ANALISIS FAKTOR PENEROKAAN & KEBOLEHPERCAYAAN INSTRUMEN AMALAN PDP STEM-TPACK, PEMBANGUNAN PROFESIONAL, SIKAP DAN EFIKASI KENDIRI PENSYARAH POLITEKNIK MALAYSIA
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR STEM-TPACK TEACHING PRACTICES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ATTITUDE, AND SELF-EFFICACY AMONG MALAYSIAN POLYTECHNIC LECTURERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJEPC.1162063Keywords:
Analisis Faktor Penerokaan (EFA) (Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Amalan PdP STEM-TPACK (STEM-TPACK Teaching Practices), Efikasi Kendiri (Self-Efficacy), Pembangunan Profesional (Professional Development), Sikap (Attitude)Abstract
Kajian ini bertujuan mengesahkan struktur faktor dan kebolehpercayaan instrumen bagi mengukur Amalan Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran STEM-TPACK, Pembangunan Profesional, Sikap dan Efikasi Kendiri dalam kalangan pensyarah Politeknik Malaysia. Walaupun beberapa instrumen berkaitan STEM-TPACK telah dibangunkan dalam konteks pendidikan umum, kajian yang mengesahkan instrumen tersebut dalam konteks pendidikan dan latihan teknikal dan vokasional (TVET), khususnya dalam kalangan pensyarah politeknik Malaysia, masih terhad. Oleh itu, kajian ini dijalankan bagi mengesahkan kesesuaian instrumen tersebut dalam konteks TVET tempatan. Kajian ini menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif dan pengumpulan data melalui borang soal-selidik dalam talian. Seramai 119 orang pensyarah Politeknik terlibat dalam kajian ini. Data dianalisis menggunakan Analisis Faktor Penerokaan (EFA) dan ujian kebolehpercayaan pekali alfa Cronbach. Dapatan menunjukkan nilai Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin adalah tinggi iaitu berada dalam julat 0.886 hingga 0.905 dan ujian Bartlett adalah signifikan (ρ <0.001) menunjukkan data sesuai untuk analisis faktor. Keputusan EFA mengekstrak faktor yang sejajar dengan dimensi teori dengan jumlah varians kumulatif melebihi 60% bagi semua konstruk. Nilai muatan faktor pula berada dalam julat 0.507 hingga 0.888, menunjukkan bahawa setiap item memberikan sumbangan yang memadai kepada konstruk masing-masing. Proses penilaian muatan faktor telah menyingkirkan beberapa item, menjadikan jumlah akhir instrumen sebanyak 64 item daripada 69 item asal. Nilai alfa Cronbach bagi semua konstruk melebihi 0.90, menunjukkan ketekalan dalaman yang sangat baik. Secara keseluruhannya, instrumen ini didapati mempunyai kesahan struktur dan kebolehpercayaan yang baik serta sesuai untuk digunakan dalam kajian lanjutan menggunakan Analisis Faktor Pengesahan (CFA) dan Model Persamaan Struktur (SEM) bagi mengesahkan model pengukuran secara lebih menyeluruh.
This study aimed to validate the factor structure and reliability of an instrument developed to measure STEM-TPACK teaching and learning practices, professional development, attitude, and self-efficacy among Malaysian Polytechnic lecturers. Although several STEM-TPACK-related instruments have been developed in general education contexts, studies validating these instruments within the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) context, particularly among Malaysian Polytechnic lecturers, remain limited. Therefore, this study was conducted to validate the suitability of the instrument within the local TVET context. This study employed a quantitative approach, and data were collected through an online questionnaire. A total of 119 Polytechnic lecturers participated as respondents in this study. The data were analysed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Cronbach’s alpha reliability testing. The findings indicated that the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values were high, ranging from 0.886 to 0.905, while Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The EFA results extracted factors consistent with the theoretical dimensions, with the cumulative variance exceeding 60% for all constructs. The factor loadings ranged from 0.507 to 0.888, indicating that each item contributed adequately to its respective construct. The factor loading evaluation process removed several items, resulting in a final instrument consisting of 64 items from the original 69 items. The Cronbach’s alpha values for all constructs exceeded 0.90, indicating a high level of internal consistency. Overall, the instrument demonstrated good structural validity and reliability and is suitable for further studies using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to validate the measurement model more comprehensively.
