design (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987, p. 113) to examine short-term change during the R2D2 loop. This design involves measuring the same participants before and after an intervention without a concurrent comparison group. It does not constitute a true experiment (i.e., random assignment with a control/comparison condition) and therefore provides limited internal validity for causal attribution (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Shadish et al., 2002). Accordingly, analyses are framed as exploratory estimation of change rather than confirmatory causal tests.

3.2.1. Setting and Implementation

The study was conducted in a single school that decided to adopt the EE–SEP model school-wide. At this site there were seven primary school teachers across six grades. To avoid partial implementation and contamination across staff, we invited all seven teachers to participate. All accepted.

3.2.2. Sampling Approach

This constitutes a site census of all eligible teachers rather than purposive selection. Teachers were eligible if they (a) were employed at the study school during the implementation period and (b) taught in the target grades. No teacher met exclusion criteria. The student cohort comprised the intact classes with thirty students taught by these teachers. Students were eligible if they were enrolled in the participating classes and had parental consent for study measures. A census approach aligned with the school’s equity mandate (provide PD to all staff) and the design goal of a whole-school AHA implementation, while minimizing cross-group contamination.

3.2.3. Selection Bias and External Validity

Because participants represent a single-site convenience context (all teachers at one school), representativeness is limited and findings may not generalize to other settings with different staffing profiles, resources, or student demographics. We therefore present results as context-bound estimates of change and encourage replication with multi-site samples and probabilistic or stratified sampling where feasible.

Seven teachers enrolled in the EE–SEP professional development program.

Table 1. The EE–SEP professional development program.

Learning Unit	Content	Activity	Involved Person	Time	Assessment
Learning Unit 1: EE-SEP Paradigms	Definition, benefits and components of EE-SEP; Success case studies of EE-SEP	Active lecture, Case study	Content expert, School administrator	1st week	Pre-test, post-test of conceptual understanding of EE-SEP
Learning Unit 2: EE-SEP Lesson Plan Design and Development	EE-SEP lesson plan designing by using PECER, a practice-based instructional approach consisting of five practices: Play, Empathy, Creation, Experimentation, and Reflection (Neck et al., 2014)	Active lecture, Workshop, Presentation, Reflection	Content expert, educational supervisor, school administrator, Hed of academic affair	2nd week, 7th week, 15th week	Assessment of teachers’ EE-SEP lesson plans by using scoring rubrics
Learning Unit 3: EE-SEP Learning Assessment	Assessing EE-SEP by using SOLO Taxonomy (Structured of the Observed Learning Outcomes) with five hierarchical levels: Prestructural, Unistructural, Multistructural, Relational, and Extended Abstract learning outcome.	Active lecture, Workshop, Presentation, Reflection	Content expert, educational supervisor, school administrator, Hed of academic affair	2nd week, 7th week, 15th week	Assessment of teachers’ EE-SEP assessment by using scoring rubrics

details the EE–SEP professional development program to support its transferability and replication.

The researchers employed four distinct instruments with details as follows.

(1)

Teacher Understanding Test on EE-SEP

The Teacher Understanding Test for EE–SEP is a 40-item, four-option multiple-choice assessment evaluating three comprehension domains: (1) Knowledge of the EE paradigm (13 items); (2) Designing EE–SEP lesson plans using the PECER model (Neck et al., 2014) (14 items); and (3) Assessing and evaluating EE–SEP learning outcomes via the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) (13 items). Items that achieved acceptable content validity (IOC ≥ 0.80) were pilot-tested with 30 teachers outside the study sample. Item difficulty indices (p) ranging from 0.20 to 0.76 and discrimination indices (r) from 0.20 to 0.79, which met the selection criteria (p = 0.20–0.80; r ≥ 0.20). The final 40-item test demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with a Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 reliability coefficient of 0.86.

(2)

Student Understanding Test on EE-SEP

The Student Understanding Test on EE–SEP is a 30-item, four-option multiple-choice instrument that evaluates domains: (1) Entrepreneurial skills knowledge—covering the necessity of entrepreneurship, planning for entrepreneurial skill development, and practicing core entrepreneurial competencies (6 items); (2) Business-plan development—focusing on community analysis and operational planning (5 items); (3) Production or service management planning—addressing quality-control management and production/service planning (3 items); (4) Marketing management analysis—assessing market analysis and the development of a marketing plan (6 items); (5) Application of SEP—examining understanding of its core principles and the extraction of lessons on its two conditions, three principles, and four dimensions (4 items); and (6) Collaborative project design—evaluating group-based project planning leading to entrepreneurship (6 items). Following expert content validation (IOC ≥ 0.50), all 30 items were piloted with 59 students. Item analyses yielded difficulty indices (p) ranging from 0.20 to 0.56 and discrimination indices (r) from 0.20 to 0.53. The final 30-item test demonstrated acceptable internal consistency, with a Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 reliability coefficient of 0.73.

(3)

EE-SEP Lesson Plan Evaluation Form

The EE-SEP Lesson Plan Evaluation Form was developed through a systematic process to ensure both validity and reliability. First, the research team defined clear quality criteria and scoring guidelines, adopting a five-point Likert scale to rate each lesson plan’s fidelity to EE-SEP principles. Next, they solicited content validation from five subject-matter experts, who evaluated the form’s clarity, relevance, and alignment with the EE-SEP school administration framework. The experts returned their ratings with a mean appropriateness score of 4.56, which indicates acceptable content validity. The team then pilot-tested the EE-SEP Lesson Plan Evaluation Form with three lesson plans from three teachers. Three experts independently assessed those lesson plans by using the EE-SEP Lesson Plan Evaluation Form Inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.735 to 0.903 (M = 0.836), demonstrating a high degree of agreement among evaluators and confirming the instrument’s reliability for assessing EE-SEP lesson plans.

