Next Article in Journal
Hydrological Drought Severity in Different Return Periods in Rivers of Ardabil Province, Iran
Next Article in Special Issue
The Challenge of Chinese Children’s Emotion Regulation: Child Number, Parental Emotion Regulation, and Its Relationship with Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of New Energy Vehicle Product Attributes on Consumer Purchase Intention in the Backdrop of Sustainable Development Goals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can Preschool Out-of-Kindergarten Tutoring Improve Approaches to Learning for Children? Evidence from China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) 2012 to 2020
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15031992
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development and Validation of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development Scale

by
Qingru Duan
1,
Yong Jiang
1,*,
Yifang Wang
2,
Chuchu Zheng
3,
Jing Liu
3 and
Xin Liu
4
1
Department of Early Childhood Education, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
2
Shanghai Institute of Early Childhood Education, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China
3
School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
4
Pukou Experimental Kindergarten, Nanjing 211800, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 1992; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031992
Submission received: 2 January 2023 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Early Childhood Education for the Sustainable Development of Aging China)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development (CKTLD) using a newly developed and validated instrument, the CKTLD scale. Altogether, 1170 kindergarten teachers who were randomly sampled from ten provinces in China participated in the survey. First, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a seven-factor structure: motivation, information literacy, cultural literacy, reflection, career planning, teacher collaboration, and belief and mission, thereby indicating that the CKTLD scale was reliable and valid. Second, descriptive statistics showed that the overall status of kindergarten teachers’ learning and development was below average in China; meanwhile, the level of motivation ranked the highest, while that of information literacy and cultural literacy were lower. Third, hierarchical regression analysis revealed that job position and teaching experience were critical predictors of teachers’ learning and development, after controlling for personal and family factors. The findings indicate the necessity of reforming teacher education and providing school support to enhance kindergarten teachers’ learning and development. Further, this study broadens the research framework and provides a valuable tool with which to evaluate kindergarten teachers’ learning and development in China and other countries.

1. Introduction

Early childhood education (ECE) plays a significant part in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1]. The sustainable development of ECE is crucial to achieving the SDGs [2]. Sustainability, in terms of ECE, focuses on the provision of inclusive and equitable quality care and education [1]. In China, the national goal of popularizing ECE was achieved by 2020. The development goal of ECE was then upgraded to “popularizing the quality of ECE” by 2035 [3]. At present, the accelerated aging of the population and the corresponding Chinese “three-child policy” (wherein couples are allowed to have three children) that was implemented in 2021 pose a severe challenge to the sustainable quality development of ECE [4]. Kindergarten teachers’ learning and development (TLD) plays a significant role in achieving teachers’ sustainable development, which is key to meeting this challenge [5]. In particular, kindergarten TLD is a critical lever for enhancing the educational quality of ECE [6]. Previous research demonstrates the advantages of ongoing learning and development for educators, children, families, and organizations [7,8]. Accordingly, significant reform and public investments in TLD for early childhood educators are made globally to improve teacher professionalism, and China is no exception [9,10]. The Chinese government has implemented the National Training Plan for Kindergarten Teachers (NTPKT) for the past 12 years and has established a five-level training system at the national, provincial, municipal, county, and school levels [11]. So far, these professional development (PD) programs have had a wide range of social effects and have contributed to the balanced development and quality improvement of ECE in various regions of China. For example, the NTPKT invested more than RMB 4.3 billion from 2012 to 2020; in response, 2.43 million kindergarten teachers were trained, basically achieving full coverage of kindergarten teachers in rural central and western China [12]. In 2021, a new five-year national training program was launched [13]. The top-down professional development (PD) programs aim to promote teachers’ self-directed learning, systematic improvement, and sustainable development [14]. However, no research has evaluated the actual teachers’ learning and development levels. To fill this gap, the authors of this study created and validated a scale to assess teacher learning and development status, using an extensive sample of Chinese kindergarten teachers.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining Teacher Learning and Development

The concepts of “teacher learning” and “teacher development” have long been vague [15]. The two terms have increasingly been used interchangeably over the last three decades. Professional development (PD) has traditionally been thought of as a series of externally provided, formal, one-size-fits-all “in-service” courses or training, in which teachers are systematically required to participate and thereby learn to teach effectively [16,17]. PD aims to enhance teachers’ knowledge, abilities, and attitudes to improve student learning outcomes [18], which can be measured in lower costs. Thus, PD activities are more likely to be officially supported to regulate teaching practice and maintain standards. This theory-to-practice approach has dominated the field for decades, but a variety of studies have shown its failure to strongly influence teachers’ practice [19].
In reaction to this situation, some scholars argue that the conceptualization of PD in much of the recent literature has its shortcomings. First, the idea behind PD suggests a discourse of deficiency, in which professionals need authoritative directing rather than being treated as engaged, agentic individuals that are capable of self-directed learning. Second, PD is viewed as atomistic, treating the work and learning contexts as separate entities, even though they are intertwined. Research frequently focuses on a single aspect; a particular PD activity and its results, the learning situation, the learner and their preferences, or professional expertise are often studied separately [20]. The limitations derive from an objectivist epistemology that considers knowledge as being transferable. PD activities are therefore viewed as a means to “top up” the professionals’ knowledge. However, this dualist ontology cannot address the issue of putting theoretical understanding into use in the real world [19]. Consequently, scholars have advocated reframing the conceptualization of PD, replacing “teacher development” with “teacher learning” and switching from an “atomistic” to a “holistic” perspective [20,21].
Numerous theories and views of teacher learning fall into the broad socio-cultural perspective; from this perspective, how our consciousness develops is influenced by the particular social activities in which we participate [22]. Compared with PD, teacher learning generates from teachers’ initiatives and is not mandatory [23]. Teachers determine their learning goals and strategies and then organize the learning process independently. Teachers learn from experience, through active engagement in practice, and recognize that learning is a continuous process that is not limited to a certain curriculum or setting [20]. Learning forms encompass a wide variety of experiences, including personal activities such as attending a course, making educational observations, and reading books, as well as engaging in collaborative activities, such as mentorship programs, teacher networks, study groups, and conversations with colleagues and parents [24]. Instead of being broken down into distinct, well-defined elements that can be separated, teacher learning is experienced as a whole. Teachers’ knowledge, abilities, practices, and inherent qualities are enhanced by integrating theory, social practice, and daily experience [25]. In conclusion, “teacher learning” highlights the active role of teachers and emphasizes that teacher learning is situated, social, and constructed [26].
In recent years, considering the fact that learning and development constitute and reflect each other [27], some researchers have tended to merge the two terms into the phrases “teacher professional learning and development” or “teacher learning and development” [28,29,30,31]. Drawing upon such literature, the term “teacher learning and development” (TLD) is used in this study, which encompasses the rich meanings of the two terms of “teacher learning” and “teacher development”, and highlights the personal features of TLD, not just those limited to the professional context. In the present study, TLD is a continuous, context-specific process of system-level change in which teachers learn both individually and collectively in formal or informal contexts. TLD links performance management with the needs of the person and the school for better teachers and positive organizational change [32].

