Applying a Triangulation Approach to Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Intervention to Enhance Youth’s Active Citizenship
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study applied a methodological triangulation approach to evaluate the effectiveness of the communication intervention program to enhance active citizenship among youths. The research involved a mixed-method design to affirm counterpart findings from different techniques. It employed 1) two quantitative methods: the one-group pretest-posttest experimental design along with a recheck measurement to weigh awareness of self-change at the end of the program, and 2) the focus-group discussion technique was used to counterpoint findings from the quantitative methods. The research scope embraced the Thai youths from all regions who participated in 66 creative projects to whom the Thai Health Promotion Foundation has granted. In any of seven media and/or activity categories, youth teams were supported to developed projects for a community of their choices. The quantitative methods employed close-ended questionnaires to collect data from 115 and 99 participants during before and after program. In addition, focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 59 youth representatives. Quantitative data were analyzed using mean score and t-tests. Findings affirmed the capability of the proposed triangulation framework in designating a desirable outcome of the active citizenship program.
Results showed the congruency of findings from all quantitative and qualitative techniques. While there was no statistically significant change for the overall active citizenship among youth participants, the mean scores slightly increased. Moreover, results from the one-shot reassessed measures revealed a high level of mean score for youths’ awareness of self-change, for both the overall active citizenship and every individual dimension. Finally, the qualitative findings confirmed those quantitative evidences. Focus-group results supportably reflected that almost all of the youth representatives noticed their self-change on active citizenship similarly. Changes were depicted from small ranges to a considerable extent.
Article Details
References
สมหวัง พิธิยานุวัฒน์. (2544). รวมบทความทางการประเมินโครงการ. กรุงเทพฯ : สำนักพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย. สำนักงานกองทุนสนับสนุนการสร้างเสริมสุขภาพ (สสส.) ก. (ม.ป.ป.). คู่มือพลังสื่อพลเมืองเพื่อสร้างการเปลี่ยนแปลง. ม.ป.ท.
สำนักงานกองทุนสนับสนุนการสร้างเสริมสุขภาพ (สสส.) ข. (ม.ป.ป.) Active citizen: โครงการรณรงค์ขับเคลื่อนสำหรับการสร้างประเทศไทยที่น่าอยู่ [ชุดสื่อนำเสนอ].
ภาษาอังกฤษ
Anderson, H. (2013). Facilitating active citizenship: Participating in prisoners’ Radio. Critixal Studies in Media Communication. 30(4), 292-306.
Begley, C. M. (1996). Triangulation of communication skills in qualitative research instruments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(4), 688-693.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research in Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brannan, T., John, P., & Stoker G. (2006). Active citizenship and effective public services and programmes: How can we know what really works? Urban studies. 43(5/6), 993-1008.
Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in Education (5th ed.) New York, NY: Routledge.
Cunningham, L., Young, C., & Lee, M. (2000). Methodological triangulation in measuring public transportation service quality. Transportation Journal. 40(1), 35-47.
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The Research Act (2nd ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N.K. (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook (5th ed.). Aldine Transaction. ISBN 978-0-2-2-3-84—1.
Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: International Development Committee. (2012). Working Effectively in Fragile and Conflict-affected States: DRC and Rwanda. 1(Twelfth Report of Session 2010-12). 1-166.
Greenberg, K. H. (2005). The Cognitive Enrichment Advantage: Teacher Handbook. Knoxville, TN: KCD Harris & Associates.
Hoskin, B. L. & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459-488.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/swhiting/pols502/Jick.pdf
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2013). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLeod, J. M. (2000). Media and civic socialization of youth. Journal of Adolescent Healthm 27(2), 45-51.
Sammons, P. et al. (2005). Investigating the effects of pre-school provision: Using mixed methods in the EPPE research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 207-224.
The International Platform on Sport & Development. (n.d.). What is Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E). Retrieved from http://www.sportanddev.prg/en/toolkit/monitoring___evalutation/what_is_monitoring___evaluation__m_me__/
The World Bank Group. (2014). Private Health Policy Toolkit: Module 2: Engagement
Step 5: Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Private Dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/pdf/youthnet/action/planning/m&e_E.pdf.
Vromen, A. (2012). Youth participation from the top down: The perspectives of government and community sector decision makers in Australia. In J. W. van Deth, W.A. Maloney (Eds.), New Participatory Dimensions in Civil Society: Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action (pp.212-230). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.