Chapter 3

80

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Research is an investigation of finding solutions to scientific and social problems

through objective and systematic analysis. Research can lead to new contributions to the

existing knowledge. Research can be done with the help of study, experiment, observation,

analysis, comparison and reasoning. The prime objective of research is to analyze an event

or process or phenomenon to identify the cause-and-effect relationship of a particular

problem. According to Mouly (1964) “Research is a systematic and scholarly application

of the scientific method.”

3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology is a systematic way to solve a problem. It is a science of

studying the research is to be carried out. Essentially, the procedures by which researchers

go about the work of describing, explaining and predicting phenomena are called Research

Methodology. It is also defined as the study of methods by which knowledge is gained.

Its aim is to give the work plan of research.

 81

3.3 RESEARCH PARADIGM

 82

3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN IN BRIEF

In the present research work, it was proposed to carry on a correlational study about

digital literacy, computational thinking and professional commitment of primary school

teachers. For this purpose, the researcher has used normative survey method through online

to study digital literacy, computational thinking and professional commitment among

primary school teachers. Since the predominant status of primary school teachers’ digital

literacy and computational thinking had been assessed as per objectives of the study.

According to the research design, online survey used through google form to evaluate the

relationship of digital literacy, computational thinking and professional commitment of

primary school teachers.

3.4.1 ONLINE SURVEY

An online survey is structured questionnaire that target audience completes over

the internet generally through a filling out a form. It varies in length and format.

The pandemic situation of Covid-19 leads to make online survey and the questionnaire was

sent to primary school teacher’s WhatsApp group and their mail id through proper channel.

Responses of online survey are processed automatically and it reduces the error

when the researcher enter the details of respondents in an excel sheet. The main benefit of

online survey is that they increase productivity by saving time. The researcher prepared

self-made tool and used an online survey for the present study to collect data through

a website URL link (https://forms.gle/p1fqCGg2LihEFbrD9).

3.5 POPULATION AND STUDY AREA

Population refers to any group of people or objects that form the subject of study in

a particular survey and are similar in one or more ways (Chawla et al., 2011).
 83

The Population of the present study was Primary level school teachers. Primary school

teachers play an important role in developing necessary skills and encourage children to

learn, and help them to improve cognitive abilities. These teachers are artistic and create

ways to improve knowledge of student’s academics and achievements.

3.5.1 SAMPLE

Roscoe (1975) proposed the rules of thumb for determine the sample size where it

is more than 30 and less than 500 are appropriate for the most research. The sample size of

the study consists of seven hundred sixty-one Primary level school teachers from

government, government Aided, self-finance schools in Coimbatore

3.5.2 SAMPLING FRAME

In the present study, 761 teachers in Coimbatore were selected as sample for the

study. Samples were selected through online mode.

Selection of sample for pilot study: In the present study, the investigator conducted

a small-scale pilot study, with 200 primary school teachers as samples from Coimbatore

through online using google form.

Selection of sample for final study: The samples for final study are 761 primary

school teachers. Data was collected through google form. The sampling frame comprises

of 224 government school teachers, 75 Aided school teachers and 462 self-finance school

teachers from Coimbatore.

3.5.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

The ideal sample is large enough to serve as an adequate representation of the

population about which a researcher wishes to generalize and sample to be selected

 84

economically in terms of subject availability and expense both in time and money. A total

of 761 primary school teachers were selected as a sample for this study from government,

Aided, self-financing schools located in urban and rural areas of Coimbatore. An online

survey was carried out using google form. Since there is no fixed number of subjects that

determines the size of adequate sample, it is derived approximately 800 samples of the total

primary school teachers were considered as sample for the study. Purposive random

sampling method was adopted to collect the response from the primary school teachers.

With regard to the purposive random sampling method, the study consisted of 761 samples

from the Government, Aided, Self-financing schools in Coimbatore.

 85

3.5.4 SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION

Table 3.1

Distribution of sample in Category wise

No. of
S.No Variables Categories Percentage
Teachers
Male 140 18.3%
1 Gender
Female 620 81.4%
UG 293 38.5%
2 Educational Qualification
PG 468 61.4%
Arts 395 51.9%
3 Subject
Science 366 48.0%
Yes 559 73.4%
4 Online teaching experience
No 202 26.5%
0-5yrs 453 59.5%
Years of teaching 5-10yrs 156 20.4%
5
experience
More than 10
152 19.9%
yrs
Rural 364 47.8%
6 Locality Urban 362 47.5%
Semi-urban 85 11.1%
Govt 224 29.4%
7 Type of School Aided 75 9.8%
Self-finance 462 60.7%
 86

3.6 VARIABLES OF THE STUDY

Table 3.2

Table showing the variables involved in the study

• Digital Literacy,
Independent Variable
• Computational thinking
Dependent Variable • Professional Commitment
• Gender,
• Experience,
• Locality,
Demographic Variables • Type of school,
• Qualification of teachers
• Subject
• Online Teaching Experience.

