Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers
The main purpose of this study is to develop a teaching framework for pre-servicemathematics teachers. Specifically, this study validates the items that measure the constructs ofthe Teaching Framework for Pre-service Mathematics Teachers (TF@Maths) and examines whethermathematics content knowledge (...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | thesis |
| Language: | eng |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5092 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:5092 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
uketd_dc |
| institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| collection |
UPSI Digital Repository |
| language |
eng |
| topic |
QA Mathematics |
| spellingShingle |
QA Mathematics Liew, Lee Chan Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| description |
The main purpose of this study is to develop a teaching framework for pre-servicemathematics teachers. Specifically, this study validates the items that measure the constructs ofthe Teaching Framework for Pre-service Mathematics Teachers (TF@Maths) and examines whethermathematics content knowledge (MCK), mathematical pedagogical knowledge (MPK), general pedagogicalknowledge (GPK), classroom management skills (CMS), and mathematical disposition (MDP)significantly relate to quality mathematics teacher (QMT). This study employed a quantitativeapproach to look at the constructs of a quality mathematics teacher from the perspective of thepre-service teachers. Data were collected using a questionnaire from a sample of 400 students whichwere randomly selected from three Public Universities (PUs) and seven Institutes of TeacherEducation (ITEs). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied to analyse the data. The resultsreveal an acceptable fit of the TF@Maths framework with satisfactory convergent validity,discriminant validity and reliability. All confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models achievedconvergent validity with Average Variance Extracted above 0.50 and the value of constructreliability exceeded 0.70. These indicated that all items of each constructs could measure the sametraits. The Structural Equation Modeling analysis indicated significant overall fit of the modeland the discriminant validity showed that all correlation coefficient values were less than 0.90which indicated that all constructs were different significantly. The results also showed that MCK,MPK, GPK, CMS, and MDP are significant predictors of QMT. In conclusion, this study showed thatTF@Maths is well fitted and can be accepted as a valid and reliable instrument to determine aquality mathematics teacher. The study implicates that the TF@Maths framework and findings couldprovide a new instrument to help stakeholders in designing mathematics curriculum. |
| format |
thesis |
| qualification_name |
|
| qualification_level |
Master's degree |
| author |
Liew, Lee Chan |
| author_facet |
Liew, Lee Chan |
| author_sort |
Liew, Lee Chan |
| title |
Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| title_short |
Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| title_full |
Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| title_fullStr |
Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| title_sort |
development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers |
| granting_institution |
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris |
| granting_department |
Fakulti Sains dan Matematik |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| url |
https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5092 |
| _version_ |
1747833167370256384 |
| spelling |
oai:ir.upsi.edu.my:50922020-08-11 Development of a teaching framework for pre-service mathematics teachers 2018 Liew, Lee Chan QA Mathematics The main purpose of this study is to develop a teaching framework for pre-servicemathematics teachers. Specifically, this study validates the items that measure the constructs ofthe Teaching Framework for Pre-service Mathematics Teachers (TF@Maths) and examines whethermathematics content knowledge (MCK), mathematical pedagogical knowledge (MPK), general pedagogicalknowledge (GPK), classroom management skills (CMS), and mathematical disposition (MDP)significantly relate to quality mathematics teacher (QMT). This study employed a quantitativeapproach to look at the constructs of a quality mathematics teacher from the perspective of thepre-service teachers. Data were collected using a questionnaire from a sample of 400 students whichwere randomly selected from three Public Universities (PUs) and seven Institutes of TeacherEducation (ITEs). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was applied to analyse the data. The resultsreveal an acceptable fit of the TF@Maths framework with satisfactory convergent validity,discriminant validity and reliability. All confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models achievedconvergent validity with Average Variance Extracted above 0.50 and the value of constructreliability exceeded 0.70. These indicated that all items of each constructs could measure the sametraits. The Structural Equation Modeling analysis indicated significant overall fit of the modeland the discriminant validity showed that all correlation coefficient values were less than 0.90which indicated that all constructs were different significantly. The results also showed that MCK,MPK, GPK, CMS, and MDP are significant predictors of QMT. In conclusion, this study showed thatTF@Maths is well fitted and can be accepted as a valid and reliable instrument to determine aquality mathematics teacher. The study implicates that the TF@Maths framework and findings couldprovide a new instrument to help stakeholders in designing mathematics curriculum. 2018 thesis https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5092 https://ir.upsi.edu.my/detailsg.php?det=5092 text eng closedAccess Masters Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Fakulti Sains dan Matematik Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Best evidence synthesis: Quality teaching for diverse studentsin schooling. Wellington: Ministry of Education.Anthony, G., & Walshaw, M. (2009). Characteristics of effective teaching of mathematics: A viewfrom the West. Journal of Mathematics Education, 2(2), 147-164.Asri, R. (2005). Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.Australian Association of Mathematics Teacher. (2006). Standards for Excellence in TeachingMathematics in Australian School. Adelaide: The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc.Ausubel, D. P. (1967). A cognitive structure theory of school learning. Instruction: SomeContemporary Viewpoints. San Francisco: Chandler.Awang, Z. (2012). A Handbook on SEM (Structural Equation Modeling), Using AMOS Graphic. Kota Bharu:Universiti Teknologi Mara Kelantan.Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structuralequation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34.Ball, D., Bass, H., & Hill, H. (2004). Knowing and using mathematical knowledge in teaching:Learning what matters. In Proceedings for the 12th Annual Conference of the South AfricanAssociation for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Durban: SAARMSTE.Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2009). Shaping the future: How good education systems can become greatin the decade ahead. Report on the International Education Roundtable, 7.Barlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determiningappropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and PerformanceJournal, 19(1), 43.Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2008). Pupils’ attitudes towards school science asthey transfer from an ICT-rich primary school to a secondary school with fewer ICT resources: DoesICT matter? Education and Information Technologies, 13(2), 103-118. doi: 10.1007/s10639-007-9053-5Bernardo, A. B. (1998). The learning process: The neglected phenomenon in science and mathematicseducation refrom in the Philippines. Science Education in the Philippnines: Challenges forDevelopment, 27-28.Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices.2nd edition. Zurich, Switzerland: Creative Commons Attribution.Bolyard, J. J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2008). A review of the literature on mathematics andscience teacher quality. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(4), 509-535.Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, K. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Brophy, J. E. (1983). Classroom organization and management. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4),265-285.Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: GuilfordPublications.Brownell, W. A. (2007). The progressive nature of learning in mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher,100, 26-34.Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Bruning, R. H., Schraw, J. G., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology andinstruction. Columbus, OH: Pearson.Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, andprogramming. UK: Routledge.Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, D., & Robinson, W. (2012). Assessing teacher effectiveness:different models. UK: Routledge.Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding.Mathematics Classrooms That Promote Understanding, 19-32.Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in thestreets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-29.Casey, C., & Childs, R. (2017). Teacher education program admission criteria and what beginningteachers need to know to be successful teachers. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration andPolicy, (67).Cha, E., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross culturalresearch: issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(4), 386-395.Chua, Y. P. (2012). Mastering research methods. Malaysia: Mcgraw-Hill Education.Chua, Y. P. (2014). Statistik Penyelidikan Lanjutan: Ujian Regresi, Analisis Faktor dan analisisSem. Malaysia: McGraw Hill (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.Coakes, S. J., Steed, L. G., Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. G. (2003). Multiple response and multipledichotomy analysis. SPSS: Analysis without Anguish: Version 11.0 for Windows, 215-224.Cox. (2004). What sort of of “teacher training” do mathematics lecturers want? MSOR Connections,4(4), 23-26.Creswell, J. W. (2005). Research design: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative andqualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 8, 1.Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachersshould learn and be able to do. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Dienes, Z. P. (1969). Building up mathematics. United Kingdom: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd..Doyle, W. (1985). Recent Research on Classroom Management Implications for Teacher Education.Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 31-35.Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving scienceteaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688.Elliot, S. N. (2000). Education Pycology:Effective Teaching and Effective Learning.Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.Gagné, R. M. (1975). Essentials of learning for instruction. New York: Dryden Press.Gao, S., Mokhtarian, P., & Johnston, R. (2008). Nonnormality of data in structural equation models.Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2082(1), 116-124.Garson, G. D. (2012a). Structural Equation Modeling. Asheboro, NC: Statistical AssociatesPublishing.Garson, G. D. (2012b). Testing statistical assumptions. Asheboro, NC: Statistical AssociatesPublishing.Gaskin, J. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. Gaskination’s StatWiki. Retrieved fromhttp://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/wiki /Structural_Equation_ Modeling# MediationGates, P., & Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2003). Is mathematics for all? In Second international handbook ofmathematics education (pp. 31-73). New York: Springer, Dordrecht.Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysisand applications, student value edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Ghazali, D., & Sufean, H. (2016). Metodologi penyelidikan dalam pendidikan: amalan dan analisiskajian. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.Goh, P. S. C. (2012). The Malaysian Teacher Standards: A look at the challenges and implicationsfor teacher educators. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(2), 73-87.Goh, P. S. C. (2013). Conceptions of Competency: A Phenomenographic Investigation of BeginningTeachers in Malaysia. Qualitative Report, 18(20), 1-16.Goh, P. S., & Matthews, B. (2011). Listening to the concerns of student teachers in Malaysia duringteaching practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 36(3), 12.Graham, K. J., Li, Y., & Buck, J. C. (2000). Characteristics of mathematics teacherpreparation programs in the United States: An exploratory study. Mathematics Educator. RetrievedJune 20, 2016, from: http://math.nie.edu.sg/ame /matheduc/ tme/ tmeV5_12/ Doc2.pdfGrasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: Enhancing learning by understanding teaching andlearning styles. Pittsburgh. PA: Alliance Publishers.Groenland, E. A. G., & Stalpers, J. (2012). Structural equation modeling: A verbal approachNyenrode Research Paper Series. Breukelen, The Netherlands, Nyenrode Business University.Gwinner, C. (2006). Infosurv white paper 5-point vs. 6-point likert scales. Infosurv OnlineResearch Service. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http:// www.infosurv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Likert_Scale_Debate.pdfHair, J. F. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): guidelines on itsapplication as a marketing research tool. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (5thed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J. (2010). RE Anderson Multivariate data analysis: A globalperspective. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Hatcher, R. L., & Barends, A. W. (1996). Patients’ view of the alliance in psychotherapy:Exploratory factor analysis of three alliance measures. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 64(6), 1326.Heid, M. K. (2005). Technology in mathematics education: Tapping into visions of the future.Technology-Supported Mathematics Learning Environments, 67, 345.Hill. (1990). Order in the Classroom. Teacher Magazine 1(7), 70-77.Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge forteaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis andinterpretation with SPSS. Florida: CRC Press.JPNIN, J. P. M. (2016). JPNIN Negeri Mengikut Zon-zon. Retrieved from http://www.jpnin.gov.my/enKaino, L. M. (2015). Towards a Framework for Effective Mathematics Continuous ProfessionalDevelopment. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(1), 223-228.Kinoshita. (2000). Kyoto academia turns to private sector for help. Retrieved fromhttp://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/0605so13.htmKirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research.Califonia: Sage Publications Inc.Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling.Califonia: Sage Publications Inc.Krejcie, R. V, & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educationaland psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.Lee, M. N. N. (2002). Teacher education in Malaysia: Current issues and future prospects. TeacherEducation: Dilemmas and Prospects, 8, 57.Lei, P., & Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practicalconsiderations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33-43.Leong, K. E., Chew, C. M., & Suzieleez, S. A. R. (2015). Understanding Malaysian Pre-ServiceTeachers Mathematical Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Eurasia Journal ofMathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 363-370. doi: 10.12973/eurasia. 2015.1346aLim, S. K., & Chan, T. B. (1993). A case study comparing the learning of mathematics among Malaypupils in primary national schools and primary national schools. Journal of Science and MathematicsEducation in South East Asia.Lomax, R. G., & Schumacker, R. E. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. UK:Psychology Press.Lucas. (2000). Hong Kong set to abandon rote learning. The Financial Times.Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/louise-lucasLynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. NursingResearch, 35(6), 382-386.Maat, S. M., & Zakaria, E. (2011). Hubungan antara kepercayaan matematik, amalan pengajaran danpengetahuan pedagogi kandungan guru-guru matematik sekolah menengah. (Unpublished doctoral thesis):Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.Maat, S. M., Zakaria, E., Nordin, N. M., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis ofthe mathematics teachers’ teaching practices instrument. World Applied Sciences Journal, 12(11),2092-2096.MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis.Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84.Malaysia Education Blueprint, M. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 - 2025.Ministry of Education Malaysia, 27(1), 1-268. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007Malaysia Ministry of Education. (2016). PISA 2015. Putrajaya: Bahagian Perancangan dan PenyelidikanDasar Pendidikan, KPM.MATHTED & SEI. (2011). Framework for Philippine Mathematics Teacher Education. Manila: SEI-DOST &MATHTED.Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations forconducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168.Nagendralingan, R., Chang, L. H., Maria, S., Low, J., Nagalingam, K., Ainon, O., ...& Abdul, T. M. H. (2014). Curriculum framework for preparing quality teachers for the future:Developing guiding principles. Journal of Research, Policy & Practice of Teachers & TeacherEducation, 4(2), 32-44.Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size forprevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1, 9-14.National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for SchoolMathematics. New York: Guilford Press.National Institute of Education, S. (2007). Mathematics Framework. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nie.edu.sg/research/research-offices/office-of-education-research/research-development-framework/mathematicsNational Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics.Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. DC: National Academies Press Washington.NCTM. (1991). Professional Standard of Teaching Mathematics. VA: The Council.Nik Aziz, N. P. (1999). Pendekatan konstruktivisme radikal dalam pendidikan matematik. KualaLumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.Noor Shah, S., Mohd, D., & Zulkifley, M. (2013). Pengetahuan dalam kalangan guru matematik sekolahrendah berdasarkan standard pengajaran matematik. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia,3(2), 43-62.Noor Shah, S., Nor’ain, M. T., Zulkifley, M., Muzirah, M., & Lim, K. B. (2009).Standard Kecemerlangan Pengajaran Matematik (SET@MATH): Satu Cadangan bagi Meningkatkan KualitiPengajaran Guru Matematik. UPSI: Fakulti Sains & Teknologi.Noor Shah, S., & Sazelli, A. G. (2010). Teaching Mathematics in Secondary School: Theories andPractices. UPSI: Ampang Press Sdn. Bhd.Noraini, I. (2006). Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications &Distributors Sdn Bhd.Noraini, I. (2013). Penyelidikan dalam pendidikan (Edisi Kedua). Kuala Lumpur: McGraw Hill.Norhayati, A., Aida Suraya, M. Y., Rohani, A. T., Kamisah, O., & Lilia, H. (2006).Perancangan Kurikulum Pendidikan Matematik. OUM: Meteor Doc. Snd. Bhd.Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. UK: Cambridge University.Oke, A. E., Ogunsami, D. R., & Ogunlana, S. (2012). Establishing a common ground for the use ofstructural equation modelling for construction related research studies. Australasian Journal ofConstruction Economics and Building,12(3), 89.Oluwatayo, J. A. (2012). Validity and reliability issues in educational research.Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(2), 391-400.Onno, D. J., & Lilia, H. (2009). Teachers’ professional knowledge in science and mathematicseducation: Views from Malaysia and abroad. Bangi: Faculty of Education, Universiti KebangsaanMalaysia.Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual, 3rd. Edition. New York: McGrath Hill.Pallant, J. F. (2000). Development and validation of a scale to measure perceived control ofinternal states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 308-337.Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/232574518_The_theory_of_stages_in_ cognitive_developmentPutnam, R. T., Heaton, R. M., Prawat, R. S., & Remillard, J. (1992). Teaching mathematics forunderstanding: Discussing case studies of four fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal,93(2), 213-228.Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Critical issues and newdevelopments. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41-71.Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement.Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.Sam, F. (2015). Self-regulated Learning Predictors of Academic Performance and Strategies inResolving Barriers to Learning. (Unpublished PhD thesis): Faculty of Education and HumanDevelopment, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak.Saunders, M. N. K. (2011). Research methods for business students. 5th edition. India: PearsonEducation Limited.SEAMEO RECSAM. (2016a). Malaysian Mathematics Teacher Quality Standards.Peneng: Publication Unit, SEAMEO RECSAM.SEAMEO RECSAM. (2016b). Southeast Asia Regional Standards-Mathematics Teacher (SEARS-MT). Peneng:Publication Unit, SEAMEO RECSAM.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th edition.Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Inc.Tajudin, N. M., Saad, N. S., Rahman, N. A., Yahaya, A., Alimon, H., Dollah, M. U., & Abd Karim, M.M. (2012). Mapping the level of scientific reasoning skills to instructional methodologies amongMalaysian science-mathematics-engineering undergraduates. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1450,pp. 262-265). AIP.Tam, W., & Cheng, Y. C. (2007). Teacher education and professional development for sustainableschool effectiveness. International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement, pp. 751-766.New York: Springer, Dordrecht.Turmudi. (2001). Strategi Pembelajaran Matematika Kontemporer. Bandung:JICAUPI.Vagias, W. M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. USA: Clemson International Institute forTourism & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. ClemsonUniversity.Vethamani, M. E. (2011). Teacher education in Malaysia: Preparing and training of English languageteacher educators. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 8(4), 85-110.Von Glasersfeld, E. (1991). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical.In Facets of systems science (pp. 229-238). New York: Springer, Dordrecht.Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2004). The development and validation of the organisationalinnovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis. European Journal of InnovationManagement, 7(4), 303-313.Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review.Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.Wilson, K. L., Lizzio, A., & Ramsden, P. (1997). The development, validation and application of theCourse Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33-53.Yunus, A. S. M., Hamzah, R., & Ismail, H. (2007). Mathematics Education Program in MalaysianUniversities: Curriculum Emphasis and Preparedness of Students to Become Teachers. Proceedings ofthe Ninth International Conference-The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project, 6(Grade7), 425-430.Zainudin, A. (2015). SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling.Bangi: MPWS Rich Publication.Zeichner, K. M., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERApanel on research and teacher education. UK: Routledge.Zhao, J., & Gallant, D. J. (2012). Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: Exploringissues of validity and reliability. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 227-235.Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journalof Cambridge Studies, 4 (1), 73-81. doi: 10.17863 / CAM.1579Zuraidah, Z. (2014). The Effects Of Customer-Brand Relationship Investment OnCustomer Engagement (Unpublised PhD Thesis): Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.Zuraidah, Z. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ): A Step By Step Approach (PART 1).Retrieved from https://www.researchgate. net/ profile/ Zuraidah_ Zainol /contributions. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1238.6809 |