Development of Environmental Education Trainer through PAIC Process

Denpong  Charoensilpa; Nongnapas  Thiengkamol; Chatchai  Thiengkamol; Jurairat  Kurukodt

Authors

Denpong Charoensilpa Department of Environmental Education Faculty of Environmental and Resource Studies Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand
Nongnapas Thiengkamol Major Advisor, Department of Environmental Education Faculty of Environmental and Resource Studies Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand
Chatchai Thiengkamol Co- Advisor, Director of Research In Motion Co., Ltd. 599/321 Baan Klang Krung, Jatujuk Sub-district, Jatujuk District Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Jurairat Kurukodt Co- Advisor,Department of Environmental Education Faculty of Environmental and Resource Studies Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand

Abstract

The objective of this research was to develop a prototype of environmental education trainer for undergraduate students of
MahasarakhamUniversity. The sample was selected by purposive sampling technique. Instruments composed of knowledge of trainer
characteristics, public mind behavior, inspiration and environmental education trainer characteristics. One -Way-ANOVA and t-test was
used for data analysis. The process for training of the trainer (TOT) was implemented with Participatory Appreciate-Influence-Control
technique (PAIC) integrating with SWOT Analysis in the training process. The action plan formulations and project practices were
evaluated with Participatory Performance, Assessment, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact (PAMEI). The results illustrated that after
PAIC process implemented, the mean scores of posttest of knowledge of trainer characteristics, public mind behavior, inspiration and
environmental education trainer characteristics were higher than pretest with statistical significance (p< .01, p< .01, p<.05, and p< .05).
The Three Dimensional Evaluation was used to evaluate the participation of participant, the finding revealed that the mean scores of
Friend Evaluation and Facilitator Evaluation showed no statistical difference (p>.05) but mean scores between Self-Evaluation and
Friend-Evaluation, and between Self-Evaluation and Facilitator-Evaluation showed statistically difference (p<.01 and p<.05). The mean
scores of both Friend-Evaluation and Facilitator-Evaluation were higher than Self-Evaluation. This indicated that the participants
evaluated themselves lower than friend and facilitator because they are humble persons that are general style of Thai.