(4)

EE-SEP Teaching Competency Evaluation Form

The EE-SEP Teaching Competency Evaluation Form uses a structured scoring rubric with two parts. In Part 1, it evaluates teachers’ instructional competencies according to the EE–SEP learning model, with seven items assessing content knowledge and nine items assessing instructional management skills, all rated on a five-point Likert scale. Part 2 provides space for open-ended supervisory observations, allowing evaluators to record qualitative feedback freely. Five experts rated EE-SEP Teaching Competency Evaluation Form with a mean appropriateness rating of 4.83, indicating the highest level of content validity. The revised form was pilot-tested in evaluating three teaching video clips of three teachers. Three experts independently assessed those video clips and reported inter-rater reliability coefficients ranging from 0.615 to 0.858 (M = 0.762), which demonstrates a high degree of agreement among evaluators.

We analyzed quantitative data both descriptively (means and standard deviations) and inferentially using paired-sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Qualitative observations recorded in Part 2 of the EE–SEP Teaching Competency Evaluation Form underwent thematic analysis to extract key supervisory insights.

3.2.4. Ethical Approval

This research was reviewed and approved by the Mahidol University Central Institutional Review Board (MU-CIRB), located at the Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. Approval Number: MU-CIRB 2024/179.0207 Approval Date: 2 July 2024. All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant Thai regulations. Before any data were gathered, all teacher and administrator participants were provided with an information sheet detailing the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their rights (including the right to withdraw at any time without penalty). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to engagement in interviews, observations, or assessments.

4. Results

The results of this study are divided into two sections according to two loops of R&D.

4.1. Results of R1D1: Development of EE-SEP Administration Model (Objective 1)

Survey results of school administrators’ opinions on the current practice, problems, and needs regarding school administration based on EE-SEP administration showed that the current practice was at a high level (M = 4.17, SD = 0.87), problems at a moderate level (M = 2.57, SD = 1.34), and needs at a high level (M = 4.13, SD = 0.88). While survey results of teachers’ opinions on the current practice, problems, and needs regarding EE–SEP administration indicated that the current practice was at a high level (M = 3.81, SD = 0.81), problems at a moderate level (M = 3.06, SD = 1.22), and needs at a high level (M = 3.94, SD = 0.56). On a 5-point scale, both groups reported high levels of current practice with EE–SEP (administrators: M = 4.17, SD = 0.87; teachers: M = 3.81, SD = 0.81). Both also reported moderate levels of problems (administrators: M = 2.57, SD = 1.34; teachers: M = 3.06, SD = 1.22) and high levels of needs for further support (administrators: M = 4.13, SD = 0.88; teachers: M = 3.94, SD = 0.56).

Findings from the FGD with school administrators showed the current situation, problems, and needs regarding EE–SEP administration as follows. School administrators expressed their needs to implement EE–SEP administration in primary schools. They wish to integrate EE with SEP because the two are closely aligned: entrepreneurship is a skill that must be practiced to cultivate learners’ entrepreneurial qualities and provide a foundation for future occupations grounded in SEP. This alignment also fits the abilities and needs of students, parents, and the community.

They propose beginning with staff development, ensuring that teams understand the approach, adjust work processes, and learn about the curriculum and management methods appropriate to each age group. Suggested learning processes include the following: start-up (launching new ventures and supporting students to initiate their own businesses), block courses (organizing content in sustained, continuous modules), and a sandbox (a protected space where students can try things without feeling they have failed). The aim is to move toward a self-enterprising school culture with innovations such as online selling, use of social media, value addition and processing (e.g., producing lime dishwashing liquid, pickled limes, etc.). In addition, learning resources and collaborative networks are needed to drive progress toward material, social, environmental, and cultural goals, so that EE–SEP becomes part of the everyday way of life of students and teachers in the school.

From the FGD with teachers, they expressed the needs of EE-SEP administration at the primary level. They wish to integrate EE with SEP because the school lacks such model. For the entrepreneurship component, students should be taken to visit enterprises that match their interests and gain first-hand experience through local community experts, in order to inspire and motivate them, since the ultimate goal of education is to create work and income. Such EE-SEP integration should be appropriate and aligned with community needs. As Teacher H stated: “I think we could seek cooperation from people in the community—in different occupations and areas of local strength—to come in as guest speakers at the school, so that students gain more varied perspectives, see more forms of entrepreneurship, and connect this with the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy that we already practice.” In addition, other teachers also spoke about their needs for school administration in line with the EE–SEP approach at the primary level.

Both groups reported high needs alongside high current practice. FGDs add that staff and students need shared understanding, real-world inspiration, and community alignment (Awareness). FGDs from administrators and teachers converge on staff development, age-appropriate curricula, experiential structures (Start-up, Block course, Sandbox), and resources/networks (Holistic Approach). Both groups expressed their need for using mixed-methods assessment in routine teaching supervision feedback and course-correction regarding EE-SEP (Assessment).

From the results of surveys and FGDs, the researchers synthesized core assumptions from EE and SEP to structure school-level implementation into three sequential phases: Awareness, Holistic Approach, and Assessment (AHA) as Figure 1.