2.2. Assessing Teacher Learning and Development

As for the nature and process of TLD, several models or frameworks have been presented to support TLD’s design, analysis, and evaluation. The process of TLD is complex and dynamic [33]; it is multi-dimensional and multi-level. Therefore, the different models must understand TLD situations by focusing, to various degrees, on the macro, meso, or micro levels. For example, Evans’s [34] theory centered on the micro, encompassing both individual and cognitive experiences. Three elements made up the multi-dimensional model: behavioral, attitudinal, and intellectual development. Clarke and Hollingsworth’s [35] meso model focused on the interaction between the different components of professional learning, which includes four domains: the external domain, the domain of practice, the domain of consequence, and the personal domain. Opfer and Pedder [36] took the macro level into consideration while analyzing the relationship between different systems. They identified three crucial subsystems, using a complexity theory framework: the teacher, the school, and the learning activity system. A significant question as to how TLD connects to the policy context represents a common absence in all three models. L.S. and J.H. Shulman [37] created a framework that conceptualized teachers’ learning and development within a larger context of community, institution, polity, and profession. The model is composed of nested polygons, in which vision, motivation, understanding, practice, and reflection are embodied in some way in each layer of a multi-layered notion. The inner layer is the individual level, which contains the above five elements, serving as a model for all learning. The interlayer is at the community level, where teachers are learners. In both teacher education and school contexts, educators must establish environments that encourage, sustain, and “fine-tune” each member’s visions, understanding, performance, motivations, and reflections. The outermost layer is the realm of policy, which includes venture capital, curricular capital, cultural or moral capital, and technical capital.
Although the above models are constructed from different levels and dimensions, previous empirical studies investigating TLD have focused on individual teacher characteristics or the characteristics of the school context. For example, Freitas conceptualized TLD by concentrating on the micro aspect, which contained teaching knowledge and skills, along with teacher affect (i.e., interactions, emotions, and identities) [38]. The meso factors have been taken into consideration in additional studies. Bektaş et al. highlighted four dimensions of TLD: collaboration, reflection, experimentation, and reaching out to the knowledge base [39]. Aliakbari and Malmir developed a teacher learning scale that included teacher cognition and belief, teacher emotions, teacher motivation, and contextual variables [40]. Chinese scholars have focused mainly on the personal level. The elements of TLD in the related research include professional spirit, professional ethics, belief, knowledge, competence, professional development needs and awareness, learning motivation, learning planning, learning knowledge and ability, learning method, learning management, learning reflection, and evaluation. Previous studies have reported that Chinese kindergarten teachers’ overall level of professional development or learning literacy was above average [41,42,43,44]. In light of the literature review, this study constructed a multi-level framework, taking the policy context into consideration when investigating Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development.

2.3. Predictors of Teacher Learning and Development

Previous studies have found that a range of factors influenced teacher learning and development. At the individual level, personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, socioeconomic status, and cultural and moral background) were demonstrated to have a significant effect on TLD. In addition, professional characteristics (e.g., experiences, expertise, self-efficacy, professional identity, willingness to commit, and professional satisfaction) are also important influencing factors [45]. Furthermore, teachers’ learning and development are embedded in their professional lives and working environments. School conditions are recognized as pivotal factors for TLD. School characteristics, such as school culture (e.g., prevailing school norms, norms of collaboration and collegiality, school-level beliefs about learning), institutional structures (e.g., duties delegated to teachers by the school administrator; interactions between teachers and students, teachers and other teachers, and teachers and administrators), school policy (e.g., workload; the chance to participate in professional learning and development during the school day), school resources (e.g., school status as urban/rural, public/private, or large/small; technical resources), and principal leadership [27]. In short, such multi-level factors are interdependently and reciprocally influential in supporting or hindering teacher learning and change. Therefore, it is meaningful to understand kindergarten teacher learning and development by examining the individual and contextual predictors in this study.

2.4. Study Framework

Given the complexity of TLD, for this study, we developed a seven-dimensional framework mainly based on L.S. and J.H. Shulman’s nested polygons model and Korthagen’s (2004) “onion model [37,46].” The nested model viewed TLD within a multi-layered and systematic level of individual, community, and policy. The elements of vision, motivation, understanding, reflection, the community of practice, technical capital, and cultural capital were referred to in this study. The “onion model” describes the essential qualities of a good teacher. Six layers comprise the model, from the exterior to the inward: environment, behavior, competencies, beliefs, identity, and mission. The last three dimensions included in this study are widely regarded as the core qualities of a good teacher but were neglected in previous models of TLD. Finally, the seven-dimensional framework in this study comprises motivation, information literacy, cultural literacy, reflection, career planning, teacher collaboration, and belief and mission (see Appendix A). Based on this theoretical model, the Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development scale (CKTLDS) was developed and validated for assessing kindergarten teachers’ learning and development and investigating the influencing factors. The following questions guided this study:
  • Is the Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development scale reliable?
  • What is the level of kindergarten teachers’ learning and development?
  • Which variables affect kindergarten teachers’ learning and development?
The following hypotheses were proposed in this study:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development scale is a reliable scale.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development level is higher than average.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Certain factors influence Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development level.

3. Method

3.1. Sample

National survey data were collected from kindergarten teachers in ten provinces by employing stratified random sampling. First, ten provinces were randomly sampled to represent eastern, central, and western China: Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, Fujian, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, and Sichuan, which represent different levels of economic development in China. Second, the educational directors of each province took a random sample of cities from their respective regions: three districts each from Beijing and Shanghai; two cities each from Fujian, Heilongjiang, Hubei, and Sichuan; three cities each from Anhui, Henan, and Hunan; five cities from Shandong. Third, using a convenience sampling method, paper questionnaires were distributed by research assistants from each sample city by contacting the kindergarten principals. We sought participants with teaching experience, including ordinary kindergarten teachers and others in administrative positions, such as the monitor, grade leader, director of nursing and teaching, and principal. Finally, 1337 questionnaires were completed and returned, and 1170 were valid (effective rate = 87.5%). The proportion of female respondents was 97%, which is in accordance with the reported data that few men work as kindergarten teachers in China [47]. The low attractiveness of being kindergarten teachers for men might be associated with low salaries, low social status, and the social bias that the kindergarten teaching profession is female-dominated in China [48]. In addition, the teachers’ age, teaching experience, educational background, professional title, marital status, parental status, teaching-class levels, and geographical area were also obtained (see Table 1).

3.2. Measurements

3.2.1. Initial Item Development

The seven-construct framework was adopted to formulate the elements system and survey scale of teacher learning and development. First, the CKTLDS was developed with reference to China’s national professional standards for kindergarten teachers (2012) and the teacher education curriculum standards for different countries, including China, the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Russia, Japan, and Singapore. Other instruments, such as the framework for effective teaching, the teaching and learning international survey (TALIS), and the UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers were also referenced.
Second, we consulted 12 experts in the field of ECE, via two rounds of Delphi expert interviews, to guarantee the scale’s accuracy and efficacy. Among the experts, eight were university professors, one was a principal, and three were teachers with 5, 15, and 20 years of work experience in kindergartens, respectively. The experts recognized the indicators and made various suggestions, particularly regarding the descriptions of indicators that distinguished different levels of teacher learning and development. Finally, the constructs, dimensions, and indications of the revisions were agreed upon by the experts. After that, the pilot study was conducted with 324 kindergarten teachers, recruited from three provinces by using a convenience sampling method. Based on the results, these items were finally reduced to 36 and were then revised for clarity and readability. The revised CKTLDS included seven constructs: motivation (MO), information literacy (IL), cultural literacy (CL), reflection (RE), career planning (CP), teacher collaboration (TC), and belief and mission (BM). It also contained 20 dimensions and 36 items.

