Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 37 no. 6 (2025)

A Scale Development on Teaching Special Program of the Arts: An Exploratory Factor Analysis

Janeth Melancolico

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Teaching the Special Program of the Arts (S.P.A.) in an online setting can be challenging due to the performance-based nature of most learning competencies. This quantitative scale development study employed the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to establish a robust scale for teaching S.P.A. by integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into S.P.A. distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a standardized instrument, surveys were conducted to 95 randomly selected S.P.A. teachers. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed three distinct underlying factors, forming a multidimensional framework. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure, assessing sample adequacy, yielded a strong result, surpassing the widely accepted threshold and confirming the suitability of the data for EFA. Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically significant, indicating structured correlations among the variables in the data set. The scree plot provided compelling evidence of a multidimensional framework for the instrument under study. The Rotated Component Matrix identified three key factors defining S.P.A. teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: strategic online transitions in teaching, relevance of online teaching methods, and the relative advantage of online instruction. The result implies the feasibility of online instruction for arts education. Future development of scale studies on exploring and implementing hybrid models of education that integrate online teaching is recommended.



References:

  1. Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2023). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: the challenges and opportunities. Interactive learning environments, 31(2), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
  2. Ahmed, S. K. (2024). How to choose a sampling technique and determine sample size for research: a simplified guide for researchers. Oral Oncology Reports, 12, 100662. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oor.2024.100662
  3. Alenezi, M., Wardat, S., & Akour, M. (2023). The need of integrating digital education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Sustainability, 15(6), 4782. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064782
  4. Almakaty, S. S. (2024). New Trends in Communication and Media Education in the Digital Age: A Global Analysis and Comparison Study. Almakaty, S. S. (2024). New Trends in Communication and Media Education in the Digital Age: A Global Analysis and Comparison Study.
  5. Baber, H. (2022). Social interaction and effectiveness of the online learning–A moderating role of maintaining social distance during the pandemic COVID-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 11(1), 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0209
  6. Bahkia, A. S., Awang, Z., Afthanorhan, A., Ghazali, P. L., & Foziah, H. (2019, August). Exploratory factor analysis on occupational stress in context of Malaysian sewerage operations. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2138, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5121111
  7. Bartlett, M. S. (1951). The effect of standardization on a Chi-square approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 337-344. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/38.3-4.337
  8. Basti, M., & Madadizadeh, F. (2021). A beginner’s guide to sampling methods in medical research. Critical Comments in Biomedicine, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.18502/ccb.v2i2.7397
  9. Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020). COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Computers in human behavior, 111, 106424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424
  10. Boafo, E.B., (2017). The Use Of I.C.T. In Teaching And Learning In Seminaries: A Case Study Of Trinity Theological Seminary, Accra, Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana). https://www.eduproject.com.ng/business-administration/the-use-of-ict-in-teaching-and-learning-in-seminaries-a-case-study-of-trinity-theological-seminary-accra-ghana/index.html
  11. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Education in normal, new normal, and next normal: Observations from the past, insights from the present and projections for the future. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), i-x. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-642X
  12. Carmen, C.D.O.C., (2017). Assessment on Special Program in the Arts Implementing Guidelines: Basis for a Toolkit Design. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7828/jmds.v8i1.1527
  13. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate behavioral research, 1(2), 245-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  14. Caulfield, J. (2023). How to design and teach a hybrid course: Achieving student-centered learning through blended classroom, online and experiential activities. Taylor & Francis. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cps_fac/16/
  15. Cavalcanti, A. P., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y. S., Gašević, D., & Mello, R. F. (2021). Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027
  16. Cavinato, A. G., Hunter, R. A., Ott, L. S., & Robinson, J. K. (2021). Promoting student interaction, engagement, and success in an online environment. doi: 10.1007/s00216-021-03178-x. PMID: 33479816.
  17. Cerny, C.A., & Kaiser, H.F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43-47. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3. PMID: 26804143.
