Main Article Content
The purposes of the research were: 1) to analyze definition of factors and indicators in teachers’ research engagement and to investigate model validity of teachers’ research engagement; 2) to construct and develop a school administrator empowerment model to elevate the level of teachers’ research engagement; 3) to investigate the effect of the school administrator empowerment model aiming to elevate the level of teachers’ research engagement. The research was divided into 3 phases. Phase 1 dealt with development of teachers’ research engagement indicators, construction of confirmatory factors for indicator examination, and setting the factors of teachers’ research engagement. The sample for confirmatory analysis comprised 500 people, obtained through multi-stage sampling; Phase 2 dealt with development of the school administrator empowerment model that creates engagement with teachers’ research, using concepts and theories from the documents that the researcher studied in Phase 1. This phase also dealt with the study on the implementation of the school administrator empowerment model that creates engagement with teachers’ research; Phase 3 had the target group of 22 teachers from schools in Pho Sai District. The analysis of data employed basic statistics, confirmatory factor analysis for LISREL 8.72 program, and content analysis.
The research findings are as follows:
1) There were 3 factors of teacher’s research engagement: reading research works, doing research and using research results, and reflecting research results. Each factor had 3 indicators. The investigation into model validity of teachers’ research engagement found that the index of construct validity examination of the school administrator empowerment model that creates engagement with teachers’ research was consistent with the empirical data. The indicators in each secondary factor and every factor weight of the latent variable were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. And it was found that the set of indicators had endogenous coherence and convergent validity and the teacher’s research engagement model had construct validity, and the hypothesis model had coherence with empirical data (Chi-square=14.107, p= 0.079, df=8, GFI=0.994, AGFI=0.965, RMR=0.012).
2) The school administrator empowerment model that creates engagement with teachers’ research developed empowerment on 2 dimensions: supporting and giving feedbacks. Each dimension comprised goal setting, building ability, self–development and principles of reform or principles of change. These brought about 8 guidelines. Each guideline had 2 empowerment activities, except the principles of reform or principles of change that had 2 activities. There were 14 activities, totally. The quality of the tool could be found in the content validity which was considered by the expert to be from 0.80 to 1.00 in all of the activities.
3) The effects of the school administrator empowerment model that creates engagement with teachers’ research revealed the teachers’ research engagement at the high, moderate and low levels as rated by 5, 9 and 8 people, respectively. The teachers who were at the high level of research engagement had been empowered with 14 activities: 7 supporting activities and 7 activities of giving feedbacks. The teachers were satisfied with participation in the project. They had better development of doing research and had more favorable attitude toward research. They wanted to continue doing research, and the administrator should encourage doing research by making it part of the regular work, together with the teacher’s organizing for learning and teaching. The teacher’s research engagement should be made a tool to build a system and mechanism of building researcher teachers in the school operation plan. A system and mechanism of building researcher teachers should be built, and a monitoring system should be built in order to monitor teachers’ development on research, aiming at developing teachers toward being experts.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ประวิต เอราวรรณ์. (2548). การพัฒนารูปแบบการเสริมสร้างพลังอำนาจครูในโรงเรียน : กรณีศึกษาโรงเรียนสาธิตมหาวิทยาลัยมหาสารคาม. วิทยานิพนธ์ กศ.ด. มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ.
สุทธิศานติ์ ชุ่มวิจารณ์ สุวิมล ว่องวาณิช และ ชยุตม์ ภิรมย์สมบัติ. (2559). วารสารวิจัย มสด สาขามนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์, 12(2), 83-107.
อัจศรา ประเสริฐสิน. (2555). การวิจัยและพัฒนาความยึดมั่นผูกพันกับการวิจัยของครูโดยใช้เทคนิคการเสริมพลัง. ปริญญาครุศาสตรดุษฎีบัณฑิต, สาขาวิชาวิธีวิทยาการวิจัยทางการศึกษา ภาควิชาวิจัยและจิตวิทยาการศึกษา คณะครุศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
______. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher Development: A Model from Science Education. London: Falmer Press.
Boydell, T. (1985). Management Self-development: A Guide for Managers. Organizations and Institution. Geneva: International Labour Office : 57-62
Borg, S. (2007). Research engagement in English language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 731-747.
______. (2009) English Language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30, 358-388.
______. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language teaching Research, 43, 391-429.
Cattaneo. L.B., & Chapman.A.R. (2010). The Process of Empowerment: A Model for Use in Research and Practice. American Psychologist, 65, 646-659.
Clark, T. (2010). On ‘being researched’: Why do people engage with qualitative research?. Qualitative Research. 10, 399-419.
Davis, J. and Wilson, S. M. (2000). Principals’ Efforts to Empower Teacher: Effects on Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction and Stress. The Clearing House, 73(6), 349-353.
Drost, E. (2011). Validity and Reliability in Social Science Research. Education Research and Perpectives, 38(1), 105-123.
Handscomb, G., & MacBeath, J. (2003). The Research- engaged School. Chelmsford: Forum for Learning and Research Enquiry (FLARE). Essex County Council.
Gagne, P.& Hancock, G.R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 65-83.
Gao, X., Barkhuizen, G., & Chow, A. W. K. (2011). Research engagement and educational decentralization: Problematising primary school English teachers’ research experiences in China. Educational Studies, 37, 207-219.
Gao, X.,& Chow, A,W,K, (2011). Primary school English teachers’ research Engagement. ELT Journal, [Online]. Available from: https://eltj.oxfordjournals.Org/content/early/2011/06/29/elt.ccr046.abstract [2016, August 4].
Kinlaw, D.C. (1995). The practice of empowerment: Making the most of human competence. Hampshire: Gower.
Lampe, D., & Parr, J. (1996). Empowering Citizens in Handbook of Public Administration. 2 ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Megginson, D. & Pedier. M. (1992). Self Development: A Facilitator’ Guide. London: McGraw Hill.and Need to be Successful. The Delta kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(2), 63-78
Ozturk, M.A. (2010). An exploratory study on measuring educators’ attitudes toward educational research. Educational Research and Reviews, 5, 758-769.
______. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of the educators’ attitudes toward educational research scale. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11, 737-747.
Petty, T. M. Z. (2007) Empowering Teachers: They Have Told Us What They Want and Need to be Successful. The Delta kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(2), 25-28.
Reitzug, U.C. (1994). A case study of empowering principal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 283-307.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work Engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner & D.P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management :Vol.5. Managing social and ethical issues in organization. Greenwich. CT: Information Age Pub Incorporated. Schaufeli. W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker. A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach, Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Scarnati, J.T., and Scarnati, B.J. (2002). Empowerment: The Key to quality TQM. New York : McGraw-Hill Companies.
Sharp, C., Eames, A., Sanders, D., & Tomlinson, K. (2006). Leading a Research Engaged School.[online] Available from: https://www.preonline.co.uk/REpdfs/4_researcheng agedncsl.pdf [2017mJuly 5].
Short,P.,& Rinehart, J.S. (1992). School participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951-960.
Swansburg, R.C. (1968). Inservice Education. New York: G.P. Puthum’s Sage.
Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerless, empowerment, and health education: Implication for health promotion program. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197-225.
Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment: Concepts, Strategies, and Implications for school in Hong Kong. Teachers College Record, 107, 842-861.