3.7 TOOLS USED FOR THE STUDY

Three tools prepared & standardized by the researcher to evaluate digital literacy,

computational thinking and professional commitment of teachers working in primary

level schools.

1. Digital literacy scale (DLS)-developed by investigator

2. Computational thinking scale (CTS) -developed by investigator

3. Professional Commitment scale (PCS)-developed by investigator

3.8 CONSTRUCTION OF DIGITAL LITERACY SCALE

Digital Literacy is a broad term consisting of a number of complex and integrated

literacies required for an individual to live successfully in a digital society. As tools

 87

measuring digital literacy of primary school teachers were not related to this study,

the investigator had to construct digital literacy scale. The measurement properties of the

tools like validity and reliability are calculated by using appropriate methods.

3.8.1 PREPARATION OF THE ITEM

Seventy-one items represent the characteristic of digital literacy of primary school

teachers. The response of the tool was on a 5-point likert scale with options such as strongly

agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly disagree. The responses were given with the

weightages of 5,4,3,2 and 1 for strongly agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly disagree

respectively in the case of positive statements and in the case of negative statements the

weightages were kept reversed. Thus, the score for a respondent range between 1and 355.

3.8.2 PRE-PILOT PHASE

The revised and corrected English version of 71 statements were distributed to 200

primary school teachers for vocabulary substitution, and the statements were concretized

based on the teacher-respondents' reactions in terms of following aspects:

• Legibility of the statement.

• Completeness of the statements.

• Understanding of the alternative responses.

• Competence of the identifying responses.

Language correction was performed in terms of grammar, terms used, technical

words used, sentence patterns, and alternative responses provided in the scale.
 88

3.8.3 PILOT PHASE

The prepared digital literacy scale with 71 statements was administered to 200 primary

school teachers from the Coimbatore district via Google form as a trial for the study.

3.8.4 ITEM ANALYSIS

Item analysis is the process of determining an item's suitability for integration in

the final scale. They were scored after collecting all the data. For each of the seventy-one

items, the 't' test was used to compare the mean of the contrasted high and low groups.

The 't' value was also calculated to determine the significance of the test items. The 't' value

for statements greater than the table value at the 0.05 level has been considered.

3.8.5 ITEMS SELECTED

The result of the Item selection is given as Table 3.3. Out of 71 statements, only

45 statements formed significantly and positively discriminating the high and low groups

were considered as valid statements for digital literacy scale. Forty-five items were

observed to satisfy the outlined condition and were included in the factor analysis.

Table 3.3

‘t’ value of Items in digital literacy Scale

Item No t’ Value Remarks

1. 5.035 Accepted
2. 5.371 Accepted
3. 2.573 Accepted
4. 1.436 Rejected
5. 1.967 Accepted
6. 1.330 Rejected
 89

Item No t’ Value Remarks

8. 4.010 Accepted
9. 2.210 Accepted
10. 5.058 Accepted
11. 4.391 Accepted
12. 0.404 Rejected
13. 4.769 Accepted
14. 3.757 Accepted
15. 4.042 Accepted
16. 3.656 Accepted
17. 5.687 Accepted
18. 3.575 Accepted
19. 1.128 Rejected
20. 3.330 Accepted
21. 1.972 Accepted
22. 1.814 Rejected
25. 3.627 Accepted
26. 5.099 Accepted
28. 0.983 Rejected
29. 0.423 Rejected
30. 0.074 Rejected
31. 1.780 Rejected
32. 4.750 Accepted
33. 3.346 Accepted
36. 4.874 Accepted
37. 4.545 Accepted
38. 4.769 Rejected
39. 3.177 Accepted
41. 2.720 Accepted
 90

Item No t’ Value Remarks

44. 1.971 Accepted
45 1.705 Rejected
46. 1.022 Rejected
47. 5.934 Accepted
48. 5.622 Accepted
49. 5.536 Accepted
50. 1.737 Rejected
51. 5.887 Accepted
52. 1.438 Rejected
53. 0.957 Rejected
54. 4.259 Accepted
55. 5.115 Accepted
56. 7.132 Accepted
57. 6.337 Accepted
58. 5.977 Accepted
59. 3.863 Accepted
60. 5.186 Accepted
62. 6.412 Accepted
63. 7.854 Accepted
64. 6.775 Accepted
65. 5.254 Accepted
66. 1.416 Rejected
67. 7.517 Accepted
68. 7.555 Accepted
69. 3.746 Accepted
70. 4.272 Accepted
71. 3.512 Accepted
 91

3.8.6 FORMATION OF HIGH AND LOW GROUPS

After the item analysis the scale consists of the forty-five statements on digital

literacy scores could ideally range between 1 and 225. On the basis of the respondents'

digital literacy scale, the scores of 200 primary school teachers were organized

in descending order. The top 27% of respondents (54) were labelled as having high

digital literacy, while the bottom 27% of respondents (54) were labelled as having low

digital literacy.

3.9 FACTOR ANALYSIS

The Factor analysis was used in the current study to group the items representing

digital literacy into factors based on component loadings. The criteria of Eigen value

greater than 1 determined the number of factors to be retained for discussion. Varimax

rotation was used for this analysis because it is the most reliable rotation method, according

to the literature Components loading of 0.6 or more are considered to be significant and

are grouped into a factor. Accordingly, in the present analysis for digital literacy scale

45 items’ Eigen value was found to be greater than 1 in 3 factors, and hence only these

45 items of 3 factors were considered for further discussion. Other 26 items were not loaded

with loading value of .6 or more and Eigen value of more than 1 and hence these 26 items

were eliminated. The rotated component loading value is presented in the following tables

as in Factor wise.
 92

Table 3.4

Number of Items loaded in Factor - 1 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

1. I understand the basic functions of computer hardware components. .656

2. I am aware of various types of digital devices. .787

8. I use social networking services in my teaching Process. .660

11. I have mobile apps to use for learning purposes. .691

18. I always take help of my digital devices to update my knowledge. .602

65. I understand what digital literacy is. .696

20. I am largely aware about the limitations of digital technologies. .635

I frequently feel empowered when I solve my issues by using the

33. .642
internet.

64. I feel comfortable using digital devices. .708

I think that learning can be enhanced by using digital tools and

70. .619
resources.

I think that training in technology-enhanced learning should be

71. .638
included in education programs.

In factor 1, 11 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

11 items represents comprehension of digital literacy of primary school teachers. In this

present study, comprehension means that the ability to understanding the concept and

extracting implicit and explicit the ideas. Hence Factor 1 can be named as ‘Comprehension’
 93

Table 3.5

Number of Items loaded in Factor – 2 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

I communicate relevant information and ideas effectively to

62. students, parents, and peers using a variety of digital age media and .601
formats.

67. I feel threatened when others talk about digital technologies. .607

I frequently use "sharing location" option of WhatsApp for tracking

51. .751
my current location by my family/ friends.

I feel that I am behind my fellow teachers in using digital

68. .684
technologies.

I always feel impatient and fretful when I have to leave my phone

49. .821
for unavoidable reasons.

I regularly experience light headedness or blurred vision, pain in

48. .706
wrist or at the back of neck due to excessive use of smart phone.

47. Digital devices frequently distract me from my work. .745

44. I believe that the use of online service saves money and time. .609

I easily recognize spam mails, fake accounts/profile with morphed

39. pictures or obscene description, etc. on social networking sites like .601
facebook, twitter, instagram, etc.

I don’t like any type of human interruption while using electronic

37. .796
devices.

I regularly access the job portals like naukri.com, monster India for
26. .635
finding a job.

25. I prefer to publish paper, article etc. using online service. .632

I able to take, edit and record digital photos, digital videos, and
16. .510
digital sounds.

14. I able to write files in a CD, a DVD or a USB drive. .654

15. I create and update web pages. .617

 94

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

9. I am able to download and use apps on digital devices. .631

10. I feel competent in using digital learning resources. .657

13. I know to scan disks for viruses .627

5. I use the computer for learning purposes. .659

17. I can easily customize the digital devices and its application. .621

21. I am largely aware of hacking, sexual crimes, and threat messages. .631

I use the network to support student collaboration within and

54. .627
beyond the classroom.

3. I use keyboard shortcuts .648

In factor 2, 23 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

23 items represents Interdependence of digital literacy of primary school teachers. In this

present study, Interdependence means that the ability to Connecting the information

meaningfully to relevant data. Hence Factor 2 can be named as ‘Interdependence’

 95

Table 3.6

Number of Items loaded in Factor – 3 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

Digital literacy helps in improving the educational standards of

32. .607
my family.