  18. Crossman, A. (2018). Understanding Purposive Sampling: An Overview of the Method and Its Applications. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727. https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
  19. Cunnington, S., Codner, A., Nelson, E., McGrath, D., & Greece, J. A. (2023). The shifting public health landscape and virtual learning environment: The effectiveness of practice-based teaching delivered in-person, virtual, and hybrid. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 2867. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20042867. PMID: 36833564; PMCID: PMC9957512.
  20. Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Psychological Bulletin, 81, 358-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316
  21. Espelt, R. (2023). Digital platforms, gender & cultural policy: The Berlin-Barcelona nexus. Analysis of the challenges in cultural public policies for promoting inclusive digitalization. In Workshop: Digital Platforms, Gender & Cultural Policy, Berlin, 28 setembre 2023. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). https://openaccess.uoc.edu/handle/10609/149395?locale=es
  22. Ebbini, E. (2023). Enhancing Collaborative and Self-Paced Learning in Traditional and Distance Education Settings. In Higher Education in the Arab World: E-Learning and Distance Education (pp. 223-245). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783031335686-12
  23. Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Guzzo, T. (2020). Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations. Societies, 10(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc10040086
  24. Fuentes, J. M., & Gono, E. R. (2023). FACTORS CHARACTERIZING STUDENTS ATTITUDE TOWARD LEARNING SOCIAL STUDIES: AN EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. European Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 8(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v8i4.1433
  25. Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135-1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354
  26. Gono Jr, E. R., & Pacoy, E. P. (2021). Redefinition of the Parameters of Meaningful Mathematics Learning. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(13), 6524-6542. https://doi.org/10.17762/turcomat.v12i13.9994
  27. Gono, E. J., & Sales, S. L. T. (2024). Dimensionality of Strategies in Learning Mathematics among Engineering Students: An Exploratory Factor Analysis. TWIST, 19(1), 445-453. https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/180
  28. Gono Jr, E. R. (2024). DETERMINING THE STUDENTS’ATTITUDE TOWARDS RESEARCH: AN EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. European Journal of Education Studies, 11(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v11i6.5338.
  29. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable operations and computers, 3, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
  30. Hamdan, K., & Amorri, A. (2022). The impact of online learning strategies on students’ academic performance. E-learning and digital Education in the twenty-first century, 1-20. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.94425
  31. Hastuti, K. P., Angriani, P., Alviawati, E., & Arisanty, D. (2021, May). The perspective of geography education students on the implementation of online learning during covid-19 pandemic. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 747, No. 1, p. 012012). IOP Publishing. DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/747/1/012012
  32. Hoque, A., Awang, Z., Jusoff, K., Salleh, F., & Muda, H. (2017). Social business efficiency: Instrument development and validation procedure using structural equation modeling. International Business Management, 11(1), 222-231. 33. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2311975
  33. Hoque, A. S. M. M., Siddiqui, B. A., Awang, Z., & Baharu, S. M. A. T. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Context of Bangladeshi Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236437816.pdf
  34. Jain, S., Lall, M., & Singh, A. (2021). Teachers’ voices on the impact of COVID-19 on school education: Are ed-tech companies really the panacea?. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 18(1), 58-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/097318492097643
  35. Kumar, P., Saxena, C., & Baber, H. (2021). Learner-content interaction in e-learning-the moderating role of perceived harm of COVID-19 in assessing the satisfaction of learners. Smart Learning Environments, 8(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-021-00149-8
  36. Kumbo, L. I., Mero, R. F., & Hayuma, B. J. (2023). Navigating the digital frontier: Innovative pedagogies for effective technology integration in education. The Journal of Informatics, 3(1), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.59645/tji.v3i1.142
  37. Lai, H. M., Hsieh, P. J., Uden, L., & Yang, C. H. (2021). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing university students’ behavioral engagement in flipped classrooms. Computers & Education, 175, 104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104318
  38. Lawrence, J. E., & Tar, U. A. (2018). Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process. Educational Media International, 55(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712
  39. Leo, S., Alsharari, N. M., Abbas, J., & Alshurideh, M. T. (2021). From offline to online learning: A qualitative study of challenges and opportunities as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UAE higher education context. The effect of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on business intelligence, 203-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67151-8_12
  40. Leocario, R. E., Ed, M. A., & Pawilen, G. T. (2015). Implementation of the special program in the arts curriculum in a public secondary school. Alipato: A Journal of Basic Education, 6. https://www.journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/ali/article/view/4545
  41. Li, D. (2022). The Shift to Online Classes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Benefits, Challenges, and Required Improvements from the Students’ Perspective. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.1.2106
  42. Lusdoc, C.S. and Namoco, R.A., 2019. Selecting an S.P.A. (special program in the arts) major for high school students using A.H.P. combined with interest inventory. International Journal of Innovative Research in Education, 6(1), pp.1-11. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijire.v6i1.4118
  43. Marcial, D.E. & Rama, P.A., 2015. I.C.T. competency level of teacher education professionals in the Central Visayas Region, Philippines. Asia Pacific journal of multidisciplinary research, 3(5), pp.28-38. https://oaji.net/articles/2016/1543-1464845324.pdf
  44. Mathrani, A., Sarvesh, T., & Umer, R. (2022). Digital divide framework: online learning in developing countries during the COVID-19 lockdown. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(5), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1981253
  45. Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2020). MOOC-based educational program and interaction in distance education: long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1022-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1553188
  46. Müller, C., & Mildenberger, T. (2021). Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educational Research Review, 34, 100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394
  47. Mumtaz, N., Saqulain, G., & Mumtaz, N. (2021). Online academics in Pakistan: COVID-19 and beyond. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(1), 283. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-6744
  48. Naidoo, N., Azar, A. J., Khamis, A. H., Gholami, M., Lindsbro, M., Alsheikh-Ali, A., & Banerjee, Y. (2021). Design, implementation, and evaluation of a distance learning framework to adapt to the changing landscape of anatomy instruction in medical education during COVID-19 pandemic: a proof-of-concept study. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 726814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.726814
  49. Noor, N. M., Aziz, A. A., Mostapa, M. R., & Awang, Z. (2015). Validation of the Malay version of the Inventory of Functional Status after Childbirth questionnaire. BioMed research international, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/972728
  50. Panday‐Shukla, P. (2024). Comparing an open educational resource and a traditional textbook: Learner outcomes and engagement. Foreign Language Annals, 57(2), 425-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12727
  51. Paudel, T. (2023). Teaching Practices for Engaged Mathematics Learning with ICT Tools: An Educator’s Perspectives. Pragyaratna प्रज्ञारत्न, 5(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.3126/pragyaratna.v5i1.59279
  52. Pavlou, V., & Castro-Varela, A. (2024). E-Learning Canvases: Navigating the Confluence of Online Arts Education and Sustainable Pedagogies in Teacher Education. Sustainability, 16(5), 1741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051741
  53. Peimani, N., & Kamalipour, H. (2021). Online education and the COVID-19 outbreak: A case study of online teaching during lockdown. Education Sciences, 11(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020072
  54. Perera, R. H. A. T., & Abeysekera, N. (2022). Factors affecting learners’ perception of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-10-2021-0124
  55. Pham, T. T. T., Le, H. A., & Do, D. T. (2021). The Factors Affecting Students’ Online Learning Outcomes during the COVID‐19 Pandemic: A Bayesian Exploratory Factor Analysis. Education Research International, 2021(1), 2669098. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2669098
  56. Ponnusamy, S., & Eswararaj, D. (2023). Navigating the Modernization of Legacy Applications and Data: Effective Strategies and Best Practices. Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science, 16(4), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrcos/2023/v16i4386
  57. Rautela, S., Sharma, S., & Virani, S. (2022). Learner-learner interactions in online classes during COVID-19 pandemic: the mediating role of social media in the higher education context. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093917
  58. Salunke, S. (2023). Information And Communication Technology (ICT In Education). Academic Guru Publishing House. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212318
  59. Seçer, İ. (2015). Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL. Ankara: Anı Press https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289803024_SPSS_VE_LISREL_ILE_PRATIK_VERI_ANALIZI_ANALIZ_VE_RAPORLASTIRMA
  60. Şencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in social and behavioural measurements. Ankara: Seçkin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9597061/
  61. Sharma, A., Bharti, & Pandey, A. (2024). Unleashing the Potential of Technology-Driven Learning Management Systems for Student-Centric Excellence to Empower Higher Education. Engineering Proceedings, 59(1), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2023059195
  62. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American journal of Applied Mathematics and statistics, 9(1), 4-11. DOI: 10.12691/ajams-9-1-2
  63. Sinclair, P. M., Kable, A., Oldmeadow, C. J., & Wilson, A. (2024). Satisfaction with asynchronous e-learning: An exploratory factor analysis of the Learner Satisfaction with Asynchronous e-Learning (LSAeL) instrument. Nurse education in practice, 75, 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2024.103897
  64. Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1989). Statistical Methods, Eighth Edition, Iowa State University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2408116
  65. Soler-Costa, R., Lafarga-Ostáriz, P., Mauri-Medrano, M., & Moreno-Guerrero, A. J. (2021). Netiquette: Ethic, education, and behavior on internet—a systematic literature review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(3), https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031212
  66. Sürücü, L., Yıkılmaz, İ., & Maşlakçı, A. (2022). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in quantitative researches and practical considerations. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(2), 947-965. https://doi.org/10.37989/gumussagbil.1183271
  67. Sysoieva, S. (2022). Trends in digital adaptation of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 91(5), 21-35. doi: 10.33407/itlt.v91i5.5063.
  68. Turk, M. (2022). Measuring online student engagement in higher education: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. https://hdl.handle.net/11244/335591
  69. Ulanday, M. L., Centeno, Z. J., Bayla, M. C., & Callanta, J. (2021). Flexible learning adaptabilities in the new normal: E-learning resources, digital meeting platforms, online learning systems and learning engagement. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(2). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9306-5596
  70. Umar, I.N. and Hassan, A.S.A., 2015. Malaysian teachers’ levels of I.C.T. integration and its perceived impact on teaching and learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.586
  71. Uzoka, A., Cadet, E., & Ojukwu, P. U. (2024). The role of telecommunications in enabling Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity and applications. Comprehensive Research and Reviews in Science and Technology, 2(02), 055-073. https://doi.org/10.57219/crrst.2024.2.2.0037
  72. Vahed, A., & Rodriguez, K. (2021). Enriching students’ engaged learning experiences through the collaborative online international learning project. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(5), 596-605. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1792331
  73. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  74. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27 (3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  75. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. & Xu, X. (2016). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (5), 328-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
  76. Wang, M., Wang, M., Cui, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). Art teachers’ attitudes toward online learning: an empirical study using self determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 627095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.627095
  77. Wetzel, A. P. (2011). Factor analysis methods and validity evidence: a systematic review of instrument development across the continuum of medical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Virginia Commonwealth University. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31825d305d
  78. Wut, T. M., Wong, H. S. M., & Sum, C. K. M. (2024). A study of continuance use intention of an on online learning system after coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(4), 946-960. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2051696
  79. Yahaya, T., Idris, K., Suandi, T., & Ismail, I. (2018). Adapting instruments and modifying statements: The confirmation method for the inventory and model for information sharing behavior using social media. Management Science Letters, 8(5), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.4.021
  80. Yuxing, X. (2024). The Present Situation and Efficiency Improvement Strategy of Dance Art Education in the Digital Age. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology, 7(2), 200-205. https://dx.doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2024.070230
  81. Zahariev, P., Bencheva, N., Hristov, G. and Ruseva, Y., 2013, May. I.C.T. convergence challenges in education and their impact on both instructors and students. In 2013 24th EAEEIE Annual Conference (EAEEIE 2013) (pp. 193-197). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EAEEIE.2013.6576528
  82. Zhou, T., Lu, Y. & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (4), 760-767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.013
  83. Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart learning environments, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2 

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic