Articles
DOI DOI: 10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1100

REIMAGINING HIGH SCHOOL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THAILAND: AN AGILE, DATA-DRIVEN, AND HUMAN-CENTERED APPROACH

Paitoon Pimdee1, Nirinpat Angmani 1, Aukkapong Sukkamart2, Nanteya Suwan3, Jaruwan Ployduangrat 1
  1. 1 School of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, THAILAND.
  2. 2 School of Industrial Education and Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, THAILAND.
  3. 3 School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, THAILAND.

Abstract

This study developed, validated, and evaluated an integrated Agile Learning model to enhance academic achievement and entrepreneurial competency in Thai secondary STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. Grounded in Social Constructivism and Experiential Learning Theory, the quasi-experimental design research used a two-phase developmental design. Phase 1 evaluated model quality (incorporating Data Science Processes and Design Thinking—designated as the Problem Framing, Data-Driven Ideation, Team-Based Development, Presentation and Feedback, Evaluation and Scaling (PDTPE) Model), via a nine-expert panel. Phase 2 employed a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design with 75 Grade 11 students (experimental = 38; control = 37) over six weeks. Tools used were a quality evaluation form ("IOC" = 0.60-0.90), a 36-item entrepreneurial competency scale (α = 0.98), and a 40-item achievement test ("KR-20" = 0.94). The data gathered were tested using t-tests and effect sizes. Results showed that the experts' assessment of the overall model (M=4.45; SD=0.41) was at a high level. Among the factors being assessed, the one with the highest evaluation was utility (M=4.56). At post-intervention, the experimental group demonstrated substantial gains in learning (t = 20.97, p < .01), significantly higher posttest achievement than the control group (t = 2.19, p < .01), and greater entrepreneurial competency (M = 4.01 vs. 3.58, t = 6.50, p < .01). The PDTPE model offers an empirically validated framework for fostering 21st-century entrepreneurial capabilities in secondary schools.

How to Cite

Pimdee, P., Angmani , N., Sukkamart, A., Suwan, N., & Ployduangrat , J. (2026). REIMAGINING HIGH SCHOOL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN THAILAND: AN AGILE, DATA-DRIVEN, AND HUMAN-CENTERED APPROACH. ACTA INNOVATIONS, 63, 313–325. https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1100
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. 1. Aljehani, A., & Qureshi, M. R. (2025). Agile method: Challenges and adaptations for complex project environments. International Journal of Information Engineering and Electronic Business, 17(3), 84-98. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijieeb.2025.03.06
  2. 2. Angmani, N., Sukkamart, A., Pimdee, P., Narabin, A., & Thongkaw, A. (2025). Exploring factors affecting high-school student entrepreneurship competency. International Journal of Instruction, 18(1), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2025.18113a
  3. 3. Arora, G., Kalra, S., & Kaur, G. (2025). Introduction to data science and analytics. In Revolutionizing Data Science and Analytics for Industry Transformation (pp. 1-28). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7868-7.ch001
  4. 4. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Publication Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884
  5. 5. Chen, Z. (2025). The Research of Educational Management for Entrepreneurship Based on Creativity Value Chain. International Journal of Development Administration Research, 8(1), 37–48. https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ijdar/article/view/259748
  6. 6. Fitsilis, P., Boti, E., & Damasiotis, V. (2025). From agile principles to agile classrooms: A structured curriculum for educator upskilling. International Journal of Changes in Education. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE52025817
  7. 7. Hanser, E. (2026). The Agile Manifesto. In Agile Processes–Agile Teams (pp. 11-13). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-72726-3_2
  8. 8. Hlazunova, O., Korolchuk, V., Voloshyna, T., Kravchenko, V., Saiapina, T., & Sydoruk, Y. (2026). Experiential learning through agile learning methodologies: understanding students' experience. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 16(3), 533-548. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-02-2025-0072
  9. 9. Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). (2019). Definition of data science: Computing science teacher training curriculum for upper secondary education. IPST. https://www.ipst.ac.th/ipsten
  10. 10. Jaggia, S., Kelly, A., Lertwachara, K., & Chen, L. (2020). Applying the CRISP‐DM framework for teaching business analytics. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 18(4), 612-634. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12222
  11. 11. Javahery, P., & Bavandi, Z. (2026). Kolb’s experiential learning theory in action: fostering empathy and practical skills in language teacher education. Reflective Practice, 27(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2025.2521108
  12. 12. Khoy, B. (2025). Unlocking cognitive learning objectives: a comprehensive evaluation of how textbooks and syllabi align with revised Bloom’s taxonomy across disciplines. Curriculum Perspectives, 45(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-024-00295-2
  13. 13. Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Ko, B. W. (2023). Deepening students' experiences with problem identification and definition in an empathetic approach: lessons from a university design-thinking program. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 15(3), 852-865. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2022-0083
  14. 14. Kong, Y. (2021). The role of experiential learning on students’ motivation and classroom engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 771272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771272
  15. 15. Laowongsee, B., Tungkasamit, A., & Mingsiritham, K. (2025). Design Thinking as a Crucial Needs Assessment for Developing Innovative Design Competency in Pre-Service Teachers' Learning Management in Thailand. Journal Of Education and Learning, 14(6), 470-487. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v14n6p470
  16. 16. Leavy, A., Kazak, S., Podworny, S., & Frischemeier, D. (2026). Designing Data Science Learning in Initial Teacher Education: The EDUCATE Conceptual Framework. Education Sciences, 16(2), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020307
  17. 17. Mehddi, F., Kazi, A. S., & Butt, A. I. (2025). From theory to practice: How STEAM professional development shapes teacher beliefs and perceptions about design thinking activities. Sage Open, 15(3), 21582440251355779. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251355779
  18. 18. Mendes, M., & Farinha, T. (2026). MIDA—Method for Industrial Data Analysis Based on CRISP-DM. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 8(4), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/make8040108
  19. 19. Ndjama, J. N., & Mokoena, S. (2026). Entrepreneurship education programmes: Fostering learners’ entrepreneurial mindset in high schools. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2026.100203
  20. 20. Nguyen, L. T., Manakul, T., Suthiprapa, K., Han, S., & Tuamsuk, K. (2026). Smart learning management: Key factors in implementing practical project in schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 18(3), Article ep662. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/18688
  21. 21. Parsons, D., & MacCallum, K. (2019). Agile and lean concepts in the classroom: The impact of Scrum and Kanban on student project management. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 2(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2751-3
  22. 22. Pimdee, P., Sukkamart, A., Nantha, C., Kantathanawat, T., & Leekitchwatana, P. (2024). Enhancing Thai student-teacher problem-solving skills and academic achievement through a blended problem-based learning approach in online flipped classrooms. Heliyon, 10(7), Article e29172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29172
  23. 23. Promsiri, T., Sukavejworakit, K., Keerativutisest, V., Virasa, T., & Kampanthong, K. (2022). Sustaining thai government agency innovation through design thinking learning effectiveness. Sustainability, 14(12), 7427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127427
  24. 24. Raza, H., Erdenetsogt, T., Singh, A., Farooq, M., Kabeer, M. M., & Aslam, M. S. (2026). A Comprehensive Review on Data Science Frameworks for Big Data Analytics. PERFECT: Journal of Smart Algorithms, 3(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.62671/perfect.v3i1.217
  25. 25. Rigas, E., Kalampoukas, T., Theochari, A., Giotis, K., Tsirogiannis, E. C., Belogiannis, C., ... & Diakonikolis, M. (2026). ‘Flexible’Project Management: A Guideline to Forming, Managing and Leading Student Teams for Technical Projects. Engineering Proceedings, 133(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026133050
  26. 26. Seikkula-Leino, J., Salomaa, M., Jónsdóttir, S. R., McCallum, E., & Israel, H. (2021). EU policies driving entrepreneurial competences—Reflections from the case of EntreComp. Sustainability, 13(15), 8178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158178
  27. 27. Shahini, A. (2025). Constructivism in Language Learning. In Language Learning Theories: A Student’s Guide (pp. 41-63). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-92210-7_4
  28. 28. Silva, D. S., Ghezzi, A., Aguiar, R. B. D., Cortimiglia, M. N., & Ten Caten, C. S. (2020). Lean Startup, Agile Methodologies and Customer Development for business model innovation: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(4), 595-628. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2019-0425
  29. 29. Sumarno, Gimin, & Noviana, E. (2023). The comparison analysis of teacher's learning effectiveness in realizing entrepreneurship skills of students. International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 679–702. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16236a
  30. 30. Taber, K.S. (2025). Mediated Learning Leading Development—The Social Development Theory of Lev Vygotsky. In Akpan, B., Kennedy, T.J. (Eds.), Science Education in Theory and Practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_16
  31. 31. Takona, J. P. (2024). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Quality & Quantity, 58(1), 1011-1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01798-2
  32. 32. Thelma, C. C., Sain, Z. H., Shogbesan, Y. O., Phiri, E. V., & Akpan, W. M. (2024). Digital literacy in education: Preparing students for the future workforce. International Journal of Research, 11(8), 327-343. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13347718
  33. 33. Wannapiroon, N., & Pimdee, P. (2022). Thai undergraduate science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) creative thinking and innovation skill development: A conceptual model using a digital virtual classroom learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5689–5716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10849-w
  34. 34. Yarbrough, D.B., Shula, L.M., Hopson, R.K., & Caruthers, F.A. (2010). The Program Evaluation Standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd. ed). Corwin Press. https://evaluationstandards.org/program/