3.2.2. Chinese Teacher Learning and Development Scale (CKTLDS)

Two parts comprise the Chinese kindergarten teacher learning and development scale (CKTLDS). The first section collects teachers’ background information about gender, age, teaching experience, educational background, school tenure, job position, professional title, marital status, parental status, and teaching class. The other section is the CKTLDS, which includes 36 items. Each item contains five options, from A to E. Options A to D describe teachers’ performance, with different learning and development levels for each item. Options A to D have been assigned 1, 2, 3, and 4 points, respectively. If participants cannot choose from options A to D, they can note their actual situation in the blank line in option E. The researchers classified E into the first four options, according to the participants’ descriptions. The final scores were determined using the statistical means of each item, dimension, and construct. A high score indicates a high level of Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development in this study.

3.3. Procedures

All procedures in this study abided by ethical research standards. First, the study was approved by the corresponding author’s University Human Research Ethics Committee. Second, local educational directors and the principals of the participating kindergartens were contacted, and they all consented after understanding the research purpose. Third, the kindergarten teachers were given a detailed explanation of the study at the start of the questionnaire. They could choose to participate voluntarily or to leave the study at any point. Lastly, only the research team had access to the data, which were kept entirely private.

3.4. Data Analysis

The psychometric properties were analyzed using a series of statistical analyses, such as item analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and a reliability test to verify the construct validity and reliability of the scale. Descriptive, inferential statistics and hierarchical regression analysis were then conducted to examine the general level and the predictors of kindergarten teachers’ learning and development. The item analysis and the EFA were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0., (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and the CFA was performed with IBM SPSS Amos for Windows, Version 24.0., (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA).
Item analysis was performed to test the appropriateness and quality of each particular item. First, the few missing values (<0.5%) were replaced with the mean of the relevant variable. Second, item discrimination was investigated with the critical ratio (CR) of the difference between the lower 27% and the upper 27% of the groups. The value of CR is significantly higher than 3, which is often regarded as an acceptable criterion for discrimination. More strictly, it should be substantially greater than 3.5. Third, item-total score correlations and “Cronbach’s alpha if the item is deleted” were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the items. The item-total score correlation should be greater than 0.4 to show adequate internal consistency. “Cronbach’s alpha if the item is deleted” can indicate a particular item’s removal as leading to a higher α value, which means that the homogeneity of this and other items is not high, and this item can then be considered to be deleted [49].
The total sample of 1170 was randomly divided into two independent subsamples. EFA was conducted with one-half of the sample (n = 585) to identify the underlying dimensions of the variables. The Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) value and Bartlett’s test were examined to check whether the data set is appropriate for factor analysis. KMO values above 0.90 and the statistical significance of Bartlett’s test indicate that the data set is excellent for factor analysis. Among the factorization techniques, principal component analysis (PCA) was the first choice because it is more powerful in psychometric terms [50]. The present study used PCA and the varimax rotation method for factorization. A Kaiser’s eigenvalue that was greater than one was used in determining the number of factors to retain. Factor loading of at least 0.45 and commonalities of at least 0.2 were considered necessary for item selection [49].
The CFA was used to evaluate the model fit indices, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. First, a CFA was performed on the other half part of the sample (n = 585), using the maximum likelihood estimation algorithm of AMOS 24.0 to confirm the structure of the proposed scale resulting from the EFA. To evaluate whether the model was consistent with the empirical data, six goodness-of-fit indices were calculated: the chi-square test, normed chi-square (χ2/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The following values indicate an acceptable fit: p < 0.01 for the chi-square test; χ2/df < 3; SRMR ≤ 0.08; RMSEA ≤ 0.08; CFI and TLI ≥ 0.90 [51].
Second, convergent validity was estimated using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), which refers to the degree of confidence with which the latent variable could be measured by its indicators. A CR > 0.70 and AVE > 0.50 can confirm that a factor has convergent validity, as estimated using the AMOS plugin [52].
Third, discriminant validity, the ability to discriminate among different traits, was assessed through the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations [53]. It represents the most recent approach to evaluating discriminant validity, as advocated in the social sciences [54]. The HTMT values should be below the threshold of 0.85 to meet the requirements of discriminant validity.
The reliability of the scale was assessed using McDonald’s omega (ω), which is a more general estimator of reliability than Cronbach’s α because it does not assume essential tau-equivalence. The McDonald’s omega value of > 0.70 was deemed acceptable. It was calculated using the OMEGA macro, an SPSS syntax file downloaded from www.afhayes.com (accessed on 2 December 2022.) [55].

4. Results

4.1. Psychometric Properties of CKTLDS

4.1.1. Item Analysis

Item analysis was adopted to test the adequacy of the 36 items. The item discrimination, item-total score correlations, and “Cronbach’s alpha if the item is deleted” were conducted, respectively. The analysis results were as follows: (1) each item’s CR value exceeded 3.5, thus showing high discrimination ability; (2) the correlation coefficients between items and the total score ranged from 0.58 to 0.71, thus being higher than 0.40; (3) the scale’s Cronbach’s α value was 0.94, and no item’s “Cronbach’s alpha if the item is deleted” value was higher than 0.94.

4.1.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

To explore the structure of CKTLDS, an EFA was conducted on the first half (n = 585) of the sample, using SPSS 26.0. First, the adaptability of the data was examined, and the fit for the EFA was verified (KMO = 0.959, Bartlett spherical test χ2 = 8002.314 (df = 630, p < 0.001)). Then, using principal component analysis (PCA) and the varimax rotation method, a seven-factor model was created for the scale, which could explain 54.48% of the total variation, demonstrating satisfactory construct validity. The eigenvalues of the seven dimensions were 11.95, 2.05, 1.35, 1.21, 1.13, 1.11, and 1.09, respectively. Moreover, the items of other factors were consistent with the original assumptions, except for the construct of reflection. One item was loaded across the constructs of reflection and career planning; it was then deleted due to overlapping meanings. Therefore, 35 items remained. The EFA was conducted again and the factor loadings of the items were between 0.50 and 0.80, all values being higher than 0.45; the common degree was between 0.45 and 0.69, all of which exceeded 0.2 (see Table 2). Finally, the CKTLDS was verified to contain seven dimensions: motivation, information literacy, cultural literacy, reflection, career planning, teacher collaboration, and belief and mission.

4.1.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFA analysis was conducted on the second half (n = 585) of the data, using AMOS 24.0 to confirm the seven-factor structural validity. All items were continuous and a maximum likelihood estimation was performed in this study. The factor loadings of the 35 items were between 0.59 and 0.79, and all reached a significant level (p < 0.001), implying that the factor structure of the CKTLDS was sound. The χ2/df of this scale was 2.51, this being less than 3; the value of RMSEA was 0.05, which was below 0.08; the values of CFI and TLI were 0.90 and 0.90, reaching the acceptable standard; the value of SRMR was 0.04, which was lower than 0.08 (see Figure 1). Thus, the construct validity was proven by the CFA results.
The composite reliability (CR) coefficient of seven factors ranged from 0.74 to 0.84, which was higher than 0.70. The average variance extracted (AVE) values of the six factors were below the recommended level of 0.50 (see Table 2). According to Fornell and Larcker, CR can confirm the convergent validity alone if it reaches the recommended level, even though the AVE value is lower than 0.50 [56]. As the CR of all seven constructs was above 0.70, the convergent validity of the factors was acceptable.
Discriminant validity was assessed using HTMT analysis, which calculates the ratio of the average correlations between constructs to the geometric mean of the average correlations within items of the same constructs. The results in Table 3 show that all the HTMT values between the constructs were below 0.85, thus indicating that the discriminant validity of the seven factors meets the requirements.

4.1.4. Reliability Analysis

In Table 4, the results revealed that the reliability of each factor varied between 0.81 and 0.90, and the MacDonald’s omega (ω) value for the CKTLDS was 0.94, which was above 0.90, thus indicating the scale’s sufficiently adequate internal consistency.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development

As Table 4 shows, the mean score of all 36 items was 2.37, with SD = 0.45. In particular, the level of MO was the highest (M = 2.68, SD = 0.58), followed by CP (M = 2.47, SD = 0.60), BM (M = 2.46, SD = 0.55) and TC (M = 2.39, SD = 0.60), while the levels of RE (M = 2.34, SD = 0.54), IL (M = 2.32, SD = 0.57) and CL (M = 2.01, SD = 0.56) were relatively low. The table revealed a significant difference between the mean of MO, IL, CL, RE, TC, and BM, the total, and the theoretical mean of 2.5. Only the mean of MO was higher than 2.5, while those of the other five dimensions and the total were lower than 2.5. These results indicated that the level of kindergarten teacher learning and development in China was below average. Moreover, their MO level was the highest and above average, although their IL and CL levels needed to be improved. Second, two items among the 36 items that had the lowest mean scores were “Know about information sources related to the teaching profession and use them frequently” (M = 1.92, SD = 0.87) and “Visit art galleries, exhibitions, and museums to improve cultural literacy in leisure time” (M = 1.66, SD = 0.87), showing a relatively low level of CKTLDS in terms of information capacity and cultural activities participation.

4.3. Predictors of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development

The correlation between variables and teachers’ learning and development levels was investigated using Spearman’s correlation analysis. As shown in Table 5, the following variables were significantly correlated with the total score of CKTLDS (p < 0.01): age (≤20 years, 21–30 years, 31–40 years, 41–50 years, ≥51 years), marital status (unmarried or married), parental status (no children or having children), teaching experience (≤2 years, 3–5 years, 6–8 years, 9–15 years, 16–20 years, ≥21 years), professional title (no title, junior, first, second, or senior), job position (ordinary teacher, monitor, grade leader, director of nursing and teaching, or principal), school tenure (yes or no), and teaching class (nursery class for 2-year-olds, junior class for 3-year-olds, middle class for 4-year-olds, senior class for 5-year-olds, mixed-age class, or no teaching class). All correlations among the independent variables were weak or moderate, except for marital status and parental status (r = 0.85 and p < 0.01) and school tenure and professional title (r = −0.755 and p < 0.01). Based on their correlations with the dependent variable, parental status and professional title were chosen for entry into the hierarchical regression model.
The predictors of teacher learning and development were identified using a three-step hierarchical regression analysis. Three steps were taken to enter the significantly correlated independent variables. Age was entered in step 1, to control the influence of personal variables. In step 2, parental status was entered, to investigate the effect of family attributes on teacher learning and development. Last, in step 3, we entered the kindergarten teaching variables that were directly correlated with teacher learning and development, such as teaching experience, professional title, job position, and teaching class.
The changes in R2 between the three steps showed that: (1) personal variables could explain 2.4% of the total CKTLDS score. Age was a positive predictor of teacher learning and development. (2) Family variables can only explain 0.6% of the variations in the total CKTLDS score, which was the lowest proportion in this research. Having their own children was a positive predictor of TLD. (3) The kindergarten variables jointly accounted for 8.1% of the variances in the overall score, which was the largest proportion in this study. Among the four variables, only teaching experience and job position were found to be significant predictors.
Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that kindergarten-related variables were critical predictors of teacher learning and development: a high level of TLD was associated with more teaching experience and a higher job position. In addition, age could account for 2.4% of the variation: older teachers have a relatively high level of TLD, compared to younger teachers. Lastly, although the family variables showed the lowest interpretation rate on TLD, parental status still influenced TLD; teachers with no children were more likely to have low scores (see Table 6).

5. Discussion

This study evaluated the level of Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development by developing and validating the CKTLDS model. The results demonstrated that the psychometric properties of CKTLDS were robust, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. In addition, the overall level of Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development was measured, which was lower than the average level, thereby negating Hypothesis 2. Finally, job position, teaching experience, age, and parental status were significant predictors of Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development, thus supporting Hypothesis 3. The key findings and implications are discussed in this section.

5.1. The CKTLDS Is Reliable and Valid

This research validated the newly developed CKTLDS and confirmed its seven constructs: motivation, information literacy, cultural literacy, reflection, career planning, teacher collaboration, and beliefs and mission. This is an improvement to the current assessment framework on the theme of TLD, which focuses solely on individual and school factors but ignored policy factors. The framework of the CKTLDS was constructed from the multi-level individual, community, and policy domains. Regarding policy factors, the scale emphasized information literacy and cultural literacy, which are significant qualities for teachers to attain SDGs [57,58]. In addition, this study found that the scale has satisfactory levels of reliability and internal consistency. The items of the CKTLDS are related to the core elements of how and what teachers learn and develop, which embodies the active, situated, social, and constructed traits of TLD [59]. The scale measures the level of TLD from a holistic perspective, with a concern for the learning process and the purpose of professional development. Therefore, the psychometric properties confirm that CKTLDS is a suitable tool with which to assess the level of kindergarten teachers’ learning and development in China.