I always trust the digital locker service to save my documents

36. .601
securely.

Digital literacy always helps in taking decision regarding teaching

41. .662
and learning Process.

I engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving

57. .739
authentic problems using digital tools and resources.

I facilitate effective use of current and emerging digital tools to

63. locate, analyse, evaluate, and use information resources to support .605
research and learning.

I adapt relevant learning experiences that incorporate digital tools

58. .689
and resources to promote student learning and creativity.

I design online materials and activities that engage students in

55. .772
collaborative problem solving.

I address the diverse needs of all learners by using learner-centred

60. strategies providing equitable access to appropriate digital tools .638
and resources.

I help students to incorporate multimedia production, web

56. .729
production, and publishing Technologies into their projects.

69. I think that it is important for me to improve my digital fluency. .673

I demonstrate fluency in technology systems and the transfer of

59. .619
current knowledge to new technologies and situations.

In factor 3, 11 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

11 items represents Curation of digital literacy of primary school teachers. In this present
 96

study Curation means that- the ability to understand the value of information, and preserve

it in a way that makes it available and useful for long-term. Hence Factor 3 can be named

as ‘Curation.’

3.10 FINAL PHASE OF DIGITAL LITERACY SCALE

Digital literacy Scale was developed by the investigator. This scale consists of

45 items with 3 factors such as Comprehension, Interdependence and Curation. It is a five-

point scale. Level of digital literacy is different for every individual. Therefore, the

investigator selected the rating scale to measure the level of digital literacy. The scale was

presented to the experts for assessing the items. The experts carefully observed each item

of the scale and gave comments and suggestions. After getting comments and suggestions

from the experts, the investigator reconstructed the digital literacy scale as per the experts’

recommendations and opinion. Finally, the scale consists of 45 items with 3 factors such

as Comprehension, Interdependence and Curation. The above three dimensions were

measured in the tool of digital literacy scale to the primary school teachers through the

statements given under the table.

Table 3.7

Structure of digital literacy scale

Dimensions of
S.No digital literacy Statements covered in the tool
scale

1. Comprehension, 1,2,8,11,18,20,33,64,65,70,71

2. Interdependence 3,5,9,10,13,14,15,16,17,21,25,26,37,39,44,47,48,49,51,54,62,67,68

3. Curation 32,36,41,55,56,57,58,59,60,63,69
 97

3.11 CONSTRUCTION OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING SCALE

Computational thinking refers to a set of problem-solving skills and strategies used

in statistics, technology-rich learning and work environments. As tools measuring

computational thinking of primary school teachers were not related to this study, the

investigator had to construct computational thinking scale. The measurement properties of

the tools like validity and reliability are calculated by using appropriate methods.

3.11.1 PREPARATION OF THE ITEM

Twenty-seven items represent the characteristic of computational thinking of

primary school teachers. The response of the tool was on a 5-point Likert scale with options

such as strongly agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly disagree. The responses were given

with the weightages of 5,4,3,2 and 1 for strongly agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly

disagree respectively in the case of positive statements and in the case of negative

statements the weightages were kept reversed. Thus, the score for a respondent range

between 1and 135.

3.11.2 PRE-PILOT PHASE

The revised and corrected English version of twenty-seven statements was

distributed to 200 primary school teachers for vocabulary substitution, and the statements

were concretized based on the teacher-respondents' reactions in terms of following aspects:

• Legibility of the statement.

• Completeness of the statements.

• Understanding of the alternative responses.

• Competence of the identifying responses.

 98

Language correction was performed in terms of grammar, terms used, technical

words used, sentence patterns, and alternative responses provided in the scale.

3.11.3 PILOT PHASE

The prepared computational thinking scale with 27 statements was administered

to 200 primary school teachers from the Coimbatore district via google form as a trial for

the study.

3.11.4 ITEM ANALYSIS

Item analysis is the process of determining an item's suitability for integration in

the final scale. They were scored after collecting all the data. For each of the twenty-seven

items, the 't' test was used to compare the mean of the contrasted high and low groups.

The 't' value was also calculated to determine the significance of the test items. The 't' value

for statements greater than the table value at the 0.05 level has been considered.

3.11.5 ITEMS SELECTED

The result of the Item selection is given as Table 3.8. Out of 27 statements,

26 statements formed significantly and positively discriminating the high and low groups

were considered as valid statements for computational thinking scale. Twenty-six items

were observed to satisfy the outlined condition and were included in the factor analysis.
 99

Table 3.8

‘t’ value of Items in Computational Thinking Scale

Item No t’ Value Remarks

1. 5.166 Accepted
2. 2.871 Accepted
3. 5.439 Accepted
4. 6.546 Accepted
5. 6.321 Accepted
6. 5.217 Accepted
7. 3.117 Accepted
8. 5.844 Accepted
9. 4.561 Accepted
10. 5.101 Accepted
11. 8.622 Accepted
12. 5.364 Accepted
13. 7.315 Accepted
14. 4.311 Accepted
15. 3.618 Accepted
16. 4.762 Accepted
17. 3.321 Accepted
18. 1.522 Rejected
19. 5.734 Accepted
20. 2.864 Accepted
21. 4.093 Accepted
22. 4.351 Accepted
23. 4.995 Accepted
24. 7.099 Accepted
25. 7.422 Accepted
26. 7.486 Accepted
27. 4.616 Accepted
 100

3.11.6 FORMATION OF HIGH AND LOW GROUPS

After the item analysis the scale consists of the twenty-six statements on

computational thinking scores could ideally range between 1 and 130. On the basis of the

respondents' computational thinking scale, the scores of 200 primary school teachers were

organized in descending order. The top 27% of respondents (54) were labelled as having

high computational thinking, while the bottom 27% of respondents (54) were labelled as

having low computational thinking.

3.12 FACTOR ANALYSIS

The Factor analysis was used in the current study to group the items representing

computational thinking into factors based on component loadings. The criteria of Eigen

value greater than 1 determined the number of factors to be retained for discussion.

Varimax rotation was used for this analysis because it is the most reliable rotation method,

according to the literature components loading of 0.6 or more are considered to be

significant and are grouped into a factor. Accordingly, in the present analysis for

computational thinking scale 26 items’ Eigen value was found to be greater than 1 in 2

factors, and hence only these 26 items of 2 factors were considered for further discussion.

Other items were not loaded with loading value of .6 or more and Eigen value of more than

1 and hence the remaining one item were eliminated. The rotated component loading value

is presented in the following tables as in Factor wise.

 101

Table 3.9

Number of Items loaded in Factor – 1 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

1. Computational thinking is understanding how computers work. .751

Computational thinking involves thinking logically to solve

2. .620
problems in teaching learning process.

Computational thinking involves using computers to solve

3. .699
problems in teaching learning process.

Computational thinking involves abstracting general principles

4. .614
and applying them to other situations.

Computational thinking is thinking with technology and the

5. .601
premise of technology in mind.

Computational thinking is using technology to Professional

8. .745
development.

Computational thinking can be incorporated in the classroom by

12. .605
allowing students to solve problem.

The challenge of solving a problem using computer science

14. .601
appeals to me.

Developing computing skills will not play a role in helping me

24. .643
to achieve my career goals.

I am confident that I can solve problems in teaching learning

25. .849
process by using computer applications.

I use computational thinking to understand problems in the real

26. .697
world.

Computational Thinking is being able to efficiently incorporate

6. .853
technology into problem solving approach.

Computational thinking can be incorporated in the classroom by

7. .637
using computers in the lesson plan.
 102

In factor 1, 13 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

13 items represents abstraction of computational thinking of primary school teachers.

In this present study abstraction means that concentrating only on relevant information and

ignoring irrelevant detail. Hence Factor 1 can be named as ‘Abstraction’

Table 3.10

Number of Items loaded in Factor – 1 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

Computational thinking is understanding how to use and

9. .614
integrate technology to enhance the classroom experience.
Computational thinking is involving technological literacy in an
10. .787
analytical way.
Computational thinking is using technology at an appropriate
11. .659
level to encourage thinking and creativity in the classroom.
13. I will be able to get a good job if I learn to think like a computer. .543
I will voluntarily take computing courses if I were given the
15. .837
opportunity.
16. Knowledge of computing will allow me to secure a better job. .743
17. My career goals require that I learn computing skills. .691
I hope that my future career will require the use of computing
19. .654
concepts.
I know that using computers give me opportunities to learn many
20. .763
new things
21. I think about many ways to solve a difficult problem. .781
22. When I think of a new thing, I apply what I have learned before. .606
23. I do things by myself without depending upon others. .612
Teachers who are skilled at computer science are widespread as
27. .602
other teachers.
 103

In factor 2, 13 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

13 items represents analysis of computational thinking of primary school teachers. In this

present study analysis means to check the process. Hence Factor 2 can be named

as ‘Analysis’.

