# The Effect of National Insight and Religious Moderation on Radical Behavior of Secondary School Students

Authors: Martin Kustati; Ristapawa Indra; Efendi; Mahyudin Ritonga; Nelmawarni; Yulia; Awis Karni
Journal: Education Research International
 (2023)

---

## Abstract

The study aimed to reveal the effect of nationalism, historical knowledge, religious moderation, Islamism, and radical thinking on radical behavior of the young generation in public high schools in Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia. The samples were grade XII students from four schools out of 16 schools. All indicators met the requirements of the validity and reliability test with Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Convergent validity test (variance extracted (VE) ≥ 0.50) obtained three constructs that meet the requirements to proceed to the analysis structure mode. The finding showed that nationalism construct did not affect the radical behavior construct with Sig. 0.203 > 0.05, while religious moderation construct did not affect radical behavior construct with Sig. 0.629 > 0.05. Meanwhile, the results of the multiple regression analysis showed that the constructs of nationalism and religious moderation simultaneously did not affect the construct of radical behavior. The finding illustrated that public high school students in Padang had a good understanding of nationalism and a moderate attitude in religious life so that there was no potential for the radicalism behavior among the young generation, especially for public high school students in Padang, West Sumatra. The practical implication of this research is that the school leaderships will formulate controlled regulations regarding the implementation of religious and clerical activities carried out by the Intraschool Student Organization (ISSO). In short, they will not be infiltrated by radical ideas from external parties.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

In high school curriculum and in Islamic boarding schools, there are several subjects simultaneously that can foster the spirit of nationalism and patriotism, awareness of rights and obligations as good citizens, democracy, and moderation in religious life, and a good understanding of Islam in the context of the state: (1) Civic education, (2) Religious studies, and (3) History [1, 2]. Citizenship education teaches students about the values of nationalism and patriotism, democratic values so as to form a responsible, dignified soul toward the nation and state, and teaches about their rights and obligations as citizens, so that the values of belonging to and loving Indonesia are embedded as a whole [3–5]. Religious education is a subject that can foster religious awareness in increasing faith and devotion to Almighty God and implementing akhlaqul karimah. The purpose of history learning is to grow students’ understanding of themselves, society, and the process of forming the Indonesian nation through a long history that is still in progress to the present and the future [6].Historically, the three subjects focus on the same point of contact related to nationalism, love for the homeland, and religion as a guide to living in a society and the relationship with Almighty God in accordance with one’s beliefs. The notion of nationality grows because of sharing the same fate, the same history, and the willingness to live together as an independent nation [7]. In other words, nationalism is an understanding of nationality that arises due to the similarity of fate and history, as well as the interest to live together as an independent, united, and sovereign nation. Therefore, nationalism is often seen as a unifying ideology of the nation. Also, the awareness of the young generation needs to be reminded that Indonesia’s independence on August 17, 1945 was not only the result of the struggle of a group of people or the struggle of one particular ethnic group but was the result of the struggle of various ethnic groups bounded by the same fate and history as a colonized nation of Dutch colonialism. The plurality of ethnic groups and the diversity of traditions, cultures, and religions are the characteristics of Indonesia’s nationalism. In the aspect of religious life, the nation recognizes the religion adopted by various ethnic groups and community groups, so good attitudes and tolerances are needed in accordance with their respective beliefs [8, 9].Pancasila as the state ideology is the result of a mutual agreement on the basis of pluralism and not based on religious teachings that accommodate a group of majority people. For this reason, an understanding of moderation in religious life in diversity needs to be instilled in the younger generation, to anticipate that religious understanding does not become a support for the growth of radical understanding [10]. Abdullah [11] and Mahmudah [12] stated that the phenomenon of radicalism among Muslims is often based on religious understanding although the originator of radicalism can also be caused by other factors such as economic inequality, political violence, social injustice, and ideological wars.The history of this nation has become evidence that the Indonesia with a majority of Muslim population has shown a compromise attitude in formulating the precepts of Pancasila as the basis of the nation [13]. At the beginning of the independence, there was a debate about the basis of the state. Then, Islamic nationalist groups who insisted on defending the Jakarta Charter “Belief in One Supreme God by implementing Islamic law for its adherents” finally accepted the revision of the first precepts of the Jakarta Charter [14–16]. This is the initial evidence of the compromise values shown by the majority group of Muslims, willing to give in for the realization of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia [15, 17].Conceptually, formal education is the most appropriate means for efforts to instill the values of nationalism and patriotism [7], moderate religious understanding, rights and obligations as good citizens who can give birth to a young generation of nationalism and patriotism shown by an attitude of pride as an Indonesian nation, love for the homeland, willing to sacrifice, accept pluralism consisting of various ethnic groups, languages, cultures, and religion. This means that national education can create national unity based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution and realize that the attitude of intolerance and coercion of will by the majority group, as well as religious beliefs that are self-righteous and self-righteous are threats to the survival of the Republic of Indonesia. From the many results of research conducted by academicians, it is shown that the subjects of Citizenship Education, Religious Studies, and History are effective field of studies that can foster good nationalism and moderate attitudes in the implementation of religious life [11, 18–20].Research conducted by Zulfikar and Permady [21] reveals that a good understanding of nationalism, good knowledge of history, moderate attitude in religious life, and having a broad view of Islamism will be able to anticipate the growth and development of radical thoughts and behavior among the younger generation [22, 23]. Radicalism as an understanding that requires rapid change or social and political reforms by means of violence and extreme attitudes in political flow [19] needs to be anticipated so that no radical understanding is born, both at the level of thought and at the level of behavior in the form of action. Ilyasin and Zamroni [24] stated that radicalism can be divided into two levels: the level of thought and the level of action. At the level of thought, radicalism is still in the form of discourses, concepts, and ideas that are still being discussed, which essentially supports the use of violent means to achieve goals. As for the level of action, radicalism can be in the realm of politics and religion. At the action level, the phenomenon of radicalism is reflected in the action of imposing opinions in unconstitutional ways and mass mobilization for certain political interests, which in turn gives rise to social conflicts.From several changes in the order of government, both the old and new orders to the reform era, various strategies have been carried out by the state to control radical groups, ranging from massive military actions with the issue of Jihad commands to the strategy of deideologizing by making Pancasila the only principle for political parties and social organizations [25]. However, in reality, radicalism has only become a latent danger and has even reached the generation level in the form of deviant behavior and has become the attention of many parties [26, 27]. A survey conducted by the Maarif Institute (December 2015) on high school students showed a tendency for aggressive behavior of the younger generation, especially students, related to their religion. Meanwhile, a survey conducted by Saiful Mujani Research and Consulting (SMRC) revealed that 6.12% of respondents agreed that the 2002 Bali bombings carried out by Amrozi et al. were religious orders. Then, as many as 40.82% of respondents answered “willing” and 8.16% answered “very willing” to attack people or groups that are considered insulting to Islam. Respondents taken in the survey are generally high school students and college students [18, 28, 29].Furthermore, a survey conducted by the Wahid Foundation released in early August 2016 stated that Indonesia is still prone to intolerance and radicalism. The Mata Air Foundation and Alvara Research Center survey showed 23.3% of high school students agreed with Jihad for the establishment of an Islamic state or caliphate. Penetration of intolerant teachings has entered among students. This was strengthened when he was a student through studies on campus, “said the CEO of Alvara Research Center, Hasanuddin Ali, in his presentation in Jakarta, Tuesday (October 31, 2017).” According to Hasanudin Ali, students are still in the process of finding their identity. Therefore, they are still vulnerable to the doctrine of radicalism and intolerance. According to Hasanudin Ali, 16.3% of students stated that an Islamic state needs to be fought for the implementation of religion in a kaffah (overall) manner. Related to sharia regional regulations, 21.9% of students agreed with the implementation of the Sharia Regional Regulation (Perda) to accommodate adherents of the majority religion. Furthermore, Hasanudin Ali explained that the majority of students agree with the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as a form of state compared to the caliphate. However, there are still around 18.3% of students who choose the caliphate over the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia cannot be underestimated. Likewise with regard to the ideology of Pancasila, there are 18.6% of students who choose Islamic ideology in their state. From these survey institutions, it can be concluded that in the reform era, there was a tendency to strengthen the theocratic communal attitude of religious adherents (Islam) and the rise of discourses of movement to enforce Islamic law in various regions of Indonesia. Even radical understanding is getting stronger in the form of aggressive behavior that relies on their religious understanding, and they will take radical action if there are issues that touch their religious understanding [14, 30].The results of some studies showed that a straight line regarding the emergence of radical attitudes at the stage of radical thought and behavior in the form of real actions, allegedly due to first, the process of internalizing the values of nationalism through religious education, citizenship education, and history learning is not effective, on the affective aspect and even very weak on the cognitive aspect. The lack of national insight can make it easy to enter into a radicalism mindset with misleading doctrines by using reverse logic related to their beliefs, so that everything that is contrary to their teachings is considered wrong. Second, the reform era with the rise of democracy that gave the widest possible space for the community to establish various organizations and political parties gave freedom to the revival of a network of conservative and extreme Islamism groups and groups of transnational Islamic movement networks to work on the younger generation as potential cadres to build new political forces in accordance with the vision and mission of their movement. They have a political view; to realize a civil society in accordance with the vision of the Medina Charter, an alternative ideology is needed as an answer to the nation’s current problems [31–34].Since there are limited studies on the importance of applying national insight to Indonesian citizens, especially to young generation as the basis for future generations in continuing their mission to become a developed country without losing the nation’s uniqueness, the current study focuses on resistance to attitudes and behaviors that are contrary to the sociocultural values of the Indonesian nation. Strengthening national insight must be instilled to make citizens aware of the values of the character of their own nation [5].


## 2. Research Purposes and Hypotheses

The purpose of the research is to reveal the stages of nationalism, historical knowledge, religious moderation, views on Islam in the context of national and religious life (Islamism), radical thinking, and radical behavior of the young generation in public high school students in Padang. Then, it also reveals that the extent to which national insight, historical knowledge, and moderation in religious life simultaneously affect the radical thinking and behavior of public high school students in Padang, and the extent to which radical thinking manifests in the form of radical behavior.The study briefly summarizes the results of the validity and reliability of the instrument using Cronbach’s alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The following is also a summary of the convergent validity test about the relationship between indicators and constructs. The structural model test shows the effect of each independent construct on the dependent construct, which is put forward in several hypotheses as follows:(H1)
National insight influences radical thinking(H2)
Understanding of history affects radical thinkers(H3)
Moderation in religious life affects radical thinking(H4)
Understanding of Islam in a political context affects radical thinking(H5)
National insight affects radical behavior(H6)
Understanding of history affects radical behavior(H7)
Moderation in religious life affects radical behavior(H8)
Understanding of Islam in a political context affects radical behavior(H9)
Radicals at the level of thought affect radical behavior


## 3. Literature Reviews

For the purposes of this study, several theories or concepts were used to analyze the findings of this study. First, the concept of nationalism is based on Anderson’s [35] opinion that nations are diverse and undefined groups. Nationalism for the Indonesian people is an understanding that unites various ethnic groups from various regions of the archipelago who uphold the values of unity in one container of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. In a broader sense, nationalism is a feeling of great love or pride for own homeland but without looking down on other nations [36]. Indeed, nationalism is a determinant of identity and attitudes within a country [37]. This is reflected in a favorable attitude toward the state as the embodiment of ideals and goals that are bound by political, socioeconomic, and cultural attitudes. It is also based on the principles of freedom and equality in the life of society and the state [38, 39]. A nationalist population is characterized by (1) the existence of national unity and integrity; (2) the existence of an organization with a modern national form; (3) the goal of liberating the state, in other words, the highest power is in the hands of the people; and (4) the importance of education in elevating the lives of individuals and the state. However, the characteristics of the nationalist attitude proposed by Green et al. [38] include willingness to sacrifice, love for the homeland, desire to uphold national values, pride in being a native citizen, obedience to rules, and discipline. A positive nationalist attitude can foster harmony within a nation, but excessive nationalism can be a means to create divisions between different countries [40]. Because the Indonesian state is a state based on nationalism and not a state based on religious beliefs, radical understanding that aims to make Indonesia a state based on religion is contrary to Pancasila as the basis of the Indonesian state [39].Second, the concept of Islamism is an understanding that views Islam and politics as an inseparable unit. Islamism is a system of thought or ideology that understands Islam not only as a religion but also wants to make it the basis of the state (al-din wa al-daulah) [12]. Islamism is a concept that advocates a stronger political role for Islam, and its supporters believe that what they are fighting for is a true understanding of Islam that all ideas that separate Islam from politics are wrong [32, 41]. Third, the concept of history, talking about events, space and time, the purpose of history learning is to grow students understanding of themselves, society, and the process of forming the Indonesian nation through a long history are still in progress to the present and the future [21].History as evidence of the past can be a lesson for the younger generation to face a better future. Fourth, Sainuddin [22] and Jura [42] explained that moderation in religion can be seen through four indicators, including a strong national commitment, a tolerant attitude toward others, having the principle of rejecting acts of violence both physically and verbally, and respecting very diverse traditions and local culture of the Indonesian people. Religious moderation according to Jura, Kawangung and Zuhri [42–44] is a moderate perspective in religion, namely, understanding and practicing religious teachings without being extreme, either the extreme right (a very rigid understanding of religion) or the extreme left (a very liberal understanding of religion).Fifth, the concept of radical thinking, according to Ilyasin and Zamroni [24], radicalism can be divided into two levels: the level of thought and the level of action. Radicals at the level of thought are still in the form of discourses, concepts, and ideas that are still being discussed, essentially supporting the use of violent means to achieve goals. Sixth, the concept of radical behavior, which is manifested in the form of phenomena of radical action in the political and religious realms, which is reflected in the form of behavior forcing opinions in unconstitutional ways and mass mobilization for certain political interests, which in turn gives rise to social conflicts [45–47].


## 4. Methods

It is a descriptive quantitative research, which more concerned with what rather than how or why something has happened. This research focuses on strengthening students’ national insight, historical knowledge, views on moderation in religious life, and students’ understanding and concepts about Islamism and radicalism.


### 4.1. Samples

The population of this research is 16 state senior high school (SMA) in Padang. Two schools in the city and two schools in the suburbs are designated as school samples. Of the four schools, the participants who became the research population were all students of Class XII with the consideration that these students had completed the subject matter related to research variables and were about to enter higher education. The selection of respondents from research population is determined by random samples, which involves 142 respondents.


### 4.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Research data were collected through questionnaire using Likert scale instrument to obtain information from research respondents [48]. All data obtained were analyzed by using SPSS version 20, with the techniques of analyzing descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation, and linear regression. Cronbach’s alpha analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used to test the validity and reliability of the instruments of each construct studied. The CFA is used to see the instrument items that make up the single factor of the construct of this research. The data were also analyzed by using AMOS 24 to see the validity of the measurement model, which describes the relationship between the construct and its indicators, and the structural model analysis to see the relationship between the independent construct and the dependent construct.


## 4.1. Samples

The population of this research is 16 state senior high school (SMA) in Padang. Two schools in the city and two schools in the suburbs are designated as school samples. Of the four schools, the participants who became the research population were all students of Class XII with the consideration that these students had completed the subject matter related to research variables and were about to enter higher education. The selection of respondents from research population is determined by random samples, which involves 142 respondents.


## 4.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Research data were collected through questionnaire using Likert scale instrument to obtain information from research respondents [48]. All data obtained were analyzed by using SPSS version 20, with the techniques of analyzing descriptive statistics, bivariate correlation, and linear regression. Cronbach’s alpha analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used to test the validity and reliability of the instruments of each construct studied. The CFA is used to see the instrument items that make up the single factor of the construct of this research. The data were also analyzed by using AMOS 24 to see the validity of the measurement model, which describes the relationship between the construct and its indicators, and the structural model analysis to see the relationship between the independent construct and the dependent construct.


## 5. Results

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the stages of implementation performance of each construct with a minimum score and standard deviation. The minimum score is interpreted based on the scale determined by Ahmad [49], presented in Table 1.Table 1
Minimum score interpretation based on scale.
RangeInterpretation1.00–1.89Very low1.90–2.69Low2.70–3.49Intermediate3.50–4.29High4.30–5.00Very highPearson correlation is used to analyze research hypotheses to see the strength of the relationship between constructs. The findings of analysis (r) are interpreted into three phases: low, medium, and high are presented in Table 2.Table 2
Relationship between two constructs.
No.Correlation coefficient (r)Relationship strength1.± 0.70–1.00High2.± 0.30–0.69Intermediate3.± 0.00–0.29LowSource: Jackson L. Sherry (2006).Research Methods and Statistics. A Critical Thinking Approach. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education Belmont, CA, USA.Analysis of the measurement model and structural model was used to see the relationship between the latent construct and its indicators and the relationship between the independent construct and the dependent construct from this study.


### 5.1. The Results of the Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

After analyzing the validity and reliability of the instrument items with Cronbach’s alpha and construct validity analysis using CFA, the factor loading 0.50 for Cronbach’s alpha and each construct has been in a single factor component matrix with factor loading 0.50 with the results shown in Table3.Table 3
Cronbach’s alpha, mean, and factor loading component matrix values.
ConstructCorrected item-total correlationCronbach’s alphaFactor loading component matrixMeanStageStandard deviationNationalismIndicator 10.7230.8750.8304.60VH0.642Indicator 20.6750.8840.7904.55VH0.710Indicator 30.6360.8880.7444.32VH0.647Indicator 40.5720.9030.6794.27H0.764Indicator 50.8000.8630.8874.56VH0.668Historical knowledgeIndicator 60.2570.7270.5294.44VH0.590Indicator 70.5350.6050.7403.48Itm0.823Indicator 80.3830.6570.6783.74H0.711Indicator 90.4080.6560.7023.61H1.00Religious moderationIndicator 100.5190.7450.7444.25H0.696Indicator 110.4270.7740.6433.44Itm0.879Indicator 120.4690.7630.6653.81H0.940Indicator 130.5220.7520.7123.68H1.00IslamismIndicator 140.6770.8520.7843.55H0.964Indicator 150.7700.8310.8593.67H0.905Indicator 160.6040.8630.7213.77H0.897Indicator 170.5120.8740.6624.11H0.725Indicator 180.5890.8630.7303.96H0.678Radical thinkingIndicator 190.5920.8000.7743.44Itm0.812Indicator 200.6390.7870.8023.20Itm1.01Indicator 210.5100.8420.6522.82Itm1.17Indicator 220.5340.8140.7293.58H.817Radical behaviorIndicator 230.6730.8540.8022.68Itm1.18Indicator 240.4320.9050.5603.70H1.05Indicator 250.7550.8320.8772.35Itm1.10Indicator 260.7320.8380.8562.46Itm1.18Index: VH = Very high, H = High, Itm = Intermediate.Table3 shows the item correlation value with the total score (corrected item-total correlation) for all indicators that are greater than >0.30. This gives the conclusion that the item has a high validity value as stated by Janna and Herianto [50]. Meanwhile, the reliability value (Cronbach’s alpha) of the instrument for all indicators is also at an alpha value greater than >0.60. This concludes that the item has a good reliability value as suggested by Creswell [51]; an alpha value between 0.60 and 0.80 is accepted when the Cronbach’s alpha value exceeds 0.80 is considered good. Meanwhile, Tugiman et al. [52] explained that the Cronbach’s alpha value exceeding 0.60 is often used as a reliability index in a study. Furthermore, the test of the validity of the indicators of each construct was also carried out using CFA; the results of the analysis showed that the factor loading >0.50 and the indicators of the constructs were in a single factor with the factor loading component matrix value greater than >0.50, in the sense that the indicators of the construct have met the requirements to form a research construct.


### 5.2. Results of Partial Measurement Model Analysis

Furthermore, the relationship between indicators and constructs was also carried out using structural equation modeling with AMOS 24 to determine whether the measurement model fit. In terms of the extent to which indicators can explain a latent construct, it is necessary to do a measurement model analysis with CFA. The measurement model is carried out separately or carried out on each construct (single measurement model).Purwanto et al. [53] explained that an indicator is part of a latent construct seen based on the estimate value, which is the factor loading value. Indicators with a high loading factor have a higher contribution to explain the latent construct. On the other hand, indicators with low loading factors have a weak contribution to explain the latent construct. Many references explain that the factor loading weight >0.50 is considered to have strong enough validation to explain the latent construct [54]. Although some other references explain that the weakest loading factor that can be accepted is 0.40. Figures 1–7 show the loading factor indicated by the standardized regression weights of the AMOS 24 output for each dimension.Figure 1
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for nationalism dimension.Figure 2
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for historical knowledge dimension.Figure 3
Diagram and output of the AMOS 24 application for the religious moderation dimension.Figure 4
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for Islamism dimension.Figure 5
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for radical thinking dimension.Figure 6
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for radical behavior dimension.Figure 7
Conceptual model.


#### 5.2.1. Nationalism Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure1), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.929) and AGFI (0.882) values that have approached the value of 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the nationalism dimensional constructs and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have a value above 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of nationalism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for variance extracted (VE), which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(1)Variance extracted=0.802+0.732+0.722+0.632+0.8325=0.555.The results of the VE from the nationalism dimension are above 0.50; this means that there is convergence to explain the existing construct. This means that there has been sufficient convergence to explain the construct.


#### 5.2.2. Factor Analysis of Historical Knowledge Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure2), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.953) and AGFI (0.906) values are close to 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the historical knowledge dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the historical knowledge dimension.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(2)Variance extracted=0.582+0.452+0.512+0.3624=0.232.The VE result of the historical knowledge dimension is below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence yet to explain the existing construct. This is because the two indicators partially have very weak estimated values (0.45 and 0.36) because together the estimated values given are below 0.50.


#### 5.2.3. Factor Analysis of Religious Moderation Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure3), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and AGFI (0.970) values are close to the value 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the religious moderation dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all constructs can explain the dimension of historical knowledge.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(3)Variance extracted=0.682+0.532+0.502+0.4624=0.301.The results of the VE from the historical knowledge dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence to explain the existing constructs. This happens because the estimated value of each indicator is in the position of the estimated value less than 0.50.


#### 5.2.4. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Islamism

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure4), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.842) and AGFI (0.704) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the Islamism dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can partially explain the dimensions of Islamism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(4)Variance extracted=0.652+0.722+0.662+0.712+0.6625=0.463.The results of the VE from the Islamism dimension are (VE = 0.463) rounding to VE = 0.50 and 0.500 in the sense that it is almost close to 0.50; this means that there is actually convergence to explain the existing construct.


#### 5.2.5. Radical Thinking Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure5), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI; 0.963) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the radical thinking dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical thinking.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(5)Variance extracted=0.742+0.632+0.522+0.6124=0.397.The results of the variance extracted from the radical thinking dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is actually no convergence to explain the existing construct.


#### 5.2.6. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Radical Behavior

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure6), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the value of GFI (0.905) and AGFI (0.764), especially with the actual data. So, that this model can be used further. It is close to the value of 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity.The relationship between the radical behavior dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 mark. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical behavior.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(6)Variance extracted=0.682+0.632+0.772+0.8324=0.535.The results of the VE from the radical behavior dimension are above 0.500; this means that there is already convergence to explain the existing construct.The results of the measurement model analysis above show the results of the convergence test to see the contribution of the indicators together in forming a construct indicated by the VE value, which can be seen in Table4.Table 4
Variance extracted (VE) values for each construct.
ConstructVariance extractedConvergenceNationalism0.555QualifyHistorical knowledge0.232Not qualifyReligious moderation0.463QualifyIslamism0.301Not qualifyRadical thinking0.397Not qualifyRadical behavior0.535QualifyTable4 shows the results of the convergent validity test to see the extent to which an indicator can explain a nationalism construct with a value of VE = 0.555, meaning that indicators can only explain 55.5% for the nationalism construct, while another 44.5% is explained by other indicators. However, because it is greater than 0.50, it means that all indicators are considered valid. Next, the historical knowledge construct with a value of VE = 0.232 means that indicators can only explain 23.2% for the historical knowledge construct, while 76.8% is explained by other indicators. Next, the religious moderation construct with a value of VE = 0.463 also shows that indicators can only explain 46.3% for the religious moderation construct, and the remaining 53.7% is explained by other indicators, but this construct has met the requirements to be continued. Furthermore, the construct of Islamism with a value of VE = 0.301 means that the indicators can only explain the construct by 30.1% and the remaining 69.9% is explained by other indicators. For the radical thinking construct with a value of VE = 0.397, it means that the indicators can only explain 39.7% for the radical thinking construct, and the remaining 60.3% is explained by other indicators. Finally, for the radical behavior construct with a value of VE = 0.535, it means that the indicators have met the requirements to explain a construct of 53.5%, and the remaining 46.5% is explained by other indicators. Based on the results of the analysis of the convergent validity test, of the six constructs tested, only three constructs qualified as a construct: (1) nationalism; (2) religious moderation; and (3) radical behavior with a conceptual model can be described in Figure 7.


### 5.3. Results of Descriptive Statistics Analysis

The results of descriptive statistics analysis show the frequencies and mean scores of the constructs of nationalism, religious moderation, and the constructs of radical behavior. The results of the analysis showed that nationalism stage of public high school students in Padang is at a high stage with a mean score of 4.46 describing public high school students in Padang have a good understanding of nationalism. The first indicator shows that there are 140% or 98.6% of respondents answered agree “I am proud as an Indonesian nation because I recognize the diversity of religions and beliefs”; the second indicator shows that there are 139% or 97.9% of respondents answered agree “All ethnicities or ethnic groups are equal in Indonesia because this country was founded by various ethnic groups”; the third indicator shows as many as 135% or 95% of the respondents gave an agreed answer “Citizens must be involved in defending the country both physically and materially from various threats that come from outside and from within”; the fourth indicator shows as many as 126% or 88.8% of respondents answered agree “Every ethnic group or region in Indonesia should not try to separate themselves from Republic of Indonesia”; the fifth indicator shows as many as 138% or 97.2% of respondents answered agree “I appreciate the diversity of traditions and culture because the Indonesian nation consists of various ethnic groups/ethnics.” These findings indicate that high school students have a good understanding of nationalism.Meanwhile, the religious moderation stage of public high school students in Padang is at a high stage with a mean score of 3.81 describing the public high school students in Padang are giving an agree response about the indicators of the moderation of religious life in Padang city. The first indicator showing that there are 130 people or 91.54% of 142 respondents gave answers at the stage of agreeing “can understand and accept various religions and beliefs because it is in accordance with the first precepts of Pancasila”; the second indicator, showing that as many as 73 people or 51.4% of respondents gave an agreed answer that “My commitment as an Indonesian nation is based on nationalism, not on the teachings of the religion I profess”; the third indicator shows that there are 119 people or 83.8% of respondents answered agreeing that “I can respect the truth that is believed by adherents of other religions even if it is contrary to the teachings of my religion”; the fourth indicator shows that 97 people or 68.3% of respondents answered agreeing that “I can follow the traditions and customs of my multiethnic friends as long as they do not conflict with my beliefs and aqidah.” The respondent’s response to several indicators above illustrates the views of public high school students in Padang regarding religious moderation in daily life, which is already at a high stage.The radical behavior stage consists of four instrument items with a mean score of 2.80, which is in the simple stage describing the public high school students in Padang is giving a low simple stage response to four instrument statements about radical behavior. The first indicator shows that there are 36 people or 25.3% gave an agree answer to the statement “I support the plan of a certain group that seeks to change Pancasila as the state ideology and replace it with an Islamic ideology”; the second indicator, as many as 101 people or 71.12%, gave a disagree response on the statement “I am against compromise in solving problems with other groups of different beliefs, if they commit blasphemy against my religion.” The third indicator that there are 21 people or 14.8% of respondents answered that “I feel uncomfortable when I live next door to people with different beliefs, different ethnicities, and different traditions.” The fourth indicator shows that there are 32 people or 22.5% of respondents answered “I will thwart the plan of a minority group belonging to another religion who intends to build a house of worship other than an Islamic house of worship in the place where I live.”


### 5.4. Results of Structural Model Analysis

Structural model testing was conducted to determine the model of the relationship between independent constructs and dependent constructs which were arranged theoretically supported by the facts that existed in empirical data. Based on Figure7, because of the results of the convergent validity test, there are three constructs that meet the requirements, namely: (1) nationalism; (2) religious moderation; (3) radical behavior; then for the next stage, multiple regression analysis is carried out to see the correlation and influence of the construct: (1) nationalism; and (2) religious moderation on the radical behavior construct with the following findings.The results of multiple linear regressions using the stepwise method show that the nationalism construct and the religious moderation construct do not show a significant effect on the radical behavior construct. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables5 and 6.Table 5
ANOVA, the variance of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
ModelSum of squaresdfMean squareFSig.1Regression1.83520.9181.1740.312aResidual108.6561390.782Total110.492141aPredictors: (constant), religious moderation, nationalism.Table 6
Multiple regression for the independent variable to the dependent variable.
ModelUnstandardized coefficientsStandardized coefficientsTSig.InfluenceβStandard errorβ1(Constant)3.8450.6955.5350.000Nationalism−0.1830.143−0.111−1.2800.2030%Religious moderation−0.0600.125−0.042−0.4850.6290%Table5 shows that the results of the analysis of variance in the F-test prove that the constructs of nationalism and religious moderation have no significant effect on the construct of radical behavior.


## 5.1. The Results of the Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

After analyzing the validity and reliability of the instrument items with Cronbach’s alpha and construct validity analysis using CFA, the factor loading 0.50 for Cronbach’s alpha and each construct has been in a single factor component matrix with factor loading 0.50 with the results shown in Table3.Table 3
Cronbach’s alpha, mean, and factor loading component matrix values.
ConstructCorrected item-total correlationCronbach’s alphaFactor loading component matrixMeanStageStandard deviationNationalismIndicator 10.7230.8750.8304.60VH0.642Indicator 20.6750.8840.7904.55VH0.710Indicator 30.6360.8880.7444.32VH0.647Indicator 40.5720.9030.6794.27H0.764Indicator 50.8000.8630.8874.56VH0.668Historical knowledgeIndicator 60.2570.7270.5294.44VH0.590Indicator 70.5350.6050.7403.48Itm0.823Indicator 80.3830.6570.6783.74H0.711Indicator 90.4080.6560.7023.61H1.00Religious moderationIndicator 100.5190.7450.7444.25H0.696Indicator 110.4270.7740.6433.44Itm0.879Indicator 120.4690.7630.6653.81H0.940Indicator 130.5220.7520.7123.68H1.00IslamismIndicator 140.6770.8520.7843.55H0.964Indicator 150.7700.8310.8593.67H0.905Indicator 160.6040.8630.7213.77H0.897Indicator 170.5120.8740.6624.11H0.725Indicator 180.5890.8630.7303.96H0.678Radical thinkingIndicator 190.5920.8000.7743.44Itm0.812Indicator 200.6390.7870.8023.20Itm1.01Indicator 210.5100.8420.6522.82Itm1.17Indicator 220.5340.8140.7293.58H.817Radical behaviorIndicator 230.6730.8540.8022.68Itm1.18Indicator 240.4320.9050.5603.70H1.05Indicator 250.7550.8320.8772.35Itm1.10Indicator 260.7320.8380.8562.46Itm1.18Index: VH = Very high, H = High, Itm = Intermediate.Table3 shows the item correlation value with the total score (corrected item-total correlation) for all indicators that are greater than >0.30. This gives the conclusion that the item has a high validity value as stated by Janna and Herianto [50]. Meanwhile, the reliability value (Cronbach’s alpha) of the instrument for all indicators is also at an alpha value greater than >0.60. This concludes that the item has a good reliability value as suggested by Creswell [51]; an alpha value between 0.60 and 0.80 is accepted when the Cronbach’s alpha value exceeds 0.80 is considered good. Meanwhile, Tugiman et al. [52] explained that the Cronbach’s alpha value exceeding 0.60 is often used as a reliability index in a study. Furthermore, the test of the validity of the indicators of each construct was also carried out using CFA; the results of the analysis showed that the factor loading >0.50 and the indicators of the constructs were in a single factor with the factor loading component matrix value greater than >0.50, in the sense that the indicators of the construct have met the requirements to form a research construct.


## 5.2. Results of Partial Measurement Model Analysis

Furthermore, the relationship between indicators and constructs was also carried out using structural equation modeling with AMOS 24 to determine whether the measurement model fit. In terms of the extent to which indicators can explain a latent construct, it is necessary to do a measurement model analysis with CFA. The measurement model is carried out separately or carried out on each construct (single measurement model).Purwanto et al. [53] explained that an indicator is part of a latent construct seen based on the estimate value, which is the factor loading value. Indicators with a high loading factor have a higher contribution to explain the latent construct. On the other hand, indicators with low loading factors have a weak contribution to explain the latent construct. Many references explain that the factor loading weight >0.50 is considered to have strong enough validation to explain the latent construct [54]. Although some other references explain that the weakest loading factor that can be accepted is 0.40. Figures 1–7 show the loading factor indicated by the standardized regression weights of the AMOS 24 output for each dimension.Figure 1
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for nationalism dimension.Figure 2
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for historical knowledge dimension.Figure 3
Diagram and output of the AMOS 24 application for the religious moderation dimension.Figure 4
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for Islamism dimension.Figure 5
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for radical thinking dimension.Figure 6
Diagram and output of AMOS 24 application for radical behavior dimension.Figure 7
Conceptual model.


### 5.2.1. Nationalism Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure1), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.929) and AGFI (0.882) values that have approached the value of 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the nationalism dimensional constructs and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have a value above 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of nationalism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for variance extracted (VE), which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(1)Variance extracted=0.802+0.732+0.722+0.632+0.8325=0.555.The results of the VE from the nationalism dimension are above 0.50; this means that there is convergence to explain the existing construct. This means that there has been sufficient convergence to explain the construct.


### 5.2.2. Factor Analysis of Historical Knowledge Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure2), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.953) and AGFI (0.906) values are close to 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the historical knowledge dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the historical knowledge dimension.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(2)Variance extracted=0.582+0.452+0.512+0.3624=0.232.The VE result of the historical knowledge dimension is below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence yet to explain the existing construct. This is because the two indicators partially have very weak estimated values (0.45 and 0.36) because together the estimated values given are below 0.50.


### 5.2.3. Factor Analysis of Religious Moderation Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure3), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and AGFI (0.970) values are close to the value 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the religious moderation dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all constructs can explain the dimension of historical knowledge.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(3)Variance extracted=0.682+0.532+0.502+0.4624=0.301.The results of the VE from the historical knowledge dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence to explain the existing constructs. This happens because the estimated value of each indicator is in the position of the estimated value less than 0.50.


### 5.2.4. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Islamism

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure4), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.842) and AGFI (0.704) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the Islamism dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can partially explain the dimensions of Islamism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(4)Variance extracted=0.652+0.722+0.662+0.712+0.6625=0.463.The results of the VE from the Islamism dimension are (VE = 0.463) rounding to VE = 0.50 and 0.500 in the sense that it is almost close to 0.50; this means that there is actually convergence to explain the existing construct.


### 5.2.5. Radical Thinking Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure5), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI; 0.963) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the radical thinking dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical thinking.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(5)Variance extracted=0.742+0.632+0.522+0.6124=0.397.The results of the variance extracted from the radical thinking dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is actually no convergence to explain the existing construct.


### 5.2.6. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Radical Behavior

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure6), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the value of GFI (0.905) and AGFI (0.764), especially with the actual data. So, that this model can be used further. It is close to the value of 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity.The relationship between the radical behavior dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 mark. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical behavior.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(6)Variance extracted=0.682+0.632+0.772+0.8324=0.535.The results of the VE from the radical behavior dimension are above 0.500; this means that there is already convergence to explain the existing construct.The results of the measurement model analysis above show the results of the convergence test to see the contribution of the indicators together in forming a construct indicated by the VE value, which can be seen in Table4.Table 4
Variance extracted (VE) values for each construct.
ConstructVariance extractedConvergenceNationalism0.555QualifyHistorical knowledge0.232Not qualifyReligious moderation0.463QualifyIslamism0.301Not qualifyRadical thinking0.397Not qualifyRadical behavior0.535QualifyTable4 shows the results of the convergent validity test to see the extent to which an indicator can explain a nationalism construct with a value of VE = 0.555, meaning that indicators can only explain 55.5% for the nationalism construct, while another 44.5% is explained by other indicators. However, because it is greater than 0.50, it means that all indicators are considered valid. Next, the historical knowledge construct with a value of VE = 0.232 means that indicators can only explain 23.2% for the historical knowledge construct, while 76.8% is explained by other indicators. Next, the religious moderation construct with a value of VE = 0.463 also shows that indicators can only explain 46.3% for the religious moderation construct, and the remaining 53.7% is explained by other indicators, but this construct has met the requirements to be continued. Furthermore, the construct of Islamism with a value of VE = 0.301 means that the indicators can only explain the construct by 30.1% and the remaining 69.9% is explained by other indicators. For the radical thinking construct with a value of VE = 0.397, it means that the indicators can only explain 39.7% for the radical thinking construct, and the remaining 60.3% is explained by other indicators. Finally, for the radical behavior construct with a value of VE = 0.535, it means that the indicators have met the requirements to explain a construct of 53.5%, and the remaining 46.5% is explained by other indicators. Based on the results of the analysis of the convergent validity test, of the six constructs tested, only three constructs qualified as a construct: (1) nationalism; (2) religious moderation; and (3) radical behavior with a conceptual model can be described in Figure 7.


## 5.2.1. Nationalism Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure1), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.929) and AGFI (0.882) values that have approached the value of 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the nationalism dimensional constructs and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have a value above 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of nationalism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for variance extracted (VE), which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(1)Variance extracted=0.802+0.732+0.722+0.632+0.8325=0.555.The results of the VE from the nationalism dimension are above 0.50; this means that there is convergence to explain the existing construct. This means that there has been sufficient convergence to explain the construct.


## 5.2.2. Factor Analysis of Historical Knowledge Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure2), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.953) and AGFI (0.906) values are close to 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the historical knowledge dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all indicators can explain the historical knowledge dimension.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(2)Variance extracted=0.582+0.452+0.512+0.3624=0.232.The VE result of the historical knowledge dimension is below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence yet to explain the existing construct. This is because the two indicators partially have very weak estimated values (0.45 and 0.36) because together the estimated values given are below 0.50.


## 5.2.3. Factor Analysis of Religious Moderation Dimensions

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure3), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and AGFI (0.970) values are close to the value 1. This means that the overall model has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the religious moderation dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators are actually close to 0.50. This shows that all constructs can explain the dimension of historical knowledge.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(3)Variance extracted=0.682+0.532+0.502+0.4624=0.301.The results of the VE from the historical knowledge dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is no convergence to explain the existing constructs. This happens because the estimated value of each indicator is in the position of the estimated value less than 0.50.


## 5.2.4. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Islamism

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure4), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.842) and AGFI (0.704) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the construct of the Islamism dimension and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can partially explain the dimensions of Islamism.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(4)Variance extracted=0.652+0.722+0.662+0.712+0.6625=0.463.The results of the VE from the Islamism dimension are (VE = 0.463) rounding to VE = 0.50 and 0.500 in the sense that it is almost close to 0.50; this means that there is actually convergence to explain the existing construct.


## 5.2.5. Radical Thinking Dimensional Factor Analysis

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure5), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the GFI (0.985) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI; 0.963) values are close to 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity with the actual data. So, this model can be used further.The relationship between the radical thinking dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 number. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical thinking.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(5)Variance extracted=0.742+0.632+0.522+0.6124=0.397.The results of the variance extracted from the radical thinking dimension are below 0.500; this means that there is actually no convergence to explain the existing construct.


## 5.2.6. Dimensional Factor Analysis of Radical Behavior

Referring to the fit model from the output of AMOS 24 (Figure6), it can be seen that the model has a good fit. This is supported by the value shown from the variance in the covariance matrix, namely, the value of GFI (0.905) and AGFI (0.764), especially with the actual data. So, that this model can be used further. It is close to the value of 1. This means that the model as a whole has a high degree of conformity.The relationship between the radical behavior dimension construct and its indicators as seen from the estimate value shows that all indicators have passed the 0.50 mark. This shows that all indicators can explain the dimensions of radical behavior.The standardized regression weights obtained can then be used for VE, which indicate the presence or absence of convergence between indicators to explain the existing constructs. The VE is the average total square of the factor loading.(6)Variance extracted=0.682+0.632+0.772+0.8324=0.535.The results of the VE from the radical behavior dimension are above 0.500; this means that there is already convergence to explain the existing construct.The results of the measurement model analysis above show the results of the convergence test to see the contribution of the indicators together in forming a construct indicated by the VE value, which can be seen in Table4.Table 4
Variance extracted (VE) values for each construct.
ConstructVariance extractedConvergenceNationalism0.555QualifyHistorical knowledge0.232Not qualifyReligious moderation0.463QualifyIslamism0.301Not qualifyRadical thinking0.397Not qualifyRadical behavior0.535QualifyTable4 shows the results of the convergent validity test to see the extent to which an indicator can explain a nationalism construct with a value of VE = 0.555, meaning that indicators can only explain 55.5% for the nationalism construct, while another 44.5% is explained by other indicators. However, because it is greater than 0.50, it means that all indicators are considered valid. Next, the historical knowledge construct with a value of VE = 0.232 means that indicators can only explain 23.2% for the historical knowledge construct, while 76.8% is explained by other indicators. Next, the religious moderation construct with a value of VE = 0.463 also shows that indicators can only explain 46.3% for the religious moderation construct, and the remaining 53.7% is explained by other indicators, but this construct has met the requirements to be continued. Furthermore, the construct of Islamism with a value of VE = 0.301 means that the indicators can only explain the construct by 30.1% and the remaining 69.9% is explained by other indicators. For the radical thinking construct with a value of VE = 0.397, it means that the indicators can only explain 39.7% for the radical thinking construct, and the remaining 60.3% is explained by other indicators. Finally, for the radical behavior construct with a value of VE = 0.535, it means that the indicators have met the requirements to explain a construct of 53.5%, and the remaining 46.5% is explained by other indicators. Based on the results of the analysis of the convergent validity test, of the six constructs tested, only three constructs qualified as a construct: (1) nationalism; (2) religious moderation; and (3) radical behavior with a conceptual model can be described in Figure 7.


## 5.3. Results of Descriptive Statistics Analysis

The results of descriptive statistics analysis show the frequencies and mean scores of the constructs of nationalism, religious moderation, and the constructs of radical behavior. The results of the analysis showed that nationalism stage of public high school students in Padang is at a high stage with a mean score of 4.46 describing public high school students in Padang have a good understanding of nationalism. The first indicator shows that there are 140% or 98.6% of respondents answered agree “I am proud as an Indonesian nation because I recognize the diversity of religions and beliefs”; the second indicator shows that there are 139% or 97.9% of respondents answered agree “All ethnicities or ethnic groups are equal in Indonesia because this country was founded by various ethnic groups”; the third indicator shows as many as 135% or 95% of the respondents gave an agreed answer “Citizens must be involved in defending the country both physically and materially from various threats that come from outside and from within”; the fourth indicator shows as many as 126% or 88.8% of respondents answered agree “Every ethnic group or region in Indonesia should not try to separate themselves from Republic of Indonesia”; the fifth indicator shows as many as 138% or 97.2% of respondents answered agree “I appreciate the diversity of traditions and culture because the Indonesian nation consists of various ethnic groups/ethnics.” These findings indicate that high school students have a good understanding of nationalism.Meanwhile, the religious moderation stage of public high school students in Padang is at a high stage with a mean score of 3.81 describing the public high school students in Padang are giving an agree response about the indicators of the moderation of religious life in Padang city. The first indicator showing that there are 130 people or 91.54% of 142 respondents gave answers at the stage of agreeing “can understand and accept various religions and beliefs because it is in accordance with the first precepts of Pancasila”; the second indicator, showing that as many as 73 people or 51.4% of respondents gave an agreed answer that “My commitment as an Indonesian nation is based on nationalism, not on the teachings of the religion I profess”; the third indicator shows that there are 119 people or 83.8% of respondents answered agreeing that “I can respect the truth that is believed by adherents of other religions even if it is contrary to the teachings of my religion”; the fourth indicator shows that 97 people or 68.3% of respondents answered agreeing that “I can follow the traditions and customs of my multiethnic friends as long as they do not conflict with my beliefs and aqidah.” The respondent’s response to several indicators above illustrates the views of public high school students in Padang regarding religious moderation in daily life, which is already at a high stage.The radical behavior stage consists of four instrument items with a mean score of 2.80, which is in the simple stage describing the public high school students in Padang is giving a low simple stage response to four instrument statements about radical behavior. The first indicator shows that there are 36 people or 25.3% gave an agree answer to the statement “I support the plan of a certain group that seeks to change Pancasila as the state ideology and replace it with an Islamic ideology”; the second indicator, as many as 101 people or 71.12%, gave a disagree response on the statement “I am against compromise in solving problems with other groups of different beliefs, if they commit blasphemy against my religion.” The third indicator that there are 21 people or 14.8% of respondents answered that “I feel uncomfortable when I live next door to people with different beliefs, different ethnicities, and different traditions.” The fourth indicator shows that there are 32 people or 22.5% of respondents answered “I will thwart the plan of a minority group belonging to another religion who intends to build a house of worship other than an Islamic house of worship in the place where I live.”


## 5.4. Results of Structural Model Analysis

Structural model testing was conducted to determine the model of the relationship between independent constructs and dependent constructs which were arranged theoretically supported by the facts that existed in empirical data. Based on Figure7, because of the results of the convergent validity test, there are three constructs that meet the requirements, namely: (1) nationalism; (2) religious moderation; (3) radical behavior; then for the next stage, multiple regression analysis is carried out to see the correlation and influence of the construct: (1) nationalism; and (2) religious moderation on the radical behavior construct with the following findings.The results of multiple linear regressions using the stepwise method show that the nationalism construct and the religious moderation construct do not show a significant effect on the radical behavior construct. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables5 and 6.Table 5
ANOVA, the variance of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
ModelSum of squaresdfMean squareFSig.1Regression1.83520.9181.1740.312aResidual108.6561390.782Total110.492141aPredictors: (constant), religious moderation, nationalism.Table 6
Multiple regression for the independent variable to the dependent variable.
ModelUnstandardized coefficientsStandardized coefficientsTSig.InfluenceβStandard errorβ1(Constant)3.8450.6955.5350.000Nationalism−0.1830.143−0.111−1.2800.2030%Religious moderation−0.0600.125−0.042−0.4850.6290%Table5 shows that the results of the analysis of variance in the F-test prove that the constructs of nationalism and religious moderation have no significant effect on the construct of radical behavior.


## 6. Discussion

The findings show that based on the results of the convergent validity test, there are three constructs of the six constructs that meet the requirements to proceed to the multiple regression analysis stage, namely, the nationalism construct, the religious moderation construct, and the radical behavior construct. Meanwhile, the historical knowledge, Islamism, and radical thinking constructs do not meet the requirements because the VE value < 0.50. The results of the multiple regression analysis show that the constructs of nationalism and religious moderation have no significant effect on the construct of radical behavior. As shown in Table5, the nationalism construct has no effect on the radical behavior construct with Sig. 0.203 > 0.05 and the religious moderation construct has no effect on radical behavior with Sig. 0.629 > 0.05. This finding illustrates that Padang city public high school students have a good understanding of national insight and moderate attitudes in religious life. As stated by Lestari et al. [7], conceptually, the formal education path is the most appropriate means for efforts to instill the values of nationalism and patriotism [7], moderate religious understanding, rights and obligations as good citizens so as to give birth to a young generation of nationalists and patriotism shown by an attitude of pride as an Indonesian nation, love for the homeland, willing to sacrifice, accepting pluralism consisting of various ethnic groups, languages, cultures, and religion.This finding is not in line with the view of Mahmuddin [32], which explains low understanding of the young generation among high school students about nationalism, history, and Islamism and tends to think and act radically because of the ineffectiveness of the history learning process, civic education, and religious education. This finding is also not in line with the results of Sodiqin’s [14] research, which explains that the radical understanding of the younger generation is getting stronger in the form of aggressive behavior caused by a narrow and intolerant understanding of religion. The Mata Air Foundation and Alvara Research Center survey showed that 23.3% of high school students agreed with Jihad to establish an Islamic state or caliphate is not in line with the findings of this study.This finding is in line with the results of research by Gumiandari and Nafi’a [55]. It showed that building religious networks and developing religious literacy between institutions of various social communities suppress the development of radical understanding in the midst of society, including educational institutions. As stated by Starodubrovskaya [56], radicalization and conflict that start from disagreements about moderation in religious life will trigger the mobilization of violence that can threaten the integrity of a nation.However, this finding is different from the findings of the Center for the Study of Islam and Society (PPIM) and the Center for the Study of Religion and Culture (CSRC) [57], which show that the younger generation of educated millennial Muslims tends to adhere to religious attitudes and behaviors that conservative with its communal, scriptural, and puritan style [57]. It is also not in line with the findings of research conducted by PPIM (2018) that at the opinion level, students who are young Indonesian Muslim millennials tend to have intolerant religious views.This finding is also different from the views of Ilyasin and Zamroni [24]; there is a group of students who have an Islamist view because recently formal schools have also been infiltrated by Islamism, which do not separate religion from politics through extracurricular activities. Thus, Indonesia is a national state based on the ideology of Pancasila with a single diversity, which places all religions as equal in the view of the state. Also, different from the view put forward by Iswanto [57] that Islamism is an understanding of religion (Islam) in the form of a state order, namely, an Islamic state. They have used religion for political gain.


## 7. Conclusion

This research was conducted in Padang with a population of 16 public high schools and the sample was set on the grade XII students at four schools as respondents. There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the research findings above; first, based on the conceptual framework in Figure1, all indicators meet the requirements of the validity and reliability test with Cronbach’s alpha and CFA and the measurement model analysis test partially so that a factor loading 0.50 is obtained for all indicators. However, after the convergent validity test was conducted to see the VE value of each construct with the value of VE ≥ 0.50, three constructs met the requirements to proceed to the analysis structure model to see the relationship and effect of the independent construct on the dependent construct.The constructs that meet the requirements are nationalism, religious moderation, and radical behavior. Meanwhile, the constructs of historical knowledge, Islamism, and radical thinking did not meet the requirements because the value of VE ≤ 0.50. Next, the results of the multiple regression analysis show that the constructs of nationalism and religious moderation have no effect on the construct of radical behavior. The nationalism construct has no effect on the radical behavior construct with Sig. 0.203 > 0.05 and the religious moderation construct has no effect on radical behavior with Sig. 0.629 > 0.05. This finding illustrates that Padang city public high school students have a good understanding of nationalism and moderate attitudes in religious life, so that there is no potential for the birth of radicalism behavior among the younger generation, especially Padang city state senior high school students.The practical implication of the study is that the school leaderships should formulate controlled regulations regarding the implementation of religious and spiritual activities carried out by the Intraschool Student Organization (ISSO). Thus, they will not be infiltrated by radical ideas from external parties. This research is only supported by educational foundations as sponsors with limited funding. The spatial scope of this research is limited to the younger generation at the level of formal education in the last year (Class XII) at the Padang public high school. However, the issue of radicalism has become a hot topic of discussion at the national level. It is a recommended that a comprehensive study be conducted with a wider population of the young generation from various elements of political and social organization and the younger generation at the formal education level.



---

*Source: 2919611-2023-01-02.xml*