ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This pilot study examined the psychometric properties of a questionnaire developed to evaluate the implementation of the Integrated Science Curriculum in Zhejiang Province, China, using the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) model as the guiding framework. The instrument initially contained 91 items, reduced to 88 after expert review and content validity testing. Data were collected from 93 lower secondary science teachers across three urban and rural schools. Normality analysis showed skewness and kurtosis values within acceptable ranges, confirming approximate normal distribution. Reliability tests indicated strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s ? values exceeding 0.7 for all constructs. Exploratory factor analysis supported the structural validity of the instrument, with KMO values above 0.6, Bartlett’s test significant at p < 0.05, factor loadings above 0.5, and cumulative explained variance surpassing 60% across all dimensions. The findings demonstrate that the questionnaire possesses robust psychometric quality and is appropriate for large-scale application. This pilot validation ensures the reliability and validity of subsequent confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, while providing methodological evidence for evaluating integrated science curricula in the Chinese context.
Fan, X. Y. (2004). Analysis of factors influencing the implementation of integrated science curriculum (Master’s thesis, Northeast Normal University).
Fei, M. (2012). Strategies for strengthening conceptual integration in the implementation of integrated science curriculum. Education and Teaching Forum, 8, 81–82.
Guo, Y., & Li, X. (2024). Regional inequality in China’s educational development: An urban-rural comparison. Heliyon, 10(4), e26249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26249
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage learning. Hampshire, United Kingdom, 633.
Huang, X., & Chen, W. H. (2014). Problems and reflections on the promotion of the integrated science curriculum in Zhejiang Province: An empirical study based on the implementation status of Zhejiang’s integrated science curriculum. Teacher Education Research, 26(2), 8.
Jia, L. (2013). Research in the installation of integrated science curriculum in junior middle school (Master’s thesis, Shandong Normal University).
Kennedy, T. J., & Cherry, A. R. (2023). Sustainable Development Goals and Science and Technology Education. In B. Akpan, B. Cavas, & T. Kennedy (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Science and Technology Education (pp. 131–149). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24259-5_10
Liang, Y. Q. (2024). Evaluation practice of kindergarten science curriculum based on the CIPP model. Educational Science Forum, 16(6), 31–35.
Liu, J. (2008). Analyzing students’ mastery of scientific knowledge in integrated and disciplinary science curricula. Educational Measurement and Evaluation: Theoretical Edition, 11, 4.
Lu, F. (2023). Development and construction of a primary science curriculum evaluation system based on core competencies. Primary Science Education Research, 9, 12–17.
Markula, A., & Aksela, M. (2022). The key characteristics of project-based learning: How teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00042-x
Miao, Q. (2024). High-quality development of science education in rural schools: Value implications, existing challenges, and potential solutions. Modern Distance Education, 214, 29–39.
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48. JSTOR.
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (2019, December 10). Chinese students excel in reading, math, science: OECD PISA results. Retrieved from http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/201912/t20191210_411536.html
Pan, S. (2005). Analysis of the organizational structure of integrated science curriculum content. Comparative Education Research, 26(5), 49–54.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2012). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
Teo, T. W., & Choy, B. H. (2021). STEM education in Singapore. Singapore Math and Science Education Innovation: Beyond PISA, 43–59.
Wang, Y. (2024). Practical exploration of integrated science curriculum development in junior high schools. Primary and Secondary School Science Education, (2), 31–35.
Wang, Y. C. (2021). Cultivating scientific literacy: The exploration of Zhejiang Province’s junior high school integrated science curriculum. Global Education Outlook, 50(12), 14.
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8, 1–13.
Wu, X. (2021). Construction and application of a CIPP-based curriculum evaluation system for undergraduate surgery courses. Chinese Medical Education Technology, 35(3), 289–293.
Xiao, H., & Changyun, M. (2013). The Integrated Science Curriculum in Mainland China (pp. 189–215). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-359-1_10
Yang, H., & Song, Y. (2020). Construction of a new evaluation model for materials science and engineering curriculum under engineering accreditation. Teaching and Education Forum, (39), 232–233.
Zhang, B. (2010). A new reflection on science curriculum evaluation: From the perspective of value. Educational Measurement and Evaluation, (6), 39–40.
Zhang, J. (2022). Strategies for experimental teaching and management of rural primary school science curricula. Tianjin Education, 9, 162–163.
Xiangfei, Z., Ghazali, N. H. M., Dongyuan, H., & Yao, Y. (2025). A Pilot Study on the Evaluation of the Integrated Science Curriculum in Zhejiang Province Using the CIPP Model. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 14(3), 2367-2381.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode