Hybrid Learning Model for Active Learning Enhancement of Athletically Talented Students at Bangkok Christian College

Authors

  • Thaworn Intaraamorn Faculty of Education/Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University
  • Wichai Srisud Bangkok Christian College
  • Vasavis Punnasukhirom Bangkok Christian College
  • Kanit Kheovichai Faculty of Education/Silpakorn University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56825/jehds.2026.1016484

Keywords:

Education for Student-Athletes, Instructional Design

Abstract

This research aimed to develop a hybrid learning model to promote active learning among student-athletes at Bangkok Christian College. The study had two main objectives: (1) to investigate the current conditions and needs related to hybrid learning based on the concept of active learning, and (2) to develop a hybrid learning model grounded in active learning principles suitable for student-athletes. The sample included 16 teachers and 24 purposively selected student-athletes in Grades 7–8. The research instruments included (1) a questionnaire assessing the current conditions and needs for hybrid learning based on active learning concepts, and (2) an expert evaluation form assessing the appropriateness of the developed hybrid learning model. Data were analyzed using mean and standard deviation.

The results revealed that (1) the current learning environment and needs indicated that student-athletes require participatory, hands-on learning experiences that integrate digital platforms for both on-site and online learning simultaneously; and (2) the hybrid learning model based on active learning principles was rated as highly appropriate (  = 4.42, S.D. = 0.23). The Hybrid Learning Model for Promoting Active Learning among Student-Athletes (HALM-SA) effectively integrates online and on-site learning modalities, which supports continuous engagement despite demanding training and competition schedules, demonstrating its suitability and adaptability for student-athletes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. Pfeiffer Publishing.

English, P., Fleischman, D., Kean, B., Stevenson, T., Broome, K., & Cury, R. (2022). Academic flexibility and support for student-athletes: An Australian perspective on university teaching staff perceptions. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 16(1), 45-65. DOI: 10.1080/19357397.2022.2026111 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19357397.2022.2026111

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. Jossey-Bass.

Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564–569. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Prince, M. J. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-08

Issue

Section

บทความวิจัย