Empowering Educators to Sustain Reflective Teaching Practices: The Validation of Instruments

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the sustainability of an instructional design utilizing the novel approach of the Reflective Teaching Model for Reading Comprehension (RTMRC), and to continuously develop and validate instruments for reflective measures to ensure the sustainable teaching of reading comprehension. The RTMRC design was featured based on two main parts: the reflective teaching process (planning, acting, reflecting and evaluating) and the reading comprehension process (reader, strategy, text and task). Then, a quasi-experiment (the pre- and post-test control group design) was conducted with 168 grade-9 students to assess the performance of the RTMRC in practice. The reflective questionnaire was also applied as an instrument to gather feedback from students about the instructional context, with the aim of supporting the sustainable reflective practices of the teacher. The reading achievement in the experimental group was evaluated and fostered using this model. Through the analyses of t-tests and Cohen’s d effect size, it was found that the experimental group teaching with RTMRC outperformed the control group without RTMRC teaching. Using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Rasch analysis and testing measurement invariance across groups, we report that the instruments were found to be valid for measuring the effect of the RTMRC in teaching reading comprehension in English Language Teaching (ELT) in a sustainable manner.

Exploring the Accuracy and Consistency of a School Readiness Assessment Tool for Preschoolers: Reliability, Validity and Measurement Invariance Analysis

“…Convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed to establish the construct validity of the factors. Following the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Oo et al (2023), factors within the same construct are considered valid if the average variance extracted (AVE) value exceeds 0.50, and their CR values exceeded 0.70, confirming convergent validity (Table 7). The evaluation of discriminant validity was constructed by employing the HTMT ratio as proposed by Henseler et al (2015).…”

Assessment of Mastery Motivation and Neurodevelopment of Young Children at High Risk for Developmental Delays

“…DIF analysis (see Figure 1 ) showed that none of the items from either version had biased measures (DIF = 0.45 logits). DIF logits in the toddler version were slightly higher than the recommended values ( Oo et al 2023b ), possibly because the toddler version included two more factors, i.e., negative reactions—frustration/anger and negative reactions—sadness/shame.…”

“…Figure 2 shows the acceptable logit numbers of the infant and toddler versions (DIF logits between −0.15 and 0.15) of the BSID-III measurement ( Oo et al 2023b ). Therefore, we can assume that there are no biased measures in either the infants or toddler version of the BSID-III.…”

Diagnostic Assessment of School Readiness

“…Convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed to establish the construct validity of the factors. Following the criteria proposed by Fornell & Larcker (1981) and Oo et al (2023), factors within the same construct are considered valid if the average variance extracted (AVE) value exceeds 0.50, and their CR values exceeded 0.70, confirming convergent validity (Table 7). The evaluation of discriminant validity was constructed by employing the HTMT ratio as proposed by Henseler et al (2015) .…”