DEVELOPING A TRAINING PROCESS TO ENHANCE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION COMPETENCY OF MASTER OF EDUCATION STUDENTS IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION PROGRAM, RANGSIT UNIVERSITY
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to 1) study the current situation and needs for developing research instrumentation competency among Master's degree students in Curriculum and Instruction at Rangsit University; 2) develop a training process to enhance research instrumentation competency; 3) evaluate its effectiveness; and 4) explore students' experiences and opinions regarding the training process. The sample comprised 11 Master's degree students in Curriculum and Instruction at Rangsit University, enrolled in the second semester of the 2024 academic year**, representing the entire population**. Research instruments included a survey on current situation and needs, an appropriateness evaluation form, a competency assessment (pre- and post-training), and an in-depth interview guide. Instrument quality was verified, with all items achieving an IOC value of 1.00, and the survey and assessment tools demonstrating high reliability (Cronbach's Alpha of 0.95 and 0.97, respectively). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (, SD), the Modified Priority Need Index (PNI** <sub>modified</sub>**), Normalized Gain (<g>), and content analysis.
The research findings revealed that 1) the overall research instrumentation competency of Master's students was at a high level ( = 3.73, SD = 0.04), with a high need for development (
= 4.16, SD = 0.02), particularly in instrument design (PNI = 0.16) and research report writing (PNI = 0.14). Moreover, 2) the training process was evaluated as being at the highest level of appropriateness (
= 4.70, SD = 0.22). In addition, 3) following the training, Master's students' research instrumentation competency significantly improved (
= 4.77, SD = 0.07), with high levels of development (<g> ranging from 0.71-0.98). 4) Master's students reported positive experiences, with strengths including instructor expertise, hands-on practice, and comprehensive content. Noted weaknesses were time constraints and overly dense content. Recommendations included extending the training duration and offering advanced training sessions.
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
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2020). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. (6th ed.). Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84(2), 191-215.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G. & Williams, J. M. (2016). The craft of research. (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics. 66(1), 64–74.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77(1), 81–112.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Yipean, W. (2021). phon khō̜ng kān fưk ʻop rom tō̜ ʻakān raprū samatthana khō̜ng tonʻēng læ kān thāi ʻōn kānrīanrū nai ʻongkō̜n [Effects of training on self-perceived competence and learning transfer in organizations]. Journal of Health Systems Research and Development. 14(2), 153–163.
