The Appropriateness of Reflective and Formative Measurement Models of Secondary School Students’ Digital Citizenship: Bayesian Statistical Analysis
Keywords:
Digital Citizenship, Reflective Measurement Model, Formative Measurement Model, Bayesian StatisticsAbstract
The purposes of this research were: 1) to compare the appropriateness of reflective and formative measurement models of students’ digital citizenship, and 2) to compare students’ digital citizenship and its components across different backgrounds. The sample, randomly selected using two-stage sampling, consisted of 450 secondary school students in schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) in Bangkok. The instrument used in this research was a 46-item digital citizenship scale. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, one-way ANOVA, one-way MANOVA, post-hoc comparisons, and analysis with Bayesian and frequentist statistics using Mplus and SmartPLS programs. The results of the research revealed that: 1) The reflective measurement model of students’ digital citizenship was more appropriate than the formative measurement model (Reflective–Reflective: BIC = 12,925.857; Reflective–Formative: BIC = 12,718.760). 2) The students’ digital citizenship was at a medium level, with Digital Literacy, Digital Participation, Digital Ethics, and Digital Protection also at medium levels, while Digital Identity was at a high level. 3) Significant differences at the .05 level were found in students’ digital citizenship based on program, school size, and the amount of time spent using the internet for studying, but not for gender, grade, or the amount of time spent using the internet for leisure and socializing. Regarding the components of digital citizenship, it was found that for the first component (Digital Literacy) and the third component (Digital Identity), students’ mean scores differed significantly by program, school size, and the amount of time spent using the internet for studying at the .05 level of significance. For the second component (Digital Participation), students’ mean scores differed significantly by gender, program, and school size at the .05 level. For the fourth component (Digital Ethics), students’ mean scores differed significantly by program and school size at the .05 level. However, for the fifth component (Digital Protection), no significant differences were found at the .05 level.
References
ต้องตา จำเริญใจ. (2561). ความเป็นพลเมืองดิจิทัลของนักเรียนชั้นประถมศึกษาปีที่ 1-6 ของโรงเรียนในสังกัดสำนักงานเขตพื้นที่การศึกษาประถมศึกษาเพชรบูรณ์ เขต 3. [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต, มหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลธัญบุรี]. DSpace at Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi. http://www.repository.rmutt.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/3504/1/RMUTT-160404.pdf
นงนุช จินดารัตนาภรณ์. (2564). ปัจจัยที่มีผลต่อทักษะและความสามารถในการใช้อินเทอร์เน็ตของวัยรุ่นไทย. วารสารสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยศรีนครินทรวิโรฒ, 24(1), 81-100.
โรงเรียนท่าข้ามพิทยาคม. (2558, 29 กรกฎาคม). โครงสร้างหลักสูตรระดับชั้นมัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย. http://www.thaischool1.in.th/_files_school/20060006/data/20060006_1_20150729-165201.pdf
วรรณากร พรประเสริฐ, เทียมจันทร์ พานิชย์ผลินไชย, ปกรณ์ ประจันบาน, และน้ำทิพย์ องอาจวาณิชย์. (2562). การพัฒนาแบบวัดและเกณฑ์ปกติความพลเมืองดิจิทัลของนิสิตนักศึกษาในสถาบันอุดมศึกษา. วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร, 22(3), 217-234.
สิวะโชติ ศรีสุทธิยากร. (2555). วิธีการประมาณค่าแบบเบส์สำหรับการวิเคราะห์ข้อมูลพหุระดับที่ตัวแปรมีความคลาดเคลื่อนจากการวัด : การศึกษาสถานการณ์จำลองแบบมอนติคาร์โลและข้อมูลจริง [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาดุษฎีบัณฑิต, จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย]. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository (CUIR). http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/37520
เสาวภาคย์ แหลมเพ็ชร. (2559). พฤติกรรมและผลกระทบจากการใช้เครือข่ายสังคมออนไลน์ของ. นักเรียนระดับชั้นมัธยมศึกษาตอนปลายในจังหวัดนนทบุรี. วารสารสุทธิปริทัศน์, 30(93), 116-130.
อิทธิพล พลเหี้ยมหาญ. (2562). โรงเรียนมัธยมศึกษาขนาดเล็ก ปัญหาใหญ่ของการศึกษาไทย. วารสารสถาบันวิจัยพิมลธรรม, 6(2), 93-104.
Choi, M., Glassman, M., & Cristol, D. (2017). What it means to be a citizen in the internet age: Development of a reliable and valid digital citizenship scale. Computers and Education, 107, 100–112.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.
Common Sense Media. (2015). Our K-12 digital citizenship curriculum. Common Sense Media.
Council of Europe. (2017). Digital citizenship education: Empowering digital citizenships. The council of Europe.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263-282.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269-277.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1208-1218.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2014). Bayesian data analysis (3th ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Global Digital Citizen Foundation. (2015). Digital Citizenship School Program. Retrieved from https://globaldigitalcitizen.org/digital-citizenship-school-program
Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National Educational Technology Standards for Student (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2017). International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Students. Retrieved from www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Jones, L. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2016). Defining and measuring youth digital citizenship. New Media and Society, 18(9), 2063–2079.
Kaplan, D. (2014). Bayesian statistics for the social sciences. Guilford Publications.
Ke, D., & Xu, S. (2017). A research on factors affecting college students’ digital citizenship. The Sixth International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology.
Kim, M., & Choi, D. (2018). Development of youth digital citizenship scale and implication for educational setting. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 21(1), 155–171.
Lyons, R. (2012). Investigating student gender and grade level differences in digital citizenship behavior. College of Education, Walden University.
Martin, F., Gezer, T., & Wang, C. (2019). Educators’ perceptions of student digital citizenship practices. Computers in the Schools, 36(4), 238–254.
MediaSmart. (2016). Use, Understand and Create: A digital Literacy Framework for Canadian Schools. Retrieved from https://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/pdfs/digital-literacyframework.pdf
Muthen, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313-335.
Nordin, M. S., Ahmad, T. B. T., Zubairi, A. M., Ismail, N. A. H., Rahman, A. H. A., Trayek, F. A., & Ibrahim, M. B. (2016). Psychometric properties of a digital citizenship questionnaire. International Education Studies, 9(3), 71-80.
Park, Y. (2017). Digital Intelligence (DQ). DQ Institute.
Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org
Ribble, M. (2011). Digital citizenship in school (2nd ed.). International Society for Technology in Education.
Ribble, M., & Bailey, G. (2011). Nine elements of digital citizenship. Digital citizenship: Using technology appropriately. International Society for Technology in Education.
Sandoval, Z. V. (2019). Digital citizenship in higher education students. Issues in Information Systems, 20(4), 93-103.
Soper, D. S. (2014). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89
UNESCO. (2017). Digital Citizenship Education in Asia-Pacific Outcome Document. Conference on Digital Citizenship Education in Asia-Pacific, 22-23.
Translated Thai References
Jamroenjai, T. (2018). Digital citizenship of students in primary levels 1-6 (Grades 1-6) in schools under the Phetchabun primary educational service area office 3. [Master’s thesis, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi]. DSpace at Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi. http://www.repository.rmutt.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/3504/1/RMUTT-160404.pdf
Jindarattanaporn, N. (2021). Factors effecting internet literacy among Thai teenagers. Journal of Social Sciences Srinakharinwirot University, 24(1), 81-100.
Takhampittayakom School. (2015). Course Structure for Senior High School. http://www.thaischool1.in.th/_files_school/20060006/data/20060006_1_20150729-165201.pdf
Phornprasert, W. et al. (2019). The development of students’ digital citizenship scale and norms in higher education institutions. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 22(3), 217-234.
Srisuttiyakorn, S. (2012). Bayesian estimation for multi-level data analysis with measurement error in variables: Monte Carlo simulation and empirical data studies. [Doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University]. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository (CUIR). http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/37520
Lampetch, S. (2016). Behavior and impact of using social network of secondary school students in Nonthaburi province. Suthiparithat Journal, 30(93), 116-130.
Pholhiamhan, I. (2019). The educational challenge of Thailand’s small-sized secondary schools. Phimoldhamma Research Institute Journal, 6(2), 93-104.
Published
Versions
- 2024-10-16 (3)
- 2024-10-16 (2)
- 2024-08-31 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Pimlak Charoenwanichkun, Siwachoat Srisuttiyakorn, Kanit Sriklaub
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
