This study aims to establish a robust measurement to obtain a comprehensive understanding of perceptions of programming education (POPE) of teacher and principal groups. In this study, the POPE scale contains three dimensions: (a) understanding in programming (UP), (b) support for programming (SP), and (c) expectation of programming (EP). Self-reported questionnaires were administrated among 258 teachers and 229 principals. Multigroup analyses were used among the two groups. The results of measurement invariance tests show that configural and metric invariance are fully supported, and scalar invariance is partially supported, suggesting the factor structures, loadings, and most item intercepts of the POPE scale are equivalent across the groups examined. Implications of the study are discussed.
BalanskatA.EngelhardtK. (2014). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding-priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet.
2.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
3.
BiernackiP.WaldorfD. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 141-163.
4.
ByrneB. M.StewartS. M. (2006). Teacher’s corner: The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 287-321.
5.
CharltonJ. P.BirkettP. E. (1999). An integrative model of factors related to computing course performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 237-257.
6.
ChenF. F.SousaK. H.WestS. G. (2005). Teacher’s corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492.
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
8.
ChristensenR. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 411-433.
9.
CofflandD. A.StricklandA. W. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23, 347-365.
10.
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121-149.
11.
EisenbergerR.StinglhamberF. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12.
FantiniM. D. (2001). A contemporary approach to individualization. Theory Into Practice, 19, 28-31.
13.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38-43.
14.
HairJ. F.Jr.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
15.
HeckR. H.LarsenT. J.MarcoulidesG. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125.
16.
HeflinH.ShewmakerJ.NguyenJ. (2017). Impact of mobile technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning. Computers & Education, 107, 91-99.
17.
IsabelleC.LapointeC. (2003). Start at the top: Successfully integrating information and communication technologies in schools by training principals. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49, 123-137.
18.
JimoyiannisA.KomisV. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation program. Teacher Development, 11, 149-173.
19.
JöreskogK. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426.
20.
KennyD. A.KashyD.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
KimY.GrabowskiB. L.SongH. D. (2003, April). Science teachers’ perspectives of web-enhanced problem-based learning environment: A qualitative inquiry. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475713.pdf
22.
KongS. C. (2018). Parents’ perceptions of e-learning in school education: Implications for the partnership between schools and parents. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27, 15-31.
23.
KongS. C.LaiM.SheldonJ.TissenbaumM. (2017). The design and evaluation of a teacher development program in computational thinking education. In KongS. C.SheldonJ.LiK. Y. (Eds.), Conference proceedings of international conference on computational thinking education (pp. 77-80). Hong Kong:
The Education University of Hong Kong.
24.
KoufterosX.BabbarS.KaighobadiM. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633-652.
25.
LiQ. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 377-397.
26.
LindsayP. H.NormanD. A. (1977). Human information processing: An introduction to psychology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
27.
MarkauskaiteL. (2007). Exploring the structure of trainee teachers’ ICT literacy: The main components of, and relationships between, general cognitive and technical capabilities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 547-572.
28.
MartinovicD.ZhangZ. (2012). Situating ICT in the teacher education program: Overcoming challenges, fulfilling expectations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 461-469.
29.
MilfontT. L.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 112-131.
30.
MulaikS. A.JamesL. R.Van AlstineJ.BennettN.LindS.StilwellC. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
31.
NgW.NicholasH.WilliamsA. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service teachers’ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 278-289.
32.
OrtizR. W.GreenT.LimH. (2011). Families and home computer use: Exploring parent perceptions of the importance of current technology. Urban Education, 46, 202-215.
33.
PapaioannouP.CharalambousK. (2011). Principals’ attitudes toward ICT and their perceptions about the factors that facilitate or inhibit ICT integration in primary schools of Cyprus. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 349-369.
34.
PickensJ. (2005). Attitudes and perceptions. In BorkowskiN. (Ed.), Organizational behavior (pp. 43-76). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
35.
PitzerJ.SkinnerE. (2017). Predictors of changes in students’ motivational resilience over the school year: The roles of teacher support, self-appraisals, and emotional reactivity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41, 15-29.
36.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
37.
PolizziG. (2011). Measuring school principals’ support for ICT integration in Palermo, Italy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3, 113-122.
38.
PriceH. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 39-85.
39.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90.
40.
RehmatA. P.BaileyJ. M. (2014). Technology integration in a science classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 744-755.
41.
Rubie-DaviesC. M. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is there a relationship?British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 121-135.
42.
SandlundM.DockK.HägerC. K.WaterworthE. L. (2012). Motion interactive video games in home training for children with cerebral palsy: parents’ perceptions. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34, 925-933.
43.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243-248.
44.
SchillerJ. (2003). Working with ICT: Perceptions of Australian principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 171-185.
45.
TeoT.LeeC. B.ChaiC. S.WongS. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53, 1000-1009.
46.
TondeurJ.Van KeerH.van BraakJ.ValckeM. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education, 51, 212-223.
47.
WhiteC. (1995). The place for technology in a constructivist teacher education program. In WillisD.RobinB.WillisJ. (Eds.), Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 290-293). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
48.
WilkinsJ. L. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139-164.
49.
WilsonT. D.LindseyS.SchoolerT. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126.
50.
WoodE.BennettN. (2000). Changing theories, changing practice: Exploring early childhood teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 635-647.
51.
YamamotoY.HollowayS. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 189-214.
52.
YukselturkE.AltiokS. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with scratch on the preservice it teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes toward computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 789-801.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
