EFA for Principal Instructional, Technology Acceptance and Competency Teaching East Coast Boarding School in Malaysia

The principal is an individual who plays a very important role in steering the school towards an effective school. In the field of leadership there are many models that principals can use in leading schools. It was found that the Principal who uses the instructional leadership model has managed to steer the school so brilliantly. The model built by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) has been seen as a very easy model to be used as a guide for principals because this model contains dimensions that are easy to understand and easy to use as a guide for principals and school leaders. Before the actual study is carried out, a pilot study needs to be carried out to ensure that the questionnaire taken from the original questionnaire can be used after going through the validity and reliability process, the EFA process needs to be carried out to ensure that the questionnaire that will be used is valid in terms of validity and reliability before it is distributed to the respondents research. In this EFA process there are three construct namely Prinsipal Instructional Leadership, Aplication Of Technology Acceptance And Teacher Teaching Competency. This study uses quantitative research methods based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze various relationships between variables in the study model. Before the data is analyzed using SEM, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is carried out to identify the appropriateness of the items used in the research instrument. This study describes in detail the procedure of conducting EFA analysis for each construct. The findings of this study show validity values based on Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Total Variance Explained (TVE), Factor Loading (FL) and reliability values based on Cronbach's Alpha (AC), have met all the required values.


Introduction
Developments in technology, especially in the world of education, have caused competition among countries in the world to become countries that use technology in the field of education (Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2018).This development has caused the country's education system to change towards a technological country and the country strives to meet the demands of technology in order not to fall behind in the current of modernity, especially changes in the field of education (Cambridge Assessment International Education, 2018).In realizing the government's desire to make the country informative, the role of school principals is very important to ensure that all members of the school organization use technology and teachers use technology in teaching and learning in the classroom.The principal's leadership plays a very important role in realizing the planned vision and mission (Ismail, Ahmad Fauzi & Othman, 2012), Leaders who have a clear vision in mobilizing the use of ICT in schools are able to influence teachers to apply technology in teaching (Norakmar et al., 2020).According to the Malaysian Education Development Plan (MEDP), Principals and head teachers who focus on instructional leadership rather than administration have successfully increased student achievement by up to 20% (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013).This shows that the principal plays the most important role in steering a school.To ensure the effectiveness of school management, principals are advised to use the Instructional Leadership model introduced by Halingger and Murphy (1985) in managing the administration of a school because this model is still relevant and used as a reference even though it was introduced by Halingger and Murphy since 1985.In ensuring the effectiveness of the Principal's Instructional Leadership influence on Teacher Teaching Competence especially in 21st century learning, the teacher's acceptance of technology plays an important role in creating a strong relationship between Instructional Leadership and Teacher Teaching effectiveness.Based on the highlights of previous studies, there are many factors that affect the effectiveness of technology application such as Teachers' Attitudes and Acceptance of Technology (Indu, 2017;Siti Hajar & Suguneswary, 2016), Teachers' Readiness in 21st Century Learning and Teaching (Apak & Suhaimi, 2018), The Relationship Between The Attitude And Skills Of School Leaders Towards The Use Of Ict (Pokirthanan, Mohd Faiz & Hapini, 2019;Siti Hajar & Suguneswary, 2016), Teacher Support, Infrastructure And Ict Competence (Ismail et al., 2012).The level of teacher commitment in integrating ICT in implementing School Based Assessment (PBS) is low.This is due to teachers not being ready to accept any changes involving the application of technology in teaching and assessment (Azni, 2015), teachers' lack of ICT skills, weak internet networks, weak technical support, lack of time, teachers not being efficient in using computers, teacher motivation low (Talirkodi, 2016), teachers' beliefs and intentions play a very important role in ensuring that teachers use technology in teaching, government policy, encouragement, infrastructure facilities provided and monitoring implemented in today's education system (Ani, 2016), competency factors teachers and school infrastructure support (Ismail et al., 2012) and knowledge, attitude, innovation attributes, teacher personality and organizational support.Meanwhile, teacher competence in teaching is seen as the main factor in improving student achievement.Highly competent teachers will try to improve their competence in teaching (Yusri & Ismail, 2015).However, in reality, principals do not encourage teachers to integrate ICT, especially the use of mobile technology in teaching because principals are not skilled in ICT, causing principals to not try to encourage teachers to apply the use of technology in teaching and learning (Abidin et al., 2017).Statement this is supported based on a study by Norhaini (2016) who found that principals are often busy with attending meetings and outside activities and that much time is used by principals to do work that is not related to teaching and learning.The effect of the principal's busyness has had an impact on the teaching competence of teachers, teachers do not have sufficient competence especially in terms of teaching (Yusri & Ismail, 2015;Yusof et al., 2019).Based on existing problems, this study was conducted to see the exploratory factor analysis for the three constructs, namely the principal's instructional leadership, the acceptance of technology applications and the teacher's teaching competence.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
EFA is conducted to identify some components that exist in the set of questionnaires that have been formed.EFA is a statistical technique that transforms a set of original construct data linearly into a set of smaller constructs that can give a comprehensive picture of all the information contained in the original construct (Duntemen, 1989).The purpose of EFA is to reduce the dimensions of the original data to several smaller components that can be interpreted more easily and meaningfully (Duntemen, 1989;Lewis-Beck, 1994& Field, 2006).According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), EFA needs to go through several stages.The first stage calculates the correlation matrix between all the factor-analyzed constructs.The next stage involves extracting some factors from the correlation matrix and determining the number of factors formed.The rotation of the factors is done to improve the interpretation so that the factors are more meaningful and can be interpreted.The final and most important stage in factor analysis is to interpret the results of the factors obtained and give an appropriate name to each factor.According to Chik and Abdullah (2018); Hoque et al (2017), if a researcher adapts an instrument that has been built by previous researchers and modifies the statement to fit the current study, then they need to re-run the EFA procedure.This is because the current study area may be different from previous studies, or the current study population is much different from previous studies in terms of socio-economic status, race and culture.Thus, there may be some items that were built before, no longer suitable for the current study or there may also be a different item structure in the current study compared to the structure in the previous study.Therefore, researchers need to recalculate the Internal Reliability value for the current instrument, which is the new Cronbach's Alpha value (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).In this study, the researcher conducted a pilot study on 125 teacher in east coast boarding school in Malaysia and re-conducted EFA on the items that measure the construct.

Findings Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Define School Mission Construct
Each item in the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct uses a total of 12 items and is labeled MMS1 to MMS6 and MRM1 to MMS6.Next, the use of an interval scale for measuring the items is between one (1) (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree).The EFA procedure using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method with Varimax Rotation was conducted on 12 items that measure the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct.The results of Table 1 below show that the value of Bartlet's Test is significant (P-Value < 0.05).Measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is 0.941 which is above the minimum value of 0.6 (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Both of these achievements (Bartlet's Test significant, & KMO value>0.6)reflect the observed data is suitable for the next procedure in EFA (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Another piece of information that researchers need to report is the reliability value of the items that have been built to measure that construct.The measure of instrument reliability is estimated through Cronbach's Alpha value that exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be adopted in the study.Table 4 below shows the Cronbach's Alpha value for each item in the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct that exceeds 0.7 and can be used in this study (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Another piece of information that researchers need to report is the reliability value of the items that have been built to measure that construct.The measure of instrument reliability is estimated through Cronbach's Alpha value that exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be adopted in the study.Table 8 below shows the Cronbach's Alpha value for each item in the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct that exceeds 0.7 and can be used in this study (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).All items have a factor loading value exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6 and items that are less than 0.6 should be discarded because they do not contribute to the measurement of the construct (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Another piece of information that researchers need to report is the reliability value of the items that have been built to measure that construct.The measure of instrument reliability is estimated through Cronbach's Alpha value that exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be adopted in the study.Table 12 below shows the Cronbach's Alpha value for each item in the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct that exceeds 0.7 and can be used in this study (Chik &Abdullah, 2018 andHoque et al., 2017).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) For Acceptance of Technology Applications Construct
Each item in the Acceptance Of Technology Applications construct uses a total of 20 items and is labeled PKB1 to PKB10 and PMG1 to PMG10.Next, the use of an interval scale for measuring the items is between one (1) (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree).The EFA procedure using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method with Varimax Rotation was conducted on 20 items that measure the Acceptance of Technology Applications construct.
The results of Table 13 below show that the value of Bartlet's Test is significant (P-Value < 0.05).Measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is 0.963 which is above the minimum value of 0.6 (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Both of these achievements (Bartlet's Test significant, & KMO value>0.6)reflect the observed data is suitable for the next procedure in EFA (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Findings from Table 14 above show that construct is measured by six components.Thus, the researcher wants to know the selected items to measure the component.Table 15 below shows the distribution of items accepted to measure construct.All items have a factor loading value exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6 and items that are less than 0.6 should be discarded because they do not contribute to the measurement of the construct (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Another piece of information that researchers need to report is the reliability value of the items that have been built to measure that construct.The measure of instrument reliability is estimated through Cronbach's Alpha value that exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be adopted in the study.Table 16 below shows the Cronbach's Alpha value for each item in the Acceptance of Technology Applications construct that exceeds 0.7 and can be used in this study (Chik &Abdullah, 2018 andHoque et al., 2017).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) For Competence Teaching Teacher Construct
Each item in the Competency Teaching Teacher construct uses a total of 30 items and is labeled NPG1 to NPG10, PK1 to PK10 and PP1 to PP10.Next, the use of an interval scale for measuring the items is between one (1) (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree).The EFA procedure using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method with Varimax Rotation was conducted on 30 items that measure the Competency Teaching Teacher construct.The results of Table 17 below show that the value of Bartlet's Test is significant (P-Value < 0.05).Measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is 0.964 which is above the minimum value of 0.6 (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Both of these achievements (Bartlet's Test significant, & KMO value>0.6)reflect the observed data is suitable for the next procedure in EFA (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Findings from Table 18 above show that construct is measured by three components.Thus, the researcher wants to know the selected items to measure the component.Table 19 below shows the distribution of items accepted to measure construct.All items have a factor loading value exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6 and items that are less than 0.6 should be discarded because they do not contribute to the measurement of the construct (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)   Another piece of information that researchers need to report is the reliability value of the items that have been built to measure that construct.The measure of instrument reliability is estimated through Cronbach's Alpha value that exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be adopted in the study.Table 20 below shows the Cronbach's Alpha value for each item in the Competency Teaching Teacher construct that exceeds 0.7 and can be used in this study (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).

Conclusion
Overall, the requirements of the items in each construct as a whole meet the achievement of Bartlet's Test (significant), KMO value (> 0.6), factor loading value exceeds the minimum limit of 0.6 and Cronbach's Alpha exceeds the minimum limit of 0.7 to be used in the study.This reflects that the items are not set aside and qualified to be used in this study (Chik &Abdullah, 2018 andHoque et al., 2017).Figure 6 shows all the items in the study model after EFA.

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Position of Components and Items for Competency Teaching Teacher Construct (After EFA

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: Overall Principal Instructional Leadership, Acceptance of Technology Applications and, Competency Teaching Teacher Constructs

Table 1
(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)l Instructional Leadership Base On Define SchoolFindings from Table2above show that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct is measured by only two components.Thus, the researcher wants to know the selected items to measure the component.Table3below shows the distribution of items accepted to measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct.All items have a factor loading value exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6 and items that are less than 0.6 should be discarded because they do not contribute to the measurement of the construct(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).
(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)t for researchers to know what percentage of the items used can measure a research construct.Table 2 below shows the total variance value estimated by the items used to measure the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct.Reading from Table 2 below found that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct measured using 12 items in one component can measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Define School Mission construct as much as 81.778%.This value is sufficient because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).

Table 3
Factor Loading for Two (2) Component Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Define Figure 1: Position of Components and Items for Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Define School Mission Construct (After EFA)

Table 4
(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)e Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Define Next, the use of an interval scale for measuring the items is between one (1) (Strongly Disagree) to 10 (Strongly Agree).The EFA procedure using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method with Varimax Rotation was conducted on 12 items that measure the Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Program Management Instructional construct.The results of Table5below show that the value of Bartlet's Test is significant (P-Value < 0.05).Measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is 0.959 which is above the minimum value of 0.6(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).Both of these achievements (Bartlet's Test significant, & KMO value>0.6)reflect the observed data is suitable for the next procedure in EFA(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).TVE) is important for researchers to know what percentage of the items used can measure a research construct.Table 6 below shows the total variance value estimated by the items used to measure the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct.Reading from Table 6 below found that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct measured using 26 items in three components can measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct as much as 85.696%.This value is sufficient because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).

Table 6
(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)tructional Leadership base on Program ManagementFindings from Table6above show that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct is measured by three components.Thus, the researcher wants to know the selected items to measure the component.Table7below shows the distribution of items accepted to measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Program Management Instructional construct.All items have a factor loading value exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6 and items that are less than 0.6 should be discarded because they do not contribute to the measurement of the construct(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).
Figure 2: Position of Components and Items for Principal Instructional Leadership Base On Program Management Instructional Construct (After EFA)

Table 8
TVE) is important for researchers to know what percentage of the items used can measure a research construct.Table 10 below shows the total variance value estimated by the items used to measure the Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct.Reading from Table 10 below found that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct measured using 23 items in three component can measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct as much as 85.384%.This value is sufficient because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%

Table 10
Findings from Table10above show that Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct is measured by six components.Thus, the researcher wants to know the selected items to measure the component.Table 11 below shows the distribution of items accepted to measure Principal Instructional Leadership base on Creating Climate Positive School construct.

Table 12
TVE) is important for researchers to know what percentage of the items used can measure a research construct.Table 14 below shows the total variance value estimated by the items used to measure the Acceptance of Technology Applications construct.Reading from Table 14 below found that Acceptance of Technology Applications construct measured using 20 items in two component can measure Acceptance of Technology Applications construct as much as 84.566%.This value is sufficient because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%

Table 15
Position of Components and Items for Acceptance of Technology Applications Construct (After EFA)

Table 16
Cronbach's Alpha Value for Each Item in the Acceptance of Technology Applications Construct (Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017)what percentage of the items used can measure a research construct.Table18below shows the total variance value estimated by the items used to measure the Competency Teaching Teacher construct.Reading from Table18below found that Competency Teaching Teacher construct measured using 30 items in three component can measure Competency Teaching Teacher construct as much as 83.051%.This value is sufficient because it exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%(Chik & Abdullah, 2018;Hoque et al., 2017).

Table 20
Cronbach's Alpha Value for Each Item in the Competency Teaching Teacher Construct