International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 9, Issue 10 (October 2022), Pages: 26-32

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 The confirmatory factor analysis of science creative pedagogy (SCP) model

 Author(s): Norazilawati Abdullah 1, *, Zainun Mustafa 2, Mahizer Hamzah 3, Amir Hasan Dawi 3, Mohd Ridhuan Mohd Jamil 3, Che Siti Hajar Aisyah Che Abdul Khalil 3

 Affiliation(s):

 1National Child Development Research Centre, Faculty of Human Development, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Malaysia
 2Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM), Penang, Malaysia
 3Faculty of Human Development, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0797-724X

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2022.10.004

 Abstract:

Creative pedagogy is an instructional strategy that emphasizes the central importance of creativity in successful learning. Even though creativity among teachers has been extensively studied, the contributing factors in creative pedagogy are still inconclusive. To bridge the gap, a cross-sectional survey has been conducted to develop the Science Creative Pedagogy (SCP) Model by focusing on the elements that potentially support the motivation for implementing SCP. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of the CSP measurement model developed in Malaysia. A survey was administered to 409 primary school science teachers, covering the six constructs of elements of creative practice, namely knowledge (PG), environment (SEKITAR), teaching aids (BBM), skills (KEM_GURU), science process skills (KPS), and attitudes (SIKAP). The confirmatory factor analysis was performed, and subsequently, the discriminant validity, convergent validity, and reliability of the measurement model were computed. From the findings, the initial model was then modified from five items per construct to three items per construct, resulting in a refined SCP measurement model. Maps of teachers' creative pedagogy will be made using the construct. This will help the teachers' management bodies to set up a better environment for science teacher who wants to use the SCP in their classrooms.

 © 2022 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Quantitative, Learning approaches, Teaching approaches, Survey, Logic model, Reliability, Validity

 Article History: Received 17 March 2022, Received in revised form 14 June 2022, Accepted 22 June 2022

 Acknowledgment 

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the Ministry of Higher Education and the Research Management and Innovation Centre (RMIC), Sultan Idris Education University (UPSI) for the Fundamental Research Grants (code: 2019-0032-107-02 (FRGS/1/2018/SS109/UPSI/02/28) that helped fund the research.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Abdullah N, Mustafa Z, and Hamzah M et al. (2022). The confirmatory factor analysis of science creative pedagogy (SCP) model. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 9(10): 26-32

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 

----------------------------------------------    

 References (34)

  1. Abdullah AH, Abidin NL, and Ali M (2015). Analysis of students' errors in solving Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) problems for the topic of fraction. Asian Social Science, 11(21): 133-142. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n21p133   [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdullah N, Mustafa Z, Hamzah M, Dawi AH, Mustafa MC, Halim L, and Abdul CSHAC (2021). Primary school science teachers’ creativity and practice in Malaysia. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7): 346-364. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.7.19   [Google Scholar]
  3. Abell SK, Appleton K, and Hanuscin DL (2013). Handbook of research on science education. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824696   [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Abdali NS and Al-Balushi SM (2016). Teaching for creativity by science teachers in grades 5–10. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2): 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9612-3   [Google Scholar]
  5. Alhija FAN (2010). Factor analysis: An overview and some contemporary advances. In: Peterson PL, Baker E, and McGaw B (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: 162–170. Elsevier, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01328-2   [Google Scholar]
  6. Atkinson TM, Rosenfeld BD, Sit L, Mendoza TR, Fruscione M, Lavene D, and Basch E (2011). Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41(3): 558-565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.05.008   [Google Scholar] PMid:21131166 PMCid:PMC3062715
  7. Awang Z (2012). A handbook on SEM: Structural equation modelling. 5th Edition, Center of Graduate Studies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Barajas M, Frossard F, and Trifonova A (2018). Strategies for digital creative pedagogies in today’s education. In: Brito SM (Ed.), Active learning-beyond the future: 107-120. IntechOpen, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80695   [Google Scholar]
  9. BPK (2014). Kemahiran berfikir aras tinggi: Aplikasi di sekolah. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, Putrajaya, Malaysia.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Chan S and Yuen M (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12: 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003   [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng VM (2011). Infusing creativity into Eastern classrooms: Evaluations from student perspectives. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1): 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.05.001   [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheung RHP (2016). The challenge of developing creativity in a Chinese context: The effectiveness of adapting Western creative pedagogy to inform creative practice. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 24(1): 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2015.1087419   [Google Scholar]
  13. Cremin T and Chappell K (2021). Creative pedagogies: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 36(3): 299-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677757   [Google Scholar]
  14. Daud AM, Omar J, Turiman P, and Osman K (2012). Creativity in science education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59: 467-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.302   [Google Scholar]
  15. Davies D, Jindal-Snape D, Collier C, Digby R, Hay P, and Howe A (2013). Creative learning environments in education: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8: 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004   [Google Scholar]
  16. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104   [Google Scholar]
  17. Ghazali NHCM, Abdullah N, Zaini SH, and Hamzah M (2020). Student teachers’ conception of feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Link to pupil aspiration. Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(1): 54-64. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i1.25483   [Google Scholar]
  18. Glăveanu VP, Sierra Z, and Tanggaard L (2015). Widening our understanding of creative pedagogy: A North-South dialogue. Education 3-13, 43(4): 360-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020634   [Google Scholar]
  19. Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, and Tatham RL (2010). Multivariate data analysis. 6th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, and Sarstedt M (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hashim R (2002). Investigation on the teaching of critical and creative thinking in Malaysia. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 10(1): 39-56.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Henseler J, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1): 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8   [Google Scholar]
  23. Jeffrey B (2006). Creative teaching and learning: Towards a common discourse and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(3): 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640600866015   [Google Scholar]
  24. Kline RB (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Ling YL, Ismail F, and Abdullah AGK (2015). Feedback environment and creativity in education organizations. International Research in Education, 3(2): 121-130. https://doi.org/10.5296/ire.v3i2.7585   [Google Scholar]
  26. Mueller RO and Hancock GR (2001). Factor analysis and latent structure, confirmatory. In: Smelser NJ and Baltes PB (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences: 5239–5244. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00426-5   [Google Scholar]
  27. Nachiappan S, Julia IP, Abdullah N, Sehgar SC, Suffian S, and Sukri NA (2019). Pelaksanaan Kemahiran Berfikir Aras Tinggi oleh guru dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran di tadika [The implementation of Higher Order Thinking Skills by teacher in teaching and learning at kindergarten]. Jurnal Pendidikan Awal Kanak-Kanak Kebangsaan, 8: 24-32. https://doi.org/10.37134/jpak.vol8.4.2019   [Google Scholar]
  28. Nadara S and Peng CF (2018). Implementation of critical and creative thinking skills in the teaching and learning of literature component in secondary school. In The 2018 International Academic Research Conference, Vienna, Austria: 292-306.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Narayanan S (2017). A study on the relationship between creativity and innovation in teaching and learning methods towards students academic performance at private higher education institution, Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(Special Issue): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i14/3647   [Google Scholar]
  30. Rahaimah AS and Lin YJ (2018). Keberkesanan pendekatan model bar dalam penyelesaian masalah berayat matematik operasi tolak tahun empat [The effectiveness of bar model in solving standard four descriptive mathematical problem]. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 8(2): 35-44. https://doi.org/10.37134/jpsmm.vol8.2.4.2018   [Google Scholar]
  31. Rauf RAA, Rasul MM, Mansor AN, Othman Z, and Lyndon N (2013). Inculcation of science process skills in a science classroom. Asian Social Science, 9: 47-57. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n8p47   [Google Scholar]
  32. Sidek R, Halim L, and Buang NA (2021). Science teachers' conceptions and perceptions of scientific creativity and approaches to nurture it in science teaching and learning in secondary school. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 11(1): 95-102.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Suhr D and Shay M (2009). Guidelines for reliability, confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis. In the Conference Proceedings of the Western Users of SAS Software, San Jose, USA: 1-15.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Teck WK (2009). Measuring learning outcomes from computer usage among mathematics science and English language teachers (64-88). Jurnal Pendidikan Bitara UPSI, 2: 64-88.   [Google Scholar]