Exploring Innovator Skills among Secondary School Students in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the level of innovator skills and to investigate the factors and relationships influencing the innovator skills of secondary school students in Thailand. A survey research design was employed, incorporating both descriptive and inferential statistics. The research instrument was the Self-Assessment of Innovator Skills (SAIS), a five-point Likert scale questionnaire consisting of 30 items covering five dimensions: creative thinking, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting. The participants were 496 secondary school students selected through stratified sampling. The results revealed that students' innovator skills were at a moderate level (M = 3.39, SD = 0.46). Innovator skills significantly differed by region, school size, and grade level. In addition, significant relationships were found between academic program and innovator skills, with a small effect size (V = 0.16), and between learning experiences and innovator skills, with a moderate effect size (V = 0.21) (p < .05). These findings indicate that contextual factors play an important role in shaping students' innovator skills, particularly learning experiences, which exert a greater influence than academic program. The findings provide empirical evidence for schools to design learning environments that offer diverse learning experiences aligned with students' contexts. They also provide useful implications for educational policymakers in developing policies and instructional approaches that foster innovator skills among secondary school students in response to the demands of an innovation-driven society in the 21st century
Article Details
References
อริญชยา ตะพังพินิจการ, และสุกัญญา แช่มช้อย. (2566). ทักษะนวัตกรพลิกผันของนักเรียนโรงเรียนนำร่องพื้นที่นวัตกรรมการศึกษา สังกัดสำนักงานเขตพื้นที่การศึกษามัธยมศึกษากาญจนบุรี. วารสารครุศาสตร์ปริทรรศน์, 10(1), 217–231.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Best, J. W. (1981). Research in education (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Chaemchoy, S. (2023). Factor analysis of Thai students’ innovator and entrepreneur competency. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 44(3), 939–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2023.06.002
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00725.x
Gerber, E., Martin, C. K., Kramer, E., Braunstein, J., & Carberry, A. R. (2012). Work in progress: Developing an innovation self-efficacy survey. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2012.6462435
Gerber, E., Olson, J., & Komarek, R. (2012). Extracurricular design-based learning: Preparing students for careers in innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 317–324.
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325698
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
Lukes, M., & Stephan, U. (2017). Measuring innovation competence: A review and proposal for a new instrument. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1239083
Mirattanaphrai, P., & Srikoon, S. (2025). Design and development of innovator self-assessment questionnaire for students in grade 6: Utilizing educational design research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101414
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Roehrig, G. H., Park, M. S., & Guzey, S. S. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K–12 STEM education. In J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practice (pp. 35–60). Purdue University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wq7bh.7
OECD. (2018a). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en
OECD. (2018b). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). Innovating assessments to measure and support complex skills. https://doi.org/10.1787/e5f3e341-en
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). Framework for 21st century learning. Battelle for Kids. https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources
Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine, 50(302), 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897
Scheffé, H. (1953). A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 40(1–2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/40.1-2.87
