THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP DISPOSITIONS SCALE FOR UPPER SECONDARY STUDENTS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to develop, validate, and establish school-level norms for the active citizenship dispositions scale for upper secondary school students based on the framework of Enchikova et al. The sample consisted of 542 students from grades 10 to 12 at Triam Udom Suksa School under the Bangkok Secondary Education Service Area Office 1, selected through stratified random sampling. Data were collected using a situational-based scale with 46 items consisting of nine components: political interest (5 items), democracy (4 items), justice (5 items), citizenship (9 items), tolerance (7 items), social worries (3 items), trust in social and political institutions (5 items), political self-efficacy (4 items), and identity (4 items), each offering four response options based on Kohlberg's moral development. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and percentage, and inferential statistics using Confirmatory Factor Analysis to assess construct validity.
The research findings indicated that the developed scale had an index of item-objective congruence ranging from 0.60 to 1.00. The discrimination index ranged from 0.20 to 0.53, and the reliability coefficient was 0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the construct validity was acceptable and aligned with empirical data (χ² = 1237.10, df = 909, χ²/df = 1.36, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.92, RMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.02, AIC = 1581.10, ECVI = 2.92). The established norms for assessing active citizenship dispositions among upper secondary students were categorized into four levels: excellent scores of 162 and above (P75 and above, T58 and above), high scores from 148–161 (P50.00 to P74.99, T51 to T57), moderate scores from 132–147 (P25.00 to P49.99, T42 to T50), and low scores below 132 ( < P25.00 , < T42).
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความทุกเรื่องได้รับการตรวจความถูกต้องทางวิชาการโดยผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ ทรรศนะและข้อคิดเห็นในบทความ Journal of Global of Perspectives in Humanities and Social Sciences (J-GPHSS) มิใช่เป็นทรรศนะและความคิดของผู้จัดทำจึงมิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของบัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏวไลยอลงกรณ์ ในพระบรมราชูปถัมภ์ กองบรรณาธิการไม่สงวนสิทธิ์การคัดลอก แต่ให้อ้างอิงแหล่งที่มา
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2019). IBM SPSS Amos 26 User’s Guide. U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights - Use, duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
Chomeya, R., Tayraukham, S., Tongkhambanchong, S. & Saravitee, N. (2024). Sample size Determination Techniques for Multivariate Behavioral Sciences Research Emphasizing SEM. Journal of Education and Innovation. 26, 438-447.
Clark, C. D. (2005). Percentile. In B. S. Everitt, & D. C. Howell (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Chichester: Wiley.
Doganay, A. (2012). A curriculum framework for active democratic citizenship education. In Murray.
Enchikova, E., Neves, T. & Ferreira, P. D. (2021). Assessment of active citizenship: Defining the conceptual framework. Educacao Sociedade Culturas. 60, 9-32.
Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D. & Barber, C. (2008). Measuring Civic Competence in Europe. The Proceedings of IRC.
Hoskins, B. L. & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring Active Citizenship through the Development of a Composite Indicator. Springer. 90, 459-488.
Hoskins, B., Saisana, M. & Villalba, C. (2015). Civic competence of youth in Europe: Measuring cross national variation through the creation of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research. 123(2), 431-457. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0746-z
Jeengool, N. (2023). khwāmpen phonlamư̄ang tư̄n rū bǣp wat læ prōkrǣm sœ̄msāng samrap nakrīan ra dap namat yom sưksā tō̜n plāi sangkat samnakngān khana kammakān kānsưksā naphư̄n thān [Active Citizenship: Scales and Enhancing Program for Senior High School Students Under the Office of The Basic Education Commission]. Srinakharinwirot University.
Jinarat, C. (2022). khwām sončhai thāngkān mư̄ang læ kānmī sūanrūam thāngkān mư̄ang kō̜ranī sưksā klum khonnai Gen Y læ Gen Z thī ʻāsai yū nai khēt čhangwat ʻUbon Rātchathānī ʻAmnāt Čharœ̄n læ Yasōthō̜n [Policital Interests and Policital Paticipations : Case Studies of Gen Y and Gen Z People Residing in Ubon Ratchathani Amnat ChaRoen and Yasothon Provinces]. Journal of MCU Ubon Review. 7(2), 853-870.
