The development of “Early Childhood Education & Care Curriculum Framework Implementation Scale” in Taiwan

Abstract

Taiwan government consolidated the kindergarten and daycare systems in 2012, and launched a new national curriculum framework, Early Childhood Education & Care Curriculum Framework (ECECCF), as a guidance for quality early childhood education programs. Research has shown that the effects of a new educational program highly depended on the fidelity of its implementation. It has thus been suggested that the degree of implantation of a program needs be evaluated before conducting further program evaluation. Thus, the purpose of this study was to construct an Early Childhood Education Curriculum Framework Implementation Scale (ECECCF Implementation Scale) for Taiwanese preschool programs. 216 preschool classes in Taiwan were involved. The study consisted of two stages: In Stage 1, the exploratory factor analysis showed that the implementation of ECECCF could mostly be explained by four factors, and all the factors extracted had acceptable reliability and validity. In Stage 2, rubrics were constructed for each item and factor analysis was re-conducted, resulting in a 19-item scale of four factors (Awareness and Adjustment, Learning Centers Arrangement, Teaching Guidance and Curriculum Development). The reliability and validity tests shows that: (1) the final version of the ECECCF Implementation Scale is a valid and reliable instrument, explaining 62.9% of the total variance; (2) the criterion validity indicated that the ECECCF scale can not only be used for assessing the implementation of ECECCF, but also can be used for understanding teachers’ needs in instructional and operational curriculum for further professional development.

The flipped learning perception scale: A validity and reliability study

“…We scanned the literature on flipped learning based on the constructivist approach. Many scale development studies were not based on a philosophy (Chang et al, 2021 ; Morgado et al, 2017 ; Sangwan et al, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ). As with other scientific studies, however, scale development studies should have a philosophical stance upon which the research is based (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1993 ).…”

“…For checking the criterion validity, the draft and criterion scales were applied to the same sample simultaneously, after which the correlation coefficients were examined. The related literature shows few scale development studies to have occurred that used criterion validity (Chang et al, 2021 ; Erol & Karakaya, 2020 ; Snell & Lau, 2020 ; Tunç & Şenel, 2021 ). When examining the literature, only Gough et al’s ( 2017 ) scale was available to be chosen as the criterion scale; Gough et al’s scale has 17 items, but they did not clearly explain the number of dimensions in the scale.…”

“…In addition to studies on flipped learning, the current study has also examined scale development studies in the educational sciences literature in terms of measurement and evaluation. No information about normality was found for most of the scale development studies (Almodaires et al, 2019 ; Chang et al, 2021 ; Hao, 2016b ; Jung & Lee, 2022 ; Keller et al, 2020 ; Li & Wang, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ; Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2016 ), despite normality being a necessary prerequisite for validity and reliability analyses (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012 ). As a result of the examinations, some studies only received an expert’s opinions for the content validity analysis, but these did not state what corrections had been made as a result of the expert opinion nor which specific items were found suitable for the scale or not (Chang et al, 2021 ; Hao, 2016b ; Keller et al, 2020 ; Li & Wang, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ; Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2016 ).…”

“…No information about normality was found for most of the scale development studies (Almodaires et al, 2019 ; Chang et al, 2021 ; Hao, 2016b ; Jung & Lee, 2022 ; Keller et al, 2020 ; Li & Wang, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ; Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2016 ), despite normality being a necessary prerequisite for validity and reliability analyses (Ghasemi & Zahediasl, 2012 ). As a result of the examinations, some studies only received an expert’s opinions for the content validity analysis, but these did not state what corrections had been made as a result of the expert opinion nor which specific items were found suitable for the scale or not (Chang et al, 2021 ; Hao, 2016b ; Keller et al, 2020 ; Li & Wang, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ; Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2016 ). With regard to checking construct validity, studies were only found to use exploratory factor analysis (Ghazali et al, 2021 ; Hao, 2016b ; Seema et al, 2022 ) or confirmatory factor analysis (Doyle et al, 2019 ; Jardim et al, 2021 ; Wang et al, 2016 ), with no occurrence of the combined exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Almodaires et al, 2019 ; Li & Wang, 2021 ; Sangwan et al, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ).…”

“…Scale development studies should check the reliability values for each item before performing the validity analyses (Çelik & Bindak, 2005 ). When examining the relevant literature, however, only the reliability for the whole scale was shown (Jung & Lee, 2022 ), even though the reliability coefficients should also be reported for each factor (Chang et al, 2021 ; Kisanga & Ireson, 2016 ; Jung & Lee, 2022 ; Sangwan et al, 2021 ; Seema et al, 2022 ; Siddiquei & Khalid, 2021 ; Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2016 ).…”