3.13 FINAL PHASE OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING SCALE

Computational Thinking Scale was developed by the investigator. This scale

consists of 26 items with 2 factors such as abstraction and analysis. It is a five-point scale.

Level of computational thinking is different for every individual. Therefore, the investigator

selected the rating scale to measure the level of computational thinking. The scale was

presented to the experts for assessing the items. The experts carefully observed each item

of the scale and gave comments and suggestions. After getting comments and suggestions

from the experts, the investigator reconstructed the computational thinking scale as per the

experts’ recommendations and opinion. Finally, the scale consists of 26 items with 2 factors

such as abstraction and analysis. The above two dimensions were measured in the tool of

computational thinking scale to the primary school teachers through the statements given

under the table.

Table 3.11

Structure of Computational Thinking scale

Dimensions of
S.No Computational Statements covered in the tool
Thinking scale

1. Abstraction 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,12,14,24,25,26

2. Analysis 9,10,11,13,15,16,17,19,20,21,22,23,27
 104

3.14 CONSTRUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT SCALE

Professional commitment of the teachers represents different ways in which

the teachers perceive, understand and conceptualize the phenomenon of commitment.

As tools measuring professional commitment of primary school teachers were not related

to this study, the investigator had to construct professional commitment scale.

The measurement properties of the tools like validity and reliability are calculated by using

appropriate methods.

3.14.1 PREPARATION OF THE ITEM

Forty items represent the characteristic of professional commitment of primary

school teachers. The response of the tool was on a 5-point likert scale with options such as

strongly agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly disagree. The responses were given with

the weightages of 5,4,3,2 and 1 for strongly agree, agree, never, disagree, strongly disagree

respectively in the case of positive statements and in the case of negative statements the

weightages were kept reversed. Thus, the score for a respondent range between 1and 200.

3.14.2 PRE-PILOT PHASE

The revised and corrected English version of 71 statements was distributed to 200

primary school teachers for vocabulary substitution, and the statements were concretized

based on the teacher-respondents' reactions in terms of following aspects:

• Legibility of the statement.

• Completeness of the statements.

• Understanding of the alternative responses.

• Competence of the identifying responses.

 105

Language correction was performed in terms of grammar, terms used, technical

words used, sentence patterns, and alternative responses provided in the scale.

3.14.3 PILOT PHASE

The prepared professional commitment scale with 40 statements was administered

to 200 primary school teachers from the Coimbatore district via google form as a trial for

the study.

3.14.4 ITEM ANALYSIS

Item analysis is the process of determining an item's suitability for integration in

the final scale. They were scored after collecting all the data. For each of the Forty items,

the 't' test was used to compare the mean of the contrasted high and low groups. The 't'

value was also calculated to determine the significance of the test items. The 't' value for

statements greater than the table value at the 0.05 level has been considered.

3.14.5 ITEMS SELECTED

The result of the Item selection is given as Table 3.12. Out of 40 statements, only

35 statements formed significantly and positively discriminating the high and low groups

were considered as valid statements for professional commitment scale. Thirty-five items

were observed to satisfy the outlined condition and were included in the factor analysis.
 106

Table 3.12

‘t’ value of Items in Professional Commitment Scale

Item No t’ Value Remarks

1. 4.505 Accepted

2. 3.712 Accepted

3. 5.912 Accepted

4. 3.186 Accepted

5. 3.335 Accepted

6. 2.714 Accepted

7. 5.562 Accepted

8. 3.196 Accepted

9. 5.742 Accepted

10. 7.694 Accepted

11. 9.486 Accepted

12. 5.362 Accepted

13. 4.778 Accepted

14. 4.675 Accepted

15. 3.288 Accepted

16. 5.619 Accepted

17. 1.608 Rejected

18. 5.844 Accepted

19. 1.673 Rejected

20. 5.752 Accepted

21. 9.836 Accepted

 107

Item No t’ Value Remarks

22. 5.166 Accepted

23. 2.114 Accepted

24. 6.012 Accepted

25. 5.888 Accepted

26. 3.535 Accepted

27. 3.470 Accepted

28. 4.616 Accepted

29. 1.001 Rejected

30. 1.137 Rejected

31. 5.149 Accepted

32. 7.177 Accepted

33. 5.877 Accepted

34. 4.366 Accepted

35. 1.561 Rejected

36. 4.371 Accepted

37. 7.135 Accepted

38. 4.480 Accepted

39. 6.070 Accepted

40. 4.283 Accepted

3.14.6 FORMATION OF HIGH AND LOW GROUPS

After the item analysis the scale consists of the thirty-five statements on

professional commitment scores could ideally range between 1 and 175. On the basis of

the respondents' professional commitment scale, the scores of 200 primary school teachers
 108

were organized in descending order. The top 27% of respondents (54) were labelled as

having high professional commitment, while the bottom 27% of respondents (54) were

labelled as having low professional commitment.