5.2. Level of Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development

This study found that the mean score of the total CKTLDS was 2.37, which was significantly below the theoretical mean of 2.5. This revealed that the Chinese kindergarten teachers’ level of learning and development was lower than the average level. This finding is inconsistent with those of previous studies, which reported that Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning literacy or professional development level was above the medium level [42,43]. The difference may be attributed to the different frameworks of TLD. Existing studies have focused on micro levels, such as the outcomes of teacher development or the learning process, and do not pay attention to policy factors such as information literacy and cultural literacy, which had the two lowest scores in this study and resulted in a lower overall score. Comparing the above results, competence-based teacher education in China, which pays too much attention to easily measured knowledge and skills and ignores implicit core qualities, appears to negatively impact kindergarten teachers’ sustainable growth [60]. Thus, the goal and curriculum of teacher education should be reflected and adjusted.
In addition, this study found that the scores of each dimension were imbalanced. The MO score was the highest and had an above-average level (>2.5), which corresponds with the research findings reported by Qiu et al. [44]. Such findings indicate that kindergarten teachers have an intrinsic motivation and learning autonomy, which can provide persistence in sustainable professional development [61]. However, the findings also suggested that kindergarten teachers’ information literacy and cultural literacy need urgent improvement, especially in an information capacity and regarding participation in cultural activities. The former finding is consistent with the previous literature, which found that Chinese teachers’ level of information application was relatively low [62]. Paradoxically, in the past decade, kindergarten teachers’ information literacy has received more attention regarding improving the level of informatization of early childhood education in China. Training courses on information technology application competency are integrated into the teacher training system at all levels. A possible explanation for such findings is that the government led the training, mainly in the form of centralized training or online training with specified credits, which was in a fragmented, single form that was focused more on theoretical knowledge and less on practice, and that was insufficient to meet individual and practical needs [63]. Thus, it is no surprise that kindergarten teachers lack information capacity.
As for the report of low cultural activities participation, the finding is congruent with Zhao’s study, which found that low teacher salaries affect their spending on cultural living, while increased working hours lead to less time being available for teachers to participate in cultural activities [64]. In recent years, the Ministry of Education of China has introduced salary guarantee policies for kindergarten teachers, to enhance the attractiveness of the ECE teacher profession. However, kindergarten teachers are still very dissatisfied with their salaries, as their income is still generally low [65]. After basic living expenses, kindergarten teachers may not have any extra money for cultural activities. As Zhao’s study indicated, compared with ten years ago, the proportion of kindergarten teachers’ total income that is spent on their cultural life has not increased. Moreover, with the establishment of the supervision, evaluation, and accountability system of ECE, kindergarten teachers are experiencing work intensification, with longer working hours and nonteaching roles and duties [66]. This overload of work invades kindergarten teachers’ leisure time, which might account for their low participation in cultural activities.

5.3. Factors Influencing Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development

First, this study found that job position and teaching experience were crucial predictors of Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development. Specifically, this finding indicated that a higher job position corresponds to a higher TLD level, which confirmed the previous result that job position positively predicts teacher quality [67]. On the one hand, this could be because job promotion can motivate teachers to continue development by meeting their spiritual and material needs [68]. Higher positions call for better teacher quality and require teachers to adopt more responsibilities. Therefore, to obtain and be competent in a higher position, teachers must be equipped with the corresponding learning and development level. On the other hand, teachers with high positions may obtain more support and access to resources for learning and development, such as training opportunities, learning resources, and individual coaching from school leaders [69], thus forming the Matthew effect (a concept that can be applied to many instances and refers to accumulated advantage, e.g., “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”).
This study also found that teachers with more extensive teaching experience scored higher in TLD, which is in line with existing findings that kindergarten teachers with longer teaching careers tend to have a higher level of learning literacy [44]. The results may be attributable to differences in teacher efficacy, which impact teacher motivation and professional learning engagement. Prior research has indicated that early childhood teachers reporting higher teacher efficacy exhibit greater engagement in professional development activities [70]. Meanwhile, teacher efficacy is closely related to their teaching experience. Teachers who remain longer in the profession become increasingly capable of managing the duties linked to teaching [71]. Subsequently, teacher efficacy is enhanced through the mastery of experiences and increases steadily with years of teaching. Therefore, more experienced teachers tend to have higher teacher efficacy than less experienced teachers and will also show a higher level of TLD.
Second, this study found that age could predict teachers’ learning and development, demonstrating that teachers’ TLD scores will probably increase as they age. Such findings echo previous studies of kindergarten teachers’ professional independent development, which established that older kindergarten teachers have a higher professional independent development level than younger teachers. This fact could be explained by teachers’ diverse levels of self-directed learning strategies. A prior study discovered that age influenced teacher preferences in terms of participation in learning and development activities. Specifically, younger teachers preferred formal PD and collaborative activities, while older teachers preferred informal and individual learning activities [72]. This indicates that senior colleagues had gained more teaching experience and possessed improved, self-directed learning techniques that were based on their own needs. Their professional growth is less constrained by a lack of professional resources, such as training opportunities or peer support.
Third, this study found that parental status could predict teachers’ TLD; in particular, the TLD score of teachers with children was higher. This result corroborates the argument that kindergarten teachers’ maternity and parenting experiences have an important impact on teachers’ learning and development. Specifically, kindergarten teachers with children improved their professional knowledge and skill by nurturing their own children. The practical experience of family parenting can promote teachers’ understanding and reflection of educational theories. Meanwhile, the dual identity of “teacher and parent” can stimulate learning motivation, help teachers to recognize early childhood teachers’ importance, and enhance their professional identity [73]. According to Clandinin’s narrative inquiry theory, personal and professional experiences shape teachers’ personal practical knowledge [74]. This implies that personal life experiences could be an important resource for TLD.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications

This is the first national research survey to evaluate kindergarten teachers’ learning and development in China. First, the results have demonstrated that the CKTLDS is a reliable and valid scale, with seven constructs: motivation, information literacy, cultural literacy, reflection, career planning, teacher collaboration, and belief and mission. Second, the statistical findings showed that the levels of the seven dimensions of CKTLDS were uneven. Only motivation was higher than the average level, while information literacy and cultural literacy had the two lowest scores. Third, kindergarten factors, including job position and teaching experience, were critical influencing aspects that positively predicted teachers’ learning and development, after controlling for personal factors, such as age, and family factors, such as parental status.
However, this study has several limitations. First, the results were mainly based on teachers’ subjective evaluations. Future studies should collect data from multiple insiders, such as kindergarten administrators and colleagues. Second, it is better to use a mixed-method approach rather than relying merely on questionnaire data to prevent answer biases, such as the social expectation effect from various groups. Third, the current study explored influencing factors chosen from teacher characteristics and family and kindergarten contextual factors. However, because of differing teacher-education systems in different countries, cultural and national contexts influence professional learning and development approaches, duration, and frequency [59]. Therefore, future studies could extend to encompass broader perspectives (e.g., different cultures and countries).
Despite these limitations, the findings have theoretical and practical implications. First, the most remarkable implication is that this scale broadens the research framework of TLD and can be used as an evaluation tool to gain a better understanding of TLD. The CKTLDS model is applicable outside of Chinese settings as a tool to assess teachers’ learning and development by selecting culturally appropriate dimensions. As the ultimate purpose of the scale’s development was to explore how to support sustainable kindergarten teacher learning and development and enhance teacher quality, it can provide evidential support for global decision-makers who are committed to delivering sustainable ECE. Meanwhile, the CKTLDS can be used as a self-assessment tool to help teachers understand their learning and development levels and clarify their development goals.
Second, the study revealed that the Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development level was relatively low, especially regarding information literacy and cultural literacy. This result is primarily due to the narrow goal of competence-based teacher education. Thus, to improve teacher education in China, teachers’ educational purpose and curriculums should be adjusted, based on the need for the sustainable development of ECE, by integrating humanities-oriented teacher education. It is also necessary to strengthen the integration of pre- and post-service education to provide teachers with systematic learning paths, along with more practice-oriented and humanism-oriented professional development activities.
Third, the present study found that job position, teaching experience, age, and parental status were significantly positive influencing factors in Chinese kindergarten teachers’ learning and development, which may be related to differences in job resources, teacher efficacy, learning strategies, and personal experience. Therefore, kindergarten leaders should focus on creating conditions to enhance teacher efficacy. For example, kindergarten leaders should pay attention to the balance of development resources in kindergartens and provide corresponding support according to the teachers’ needs and learning preferences at different stages of their professional development. Moreover, creating a collaborative school culture is vital in promoting teachers’ mutual sharing of personal and professional experiences.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, Y.J., Q.D. and X.L.; formal analysis, Y.W.; validation, C.Z. and J.L.; writing—original draft, Q.D. and Y.W.; writing—review and editing, Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by major projects of the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number 18ZDA336.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of East China Normal University (HR 548-2019 and date of approval, 4 January 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available, due to ethical requirements.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Chinese Kindergarten Teacher Learning and Development Scale Framework.
Table A1. Chinese Kindergarten Teacher Learning and Development Scale Framework.
ConstructDefinitionIndicators
MotivationMotivation of teachers’ learning and development refers to the psychological tendency or internal drive to stimulate and maintain teachers’ learning and development activities.Confidence and expectations of TLD
Value identification of TLD
Emotional experience of TLD
Information literacyInformation literacy refers to the ability of teachers to acquire, analyze, process, evaluate and use information.Information awareness
Information knowledge
Information competence
Information ethics
Cultural literacyTeachers acquire specific value systems, moral concepts, and aesthetic beliefs, spread by different social and cultural systems through edification or learning.Cultural awareness
Cultural edification
Cultural comparative vision
ReflectionReflection refers to a kind of positive behavior in which teachers adjust and optimize their educational practice activities by examining, thinking, and criticizing their educational concepts, educational practices, and educational experiences.Reflective awareness
Reflective ability
Reflective practice
Career planningTeachers’ career planning refers to the assumption and implementation of teachers’ career development, according to their situation and environment.Formulation of career planning
Implementation of career planning
Teacher collaborationTeacher collaboration refers to teachers working together and engaging in community learning, with the common goal of improving practice and individual and collective development.Willingness of teacher collaboration
Culture of teacher collaboration
Ability of teacher collaboration
Belief and missionTeacher belief refers to a teacher’s firm concepts of educational work, teachers, curriculum, children, and other related educational factors that are gradually formed in educational practice.Educational belief
Professional mission