Awareness operationalizes SEP’s enabling conditions—knowledge and morality/ethics—and EE’s intention-formation mechanisms (building entrepreneurial mindsets, self-efficacy, and alertness before action). Schools first cultivate a shared understanding and motivation so subsequent practices are value-aligned and teacher-ready.

Holistic Approach applies SEP’s three pillars—moderation, reasonableness, and prudence/self-immunity—across the school system and draws on EE’s experiential and ecosystem perspectives (curriculum, pedagogy, resources, supervision, and networks) to embed practice in all units rather than isolated classrooms.

Assessment implements SEP’s emphasis on reflective, risk-aware improvement (self-immunity through feedback) and EE’s outcomes-based assurance of learning (monitoring opportunity recognition, value creation, and ethical practice). Evaluation closes the loop and informs the next cycle of awareness-raising.

From

Table 2. Synthesis of EE and SEP into EE-SEP administration model.

Common Characteristics of EE	Educational Administration Aligned with SEP	Phase in EE–SEP Model	School-Level Operationalization
Stimulating EE; shaping entrepreneurial mindsets and self-efficacy	Create readiness and shared values consistent with SEP	Awareness	Administrators prepare teachers and students for EE–SEP through orientations, briefings, and value communication
Managing integrated practice; experiential learning; curriculum design; teacher capability	Manage the school in accordance with SEP in all aspects	Holistic Approach	(a) Teacher professional development on EE–SEP design and instruction; (b) Media and resource provision (guides, videos, learning stations, local expertise); (c) Teaching supervision and supportive learning environments; (d) Internal–external networking with schools, communities, and enterprises
Continuous improvement and accountability	Measurement and evaluation consistent with SEP	Assessment	(a) Supervision and monitoring of EE–SEP processes; (b) Assessment of EE–SEP success using mixed-methods to inform refinement

, the AHA phases can be illustrated as follows.

Step 1: Awareness

In this phase, school administrators proactively equip teachers and students to cultivate awareness regarding the significance of education for sustainable development and the sufficiency economy philosophy. Leveraging diverse and engaging media such as infographics, video clips, Facebook pages, and interactive meetings, administrators inspire and motivate educators and students to embrace new knowledge, foster understanding, and cultivate heightened motivation and awareness regarding the importance of education for sustainable development and the sufficiency economy philosophy. This newfound knowledge is subsequently applied in their day-to-day lives.

Step 2: Holistic Approach

In this phase, school administrators comprehensively oversee the educational institution, applying the philosophies of education for sustainable development and the sufficiency economy across all dimensions. This encompasses the following:

Teacher Professional Development: Teachers engage in ongoing professional development to enhance their expertise in EE-SEP lesson design and instruction. This training encompasses a variety of activities—such as school site visits, hands-on workshops, and seminars—continued until educators achieve proficiency in drafting curricula and lesson plans across all eight subject areas.

Media and Resources: Administrators seek or create appropriate learning media, materials and resources for supporting EE-SEP instruction such as documents, brochures, knowledge sheets, instructional videos, and learning stations. Where beneficial, external resources—such as guest lectures from local experts, community specialists, and business owners—are also integrated into the program.

Teaching Supervision: Administrators and other relevant staff conduct ongoing internal supervision of EE–SEP learning management. They implement periodic supervision programs to evaluate and ensure the effectiveness of EE-SEP instructional practices, participation in learning activities, curriculum development efforts, media and resource provision, and the creation of a supportive learning environment.

Networking: School administrators and teaching staff collaborate to build and sustain networks both within and beyond the school, ensuring that education reflects the principles of EE-SEP. By forging partnerships with interested schools, community organizations, and other relevant bodies, these networks foster ongoing collaboration, mentorship, and role modeling. Such connections enable joint projects, knowledge-sharing, and community engagement, thereby enhancing the program’s efficiency and long-term viability.

Step 3: Assessment

School administrators employ a mixed-method approach to monitor implementation quality and outcomes of EE–SEP teaching and learning. Evidence from supervision records, student work/products, classroom observations, and stakeholder feedback is synthesized to judge success and inform subsequent cycles of awareness and improvement.

The authors submitted the EE–SEP administration model (the AHA Model) to a panel of five experts for evaluation using the Propriety, Accuracy, Feasibility, and Utility criteria articulated by MacMillan and Schumacher (2001). The results of this expert appraisal are summarized in

Table 3. Results of expert evaluation of EE-SEP administration model.

Aspect	Average	SD
Propriety	4.44	0.83
Accuracy	4.48	0.76
Feasibility	4.60	0.55
Utility	4.60	0.55
Overall	4.51	0.70

The expert panel rated the EE–SEP administration model highly across all four dimensions as

Table 4. Results of expert evaluation of the projects under the EE-SEP administration model.

Project title	Activity	Average
		Propriety	Accuracy	Feasibility	Utility
Preparation of readiness for EE-SEP (AHA01).	School meeting, School board meeting, Parental meeting	4.46	4.50	4.40	4.35
Promotion of teaching and learning with EE-SEP (AHA02)	Students learning about EE-SEP through 8 activities: Learning Station 1: Developing Academic Excellence Activity 1: EE Activity 2: Mini-book/Booklet Activity 3: Brain Gym Learning Station 2: Moral Living Guided by SEP Activity 4: Saving Activity 5: Recite the Buddha’s words (Buddhawajana) Learning Station 3: Sufficiency Agriculture for Livelihood Activity 6: Growing vegetable Activity 7: Growing mushroom Activity 8: Raising catfish	4.44	4.46	4.47	4.60
Development of EE-SEP curriculum (AHA03)	Designing EE-SEP lesson plans and learning unit	4.54	4.54	4.40	4.35
Internal supervision of EE-SEP (AHA04)	Implement continuous internal supervision (three times-a-semester)	4.56	4.56	4.53	4.55
Establishment of EE-SEP collaborative networks (AHA05)	Extending school-community networks	4.54	5.00	4.47	4.45
Overall Average		4.51	4.61	4.45	4.46

. In the Propriety domain—which gauges alignment with EE and SEP principles, suitability for enhancing teacher competencies, appropriateness of components and development steps, and potential for wider dissemination—the model achieved an average score of 4.44, reflecting strong appropriateness. Under Accuracy, experts agreed that the model effectively addresses school challenges and needs, aligns with national educational goals, and coheres with its conceptual framework; it earned an average rating of 4.48. Feasibility received the most robust endorsement, with both implementation potential and capacity to develop teacher competencies scoring 4.60. Finally, in Utility, encompassing analytical rigor, contributions to school quality, benefits for teacher competencies, and applicability beyond the original context, the model again scored 4.60. Overall, experts concluded that the EE–SEP model is both valid and practical, excelling particularly in feasibility and utility. In addition, the researchers developed five school-based projects implementing the EE–SEP administration model and subjected each project to expert evaluation.

Experts rated the five EE–SEP projects (AHA01–AHA05) very highly across all four evaluation criteria. In Propriety, which assesses alignment with EE–SEP principles and the appropriateness of each project, scores ranged from 4.44 to 4.56 (mean = 4.51). For Validity, measuring alignment with educational goals and internal coherence, ratings spanned 4.46 to a perfect 5.00 (mean = 4.61). Feasibility, reflecting practical implementability and potential to enhance teacher competencies, averaged 4.45, with individual project scores between 4.40 and 4.53. Finally, Usefulness, gauging anticipated impact on instructional quality and broader school development, yielded a mean of 4.46, with project-specific scores from 4.35 to 4.60. Overall, the projects achieved “very high” ratings in Propriety and Validity and “high” ratings in Feasibility and Usefulness, indicating that they are both conceptually robust and practically viable.

4.2. Results of R2D2: Impacts of EE-SEP Administration Model (Objective 2)

Teachers’ EE-SEP understanding and teaching competencies

The researchers assessed teachers’ understanding of EE–SEP across three units: (1) EE–SEP Paradigms (13 points), (2) EE–SEP Lesson Plan Design and Development (14 points), and (3) EE–SEP Learning Assessment (13 points).

Teachers demonstrated substantial gains in EE–SEP understanding across all three learning units following the intervention as

Table 5. Results of teachers’ understanding of EE-SEP across three units.

Code of Teacher	Unit 1: EE-SEP Paradigms (13 Points)		Unit 2: EE-SEP Lesson Plan Design and Development (14 Points)		Unit 3: EE-SEP Learning Assessment (13 Points)		Total Score (40 Points)		Percentage
	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post	Pre	Post
T01	8.00	11	6.00	12.00	7.00	12.00	21.00	35.00	52.50	87.50
T02	5.00	10	6.00	11.00	6.00	11.00	17.00	32.00	42.50	80.00
T03	9.00	11	9.00	12.00	7.00	10.00	25.00	33.00	62.50	82.50
T04	10.00	12	9.00	13.00	8.00	11.00	27.00	36.00	67.50	90.00
T05	6.00	10	6.00	12.00	4.00	9.00	16.00	31.00	40.00	77.50
T06	8.00	10	10.00	12.00	7.00	11.00	25.00	33.00	62.50	82.50
T07	7.00	9	9.00	12.00	7.00	10.00	23.00	31.00	57.50	77.50
Mean	7.57	10.43	7.86	12.00	6.57	10.57	22.00	33.00	55.00	82.50

. In Unit 1 (EE–SEP paradigms, 13 points), average scores rose from 7.57 (58.2%) at pre-test to 10.43 (80.2%) at post-test. Unit 2 (lesson plan design and development, 14 points) saw an even larger increase, from 7.86 (56.1%) to a perfect 12.00 (85.7%). In Unit 3 (learning assessment, 13 points), scores improved from 6.57 (50.5%) to 10.57 (81.3%). Overall, the total average score across all 40 points climbed from 22.00 (55.0%) before the program to 33.00 (82.5%) afterward, indicating that the EE–SEP administration model markedly enhanced teachers’ conceptual knowledge and applied skills in EE integrated with SEP. The paired sample t-test results for teachers’ EE–SEP understanding scores before and after the program are as follows.

Table 6. Comparison of teachers’ EE–SEP understanding scores before and after program participation. (n = 7).

Test Condition	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig.
Before Program	22.00	4.203	8.401	6	<0.001 *
After Program	33.00	1.915

* p < 0.01. Paired sample t-test (two tailed).

showed that the teachers’ mean scores on EE-SEP understanding were significantly higher after participating in the program than before (t = 8.401, p < 0.05). These findings suggest that the EE-SEP school administration model effectively enhances teachers’ comprehension of this combined approach. After evaluating the teachers’ EE–SEP lesson plans, the following scores were observed.

Teachers’ proficiency in designing EE–SEP lesson plans improved markedly across successive iterations (as

Table 7. Results of evaluation of teachers’ EE-SEP lesson plans.

Code Of Teacher	1st Lesson Plan	2nd Lesson Plan	3rd Lesson Plan
	Average	Average	Average
T01	3.41	3.56	4.50
T02	3.03	3.47	4.47
T03	2.94	3.44	4.63
T04	3.25	3.63	4.50
T05	3.03	3.47	4.50
T06	3.19	3.59	4.59
T07	3.00	3.41	4.38
Total	3.12	3.51	4.51

). In the first round, average scores clustered around the “moderate” range (M = 3.12), with individual teacher means spanning 2.94 to 3.41. Following feedback and refinement, the second lesson plans achieved an overall “high” rating (M = 3.51), as most teachers surpassed the 3.50 threshold—four of seven individuals improved into the “high” category. By the third cycle, all participants produced EE-SEP lesson plans that rated “high” or “very high,” yielding a collective mean of 4.51; five teachers reached or exceeded the 4.50 mark, with two achieving “very high” ratings. These results demonstrate a clear trajectory of growth in teachers’ EE–SEP instructional design competencies over the three planning phases.

The researcher employed nonparametric statistics, i.e., Wilcoxon signed-rank test, to test for differences between mean scores of EE-SEP lesson plan at the beginning, midpoint, and end of semester. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 8. Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of evaluation of teachers’ EE-SEP lesson plans.

		N	Mean Rank	Sum of Ranks	Z	Asymp. Sig. (2-Tailed)
mid-beginning	Negative Ranks	0	0.00 4.00	0.00 28.00	2.371	0.018 *
	Positive Ranks	7
	Ties	0
	Total	7
end-beginning	Negative Ranks	0	0.00 4.00	0.00 28.00	2.371	0.018 *
	Positive Ranks	7
	Ties	0
	Total	7
end-mid	Negative Ranks	0	0.00 4.00	0.00 28.00	2.371	0.018 *
	Positive Ranks	7
	Ties	0
	Total	7

* p < 0.05.

.

Across all three comparisons, teachers’ EE-SEP lesson plan scores increased significantly. In each case, all seven teachers showed positive rank changes (i.e., higher scores at the later time point), with no ties or negative ranks. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test yielded Z = −2.371 and a two-tailed p = 0.018 for each comparison, indicating that the improvements in lesson plan quality from the start to mid-semester, start to end-semester, and mid- to end-semester were all statistically significant. These findings indicate that the EE-SEP school administration model continuously enhances teachers’ competency in designing EE–SEP instructional plans.

Following ongoing monitoring and supervision of EE–SEP–integrated instruction, the resulting scores were as

Table 9. Results of assessment of teachers’ teaching competency of EE-SEP.

Code of Teacher	1st Observation	2nd Observation	3rd Observation
	Average	Average	Average
T01	2.81	3.56	4.31
T02	2.63	3.63	4.31
T03	2.50	3.50	4.13
T04	2.81	3.78	4.41
T05	2.65	3.63	4.28
T06	2.69	3.66	4.34
T07	2.56	3.56	4.25
Total	2.66	3.62	4.29

.

Across three rounds of classroom observation, teachers exhibited substantial growth in their EE–SEP instructional competencies. In the initial observation, the group mean stood at 2.66 (“moderate”), with individual scores ranging from a low of 2.50 to a high of 2.81. By the second observation, the overall mean rose to 3.62 (“high”), as all seven teachers achieved scores above the 3.50 threshold—five of them advancing into the “high” category. In the third and final observation, the cohort’s mean further increased to 4.29 (“high”), with every teacher scoring between 4.13 and 4.41. These results demonstrate a clear, sustained improvement in teaching competency under the EE–SEP model, moving from moderate proficiency at baseline to consistently high performance by the third evaluation.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on teachers’ EE–SEP teaching competency scores under the framework at three time points—at the beginning of the semester, mid-semester, and at the end of the semester—to determine whether mean differences across these intervals were statistically significant.

In

Table 10. ANOVA results of teachers’ EE–SEP teaching competency scores.

Test Condition	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	9.342	2	4.671	476.853	0.000 *
Within Groups	0.176	18	0.010
Total	9.518	20

* p < 0.01.

, the one-way ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of time on teachers’ EE–SEP teaching competency scores, F(2, 18) = 476.85, p < 0.001. This indicates that mean competency ratings differed markedly across the three observation points (beginning, mid-term, and end of semester). The Scheffé’s post hoc test confirming that teachers’ instructional proficiency under the EE–SEP model improved significantly over the course of implementation.

Qualitative findings from supervisory observations summarize the feedback that the educational supervisor and school administrators provided to teachers across the first, second, and third observations, as

Table 11. Qualitative results from supervisory observations of EE-SEP.

Teacher Code	Time	Point for Improvement	Suggestion
T01	1st observation	Organizing learning activities aligned with EE-SEP	Teachers should include activities that connect EE-SEP to student everyday life so students build a foundation for application.
	2nd observation	Using technology appropriate to EE–SEP learning activities	Teachers should employ educational technologies, e.g., inspirational video clips linked to lessons or online games/ platforms to assess students’ prior knowledge.
	3rd observation	Building relationships, motivation, inspiration, and positive interactions to develop EE–SEP learning	Teachers should prioritize motivating students to continue their education. Teachers might use case studies, guidance counseling, or examples of successful alumni to inspire students, linking these to the EE–SEP approach.
T02	1st observation	Subject-matter knowledge and delivery to Grade 4 students	Before actual practice, the teacher should study each step in detail together with the rationale for every step.
	2nd observation	Use of learning media appropriate to activities aligned with EE–SEP	Teacher should add materials that promote entrepreneurial qualities and require every student to engage in practice.
	3rd observation	Use of technology appropriate to EE–SEP activities	Teacher may use technology-related media, e.g., videos, infographics, or recording income and expenses with off-the-shelf software.
T03	1st observation	Delivery of knowledge aligned with EE–SEP	Teacher used a video, but no questions were asked in class. This gap could undermine the intended assessment of learning outcomes.
	2nd observation	Selection of instructional methods appropriate to EE–SEP	For Grade 1 variety and age-appropriateness, add educational games to boost enjoyment and engagement.
	3rd observation	Students with special needs and appropriate support	Provide exercises/question sets matched to students’ abilities to sustain motivation and prevent frustration among those who struggle.
T04	1st observation	Addressing misconceptions of EE–SEP	For some student questions that contained misconceptions, the teacher should address or explain the correct EE-SEP conceptions.
	2nd observation	Developing entrepreneurial attributes (EE–SEP)	The teacher can design learning to develop students’ entrepreneurial characteristics in line with SEP across all dimensions.
	3rd observation	Learning environment	The teacher should give importance to the classroom context and physical environment. Orderliness and cleanliness are fundamental for building student discipline, fostering entrepreneurial qualities, and applying SEP.
T05	1st observation	Lacked selection of learning methods appropriate to EE–SEP	Teacher should use engaging, practice-oriented methods, e.g., educational games, role-play, simulations, problem-based learning.
	2nd observation	No measurement and assessment tools aligned with EE-SEP	Teacher should apply the EE-SEP evaluation instruments available in the school to ensure consistent measurement.
	3rd observation	Lack development of students’ EE-SEP attributes	Teacher should integrate SEP-aligned entrepreneurial qualities within lessons.
T06	1st observation	Lack development of students’ EE-Sep attributes	Teacher should foster the entrepreneurial attribute by requiring students design product layouts for the school cooperative shop.
	2nd observation	Lack media aligned with EE-SEP	Teachers can diversify learning media, e.g., Excel to record income and expense.
	3rd observation	Lack assessment aligned with EE-SEP	Teacher should conduct measurement and evaluation covering all dimensions of EE-SEP. Teacher may use case studies from successful community practitioners as guest speakers to motivate students.
T07	1st observation	Differentiate for special needs	Teacher should provide alternative assessments (observation checklists, work samples) for students with learning difficulty.
	2nd observation	Align measurement with EE–SEP outcomes	Introduce rubrics that are suitable to each EE-SEP learning outcome.
	3rd observation	Build teacher capacity and confidence	Provide a short workshop/coaching cycle on EE-SEP lesson extraction and assessment; share templates (reflection prompts, rubrics) and pair new teachers with a mentor for in-class support.

.

4.3. Students’ EE-SEP Understanding and Teaching Competencies

The researchers measured students’ understanding of EE-SEP and the results are shown in

Table 12. Results of students’ understanding of EE-SEP (n = 30).

Test Condition	Mean	SD	t	df	Sig.
Pre-test	12.77	3.821	20.380	29	0.000 *
Post-test	23.23	3.245

* p < 0.01. Paired sample t-test (two tailed).

.

Students demonstrated a significant improvement in their understanding of the EE–SEP framework following program participation. On the 40-point comprehension test, the pre-test mean score was 12.77 (SD = 3.82), whereas the post-test mean rose to 23.23 (SD = 3.25). A paired-samples t-test confirmed that this increase was highly significant, t(29) = 20.38, p < 0.001. These results indicate that students’ grasp of EE–SEP concepts more than doubled over the course of the intervention.

Given the pre-experimental design and lack of a comparison group, the observed improvements should be interpreted as changes observed under the intervention context, not as definitive causal effects of the intervention.

5. Discussion

The EE–SEP administration model directly addresses Thailand’s growing mismatch between workforce skills and economic opportunities (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2022). By integrating entrepreneurial mindsets with SEP’s moderation and risk-management principles, the AHA Model specifically targets the factors that have contributed to rising unemployment and escalating household debt (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2022; Jeerapattanatorn & Chiewchan, 2018). Furthermore, embedding EE–SEP within the Thailand 4.0 framework ensures alignment with national initiatives to develop a workforce proficient in innovation, critical thinking, and lifelong learning (Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, 2018).

The EE–SEP administration model constitutes a theoretically grounded integration of Entrepreneurial Education (EE) and Sustainable Education Practices (SEP), directly addressing calls for comprehensive, whole-school approaches that embed sustainability in every aspect of school life. Empirical evidence suggests that such holistic frameworks produce superior EE outcomes when organizational practices adhere to SEP principles of moderation, reasonableness, and prudence (Suriyankietkaew & Hallinger, 2018; UNESCO, 2013). Structured into three phases—Awareness, Holistic Approach, and Assessment—the AHA Model advances prior frameworks by outlining explicit procedures for administrator-led readiness, the integration of entrepreneurship curricula across eight subjects, and rigorous mixed-methods evaluation (Education in Thailand, 2025; Suriyankietkaew & Hallinger, 2018). This synthesis draws on extensive scholarship demonstrating EE’s adaptability across diverse age groups (Lackéus, 2015) and SEP’s effectiveness in fostering balanced decision-making and resilience (Chaipattana Foundation Office, 1999; Khammanee, 2016).

Experts’ descriptive ratings clustered toward the upper end of the 5-point scale across four aspects—Propriety (M = 4.44), Accuracy (M = 4.48), Feasibility (M = 4.60), and Utility (M = 4.60)—indicating broad endorsement of the model’s relevance and practicality. Below we summarize what, according to expert feedback, likely drove these appraisals. Propriety (ethical/cultural fit). Experts pointed to strong alignment with SEP values and school culture; clear stakeholder roles; and safeguards that avoid student financial risk (e.g., using simulations/sandbox trials and low-cost materials). Several noted the model’s attention to inclusion (e.g., options for differentiated participation).

Accuracy (theoretical/technical soundness). Reviewers valued the explicit theory tracing from EE and SEP into the AHA sequence (Awareness → Holistic Approach → Assessment), the concrete logic from goals to activities (orientation, PD/design studios, supervision), and the mixed-evidence stance (artifacts, observations, reflections) that supports warranted inferences about change.

Feasibility (doable under constraints). High feasibility was linked to reliance on existing school structures and local resources (e.g., community mentors, school co-op), modular block courses, and short coaching cycles that fit timetables. The model’s tools (lesson templates, supervision rubrics) were judged “ready to run” with minimal extra cost.

Utility (usefulness for practice). Experts emphasized how the model addresses felt needs identified in the surveys (e.g., teacher PD, resources, networking) and yields tangible classroom products (lesson artifacts, student mini-ventures, reflection records) that can be used for formative decision-making and reporting.

In addition, expert evaluations yielded high mean ratings for both Feasibility (M = 4.60) and Utility (M = 4.60), underscoring the EE–SEP model’s strong alignment with the SEP framework (Khammanee, 2016; Thammapiya, 2014) and with international best practices in primary-level entrepreneurial education (Johansen & Schanke, 2013; Ruskovara & Pihkala, 2015). This pronounced concordance suggests that the AHA Model is ideally positioned to support the National Education Plan’s goals of promoting lifelong learning, responsible citizenship, and twenty-first-century skill development under the Thailand 4.0 agenda (Office of the Education Council, 2017). The evaluation employed multi-criteria expert appraisal methods—Propriety, Accuracy, Feasibility, and Utility—as recommended by MacMillan and Schumacher (2001), thereby enhancing the credibility of the model’s initial validation. Nonetheless, the use of a five-member expert panel may limit the generalizability of these findings; future research should engage larger, more heterogeneous panels to reduce bias and strengthen external validity (MacMillan & Schumacher, 2001).

Consistent with research showing that hands-on workshops, mentoring, and reflective practice enhance teacher self-efficacy in EE (Ememe et al., 2013; Jenukorn & Inrak, 2018), the EE-SEP Teacher Professional Development program—which included site visits, seminars, and collaborative lesson plan design—produced significant improvements in teachers’ EE-SEP understanding (t(6) = 8.401, p < 0.01). This finding aligns with evidence that sustained professional development incorporating site visits, hands-on workshops, and mentoring bolsters teacher self-efficacy in sustainable education practices (Chiwpreecha & Prateepchotporn, 2020). Furthermore, the shift from “moderate” to “very high” ratings across successive lesson plan iterations underscores the model’s capacity to support iterative skill development, reinforcing Jusoh’s (2012) conclusion that early and repeated exposure to entrepreneurial education strengthens instructional competencies.

The effectiveness of the AHA cycle (Awareness, Holistic Approach, and Assessment) of EE-SEP administration model is context-dependent. In Thai primary schools, variation in culture, resources, community enterprise ecology, and whole-school conditions can influence the impact of EE–SEP implementation. The generalization of EE-SEP positive impacts is context-bound and concern these conditions. (e.g., UNESCO, 2025). Evidence from ESD shows that whole-institution/whole-school approaches—coherently aligning leadership, operations, curriculum, partnerships, and monitoring—are associated with stronger, more sustainable learning outcomes. We situate AHA within this logic by scheduling block-time for sandboxed practice, establishing a continuous teacher supervision and PD, and using simple, recurring indicators so that EE–SEP becomes routine rather than an add-on (Holst et al., 2024; UNESCO, 2025; UNDP, 2025). Access to devices, connectivity, and digital learning materials varies across Thai schools and regions, affecting feasibility of tech-enabled EE tasks. Accordingly, AHA specifies low-cost/offline pathways (paper ledgers, school co-op tasks) and termly context checks (device-to-student ratios, use of offline alternatives) to target support (International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2021; United Nations in Thailand, 2021). Where local businesses, cooperatives, or mentors are present, partnerships can make EE–SEP tasks authentic (site visits, guest mentors, joint projects). In thinner ecosystems, schools may rely more on simulations and inter-school networking. We therefore log partnership sessions/MOUs each term as a capacity indicator and draw on UNESCO guidance that links schools with external learning sites for place-based projects (UNESCO, 2025).

Recent work indicates that outcomes in entrepreneurship/sustainability education reflect an interaction between the learning environment (e.g., support for initiative, “safe failure”) and access to structured learning experiences. To reflect this, AHA embeds brief school climate pulse items in each Assessment cycle and uses the results to tune subsequent Awareness/Holistic Approach phases (Torsdottir et al., 2024; Buckner-Capone, 2024; Holst et al., 2024). National analyses frame SEP as a people-centered pathway to SDG-aligned, community-level empowerment, underscoring that school–community partnerships and equitable access (materials, time, connectivity) are core to effectiveness—especially in lower-resource settings (UNDP, 2025). We align Awareness activities with this policy discourse and use simple descriptive indicators (e.g., partner sessions, resource scans) to monitor equity during scaling. In implementation, we (i) align leadership and timetables to WIA guidance (Holistic), (ii) ensure offline alternatives and resource scans (Holistic), (iii) cultivate and count partnerships (Holistic/Assessment), (iv) pulse-check climate and review artifacts (Assessment), and (v) use these data to refresh shared purpose and student voice (Awareness). This context-attentive loop is intended to make the model transferable across diverse Thai school settings while keeping expectations realistic about what can be achieved under different constraints (UNESCO, 2025; Holst et al., 2024).

The twofold increase in student EE–SEP comprehension—from a mean of 12.77 to 23.23 (t(29) = 20.38, p < 0.001)—corroborates findings that contextually relevant EE promotes deep learning when aligned with local values (Gautam, 2015; Schawbel, 2014). By embedding SEP’s virtues of honesty, patience, and perseverance within active learning tasks, the model not only enhanced knowledge acquisition but also likely fostered the dispositions essential for sustainable entrepreneurship (Chaipattana Foundation Office, 1999; Regional Education Office No. 2, 2019). These results underscore the pedagogical value of integrating SEP frameworks into mainstream subjects and reinforce evidence that contextually grounded education for sustainable development substantially improves student outcomes (Suriyankietkaew & Hallinger, 2018).

Without a control/comparison group, this study cannot exclude alternative explanations (e.g., maturation, history, Hawthorne effects); thus, causal attribution is methodologically weakened even when statistical significance is observed (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; McCambridge et al., 2014). Despite promising outcomes, the study’s sample of seven teachers and thirty students is small, limiting both statistical power and generalizability. As such, statistical power was limited—particularly for teacher-level outcomes—and generalizability is constrained to similar contexts. Even where statistical significance was observed, the overall explanatory power remains low, and estimates should be viewed as provisional. Moreover, its focus on short-term cognitive and instructional competencies may mirror concerns in the literature about the need for behavioral and community-level measures—factors central to sustainability goals (Jeerapattanatorn, 2021; UNESCO, 2013). Future research should employ designs that meet stronger causal standards in education such as non-equivalent control group quasi-experiments. In addition, future research should adopt the longitudinal, mixed-methods designs with larger, more diverse samples; track graduate trajectories; evaluate real-world entrepreneurial behaviors; and include measures of student conduct, school-wide cultural change, and community engagement to comprehensively assess the EE–SEP model’s impact.

6. Conclusions

The EE–SEP administration model developed in this study was evaluated by a panel of experts, who rated it highly for Propriety and Accuracy, and very highly for Feasibility and Utility. Moreover, all projects conducted under the EE–SEP model received very high ratings for Propriety and Accuracy, and high ratings for Feasibility and Utility. Following their participation, teachers achieved an 82.5 percent score on the EE–SEP understanding scale. They proficiently applied the EE–SEP framework in their lesson plan design, progressively refining their plans to a very high level of quality over time. Additionally, students taught by these teachers demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in EE–SEP comprehension.

These findings underscore the importance of integrating EE–SEP into primary school teaching and learning. Enhanced teacher understanding and competency in designing EE–SEP lesson plans can, in turn, support deeper student learning. Without such integration, students’ insufficient grasp of EE–SEP concepts may impede Thailand’s transition from a middle-income to a high-income economy. By grounding instruction in the principles of EE–SEP, educators can help ensure balanced, sustainable national development.

7. Implications

The EE–SEP administration model developed in this study has proven effective in enhancing teachers’ instructional competencies and in deepening students’ understanding of EE–SEP, particularly when lessons are delivered by teachers trained in the model. Practitioners can also adapt the guidelines presented here to design bespoke EE–SEP administration frameworks suited to their own school contexts. Moreover, widespread dissemination of the EE–SEP model to other schools would benefit administrators and educators seeking to integrate entrepreneurial and sufficiency-economy principles.

To strengthen the generalizability of these findings, future research should employ research designs such as non-equivalent control groups with demonstrated baseline equivalence, stepped-wedge or cluster-randomized trials, or interrupted time-series with multiple pre/post waves (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). In parallel, future research should broaden external validity through multi-site, context-sensitive sampling across urban/rural regions and resource strata, recording moderators such as device-to-student ratios, partner density, timetable blocks, and school climate pulse items to test for whom and under what conditions AHA is most effective. Future research may adopt longitudinal designs to examine the model’s sustained effects over time. Employing additional data-collection methods (e.g., classroom observations, interviews, and portfolio analyses) would further enrich our understanding of how EE–SEP influences teaching practices and student outcomes in real-world school settings.

8. Limitations

This study employs the pre-experimental one-group pre-test–post-test design without a comparison group, so alternative explanations (history, maturation, testing, regression to the mean, Hawthorne effects) cannot be ruled out. In addition, the small analytic samples limit precision—especially for teacher-level inference—and reduce the likelihood of detecting small effects; accordingly, p-values should be read as exploratory, with emphasis on effect sizes and confidence intervals. Findings also reflect a single-site implementation (leadership, resources, partner availability), constraining external validity. Because the EE-SEP model’ s effectiveness is context-dependent (e.g., whole-school conditions, digital access, local enterprise ecology), generalization should be cautious.

Regarding measurement and analysis, expert appraisals and survey Likert-type ratings are ordinal; means are presented as descriptive indicators rather than categorical judgments. Outcomes emphasized short-term cognitive/instructional gains; behavioral and community-level outcomes central to sustainability were not captured, and nesting (students within teachers/classes) was not modeled, which may bias standard errors.