3.15 FACTOR ANALYSIS

The Factor analysis was used in the current study to group the items representing

professional commitment into factors based on component loadings. The criteria of Eigen

value greater than 1 determined the number of factors to be retained for discussion.

Varimax rotation was used for this analysis because it is the most reliable rotation method,

according to the literature components loading of 0.6 or more are considered to be

significant and are grouped into a factor. Accordingly, in the present analysis for

professional commitment scale 35 items’ Eigen value was found to be greater than 1 in 3

factors, and hence only these 35 items of 3 factors were considered for further discussion.

Other 5 items were not loaded with loading value of .6 or more and Eigen value of more

than 1 and hence these 5 items were eliminated. The rotated component loading value is

presented in the following tables as in Factor wise.

 109

Table 3.13

Number of Items loaded in Factor –1 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

I encourage students to express their views on the quality of

1. .616
teaching in school.

7. I ignore the students asking questions I am unable to answer. .700

I try to stimulate the intellectual curiosity of my students during

2. .596
my class.

3. I motivate all students to actively participate in the classroom. .688

I provide opportunities for the students to demonstrate their skills

4. .717
in the classroom.

I make learning a joyfully and rewarding experience for the

5. .639
students.

6. I give special attention to abnormal problematic students. .597

12. I interact the students during teaching – learning sessions. .610

24. I find it possible to pay equal attention to all students. .737

I feel confident when my students praise my teaching

36. .741
competence.

In factor 1, 10 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

10 items represents commitment to students of primary school teachers. In this present

study commitment to students refers teacher who understand the students and their needs

with sensitivity. Hence Factor 1 can be named as ‘Commitment to students’

 110

Table 3.14

Number of Items loaded in Factor –2 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values

38. I give priority to my professional work over other activities. .610

I find it difficult to remain fully committed to my profession in

39. .639
present day situations.

I think teaching is a profession which requires continuous

40. .706
learning.

I employ different teaching methods to make the teaching

11. .661
performance effective.

16. I keep on acquiring knowledge. .614

Proficiency in the use of computer is one of the Important

22. .646
qualities for professional development.

23. I wish to improve my academic qualifications. .778

I am always in search of opportunities for re-orientation of my

26. .708
knowledge.

33. I make use of the libraries extensively. .584

In factor 2, 9 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

9 items represents commitment to profession of primary school teachers. In this present

study commitment to profession refers teachers have the responsibility of shaping the

present generation for the future through the process of teaching and learning. Hence Factor

2 can be named as ‘Commitment to Profession’.

 111

Table 3.15

Number of Items loaded in Factor –3 with its Component Loading Value

Loading
Sl.No Description of Items
Values
I promote creative learning in my class through various digital
8. .613
activities.
I try to develop consciousness to see that all the learners achieve
9. .515
excellence in all Subjects.
15. I use computers and internet for my teaching profession. .608
I make use of audio -video aids to make my teaching more
10. .696
effective.
18. I link my teaching with the technological resources. .676
13. I adopt latest methodology in teaching. .610
14. I adopt innovative teaching techniques to make teaching effective. .648
20. I have widened my knowledge about technology devices. .616
21. I have acquired basics of scientific and Technology skills. .689
25. I use teaching aids which are available in and around the school. .510
I try to develop the habit of performing every action at the level of
27. .669
excellence.
I identify and utilize special additional sources like children's
28. .767
encyclopedia, subject dictionaries etc. for effective teaching.
31. I take interest in preparation and use of teaching aids effectively. .623
I try to attain excellence in qualities and traits of being an ideal
32. .616
teacher.
I understand the merits of different teaching methods and
34. .728
techniques to make classroom transaction qualitative.
I develop alternative teaching material where ever the textbook
37. .644
material is bound to be redundant or obsolete.

In factor 3, 16 items loading values were found to be greater than .5. A look at these

16 items represents commitment to achieving excellence of primary school teachers. In this

 112

present study commitments to achieving excellence refers teachers need to take ownership

and commit to become better in their teaching in technological era. Hence Factor 3 can be

named as ‘Commitment to Achieving Excellence’

3.16 FINAL PHASE OF PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT SCALE

Professional Commitment Scale was developed by the investigator. This scale

consists of 35 items 3 factors such as commitment to the students, commitment

to profession, and commitment to achieving excellence. It is a five-point scale. Level of

professional commitment is different for every individual. Therefore, the investigator

selected the rating scale to measure the level of professional commitment. The scale was

presented to the experts for assessing the items. The experts carefully observed each item

of the scale and gave comments and suggestions. After getting comments and suggestions

from the experts, the investigator reconstructed the professional commitment scale as per

the experts’ recommendations and opinion. Finally, the scale consists of 35 items with

3 factors such as commitment to the students, commitment to profession, and commitment

to achieving excellence. The above three dimensions were measured in the tool of

professional commitment Scale to the primary school teachers through the statements given

under the table.

 113

Table 3.16

Structure of Professional Commitment scale

S. Dimensions of Professional
Statements covered in the tool
No Commitment scale

1. Commitment to the Students 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,24,36

2. Commitment to the Profession 11,16,22,23,26,33,38,39,40

Commitment to the Achieving

3. 8,9,10,13,14,15,18,20,21,25,27,28,31,32,34,37
Excellence

3.17 SCORING PROCEDURE

The score for the responses against each statement in all three scale is given below:

Table 3.17

Scoring Procedure for all three scale (DLS, CTS, PCS)

Ratings given for Ratings given for

Rating Categories
Positive Items Negative Items

5 Strongly agree 1

4 Agree 2

3 Uncertain 3

2 Disagree 4

1 Strongly Disagree 5

3.18 RELIABILITY

The reliability coefficient for the total score of the three tool based on Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient is found to be (0.729), (0.718), (0.723) The reliability coefficient of all
 114

three tool is sufficient to assume that the three scale are reliable instrument for measuring

the digital literacy, computational thinking, and professional commitment of primary

school teachers.

3.19 VALIDITY

Validity reveals the merits of our measurement. Validity refers to “truthfulness”.

According to Lindquist (1942), the validity of a test may be defined as “the accuracy with

which it measures that what it is intended to measure or as the degree to which it approaches

infallibility in measuring what it purposes to measure”.

3.20 FACE AND CONTENT VALIDITY

Face and Content validity was established in the form of modification and

refinement of the prepared items based on the reactions of the experts. The three tools have

content validity. According to Thorndike and Hagen (1950), content validity is

“reasonableness or plausibility of test tasks, from the point of view of the persons being

tested in terms of what considers that the test is measuring”. The three tool was given

to the experts in order to find out its face validity. The experts agreed that the items in

the scale provided adequate coverage of the concept. Hence the validity was established

for the tool.

3.21 DATA COLLECTION FOR THE FINAL STUDY

The investigator creates a google form. The templates were created in the google

form and personal information along with digital literacy scale, computational thinking

scale and professional commitment scale was uploaded in google form. Having obtained

a formal permission from the heads of institutions the researcher sends the google form
 115

through teachers WhatsApp group. Researcher also assured the respondents that the

collected information would be kept under confidence and the collected data would be used

for the research purpose only. The primary school teachers were asked to read all the items

carefully after filling the personal profile given in the google form and they were asked to

select the rating in the correspondent scale. Research tool is appended in the Appendix

section. The data were collected from the respondents through online survey using google

form and responses generated from the researcher’s e-mail. Collected data were arranged

properly and scrutinized.

3.22 DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL APPLICATION

The data collected from the sample were analyzed by using SPSS, with appropriate

statistical technique. The investigator used Percentage Analysis, Mean, Standard

Deviation, test of significance viz., independent sample t-test, ANOVA, Two Way

ANOVA, and Multiple Correlation Analysis, Multiple Regression Analysis to analyze the

data and summarize the results. Prior to this, frequency of distribution was employed to

group the variable. Based on the results, meaningful findings and conclusions were drawn.

Illustrations were used to supplement the important findings.

3.23 CONCLUSION

The methodology used in a research study serves as an outline for the researcher's

investigation. This chapter discusses the detailed objectives, research questions,

hypotheses, variables included in the study, development of survey instruments for

collecting data on digital literacy, computational thinking, and professional commitment

of respondent teachers, validity and reliability of the instruments, sampling procedure,

sample size, data collection process, and data analysis tools used in the current research.