A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH (TCAR) QUESTIONNAIRE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.241148

Keywords:

action research, competence, confirmatory factor analysis, professional development, scale development

Abstract

The instrument that assesses teachers’ competence on AR methodology is limited. Thus, it is one of the issues concerning evaluating the effectiveness of a professional development program on designing AR projects. It is difficult to determine how much and what teachers have learned in a course or training. Thus, this cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate further the validity and reliability of the Teacher’s Competence in Action Research Questionnaire, a seven-factor instrument previously proposed by Cortes, Pineda, and Geverola (2020). This self-report scale was not subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, had less sample size, and had homogenous participants. In the present study, 450 participants, both pre- and in-service teachers and from different teaching specializations, answered the survey. The data were analyzed using the confirmatory factor analysis method through the Maximum Likelihood approach. Four model fit indices recorded satisfactory results (CFI = 0.890; TLI = 0.884; RMSEA = 0.072; SRMR = 0.039), thus, supporting the seven-factor scale. The standardized factor loading, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient/s of the entire scale and within subscales also provide evidence of the convergent validity and reliability of the scale. There may be an issue in the discriminant validity of the scale, but the conceptual distinctions of each factor as supported by theoretical foundation and arguments provide a principal reason for retaining all the items and factors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sylvester Cortes, Cebu Technological University

College of Arts and Sciences, Instructor

Hedeliza Pineda, Cebu Technological University

College of Arts and Sciences

References

  1. Andersson, P., & Köpsén, S. (2015). Continuing professional development of vocational teachers: participation in a Swedish national initiative. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-015-0019-3
  2. Bagozzi, R., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392322
  3. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
  4. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  5. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(02)00053-7
    |
  6. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi
  7. Cortes, S. (2019). Needs Assessment on Action Research Competencies of Teacher-Researchers in Surigao del Sur, Philippines. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 21(4), 1-19. https://so06.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/edujournal_nu/article/view/192512
  8. Cortes, S. T. (2020). Flexible learning as an instructional modality in environmental science course during COVID-19. Aquademia, 4(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8444
  9. Cortes, S. T., Pineda, H. A., & Geverola, I. J. (2021). Examining competence in action research of basic education teachers in Cebu City, Philippines. Journal Of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 6(2), 202-230. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp202-230
  10. Cortes, S. T., Pineda, H. A., Lorca, A. S., Gador, S. C., Mangompit, R. M., & Pacaldo, F. J. (2021). Examining perception on action research of basic education teachers. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences (MOJES), 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol6iss2pp202-230
  11. Cortes, S., Pineda, H., & Geverola, I. J. (2020). Development and validation of a scale on teacher’s competence in action research. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 9(6), 77-85. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2020.5041
  12. Cullen, T. A., Akerson, V. L., & Hanson, D. L. (2010). Using action research to engage K-6 teachers in nature of science inquiry as professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(8), 971-992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9218-8
    |
  13. Dehghan, F. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of professionalism: a topdown or a bottom-up decision-making process? Professional Development in Education, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1725597
    |
  14. Garson, G. D. (2006). Structural equation modeling. North Carolina: G. David Garson and Statistical Associates Publishing.
  15. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & and Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.00407
  16. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
  17. Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.
  18. Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  19. Hine, G. S. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163. https://www.iier.org.au/iier23/hine.html
    |
  20. Hu, L.., & Betler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    |
  21. Jacob, R., Hill, H., & Corey, D. (2017). The impact of a professional development program on teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, instruction, and student achievement. Intervention, Evaluation, and Policy Studies, 10(2), 379-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1273411
    |
  22. James, F., & Augustin, D. S. (2017). Improving teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice through action research: potential and problems. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1332655
    |
  23. Joseph, F. H., Marko, S., Torsten, M. P., & Christian, M. R. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008
  24. Joseph F. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  25. Karakaya-Ozyer, K., & Aksu-Dunya, B. (2018). A Review of Structural Equation Modeling Applications in Turkish Educational Science Literature, 2010-2015. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.383177
    |
  26. Kartal, E. E., Cobern, W. W., Dogan, N., Irez, S., Cakmakci, G., & Yalaki, Y. (2018). Improving science teachers’ nature of science views through an innovative continuing professional development program. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(30). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0125-4
    |
  27. Kember, D. (2002). Long-term Outcomes of Educational Action Research Projects. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 83-104.
  28. Kennedy-Clark, S., Eddles-Hirsch, K., Francis, T., Cummins, G., Ferantino, L., & Tichelaar, M. (2018). Developing pre-service teacher professional capabilities through action research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(9), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n9.3
    |
  29. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods and Research, 44(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
    |
  30. Kirkpatrick, D. (1959). Techniques for evaluation training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 21-26.
  31. Kizilaslan, I., & Leutwyler, B. (2012). Pre-service teacher action research: Concept, international trends and implications for teacher education in Turkey. In N. Popov, C. Wolhuter, B. Leutwyler, G. Hilton, J. Ogunleye, & P. A. Almeida (Eds.), International Perspectives on Education (pp. 155-162). Sofia, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.
  32. Kline, R. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
  33. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  34. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
  35. Kuo, N.C. (2015). Action research for improving the effectiveness of technology integration in pre-service teacher education. i.e.: inquiry in education, 6(1). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/192229/
  36. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
  37. Manfra, M. M. (2019). Action research and systematic, intentional change in teaching practice. Review of Research in Education, 43, 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821132
    |
  38. Novozhenina, A., & Lopez-Pinzon, M. (2018). Impact of a professional development program on EFL teachers’ performance. HOW, 25(2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.25.2.406
  39. Pang, N. S.-K. (2020). Teachers’ reflective practices in implementing assessment for learning skills in classroom teaching. ECNU Review of Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936290
    |
  40. Pennington, S. E. (2015). Inquiry into teaching: Using reflective teaching to improve my practice. Networks: An Online Journal for Teacher Research, 17(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1152296.pdf
  41. Sadruddin, M. M. (2012). Discipline – improving classroom management through action research: A professional development plan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 6(1), 23-42. https://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/jms/default_files/JMS/6_1/JMS_January_June2012_23-42.pdf
  42. Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
  43. Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: an application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.47.18508
  44. Stevens, D., & Kitchen, J. (2004). Introducing action research to pre-service teachers. The Ontario Action Researcher. http://oar.nipissingu.ca/archive-Vol7No2-V721E.htm
  45. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
  46. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International Journal of Academic Research in Managemen, 5(3), 28-36. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02546799/document
  47. Tan, K. (2013). A framework for assessment for learning: Implications for feedback practices within and beyond the gap. International Scholarly Research Notices. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/640609
  48. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. . https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
    |
  49. Vialle, W., Hall, N., & Booth, T. (1997). Teaching Research and Inquiry in Undergraduate Teacher‐education Programmes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 25(2), 129-140.
  50. Wyatt, M., & Ager, E. O. (2016). Teachers’ cognitions regarding continuing professional development. ELT Journal, 71(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142731
    |

Downloads

Published

2021-12-29

How to Cite

Cortes, S., Pineda, H. ., & Geverola, I. J. (2021). A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S COMPETENCE IN ACTION RESEARCH (TCAR) QUESTIONNAIRE . Advanced Education, 8(19), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.241148

Issue

2021: Issue 19

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Sylvester Cortes, Hedeliza Pineda, Immar Jun Geverola

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).