THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DIGITAL LITERACY SITUATION TEST OF THE TEACHER STUDENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS การวิจัยและพัฒนาแบบวัดเชิงสถานการณ์การรู้เท่าทันดิจิทัล ของนิสิตนักศึกษาครูในสถาบันอุดมศึกษา
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to research and develop a digital literacy situation test of teacher student in higher education institutions. The sample consisted of 2,100 university teacher students obtained by multi-stage sampling. The research tool was the digital literacy situation test. The statistics used in the data analysis were median, interquartile range, percentile, normalized T score, and confirmatory factor analysis. The research results were as follows.
1. Regarding the digital literacy situation test, which measured 5 indicators and 9 indication behaviors, when it was checked for the appropriateness by experts, it was found that the appropriateness was at a high-highest level. Concerning the development of the digital literacy situation test, the test included 18 items, consisting of indicator 1 access (2 indicator behaviors) 4 items, indicator 2 communication (2 indicator behaviors) 4 items, indicator 3 sharing (2 indicator behaviors) 4 items, indicator 4 evaluation (2 indicator behaviors) 4 items, indicator 5 creativity (1 indicator behavior). The test was a situational test with four behavioral choices and with a score of 1-4.
2. Regarding the quality of the digital literacy situation test, it was found that all 18 questions had the content validity. The discrimination was positive and statistically significant at the .01 level. Concerning the construct validity of the test of all 18 questions, the factor loading was between 0.454 and 0.916 and was statistically significant at the .01 level for all items. In addition, the test had consistent with empirical data (Chi-square = 121.489, df = 112, p-value = 0.254, RMSEA = 0.027, CFI = 0.990, and SRMR = 0.039). The reliability of the test was 0.878, and the measurement model for digital literacy had consistent with empirical data and construct validity (Chi-square = 1.354, df = 2, p-value = 0.508, RMSEA = 0.000, CFI = 1.000, and SRMR = 0.006).
3. The normal criteria for assessing the level of digital literacy were divided into 4 levels: high level, relatively high level, fair level, and need improvement level.
Article Details
The owner of the article does not copy or violate any of its copyright. If any copyright infringement occurs or prosecution, in any case, the Editorial Board is not involved in all the rights to the owner of the article to be performed.
References
Boonruangrat, S. (2007). Normalized T-score. In Encyclopedia of Education Faculty of Education Srinakharinwirot University, Vol.39 (pp. 7-15). Bangkok: Thanatach Publication. [in Thai]
Brush, T., Glazewaki, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers. Computers in the School, 25(1-2), 112-125.
Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy what do young people need to know about digital media? Digital Kompetanse Journal, 4(1), 263-276.
Canada Media Awareness Network. (2010). Digital literacy in Canada: From inclusion to transformation. Ottawa: The Network.
Chuenkasem, T. (2019). The relationship of social media addition toward a family time of student in Prawet District, Bangkok Metropolitan (Master thesis). Chonburi: Burapha University. [in Thai]
Clark, C. D. (2005). Percentile. In Everitt, B. S. & Howell, D. C. (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 207-227). Chichester: Wiley.
Dudeney, G., N, Hockly, & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital Literacies. Harlow: Pearson.
Digital Development Plan for Economy and Society. (2016). Digital Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. [in Thai]
Electronic Transactions Development Agency. (2019). Thailand and internet user behavior 2019. Bangkok: Office of Strategy Electronic Transactions Development Agency, Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. [in Thai]
Hobbs, R. (2011). Digital and media literacy connecting culture and classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoechsmann, M., & DeWaard, H. (2015). Mapping digital literacy policy and practice in the Canadian Education Landscape. Media Smart. Retrieved from https://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/mapping-digital-literacy.pdf
Jangsiripornpakorn, A. (2007). Principles of measurement and evaluation of education. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. [in Thai]
Jun, F., & Pow, J. (2011). Fostering digital literacy through web-based collaborative inquiry learning: A case study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovation in Practice, 10, 58-71.
Kanjanawasee, S. (2009). Classical test theory (6th ed.). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. [in Thai]
Kumar, S., Tiwari, P., & Zymbler, M. (2019). The internet of things is a revolutionary approach for future technology enhancement a review. Journal of Big Data, 6(111), 1-21.
Maneses, J., & Momino, J. M. (2010). Putting digital literacy in practice: How schools contribute to digital inclusion in the network society. Journal of The Information Society, Innovation in Practice, 26(3), 197 -208.
Martin, A. (2006). A European framework for digital literacy. Digital Kompetanse Journal, 1, 151-161.
National Statistical Office, Ministry of Digital Economy and Society. (2019). Survey of the use of information and communication technology in the household 2019. Bangkok: Division of Forecasting Statistics, National Statistical Office. [in Thai]
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Journal of Computers and Education, 59(3), 1065–1078.
Office of the Education Council, Ministry of Education. (2019). Study report on guidelines for creating and promoting digital literacy for teachers. Bangkok: Prikwarn Graphic. [in Thai]
Pasipho, S. (2016). Creation and development of educational measuring and assessment tools. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. [in Thai]
Pattiyathanee, S. (2008). Educational measurement (6th ed.). Kalasin: Prasan Printing. [in Thai]
Payton, S., & Hague, C. (2010). Digital literacy in practice. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL06/FUTL06casestudies.pdf
Pokpong, S., & Musikaphan, W., (2010). Factors affecting the attitude and behavior of both physical violence and bullying through the cyber world of Thai youth (Research report). Bangkok: The Wisdom Society for Public Opinion Research of Thailand. [in Thai]
Ritcharoon, P. (2012). Principles of measurement and evaluation of education (7th ed.). Bangkok: House of Kermyst. [in Thai]
Saiyot, L., & Saiyot, A. (2000). Learning measurement techniques. Bangkok: Chomromdek. [in Thai]
Shariman, T. P., Razak, N. A., & Noor, N. F. M. (2012). Digital literacy competence for academic needs: An Analysis of Malaysian students in three universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 6(9), 1489-1496.
Suttipong, R. (2017). A new paradigm in education and development of Thailand teachers in the digital age. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 19(2), 344-355. [in Thai]
Tangdhanakanond, K. (2015). Statistical methods in education. Bangkok: V Print Company. [in Thai]
Wijitwanna, S. (2013). Research for the development of teaching and learning. Bangkok: Dichareinmankhng Printing. [in Thai]
Wonganantnont, P. (2014). Excessive internet usage behavioral in adolescents. Journal of The Royal Thai Army Nurses, 15(2), 173-178. [in Thai]