Downloads
References
Affandi, G. R., Amir, M. F., & Widyastuti, W. (2022). Teachers’ General Pedagogical Knowledge and self-efficacy On STEM Instructional Practices On Primary Teacher. JETL (Journal Of Education Teaching and Learning), 7(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.26737/jetl.v7i2.3416
Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2024). STEM-TPAB Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği: Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 798. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1480921
Chan, L. L., & Idris, N. (2017). Validity and Reliability of The Instrument Using Exploratory Factor Analysis and Cronbachâs alpha. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(10). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i10/3387
Chi, C., Yunus, M. M., Rafiq, K. R. M., Hameed, H. A., & Ediyanto, E. (2024). A Systematic Review on Multidisciplinary Technological Approaches in Higher Education [Review of A Systematic Review on Multidisciplinary Technological Approaches in Higher Education]. International Journal of Advanced Research in Future Ready Learning and Education, 36(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.37934/frle.36.1.110
Coakes, S. J., Steed, L., & Ong, C. (2010). SPSS version 17.0 for Windows: Analysis without anguish. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Cozby, P. C. (2009). Methods in behavioral research (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ediyanto, E., Sunandar, A., Ramadhani, R. S., & Aqilah, T. S. (2022). Sustainable Instrument Development in Educational Research. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 13(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2022-0004
Husain, H., & Aziz, H. (2022). EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) AND CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA) TO MEASURE THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY CONSTRUCTS OF HISTORICAL THINKING SKILLS, TPACK AND APPLICATION OF HISTORICAL THINKING SKILLS. International Journal of Education Psychology and Counseling, 7(46), 608. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijepc.746046
Ishartono, N., Halili, S. H. B., & Razak, R. A. (2023). Instruments for Measuring Pre-service Mathematics Teachers‘ TPACK Skill in Integrating Technology: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(8), 1177. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.8.1919
Kaharuddin, A., García‐García, J., Magfirah, I., & Yulismayanti, Y. (2025). Validating a TPCK-S Instrument for Hologram-Based Mathematics Teaching. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE), 525. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v7i3.12119
Karpudewan, M., Krishnan, P., Ali, M. N., & Lay, Y. F. (2022). Designing instrument to measure STEM teaching practices of Malaysian teachers. PLoS ONE, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268509
Lim, C. C., & Maat, S. M. (2023). Pengintegrasian STEM dalam Pembelajaran dan Pemudahcaraan (PdPc) Matematik: Sorotan Literatur Bersistematik. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan. https://doi.org/10.55057/jdpd.2023.5.3.13
Mai, M., & Lin, H. (2023). Primary Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Teaching in Malaysia. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 60. https://doi.org/10.55463/hkjss.issn.1021-3619.60.19
Mansour, N., Said, Z., & Abu-Tineh, A. (2024). Factors impacting science and mathematics teachers’ competencies and self-efficacy in TPACK for PBL and STEM. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 20(5). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14467
Marlina, R., Suwono, H., Yuenyong, C., Ibrohim, I., Mahanal, S., Saefi, M., & Hamdani, H. (2023). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for Preservice Biology Teachers: Two Insights More Promising. Participatory Educational Research, 10(6), 245. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.99.10.6
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
Mekheimer, M. A. (2025). Effective technology integration in higher education: a mixed-methods study of professional development. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13750-y
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, Μ., & Paparistodemou, E. (2024). Sustaining Teacher Professional Learning in STEM: Lessons Learned from an 18-Year-Long Journey into TPACK-Guided Professional Development. Education Sciences, 14(4), 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040402
Rahman, A. A., Sahid, S., & Nasri, N. M. (2023). Exploratory Factors and Reliability Analysis of Active Learning Techniques Instruments to Assess Business Subjects of Secondary School Students in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(4), 671. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.4.671
Rehman, N., Huang, X., Mahmood, A., Zafeer, H. M. I., & Mohammad, N. K. (2025). Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: A systematic review [Review of Emerging trends and effective strategies in STEM teacher professional development: A systematic review]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04272-y
Said, Z., Mansour, N., & Abu-Tineh, A. (2023). Integrating technology pedagogy and content knowledge in Qatar’s preparatory and secondary schools: The perceptions and practices of STEM teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13188
Siyam, Y., Siyam, N., Hussain, M., & Alqaryouti, O. (2025). Evaluating technology integration in education: a framework for professional development. Discover Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00448-z
Stinken‐Rösner, L., Hofer, E., Rodenhauser, A., & Abels, S. (2023). Technology Implementation in Pre-Service Science Teacher Education Based on the Transformative View of TPACK: Effects on Pre-Service Teachers’ TPACK, Behavioral Orientations and Actions in Practice. Education Sciences, 13(7), 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070732
Tajudin, A., & Abdullah, N. (2018). Kesediaan Guru Sains Sekolah Rendah terhadap pelaksanaan pembelajaran abad ke-21. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 8(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol8.1.7.2018
Tantra, M. W. (2023). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Moralitas (Sila) Peserta Didik Pendidikan Dasar. Jurnal Basicedu, 7(1), 383. https://doi.org/10.31004/basicedu.v7i1.4633
Wahono, B., & Chang, C. (2019). DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A SURVEY INSTRUMENT (AKA) TOWARDS ATTITUDE, KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION OF STEM. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.63
Yanuarto, W. N., & Jaelani, A. (2021). High-Level Thinking and TPACK of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers in the 21st Century Learning. EDUMATICA | Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(3), 18.
