Measuring Multi-Ethnic Students Citizenship Competence: Domains and Indicators

Corresponding Author: Mohd Mahzan Awang, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia Email: mahzan@ukm.edu.my Abstract: The current study aims at developing and validating an instrument to measure citizenship competences among multi-ethnic students. It was developed based on the Iceberg Competency Model (McBer, 1996) and citizenship competence from the works of (Ten Dam and Volman, 2007; Ten Dam et al., 2010; 2011). The Citizenship Competences Framework was developed prior to indicators/items development. The Framework contained four constructs namely acting democratically, social responsibility, conflict management and dealing with differences. Indicators within these four constructs were developed and verified by experts. They were then used in the instruments. A survey was carried out involving 60 multi-ethnic students in Malaysia. Data gathered was analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis. Results showed that only 14 indicators/items from four constructs are valid and reliable to be used. Results suggest there are three new groups (indicators/14 items) emerged for measuring citizenship competences. We synthesised these 14 items into three new constructs namely (1) respecting others’ voices, (2) ethnic tolerance and (3) problem solving oriented. These new constructs and items presented in this study are supposed to be considered in researching multi-ethnic student citizenship competence.


Introduction
Nations with good citizen values are fundamental for a country successful. A country stability and development are dependent on the quality of people living in a country and how the leaders manage a country. People in a democratic country are supposed to have high competency level as democratic nations. They are supposed to have in-depth understanding on democratic behaviour and able to behave democratically. In order to develop good citizens, educational system and practice are supposed to be at a high level as well. This is because educational experience is a contributing factor for a country development. Nik (1996) suggests the quality of a value system in a society is a pillar in a country's development. This includes the noble and patriotic values among the people. The implementation of citizenship values in school curriculum is an educational fundamental principle. Positive citizenship values are supposed to be promoted within or outside of the classroom. It aims at producing a good and perfect individual. Social education or citizenship education would nurture individuals in the community to be able to decide for both their own personal and the public's interests, which may affect the future (Johnson, 2001). Brimall and White (2000) stated that the curriculum objectives of civic education in Britain is to provide the knowledge, skills and understanding to play effective roles at the local, national and international levels. This informs that the national promotes each individual become an informed citizen capable of thinking effectively as well as responsibly in carrying out their duties and observing rights.
Citizenship values are closely linked to the development and construction of an individual's attitudes and behaviours towards his or her surroundings or the issues in the country (Sirat, 2004). According to the Social Learning Theory, people do not merely react to external influences as if they are organisms that do not think, but they actually choose, manage and transfer stimuli that impinge on them (Bandura, 1982).
Citizenship education in Malaysia was taught through a subject called civics, which was introduced in schools in 1954 following the recommendations in the Annual Education Report 1952. This subject is a branch of knowledge that provides citizenship training to students at school (Sidin and Aziz, 1992). The evaluation of the implementation of civic and citizenship education in 1978 and 1985 has not helped to improve the status of the subject. In fact, the subject was abolished and citizenship education was incorporated into history and moral education for Form One to Form Five.
The subjects of civics and citizenship education have been reintroduced in stages to the Malaysian school system since 2005. A major goal of civics and citizenship education is to build awareness among students regarding roles, rights and responsibilities in the community and nation to produce members of society and citizens who are united, patriotic and able to contribute to the betterment of the community, nation and world (MEM, 2014). There are three main objectives to be achieved through learning this subject: Knowledge, skills and values. The first objective covers the acquisition of knowledge, which is related to the roles and responsibilities of an individual as a citizen for the development and prosperity of the nation. The second objective is related to skills, including the proficiency of self-discipline in each individual to respond to the progression of society and the nation. The third objective is related to the values, including efforts to foster citizens who should be able to act based on knowledge and skills learned. This includes creating individuals who are always grateful and proud to be a citizen of a sovereign country, Malaysia.

Citizenship Education: Issues and Challenges
Previous studies are more inclined towards the implementation of citizenship education, but it is difficult to obtain instrumentation that determines its impact on students. Past studies also focus less on what students learn about citizenship at school and more on the difference among students from different schools. Meanwhile, the instrumentation available outside Malaysia has measured sub-components, such as critical skills, moral judgment, social skills and concern for others (Ten Dam and Volman, 2007). There are limited studies have focused on the ability to act in social situations. Indeed, the lack of negotiation skills, religious tolerance and misunderstanding among multi-ethnic residents are found to be major contributors for ethnic clashing in Malaya (Mohamed Ali and Mohammad Redzuan, 2012). Indeed, there is limited study focuses on multi-ethnic students citizenship competences. Therefore, this study focuses on the development of citizenship constructs that could explain student citizenship.
The concept of citizenship is different from one community to another. It may have a link with the country's philosophy. In a democratic country, diversity in societies is supposed to be well managed as the rights of people are vital for harmonious society (Glass, 2000;Haste, 2004). The situation may in a socialism and communism. Democracy can be seen as working cooperatively as a way of life (Dewey, 1966(Dewey, /1916 in which the permissibility to function in heterogeneous situations such as at work, at home and on the road is deemed important. According to Westheimer (2008), good citizenship implies an individual is able to critically evaluate different perspectives, generate strategies for change and reflect on issues of justice, equality and democracy. It may be fair to state that the ability to function in an acceptable manner and in a responsible manner in the community is part of 'good citizenship'. Based on the past studies, the current paper utilises the concept of citizenship development, which operates based on two internal concepts: Student citizenship and students' abilities or competencies. Citizenship education is seen as an addition to the formation of students' competencies, which allows them to take part in social assignments (Ten Dam and Volman, 2007). Based on the study of citizenship competencies, Ten Dam et al. (2010) consider four types of citizenship competences: (1) acting democratically, (2) acting in ways responsibilities in a democracy, (3) differences and (4) conflict management. However, the main question is regarding the competences required by students of various ethnic groups to carry out this social work.
'Good citizenship' refers to the ability of individuals to function in an acceptable situation and make a significant contribution to the community (Ten Dam et al., 2011). Therefore, there is a need to identify the critical knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to carry out the social tasks in an appropriate manner. Ten Dam and Volman (2007) obtain the definitions of the components through a survey of citizenship and education. Four major social tasks and the definitions of the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for the tasks were presented to specialists from secondary education and school education in the Netherlands Inspectorate Dutch Education and science experts who concluded that social tasks represent students' practices when aged between 11 and 16 years (Ten Dam et al., 2011).

Research Framework
This study utilises the research framework based on McBer (1996) Iceberg Competency Model. This model emphasises three major components of competency namely: Knowledge, skills and attitudes. Knowledge competency refers to the information that is owned by someone in a field, while skill competency is the ability to complete a task physically and mentally, i.e., practical ability. Personal competence or attitudes are personal values and behaviours, i.e., personal attributes that are to be internalised and practiced. These three domains (knowledge, skills and attitudes) were then combined with the citizenship elements (Ten Dam et al., 2010). Ten Dam et al. (2010) identified that there are four main elements that are democratic acts, social responsibility and conflict management and managing differences.

Objectives of the Study
This study aimed at developing and validating instruments for measuring citizenship competences among multi-ethnic students. Specifically, the study intends to identify the most relevant indicators and internal consistency for each items in the instruments for measuring citizenship competences.

Methodology
This study was based on a small scale study using a survey research design that aims to develop and validate instruments for determining student citizenship competencies. According to Cohen et al. (2007), the research design is a process of taking data from a certain time, often using questionnaires. This research was completed in four stages:

Stage 1: Developing Research Framework
The framework used in this study was based on Ten Dam et al. (2010) concept of citizenship competences, which emphasises four social tasks: (1) To act in a democratic manner, (2) social responsibility, (3) conflict management and 4) managing differences. The framework was used as a general guideline for a questionnaire development.

Stage 2: Designing and Validating the Instrument
Stage 2 involves a development of indicators and items that are based on the framework. The items were then reviewed by three experts in sociology and educational studies. Comments and suggestions from these experts were taken into account for improvement of the instrument independently. All the items have been corrected according to the experts' comments. It should be noted that all the items are written in the Malay language as it aims at students in Malaysia. In order to ensure the accuracy of translated items, all the items have been checked by language expert. The revised instruments then were reviewed by a group of students (n = 10) in order to check its face validity. Overall, the items in the instruments are representative of each construct. A 5-point Likert scale was used.

Stage 3: Survey
A small scale survey was carried out in selected national schools in Malaysia involving 60 multiethnic students. The respondents were selected using a random sampling technique. This technique is appropriate as the respondents have an equal chance of being selected as a sample without any selection bias. It should noted that there are ongoing debates regarding an appropriate sample size to validate new instruments. Johanson and Brooks (2010) investigated the choice of a sample size for the purpose of validation and recommended, "… 30 representative participants from the population of interest is a reasonable minimum recommendation for a pilot study where the purpose is preliminary survey or scale development" (p.399). In this study, the population of interest is multi-ethnic students from national secondary schools. Malhotra (2007) recommended a sample size ranging from 15-30 is sufficient for identifying the validity scores and reliability of a new instrument. Based on those recommendations, 60 multi-ethnic respondents were randomly chosen for the current study. As the current study aimed to validate an instrument that will be used for a larger data collection, data gained will be used to improve the instrument. They cannot be used for generalisation to the population. However, it may be relevant to indicate that the number of multi-ethnic students aged 16 in Malaysian National Secondary Schools in 2014 was 359,916 (MEM, 2014). This is to note that there is insufficient data for the number of students in 2015.

Stage 4: Data Analyses
Data gathered from the survey was analysed using SPSS by focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability analysis.

Factor Analysis
A factor analysis was carried out to test the model of Citizenship Competency that has been proposed by Ten Dam et al. (2010). Table 1 shows there are two components in measuring citizenship competences namely ability to do something (under the construct of 'Skills' and the components of thinking, desire and willingness (under the construct if 'attitudes'). Each construct are supposed to be considered. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of sphericity were conducted to exploratory factor analysis. Table 2 shows that the KMO test resulted in a value of 0.915. This value was above the cut-off level of 0.6 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001), indicating that the sample was adequate to test factor analysis. Table 3 shows that there are nine components (constructs) for measuring citizenship competency; however results show that there are 24 items are measuring various components. The following items are found to be in various group: C21, C26, 27, C28, C29, C30, C31, C32, C33, C34, C35, C41, C42, C43, C44, C45, C46, C47, C48, C49, C50, C51, C52, C57 and C59. This indicates that the item is not valid to measure the construct (component). Indeed the r values for most items are weak. In order to ensure the items that are mainly measuring the constructs, only the items that are grouped in one component/group are supposed to be considered. In order to carry out exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of sphericity have been carried out for the second time. Table 4 shows the results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of sphericity after the data reduction. All 24 items are removed from the list as it measures various contructs/components. After data reductions, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of sphericity were again conducted to exploratory factor analysis. Results showed that the KMO test is 0.898 indicating that the sample was adequate to test factor analysis. Table 5 shows the pattern Matrix for two constructs where the results demonstrated that are 14 items and three constructs are found to be valid for measuring citizenship competency. In order to check the reliability of all items, two statistical analyses were carried out i.e., Item-total correlation and Inter-item correlation. Table 6 shows that all the items are statistically correlated where the values for overall Cronbach's Alpha is 0.886. Detailed analysis on item-total correlation revealed that all the items are statistically correlated where the minimum value for Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted is 0.873 and the highest value is 0.886. According to George and Mallery (2003), Cronbach's alpha coefficients of less than 0.6 are considered low and unacceptable, between 0.60 and 0.80 are acceptable and above 0.80 are considered good. Generally, the value used is the Cronbach's alpha value above 0.60 and is considered to have a good reliability index.   Table 3.      Table 7 shows that all items are significantly correlated related. This means that the items are reliable to be used in measuring citizenship competence. Construct 1: Respecting others' Voices C22-ability to listen before talking C23-open minded in a group discussion C24-ability to make a stand using evidences C25-positive attitudes towards others' point of view

Construct 2 Ethnic Tolerances
C36-do academic revisions with multi-ethnic friends C37-accepting multi-cultural celebrations C38-eating with multi-ethnic friends together C39-carrying out recreation with friends from various ethnic backgrounds C40-assisting people irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds

Construct 3 Problem Solving Oriented
C53-sharing personal problems with trusted friends C54-striving for problems solutions C55-using appropriate strategies to overcome any problems C56-learning multi-cultural approaches for problem solution C58-having many friends from various socio-cultural beckgrounds These indicators see to support the previous study of citizenship competences in Mexico where it was found that the contributors to citizenship competences are as follows: Tolerance, respect, analysis, judgment, responsibility and identity (Escorza et al., 2014). The current study has contributed to the study of citizenship competences by highlighting the importance of human skills and attitudes, especially in accepting other point of view, tolerance and problem solving skills. Previous studies in this area seemed to be more likely focusing on cognitive aspects. For instance, Escorza et al. (2014) emphasises the association between cognitive abilities and human behaviour, where citizen competences encompassed of the elements of knowing and be sensitive to the social, economic and political reality; acting with civic solidarity and responsibility to improve the life quality of their community. Past study in Malaysia indicated that those elements have been stipulated clearly in professionals' circulars, but how it has been translated into practice requires further investigation (Awang et al., 2013).

Conclusion
Overall results indicated that four sub-constructs of citizenship competences introduced by Ten Dam et al.
(2010) i.e., (1) acting in a democratic manner, (2) social responsibility, (3) conflict management and (3) managing differences require further detailed investigation. This is due to the statistical analyses from the current study showed that the indicators are gathered in three new constructs. Student's socioenvironment may have influenced students' attitudes towards others (Awang et al., 2014) and have affected their citizenship competences level.
As the study aimed at measuring citizenship competences in a democratic society, the constructs presented in this study may not appropriate in the communist and socialist countries. It may be fair to state that the instruments developed from this study are suitable to be used for measuring the level of a student's citizenship competence citizenship in democratic countries.
Contextual differences (communism, democracy and socialism) are important aspects and major considerations when conducting research on citizenship competences and civic education. As the current study focuses mainly on human skills and attitudes, the future research on this topic has to consider the domains of knowledge, spiritual and socio-cultural values. Qualitative study may also helpful to identify new constructs and items for measuring holistic students' citizenship competences.