Development of Indicators for Teachers Innovator Competence

Abstract

Background and Aims: Global changes in the 21st century have necessitated a shift in the teacher’s role toward becoming an "innovator teacher." However, there is a significant lack of a systematic framework for evaluating and enhancing teacher innovator competency within the Thai educational context. This research aimed to: 1) develop indicators of teacher innovator competency, and 2) examine the goodness-of-fit of the developed structural model of these indicators with empirical data.

Methodology: The research was conducted in two phases: Phase 1 involved the development of indicators for teachers’ innovator competence through the synthesis of literature, theories, and in-depth interviews with five experts, resulting in 5 major components, 10 sub-components, and 48 indicators. Phase 2 focused on validating the structural model using first- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. The sample consisted of 400 school administrators and teachers under the Samut Prakan Primary Educational Service Area Office 2, selected through stratified random sampling. The research instrument was a 48-item, five-point rating scale questionnaire. The content validity (IOC) ranged from 0.66–1.00. A try-out with 30 non-sample teachers yielded item discrimination values between 0.35–0.89 and an overall reliability coefficient of .978. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis to validate the developed competency structure.

Results: The research results indicated that teachers’ innovator competence consisted of 5 major components, 10 sub-components, and 48 indicators, categorized as follows: 1) Structural Forecasting (2 sub-components, 10 indicators); 2) Knowledge (2 sub-components, 9 indicators); 3) Technology (2 sub-components, 9 indicators); 4) Creativity (2 sub-components, 10 indicators); and 5) Self-Regulation (2 sub-components, 10 indicators). The structural model of teachers’ innovator competence demonstrated a good fit with the empirical data across all indices. (χ² = 352.42, df = 339, p = .252, χ²/df = 1.04, GFI = .95, AGFI = .91, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .01).

Conclusion: The developed components and indicators appropriately explain teacher innovator competency. They can be effectively utilized as a framework for assessing and enhancing teacher innovator competency within educational institutions.