Appendix B

Table
Table A2. Chinese Kindergarten Teacher Learning and Development Scale Items.
Table A2. Chinese Kindergarten Teacher Learning and Development Scale Items.
ConstructItem
Motivation
  • I believe I can achieve professional growth through reflection, practice, and other means.
  • I value learning and development and pursue them from intrinsic motivation.
  • I enjoy and feel a sense of achievement in learning and development activities.
Information literacy
4.
I have good reading habits and frequently go to libraries and bookstores to browse, flip through, and buy books and related materials.
5.
I have mastered the knowledge of information technology applications such as the Internet, multimedia, and new media, and I understand their role in educational activities.
6.
I can acquire and use information relevant to my work, such as from newspapers, journals, websites, television columns, and basic reference books.
7.
I can develop and utilize information technology resources for educational activities.
8.
I consciously abide by information ethics when using and disseminating others’ intellectual property, such as inventions, literary, and artistic works, designs, symbols, and images.
Cultural literacy
9.
I visit art galleries, exhibition halls, museums, etc., to improve my cultural literacy.
10.
I read books or watch programs from different cultures in my leisure time.
11.
I pay attention to cultural differences and select books for children with traditional cultural and multicultural characteristics.
12.
I pay attention to ethnic and local cultural backgrounds and try to construct educational activities with regional characteristics.
13.
I can develop and utilize local curriculum resources for educational activities.
Reflection
14.
I consciously reflect on my work and try new teaching ideas and methods.
15.
I handle paperwork positively and consider it an opportunity to sort out my thoughts.
16.
I keep a recording of my work experience and regularly compare and analyze my records.
17.
I am able to select valuable and meaningful content for reflection.
18.
I insist on making reading summaries and educational essays and regularly reviewing them.
19.
I change my behavior through reflection and try to become a reflective practitioner.
20.
I pay attention to the issue of educational equity in educational activities.
Career planning
21.
I evaluate my career development level and determine my career learning needs.
22.
I can effectively make career development plans at different stages.
23.
I try to be creative and construct strategies to implement my career plan.
24.
I keep abreast of the latest developments and educational policies in early childhood education and think about their significance to my work.
Teacher collaboration
25.
I understand the importance of teamwork activities and am willing to participate with others, such as through communication, dialogue, and seminars.
26.
I treat others with respect and trust, dare to share my ideas, and accept different views.
27.
I take the initiative to participate in formulating class plans and setting goals through discussion and cooperation with colleagues.
28.
I look for opportunities to observe the educational activities of excellent teachers.
29.
I take the initiative to invite excellent teachers to observe my educational activities and humbly listen to their opinions.
Belief and mission
30.
I love children and believe in their development potential.
31.
I regard education as an art and pursue creative work in education.
32.
I understand that a teacher acts as a supporter, collaborator, and guide in children’s learning activities.
33.
I can think about and judge professionally the phenomena related to early childhood education.
34.
I am willing to engage in early childhood education and understand the importance of education for children’s growth, teachers’ development, and social progress.
35.
I have a sense of mission and understand early childhood teachers’ mission for children’s development and early childhood education.

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the UN General Assembly. 2015. Available online: https://stgwedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/11125/unepswiosm1inf7sdg.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  2. Wang, S.; Lv, X. Hot topics and evolution of frontier research in early education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (2001–2020). Sustainability 2021, 13, 9216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jiang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, C. China’s preschool education Toward 2035: Views of key policy experts. ECNU ROE 2022, 5, 345–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liu, X.; Jiang, Y.; Li, H. The sustainability of early childhood education in Chinese teachers’ perspective: Evidence from a national validation study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, J.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhu, X.; Sha, T. Paths to promote the sustainability of kindergarten teachers’ caring: Teachers’ perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schachter, R.E.; Gerde, H.K.; Hatton-Bowers, H. Guidelines for Selecting Professional Development for Early Childhood Teachers. Early Childhood Educ. J. 2019, 47, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Brunsek, A.; Perlman, M.; McMullen, E.; Falenchuk, O.; Fletcher, B.; Nocita, G.; Kamkar, N.; Shah, P.S. A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Associations between Professional Development of Early Childhood Educators and Children’s Outcomes. Early Child. Res. Q. 2020, 53, 217–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Egert, F.; Dederer, V.; Fukkink, R.G. The Impact of In-Service Professional Development on the Quality of Teacher- Child Interactions in Early Education and Care: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 29, 100309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clarke, L.; McLaughlin, T.; Aspden, K.; Riley, T. Supporting teachers’ practice through professional learning and development: What’s happening in New Zealand early childhood education? Aust. J. Early Child. 2021, 46, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, Y.; Rao, N. Teacher Professional Development among Preschool Teachers in Rural China. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2021, 42, 219–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Precision Training Improves Quality and Efficiency. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl39/202105/t20210519_532248.html (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  12. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Achievements in the Reform and Development of Early Childhood Education Since the 18th CPC National Congress. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2022/54405/sfcl/202204/t20220426_621796.html (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  13. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Notice of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Finance on the Implementation of the National Training Plan for Primary and Secondary School and Kindergarten Teachers (2021–2025). Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7034/202105/t20210519_532221.html (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  14. UNESCO Teacher Education Centre. Abstract of the Blue Book of China’s National Training Plan (2010–2019). 2020. Available online: http://untec.shnu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/c2/5a/882cc59c426faaea186c510058a5/83c2e8ff-e0d1-4235-a3e6-940073f490c7.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2022).
  15. Mockler, N. Teacher professional learning under audit: Reconfiguring practice in an age of standards. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2022, 48, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kwakman, K. Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2003, 19, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Darling-Hammond, L.; Richardson, N. Research Review/Teacher Learning: What Matters. Educ. Leadersh. 2009, 66, 46–53. Available online: https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/teacher-learning-what-matters (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  18. Guskey, T.R. What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan 2003, 84, 748–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Korthagen, F. Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teach. Teach. 2017, 23, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Webster-Wright, A. Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 2009, 79, 702–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kelly, P. What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2006, 32, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Johnson, K.E.; Golombek, P.R. "Seeing" teacher learning. TESOL Q. 2003, 37, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Richter, D.; Kunter, M.; Klusmann, U.; Lüdtke, O.; Baumert, J. Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2011, 27, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Desimone, L.M. Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educ. Res. 2009, 38, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Borko, H. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educ. Res. 2004, 33, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Putnam, R.T.; Borko, H.; Putnam, R.; Borko, H. What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educ. Res. 2000, 29, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rahman, A. Investigating school conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development in Indonesia. Teach. Dev. 2022, 26, 240–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Day, C.; Gu, Q. Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2007, 33, 423–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Phantharakphong, P.; Liyanage, I. Teacher professional learning and development: Linear discourses and complexities of teacher learning. Asia-Pac. J. Teach. Educ. 2022, 50, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kaartinen, S. Meaningfulness via participation: Sociocultural practices for teacher learning and development. Teach. Teach. 2009, 15, 601–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ford, T.G.; Ware, J.K. Teacher self-regulatory climate: Conceptualizing an indicator of leader support for teacher learning and development. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2018, 17, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Quinn, F.; Charteris, J.; Adlington, R.; Rizk, N.; Fletcher, P.; Reyes, V.; Parkes, M. Developing, situating and evaluating effective online professional learning and development: A review of some theoretical and policy frameworks. Aust. Educ. Res. 2019, 46, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boylan, M.; Coldwell, M.; Maxwell, B.; Jordan, J. Rethinking models of professional learning as tools: A conceptual analysis to inform research and practice. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2018, 44, 120–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Evans, L. Leadership for professional development and learning: Enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Camb. J. Educ. 2014, 44, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Clarke, D.; Hollingsworth, H. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2002, 18, 947–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Opfer, V.D.; Pedder, D. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 2011, 81, 376–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shulman, L.S.; Shulman, J.H. How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. J. Educ. 2009, 189, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Freitas, D. ‘It Kind of Made Me Think: Is This the Real Me? Is This Really Who I Am?’ A Mixed Methods Investigation of Teacher Learning and Teacher Development in CELTA Courses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bektaş, F.; Kılınç, A.Ç.; Gümüş, S. The effects of distributed leadership on teacher professional learning: Mediating roles of teacher trust in principal and teacher motivation. Educ. Stud. 2022, 48, 602–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aliakbari, M.; Malmir, B. Development and validation of an English language teacher learning scale. Cogent Educ. 2017, 4, 1292613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jia, Y.D. Research on the Current Situation, Problems and Countermeasures of Preschool Teachers’ Professional Development. Master’s Thesis, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mao, Y.K. Investigation on the Status of Preschool Teachers’ Professional Independent Development—A Case Study of X City in Henan Province. Master’s Thesis, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, D. Research on the Status and Influencing Factors of Kindergarten Teachers’ Self-Directed Learning. Master’s Thesis, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  44. Qiu, Z.H.; Wen, L. An investigation of the level of kindergarten teachers’ learning literacy. Xueqian Jiaoyu Yanjiu 2021, 12, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sancar, R.; Atal, D.; Deryakulu, D. A new framework for teachers’ professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 101, 103305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Korthagen, F.A.J. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2004, 20, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiang, Y.; Li, P.; Wang, J.; Li, H. Relationships between kindergarten teachers’ empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational climate: A Chinese model. J. Res. Child. Educ. 2019, 33, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xie, S.; Liang, L.; Li, H. Emotional Labor and Professional Identity in Chinese Early Childhood Teachers: The Gendered Moderation Models. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, M.L. Questionnaire statistical analysis practice-SPSS operation and application; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2018; pp. 187–192. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schreiber, J.B. Issues and Recommendations for Exploratory Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analysis. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2021, 17, 1004–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lamm, K.W.; Lamm, A.J.; Edgar, D. Scale Development and Validation: Methodology and Recommendations. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2020, 27, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gaskin, J.; James, M.; Lim, J.; Master Validity Tool, AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki. 2019. Available online: http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/index.php?title=Main_Page (accessed on 2 December 2022).
  53. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Voorhees, C.M.; Brady, M.K.; Calantone, R.; Ramirez, E. Discriminant Validity Testing in Marketing: An Analysis, Causes for Concern, and Proposed Remedies. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2016, 44, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hayes, A.F.; Coutts, J.J. Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…. Commun. Methods Meas. 2020, 14, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Méndez, D.; Méndez, M.; Anguita, J.M. Digital Teaching Competence in Teacher Training as an Element to Attain SDG 4 of the 2030 Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ferran Vila, S.; Miotto, G.; Rodríguez, J.R. Cultural Sustainability and the SDGs: Strategies and Priorities in the European Union Countries. EJSD 2021, 10, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brandisauskiene, A.; Cesnaviciene, J.; Miciuliene, R.; Kaminskiene, L. What Factors Matter for the Sustainable Professional Development of Teachers? Analysis from Four Countries. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 2020, 22, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jiang, Y.; Duan, Q.R. The review and prospect of the academic history of kindergarten teacher education research in China in the past 70 year. Xueqian Jiaoyu Yanjiu 2020, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, W.S.; Li, X.W.; Zou, Y.M. The formation of teachers’ intrinsic motivation in professional development. Integr. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2019, 53, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, M.; Zhou, C.; Man, S.; Li, Y. Investigating Teachers’ Information Literacy and Its Differences in Individuals and Schools: A Large-Scale Evaluation in China. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, J.C. Exploration of information technology training models for kindergarten teacher in the context of "national training". Inf. Technol. Educ. 2022, Z2, 117–120. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhao, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Zhang, Y.L. An investigation of the changes of kindergarten teachers’ spiritual life in poverty-stricken counties in the past 10 years. Teach. Dev. Res. 2022, 6, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Li, H.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, X. The Quality of Puhui Early Education Services in Chinese Teachers’ Perspectives: Evidence from a National Validation Study. IJERPH 2022, 19, 10870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Duan, Q.R. Early Childhood Teacher Identity in the Context of Curriculum Reform. Ph.D. Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  67. Lan, S.; Jiang, Y.; Di, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, J.; Li, F. Development and validation of the Chinese kindergarten teacher quality scale in Shanghai. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021, 131, 106272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chu, W.; Liu, H.; Fang, F. A Tale of Three Excellent Chinese EFL Teachers: Unpacking Teacher Professional Qualities for Their Sustainable Career Trajectories from an Ecological Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Karacabey, M.F. School Principal Support in Teacher Professional Development. IJELM Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Manag. 2020, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lipscomb, S.T.; Chandler, K.D.; Abshire, C.; Jaramillo, J.; Kothari, B. Early Childhood Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Professional Support Predict Work Engagement. Early Child. Educ. J. 2022, 50, 675–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Xie, Z.; Wu, R.; Liu, H.; Liu, J. How Does Teacher-Perceived Principal Leadership Affect Teacher Self-Efficacy between Different Teaching Experiences through Collaboration in China? A Multilevel Structural Equation Model Analysis Based on Threshold. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 933838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Glastra, F.J.; De Brabander, C.J. Valences and Sense of Personal Autonomy with Regard to Professional Development in Dutch Primary Teachers: Do Decision Contexts and Age Make a Difference? FLR 2021, 9, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chang, Y.H.; Hu, Y.W. Professional motherhood: Identity adjustment and integration of female teachers. J. Soochow Univ. Educ. Sci. Ed. 2022, 10, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Clandinin, D.J. Journeys in Narrative Inquiry: The Selected Works of D. Jean Clandinin; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 01992 g001 550
Figure 1. MO = motivation; IL = information literacy; CL = cultural literacy; RE = reflection; CP = career planning; TC = teacher collaboration; BM = belief and mission. Model fit: χ2 = 1351.205, df = 539, χ2/df = 2.51, p < 0.000, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI = 0.047; 0.054), AIC = 1533.205, BIC = 1545.161.
Figure 1. MO = motivation; IL = information literacy; CL = cultural literacy; RE = reflection; CP = career planning; TC = teacher collaboration; BM = belief and mission. Model fit: χ2 = 1351.205, df = 539, χ2/df = 2.51, p < 0.000, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI = 0.047; 0.054), AIC = 1533.205, BIC = 1545.161.
Sustainability 15 01992 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 1170).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 1170).
Demographic CharacteristicsN%
Gender
Male353%
Female113597%
Age
≤20927.9%
21–3047040.2%
31–4040434.5%
41–5018615.9%
≥51181.5%
Teaching experience
≤215613.3%
3–526922.9%
6–817615.1%
9–1522419.2%
16–2014812.7%
≥2119716.8%
Educational background
Junior high school or below252.1%
Technical secondary school or senior high school59951.2%
Junior college43737.4%
Undergraduate or above1099.3%
School tenure
Yes45939.2%
No71160.8%
Job position
Ordinary teacher53645.8%
Monitor16313.9%
Grade leader1129.6%
Director of nursing and teaching665.7%
Principal29325%
Professional title
No title63754.5%
Junior675.7%
First18115.5%
Second675.7%
Senior21818.6%
Marital status
Unmarried25421.7%
Married91678.3%
Parental status
No children29525.2%
Have children87574.8%
Teaching class
Nursery class for 2-year-olds282.4%
Junior class for 3-year-olds24020.5%
Middle class for 4-year-olds26622.7%
Senior class for 5-year-olds39233.5%
Mixed-age class221.9%
No teaching class22219%
Geographical area
Urban area62553.4%
Rural area54546.6%
Table
Table 2. The results of exploratory factor analysis and convergent validity.
Table 2. The results of exploratory factor analysis and convergent validity.
ConstructItemFactor LoadingCommonalityCRAVE
MOQ10.660.520.740.49
Q20.680.63
Q30.750.64
ILQ40.640.610.810.47
Q50.800.69
Q60.720.52
Q70.700.64
Q80.640.55
CLQ90.700.560.790.42
Q100.620.55
Q110.690.64
Q120.760.69
Q130.500.47
REQ140.560.500.840.43
Q150.500.45
Q160.540.57
Q170.570.56
Q180.640.53
Q190.660.57
Q200.510.45
CPQ210.540.610.820.54
Q220.580.52
Q230.570.55
Q240.620.61
TCQ250.520.530.810.47
Q260.630.55
Q270.730.61
Q280.510.58
Q290.620.59
BMQ300.520.470.800.41
Q310.510.52
Q320.530.49
Q330.520.54
Q340.540.50
Q350.700.61
Note: MO = motivation; IL = information literacy; CL = cultural literacy; RE = reflection; CP = career planning; TC = teacher collaboration; BM = belief and mission; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.
Table
Table 3. The heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) criterion.
Table 3. The heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) criterion.
ConstructMOILCLRECPTCBM
MO
IL0.47
CL0.37 0.59
RE0.61 0.59 0.68
CP0.59 0.53 0.54 0.82
TC0.53 0.49 0.43 0.79 0.80
BM0.62 0.51 0.58 0.84 0.76 0.83
Note: MO = motivation; IL = information literacy; CL = cultural literacy; RE = reflection; CP = career planning; TC = teacher collaboration; BM = belief and mission.
Table
Table 4. Item means, standard deviations, t-test, and reliability of the CKTLDS.
Table 4. Item means, standard deviations, t-test, and reliability of the CKTLDS.
ConstructMSDTMTMacDonald’s ω
MO2.680.582.510.58 *** 0.84
IL2.230.572.5−16.18 *** 0.85
CL2.010.562.5−29.84 *** 0.81
RE2.340.542.5−10.34 ***0.83
CP2.470.602.5−1.52 0.85
TC2.390.612.5−5.96 *** 0.90
BM2.460.552.5−2.26 *0.90
Overall 2.370.452.5−9.84 ***0.94
Note: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; TM = theoretical mean; MO = motivation; IL = information literacy; CL= cultural literacy; RE = reflection; CP = career planning; TC = teacher collaboration; BM = belief and mission.
Table
Table 5. Correlation matrix.
Table 5. Correlation matrix.
Variables123456789
1. Total TLD score——
2. Age0.158 **——
3. Marital status0.141 **0.525 **——
4. Parental status0.150 **0.560 **0.850 **——
5. Teaching experience0.211 **0.686 **0.542 **0.574 **——
6. Professional title0.130 **0.377 **0.269 **0.258 **0.478 **——
7. Job position0.288 **0.363 **−0.343 **0.343 **0.452 **0.313 **——
8. School tenure−0.068 **−0.220 **−0.160 **−0.136 **−0.300 **−0.755 **−0.179 **——
9. Teaching class0.198 **0.286 **0.228 **0.247 **0.303 **0.210 **0.459 **−0.122 **——
Note. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 6. Summary of the hierarchical regression analysis predicting TLD.
Table 6. Summary of the hierarchical regression analysis predicting TLD.
VariableβR2ΔR2F-Value
Step 1 0.024—30.215 ***
Age0.156 ***
Step 2 0.0300.00618.790 ***
Age0.109 ***
Parental status0.088 **
Step 3 0.1070.08124.447 ***
Age−0.029
Parental status−0.006
Teaching experience0.108 *
Professional title0.040
Job position0.240 ***
Teaching class0.059
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Duan, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, C.; Liu, J.; Liu, X. Development and Validation of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development Scale. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031992

AMA Style

Duan Q, Jiang Y, Wang Y, Zheng C, Liu J, Liu X. Development and Validation of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development Scale. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031992

Chicago/Turabian Style

Duan, Qingru, Yong Jiang, Yifang Wang, Chuchu Zheng, Jing Liu, and Xin Liu. 2023. "Development and Validation of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development Scale" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031992

APA Style

Duan, Q., Jiang, Y., Wang, Y., Zheng, C., Liu, J., & Liu, X. (2023). Development and Validation of Chinese Kindergarten Teachers’ Learning and Development Scale. Sustainability, 15(3), 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031992

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop