Themes Emerging from Quantitative Data

This section presents and discusses the feelings of the respondents from two institutes towards the topics included in the multiple-choice questions. This involved the respondents making value judgments based on their response indicated on five-point rating scales (Likert scale) (Robson, 2000). I used numeric labels ranging from one to five implying order to the named data categories - less than agree to very strongly agree. I verified the skewedness – the distributional shape of the data which is a key determination to choose the most appropriate data representatives. All of the data sets were considered negatively skewed (left skewed) in which the majority of extreme value judgments from the respondents are less than the mean. Medians were used as the measure of central tendency and inter-quartile ranges represented the measure of dispersion (Ibid). Non-parametric test was used to analyse the distribution of a set of ranked values or ranked differences between two universities. The common alternatives of non-parametric tests consist of (Ibid):

161

- Mann-Whitney Test to rank all the values from two samples to verify whether they are not significantly different from each other, implying they have similar medians;

- Wilcoxon Test to determine changes and usually used in ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenarios; and,

- Kruskal-Wallis Test to compare medians of three or more data sets.

I chose the Mann-Whitney Test because it can compare the median agreements of the research participants from two institutes, RU1 and RU2, with the generic hypothesis:

Ho: Median attitudes of respondents from RU2 and RU1 are the same;

H1: Median attitudes of respondents from RU2 and RU1 are different.

Or,

Ho: MedianRU2 = MedianRU1

H1: MedianRU2 ≠ MedianRU1

The test will be undertaken at the 5% level of significance, and to reject Ho, Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed) must be higher than 0.05. The statistical details are presented in Appendix 5.1. The findings were summarised and presented concerning peace education in Rajabhat universities as follows.

Concepts of Peace:

The concepts of peace in this research, based on the literature review and the data, show that the concepts of peace from this study include an absence of all kinds of violence (direct, structural and cultural violence) and holistic inner and outer peace. Peace concepts are seen to include negative peace, positive peace and also holistic peace. The absence of direct violence (Galtung, 1969) both micro (personal) and macro (war) levels (Brock-Utne, 1995) is a negative peace. The concepts of peace were investigated in the questionnaire items 7.1 to 7.10 (see appendix 4.4). I chose to present and discuss the items of 7.4, 7.8, and 7.10, which held the median at 5 = every strongly agree. The item 7.1 was also discussed as holding a significant difference between universities. However, the rest of the other items such as, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.9, were also

162

rated as strongly agree as well. The findings from questionnaires showed that students very strongly agreed on the item 7.4 “Peace is a calm condition which has happiness,

harmony, and no conflict that lead to violence and harm” at a low percentile of 4.0 and

high percentile of 5.0. However, their opinions did not show a significant difference between two universities (p = 0.096). This means that students from both universities perceived the concepts of peace the same as negative peace. The absence of structural and cultural violence (Galtung, 1969:183) is positive peace. The finding on the item 7.8 “Peace is the way that people in the world live with a happy living, equality, justice and

non-exploitation” showed that students strongly agreed at a low percentile of 4.0 and

high percentile of 5.0. However, their opinions did not have significant difference between two universities (p = 0.661). This revealed that students of both universities had the same views for the concept of peace as positive peace – the absence of structural violence. With regard to holistic peace concepts, the literature review found that the concepts of peace have been developed to the holistic Gaia peace – peace emphasizing the relationship of humans and bioenvironmental systems (Groff and Smoker, 1996a, 1996b; Wenden, 2004; and Mische, 2004) and the holistic inner and outer peace – peace relating to the inner and esoteric (spiritual) aspects which is mainly found in religions (Groff and Smoker, 1996b; Galtung, 1993:18 and Sivaraksa, 1994:103). The finding from questionnaires revealed that the item of 7.10 “Peace is one dimension which

should be considered at all levels of relationship to oneself, human, nature, and to society” which related to Gaia peace was not significantly different (p = 0.32.). Students

from both universities had the same opinions at the median of 4.0. For the concept of holistic inner and outer peace, the item of 7.1 “Peace is Both Means and Ends” had significant difference (p = 0.008). Students from RU1 had a mean rank at 57.56, whereas students from RU2 held at 43.44. This implies that students from both universities valued peace as both a method for reaching peace and a goal to be achieved differently. This is understandable when we consider the concept of peace as “means and ends” which relates to the concept of “Nibbhana” in Buddhism. The students from RU1, who live in central Bangkok, seem to associate more closely with Buddhism than students from RU2 who live near the unrest area of southern Thailand. I think this is related to the locations where they live.

163

Concepts of Peace Education:

The concepts of peace education were investigated from the items 7.11 to 7.20 in the questionnaires. I chose to present and discuss five items of 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.18. The items of 7.12 and 7.13 held as very strongly agree with the median at 5. The item 7.14 is the concept of inner peace which is a typical concept in Buddhism in the Thai context. The items of 7.15 and 7.18 showed a significant difference between universities. The rest of the items held a strongly agree at the median at 4. The concepts of peace education were found from the literature as the educational process of empowering people with knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of peace in order to live together peacefully (Fountain, 1999; Hicks, 1985 cited in Fountain 1999; Harris and Morrison, 2003; Reardon, 2000). The findings from questionnaires supported this concept as follows. Two items of 7.12 “Peace education is the education about how to

live together creatively and peacefully with the morals and social rules” and 7.13

“Peace education is the use of the educational process to develop people have a

knowledge and understanding about peace and have a good attitude in the way of life which harmonize with peace” had a very strongly agree from participants with the

median at 5.0. However, there was not a different significance between universities in both items. The first item had p = 0.164. The participants from RU1 had a mean rank at 54.15, whereas RU2 had 46.85. It implied that the participants of both universities tended to place similar value on peace education for living together peacefully and creatively. The second item had p = 0.783. The participants from RU1 had a mean rank at 51.23, whereas RU2 had 49.77. This implied that the participants of both universities tended to have a similar agreement on peace education for developing people’s knowledge and attitudes for peace.

The concept of peace education was also found in Buddhism as education for the cultivation of the intellect and the emotion/sentiment toward Nibbana (Holder, 2006; Payutto, 1995b). The finding from the questionnaire item 7.14 “Peace education is the

study about inner peace” supported this concept, with which the participants strongly

164

participants from RU1 had a mean rank at 53.70, whereas RU2 had 47.30. This implied that the participants of both universities seemed to have a similar agreement on peace education as the study of inner peace.

The concept of peace education in Islam is based on the purpose of Islamic education which aims to educate students to realise justice and equality (Koylu, 2004, see section 3.3.1). This concept concerns the social structure which supports structural peace (positive peace). The finding from the questionnaire in item 7.15 “Peace education is

the matter of helping people in the world to have a chance to live peacefully, no war, equality and justice” revealed that the participants of both universities strongly agreed

with the median at 4.0. Comparing between universities, there was significant difference (p = 0.032). Considering the mean rank, RU1 held a higher mean rank of 56.22, whilst RU2 had 44.78. Another item concerning social structure is 7.18 “Peace

education is the education that aims to build peace in society.” Participants from both

universities strongly agreed at the median of 4.0. There was a significant difference between universities (p = 0.044). The participants of RU1 had a greater mean rank of 55.83, whilst RU2 had 45.17. These two items implied that the participants from RU1 had a better understanding of the importance of social structure in supporting peace education than RU2’s participants. Considering the results of the items 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15 and 7.18, I think the concepts of peace education were not defined based on the participants’ religions. The participants from RU1, who were mainly Buddhists, ranked higher scores in every item relating to both Buddhist and Islamic concepts. Whilst the participants from RU2, who are mainly Muslims, ranked lower scores even in the item relating to Islamic concept.

University Policies:

The university policies were investigated in question numbers 8.1 to 8.5. All items had a strongly agree (median at 4) as an outcome without significant difference between universities. Therefore, I decided to present and discuss every item. The policy of the university is important for the existence of peace education in the university and society. This research investigated the university policy whether universities had the policies

165

supporting peace education. The findings revealed that there was no significant difference between two universities. The participants of both universities had a strongly agree with the item 8.1 “University has a clear policy about peace education” with p = 0.219. RU1 had a higher mean rank at 53.83, whereas RU2 had 47.17. It implied that they tended to have similar views on their universities having a clear policy about peace education.

The participants strongly agreed with the item 8.2 “University’s policy is able to develop

peace education in university” having p = 0.117. The participants of RU1 had a mean

rank of 54.74, whereas RU2 held 46.26. It implied that the participants from both universities tended to have a similar belief about their universities’ policy on developing peace education. In the next item of 8.3 “University’s policy about peace education

should be improved”, although there was no significant difference between university (p

= 0.455), the participants from RU2 had a higher mean rank at 52.55, whereas RU1 had 48.45. This implied that the participants from RU2 tended to view their policy for peace as needing to be improved more than RU1. I would suggest that this difference in views may be due to the fact that RU2 is located near the unrest area in the southernmost provinces. Therefore they expected their university policy to suit the situation.

The universities’ attempts to develop peace education was responded to by the participants from both universities and they strongly agreed with the item 8.4

“University uses a resource to develop peace education sufficiently” with p = 0.108.

The participants from RU1 had a mean rank at 54.91, whereas participants from RU2 held 46.09. It implied that both sets of all of the responses are context-specific to the two settings as well as the general policies using their resources in attempting to develop peace education similarly.

For the concept of peace education to exist in the universities in a sustainable form, the idea of a whole-school approach, expressed by the Peace Pledge Union Project (PPUP) and the Peace Education Network (PEN) in section 3.3.5, should be applied at the universities. The findings from the questionnaires supported this concept that

166

participants from both universities strongly agreed on the item 8.5 “University’s policy

promotes everyone to participate in developing peace education” with p = 0.280. The

participants from RU1 had a mean rank at 53.46, whereas participants from RU2 held 47.54. It implied that the university’s policy seems to provide a similar chance for people to participate in peace education. Considering the results in items 8.1, 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5, the participants from RU1 ranked higher scores than the participants from RU2. Only on the item 8.3 was the participants’ from RU2 score higher than the participants from RU1. This means RU2’s participants needed their university to improve the university’s policy about peace education more than RU1’s participants did. I think this is because the RU2 is faced with a great number of Muslim students moving from the southernmost provinces. This group of students demanded some facilities that were different from the standard practice in the university, impacting the university’s regulations, food, accommodations, and place for religious worship.

Current Curriculum:

The current curriculum was investigated in the items of 9.1 to 9.3. The data showed that peace education was delivered to the students. The current curricula of both universities in the documents revealed that both universities had a similar pattern (table 4.3 presented the comparison of the official curricula of RU1 and RU2). RU1 used the module pattern (addressed in section 4.5.1 and table 4.1), whereas RU2 used both module and subject pattern (the subject pattern is addressed in section 4.5.2 and table 4.2). The taught courses of these two patterns were compared and presented in appendix 4.1. These curricula were expected to contain peace education, harmonize with religions, and be able to develop peace for students. The findings from the questionnaires revealed that the participants from both universities had strongly agreed on the item 9.1 “the current curriculum is able to develop peace for students.” There was a significant difference between universities (p = 0.027). The participants from RU1 had a greater mean rank at 56.35, whereas RU2 had 44.65. This means students of both universities tended to believe that the curriculum of their university can develop peace for students differently. It implied that students of both universities seemed to believe that the curricula of their universities are able to teach peace for students. However,

167

there were some different confidences between universities. The students from RU1 had more confidence in their curriculum than the students from RU2 had. The participants of both universities also held the same strong views that the subjects or modules conform to peace education in the item 9.2 which held p = 0.291. RU1 had a mean rank at 53.34, whereas RU2 had 47.66. This means they did not have different subjects or modules in both curricula in relation to consistency with the principles of peace education. For the item of 9.3 “the subjects or modules harmonize with religion principles which students

believe in”, the findings revealed that there was no significant difference between two

universities (p = 0.368). The participants from RU1 held a mean rank at 52.94, whereas RU2 had 48.06. It implied that there tended to be no difference in subjects or modules of both universities in harmonizing with religious principles. In considering the results relating to the current curriculum, the participants from RU1 had higher confidence in their curriculum developing peace for students than the participants from RU2. I think this might concern not only the taught courses but also the other aspects, such as the teaching and learning process and quality of the lecturers because there are the similar patterns (see table 4.3). This was also confirmed by the results from the items 9.2 and 9.3 which held no different significance between universities.

Aims of Teaching Peace Education:

The aims of teaching peace education were investigated in the questionnaire items 9.4 to 9.6. The aims of teaching peace education were variously addressed by organisations, scholars and religions. Among this variety, common aims were agreed that peace education aims to educate students to realise the values of peace and to foster changes toward making the world better and more humane place (Bar-Tal, 2002) by empowering them with the knowledge, skills and attitudes for peace (Fountain, 1999). The findings from the questionnaires confirmed that the participants from both universities strongly agreed on items 9.4 “aims to provide knowledge and understanding about peace” (p = 0.166) and 9.5 “aims to make students realise the values of peace and have peace in

mind” (p = 0.121) in which RU1’s participants held higher mean rankings in both items.

This implied that the participants of both universities tended to have similar views on the aims of peace education to provide knowledge about peace and to make students

168

realise the values of peace. For item 9.6 “aims to make students have skills for solving

the conflicts and violence by peaceful means, and living in the ways of peace”, the

participants also strongly agreed with a significant difference between universities (p = 0.019). RU1’s participants had a higher mean rank of 56.75, whereas RU2 had 44.24. This implied that the participants from RU1 perceived the importance of skills for peace higher than the participants from RU2. I think the students of both universities support the aims of teaching peace education as empowering students with knowledge, skills and attitudes. However, the students from RU1 realised the importance of the skills for peace more than the students from RU2 did. This might be an influence of the media releasing news and information at that time, because during the period when I was collecting data in Thailand there were protests between the “red shirts” and “yellow shirts.”

Contents of Peace Education:

The contents of peace education were investigated in the questionnaire items 9.7 to 9.15. The researcher chose to present items of 9.9, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13 and 9.14. The item of 9.9 is very important for the content for peace education as it looks at educating people to use peaceful means in their lives which will lead to a peaceful society. The items 9.11, 9.12, 9.13 and 9.14 held significant difference between the universities. Therefore, the researcher needs to explore this in more detail. However, the other items, such as 9.7, 9.10 and 15, were rated as strongly agree as well. The contents of peace education and standards to be taught are still not clear (Reardon, 1988). The various contents of peace education practiced around the world promoted by UNICEF were addressed in section 3.3.4 (Fountain, 1999). The common contents found from the literature review were that peace education should teach non-violence, tolerance for difference, respect for human rights, values of democracy, and environmental protection. The findings from the questionnaires supported the concepts of non-violence in that the participants from both universities had the same views in that they strongly agreed on the item 9.9 “Study about

peaceful means: powers and mechanisms of peaceful means in order to adjust and change peacefully for the calmness” (p = 0.121). RU1’s participants had a mean rank at

169

tended to have similar agreement on teaching non-violence for peace education. The content of peace education on tolerance for the difference was supported by the item of 9.12 “Study about peaceful and non-peaceful relationship which cause of conflicts and

violence in society” which had a significant difference between two universities (p =

0.010). The participants of RU1 had a higher mean rank at 57.65, whereas RU2’s participants had 43.35. It implied that the participants from RU1 had a higher agreement on teaching about tolerance for difference than RU2’s participants did. The contents of peace education on respect for human rights, values of democracy and environmental protection were supported by the questionnaire item 9.11 “Study about social structures

which lead to injustice and non-peace” which had a significant difference between two

universities (p = 0.039). RU1’s participants had a higher mean rank at 56.14, whereas RU2’s participants had 44.86. This implied that the participants of RU1 placed