Journal of Research Methodology https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm <p><em>Journal of Research Methodology</em> (JRM; e-ISSN <a href="https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2697-4835" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2697-4835</a>) is an open-access journal (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0</a>) published <strong>twice a year</strong> (January–June and July–December) by the Department of Educational Research and Psychology, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. JRM welcomes research articles, academic articles, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, methodological reviews, methodological tutorials, book/digital media reviews, and other types of manuscript in all subfields of education and related disciplines. The journal prioritizes methodological rigor and relevance to educational research.</p> <p><strong>Scope<br /></strong>JRM welcomes submissions in areas including, but not limited to:</p> <ul> <li>Educational research</li> <li>Educational research design and methodology</li> <li>Research methodology in other fields with implications for education</li> <li>Measurement, assessment, and evaluation</li> <li>Educational statistics and data sciences in education</li> <li>Educational psychology and special education</li> <li>Teacher education and curriculum studies</li> <li>Educational administration</li> <li>Educational technology</li> <li>Including other disciplines (e.g., humanities, social sciences, sciences, medicine, nursing, etc.) that present articles <em>focusing on research methodology and propose applications relevant to education</em>.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Peer Review Process<br /></strong>JRM uses different review processes for different types of manuscripts to support quality, transparency, and practical relevance.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Research articles and academic articles</strong>:<br />Reviewed through a <strong>double-blind peer review</strong> process with at least <strong>three independent reviewers</strong>. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Common manuscript types in this category include, but not limited to:<br /><strong>-</strong> Empirical studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods<br />- Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, and methodological reviews<br />- Theoretical or conceptual papers that propose or extend frameworks relevant to educational research<br />- Method-focused empirical studies, e.g. simulation studies, instrument validation, secondary data analysis<br />- Policy or practice-oriented research that includes analytical depth and methodological rigor</li> </ul> <ul> <li><strong>Methodological tutorials, book/digital media reviews, invited reviews, and letters</strong>:<br />These manuscripts are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and/or members of the editorial board. They are often technical or instructional, intended to improve research practices in education. This editorial review process allows for fast, expert-based, and context-sensitive feedback. Some journals indexed in <em data-start="473" data-end="481" data-is-only-node="">Scopus</em> also adopt this approach for similar genres. Although this type of review differs from double-blind peer review, the EIC strictly follows editorial ethics and maintains transparency in all decisions. <em data-start="682" data-end="687">JRM</em> also openly welcomes comments and critiques from readers on manuscripts published in these categories to support scholarly dialogue and ongoing refinement.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Indexing<br /></strong>JRM is indexed by the <strong>Thai-Journal Citation Index (TCI)</strong> since 2013 and the <strong>ASEAN Citation Index (ACI)</strong> since 2015. JRM aims to publish high-quality, accessible articles for researchers and practitioners in Thailand and globally.</p> <p><strong>Submission Fee Policy</strong><br />Starting in 2025, the <em>Journal of Research Methodology</em> <strong>does not charge any submission or publication fees</strong> for any type of manuscript. All submissions and publications are completely free of charge.</p> <p><strong>Language<br /></strong>Thai and English</p> Department of Educational Research and Psychology, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University en-US Journal of Research Methodology 2697-4835 <p>All published content in JRM is licensed under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)</a>.</p> Undergraduate Students' Perspectives on Death Management Policy: A Secondary Data Analysis of Classroom Learning Traces https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm/article/view/6152 <p>As Thailand transitions into an aged society with deaths exceeding births since 2021, death management policy has become an urgent public issue. Yet the perspectives of younger generations on this topic remain largely underrepresented in policy discourse. This article aims to: (1) examine the characteristics of learning processes and group work in designing death management policy proposals; (2) analyze the main issues and components of death management policy proposals from undergraduate students’ perspectives; and (3) analyze students’ perspectives toward death as reflected through their policy proposals. Using qualitative secondary data analysis (QSDA), we analyzed death management policy proposals produced by 20 student groups comprising 160 students in a Population and Development course during Semester 2 of Academic Year 2023. These proposals were generated through flipped classroom and collaborative learning activities. Data were analyzed using deductive-inductive content analysis and thematic analysis guided by the Policy Triangle Framework. The findings revealed three main points. First, student groups composed of members from multiple faculties and mixed-year levels proposed more diverse and comprehensive policies than homogeneous groups. Students strategically used humor in classroom presentations to reduce tension around death discussions. Second, students proposed policies covering three phases: before death, dying, and after death. These proposals encompassed all four dimensions of the Policy Triangle Framework, including context, content, process, and actors. Third, students’ perspectives on death reflected three transformations: acceptance of death as a public issue open for discussion, awareness of inequality in accessing dignified death, and a challenge to existing power structures in society that control death. This study demonstrates that qualitative secondary data analysis of learning activities is an appropriate approach for studying socially sensitive topics. This method enables access to authentic perspectives from young adults and may reduce social desirability bias, while also providing opportunities for the younger generation to participate in end-of-life policy development aligned with Thailand’s demographic transition context.</p> Titinan Pewnil Chadatan Osatis Playfa Namprai Copyright (c) 2026 Titinan Pewnil, Chadatan Osatis , Playfa Namprai https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2026-06-25 2026-06-25 39 1 3901001 3901001 Designing and Validating an Evidence-Based Pedagogy Framework: A PRISMA–Delphi–IRR Approach for Technical Education https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm/article/view/5090 <p>Instructional quality in aviation maintenance training (AMT) is commonly regulated through content requirements, with limited attention to pedagogy and instructional assurance. This study develops and validates RAMP-ACE, an auditable framework for improving the reliability and transparency of competency-based teaching. A PRISMA-guided systematic review initially identified seven preliminary pedagogical domains. Through regulatory triangulation and Delphi refinement, overlapping standardization/calibration and quality-assurance constructs were consolidated, producing a final six-domain framework. The candidate item pool progressed from 14 indicators in v1 to 23 indicators in v2, with 21 retained after two indicators failed Delphi thresholds. Content validity was examined through a two-round asynchronous Delphi process (Round 1 N = 14; Round 2 N = 13), followed by a pilot audit assessing interrater reliability, rating time, artifact availability, and corrective-action closure. Delphi findings showed strong consensus, with most indicators meeting I-CVI ≥ 0.78, S-CVI/Ave = 0.89, and S-CVI/UA = 0.35. Pilot testing produced κ/ICC values of 0.72–0.86, median dossier rating time of 38 minutes, and artifact availability above 85% for key records. Corrective actions were mostly closed within two weeks, supporting operational feasibility and transferability to technical and competency-based education contexts.</p> Arthur Dela Peña Copyright (c) 2026 Arthur Dela Peña https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2026-06-25 2026-06-25 39 1 3901002 3901002 Development of Computer Software for Criterion-referenced Item Analysis https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm/article/view/7625 <p>This research aimed to develop and assess the quality of computer software for criterion-referenced item analysis, designed to align with Thailand’s standards-based basic education curriculum. <br />A research and development (R&amp;D) methodology was employed, comprising two phases: Phase 1, software development, and Phase 2, software quality assessment. The research instruments included a heuristic evaluation checklist for assessing the appropriateness of the software interface and a user experience questionnaire. The participants who tested the software consisted of 50 users. The results revealed the following: 1) The developed software could serve as a replacement for existing software whose analytical outputs may be difficult to interpret for users without a background in educational measurement and evaluation, while also being compatible with current operating systems. The software developed in this study, named i-ACT (Item Analysis for Criterion-Referenced Test), was developed using the Visual Basic programming language and can be used without installation (portable software). The key item analysis results generated by the software include the difficulty index, discrimination index, and reliability coefficient, based on criterion-referenced test analysis concepts. 2) Regarding software quality assessment, users reported a positive experience with the software. Users rated the software highly in terms of performance efficiency (M = 6.26, SD = 0.89) and ease of learning (M = 6.24, SD = 0.71). In addition, users perceived the developed software as appealing (M = 6.20, SD = 0.81).</p> Nhabhat Chaimongkol Copyright (c) 2026 Nhabhat Chaimongkol https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2026-06-25 2026-06-25 39 1 3901003 3901003 Object Detection Using Computer Vision https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm/article/view/2945 <p>Object detection has become an important technology in artificial intelligence and computer vision. Many industries now use this technology, including self-driving cars, medical image analysis, security systems, and manufacturing. This paper presents a detailed study of object detection methods through three main parts. The first part covers the basic theories and concepts of object detection. We explain the differences between image classification and object detection, and describe the main parts of detection systems. We also discuss how to measure performance using average precision (AP) and mean average precision (mAP). The section includes a review of how detection models have developed over time, from older methods to modern one-stage and two-stage approaches. We provide practical examples using Faster R-CNN. The second part focuses on the YOLO (You Only Look Once) algorithm, which represents single-stage detection methods. YOLO is popular because it works fast while keeping good accuracy. We explain how YOLO works, including how it divides images into grids and predicts bounding boxes and object types at the same time. We show detailed code examples for detecting objects in still images using YOLOv5. The last part extends to video object detection, which brings new challenges for real-time processing. We discuss various techniques to improve performance, such as model quantization, pruning, knowledge distillation, and combining object tracking with detection using DeepSORT. We demonstrate practical applications by showing how to detect and track cars in traffic videos. The demonstrations illustrate how pretrained object detection models, particularly Faster R-CNN and YOLOv5, can be applied to still images and video frames for instructional purposes. The article does not aim to provide a systematic benchmark comparison, but rather to present practical implementation examples for readers who are beginning to use object detection techniques.</p> Jiramate Rujikornhirun Copyright (c) 2026 Jiramate Rujikornhirun https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2026-06-25 2026-06-25 39 1 3901004 3901004 Front Matter https://so12.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jrm/article/view/8111 Journal of Research Methodology Copyright (c) 2026 Watcharasak Sudla https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 2026-06-25 2026-06-25 39 1 3901000 3901000