Kanjanawasi, S. (2013). thritsadī kānthotsō̜p bǣp dangdœ̄m [Classical test theory]. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Keating, A. (2014). Education for citizenship in Europe: European policies, national adaptations and young people’s attitudes. Springer.
Kennedy, K. J. (2007). Student constructions of ‘active citizenship’: What does participation mean to students? British Journal of Educational Studies. 55(3), 304-324.
Kraiwon, Y. (2024). kān wikhro̜ mō dē lō̜ samakān khrōngsāng [Structural equation modeling analysis]. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Kremabud, A. (2023). nǣothāng kānčhatkān rīanrū sangkhommasưksā phư̄a sœ̄msāng khwāmpen phonlamư̄ang tư̄n rū khō̜ng nakrīan ra dap namat yom sưksā tō̜n plāi [Learning Management Guidelines to Enhance Active Citizen for Senior High School Studenth]. Silpakorn University.
Ministry of Education, Office of the Education Council. (2017). phǣnkān sưksā hǣng chāt Phō̜.Sō̜. sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksip - sō̜ngphanhārō̜ičhetsipkāo [National education plan 2017-2036]. Prikhwan Graphic Co., Ltd.
Ministry of Education, Office of the Education Council. (2019). māttrathān kānsưksā khō̜ng chāt Phō̜.Sō̜. sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksipʻet [National education standards 2018]. 21st Century Co., Ltd.
Ministry of Education, Office of the Education Council. (2021). krō̜p samatthana lak khō̜ng phū rīan radap kānsưksā naphư̄n thān [Core competencies framework for basic education learners]. Prikhwan Graphic Co., Ltd.
Phornprasert, W. (2018). kānphatthanā bǣp wat læ kēn pakati khwāmpen phon mư̄a ngō̜di čhi than khō̜ng nisit naksưksā nai sathāban ʻudomsưksā [The Development of Students Digital Citizenship Scale and Norms in Higher Education Institutions]. Naresuan University.
Ten, D., Geert, G., Femke, R. R. & Ledoux, G. (2011). Measuring young people’s citzen-ship competences. European Journal of Education. 46(3), 354-372. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.360199
Thai Civic Education. (2013). krō̜p nǣokhit laksūt kānsưksā phư̄a sāng khwāmpen phonlamư̄ang nai rabō̜p prachāthipatai khō̜ng Thai [Conceptual Framework for Thai Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum]. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung: FES.
Tirakanun, S. (2008). kānsāng khrư̄angmư̄ wat tūaprǣ nai kānwičhai thāng sangkhommasāt nǣothāng sū kān patibat [Development of measurement tools for variables in social science research: Practical Guidelines]. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Tirakanun, S. (2012). kān wikhro̜ tūaprǣ phahu nai ngānwičhai thāng sangkhommasāt (Phim khrang thī 2). [Multivariate analysis in social science research (2nd ed.)]. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Triam Udom Suksa School. (2023). rāingān phon kānpramœ̄n tonʻēng pračham pī sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksipʻet - sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksiphā rōngrīan trīam ʻudomsưksā [Self-assessment report 2018–2023, Triam Udom Suksa School]. Triam Udom Suksa School.
Triam Udom Suksa Northeastern Campus. (2023). rāingān phon kānpramœ̄n tonʻēng pračham pī sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksiphok rōngrīan trīam ʻudomsưksā phāk tawanʻō̜k chīang nư̄a [Self-assessment report 2023, Triam Udom Suksa Northeastern Campus]. Triam Udom Suksa School.
Triam Udom Suksa Northern Campus. (2023). rāingān phon kānpramœ̄n tonʻēng pračham pī sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksiphok rōngrīan trīam ʻudomsưksā phāk nư̄a [Self-assessment report 2023, Triam Udom Suksa Northern Campus]. Triam Udom Suksa School.
Triam Udom Suksa Southern Campus. (2023). rāingān phon kānpramœ̄n tonʻēng pračham pī sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksiphok rōngrīan trīam ʻudomsưksā phāk tai [Self-assessment report 2023, Triam Udom Suksa Southern Campus]. Triam Udom Suksa School.
Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (2004). What Kind of Citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal. 41(2), 237-269. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00028312041002237
Wongratthana, C. (2017). Research tool development techniques: A professional guide for application. Chulalongkorn University Book Center.
