4.5.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

For the second phase, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on variables Culture learning
in Design and Technology. This analysis was conducted to identify and prioritize a large number of
questionnaires into constructs under a certain variable from the sample (Chua, 2009; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2006).
EFA was conducted to get the best new construct from data that obtained from the study
sample (Hair, et.al, 2009: 773). The main purpose of EFA is to identify the constructs available in
selected variables to be used in other analyses. This process requires the process to drop items that are
not correlated to form single-construct in a questionnaire.
Analysis of these factors will be performed to confirm the collection of items in the
instrument Culture School and was clustered by factors that really represent the content aspects to be
evaluated as described by Nunnally (1978). Apart from the determination of the historical design of
the instrument is done, factor analysis conducted for the validity of the variables in the learning
culture of design and technology education.
Here is a step-by-step procedure proposed by the EFA as Hair et. al (2010), Tabachnick and
Fidell (2006), Sekaran (2000), Sheridan (2005), Sheskin (2007), Henson and Roberts (2006) and
Coakes and Steed (2005):
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.

Items that have the 'anti-image correlation matrix <.500 would be dropped.
Items that do not belong to any of the factors eliminated while the items that belong
to more than one factor will not be tolerated and will be removed.
Items that are similar to the other items will also be dropped.
Only those items that have the capacity factor 'factor loading' than or equal to 0:50
will be maintained in each component.
These items will also be dropped if there are irregularities with the constructs formed
load.
Bartlett Sphericity Test should be significant (p <.05) to measure the correlation
between items or variables.
Adequacy Test sample Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin be high at least .60 and above. This
method is used to assess the adequacy of the sample.
Number of factors built on the suitability of an item that is at least three items for
each factor.
Construction factors are based on theory and previous studies.
Meet index goodness-of-fit of the EFA procedure, as shown in Table 7:

Table 7 Goodness-of-Fit model using the Fit Index for Analysis Ekploratori
Factor (EFA) - (n = 588)
Model Index Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
the proposed Value *
Test Bartlett "s Test of Sphericity / (sig. <0.05) Adequacy
<0.05
Test Samples Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
>0.50
Value of Load Factor (Factor Loadings)
0.50
Uniformity values (Communalities)
0.30
Eigen Value
1.00
The percentage change in the variance
8.00
% Contribution of variants of factor
3.00
* Hair et. al. (2010), Tabachnick and Fidell (2006), Sekaran (2000), Sheridan (2005) Henson and
Roberts(2006) and Coakes & Steed (2005)

The above procedure was carried out repeatedly until formed the constructs with distinctive
items. It involves several iterations item rotation to form the constructs or components required and
has a distinctive items (Mahaliza, Norlia & Shahril @ Charil, 2011).
Chua (2009) states the determination of the items whether should be removed or not,
depending on the purpose of the study, if the purpose of the study is to make a distinction between the
constructs, the items should be removed because an item cannot be represented by two constructs in
the analysis comparison between the constructs. Factor analysis is a procedure used by previous
researchers to identify, reduce, and compiling the questionnaire items in the specific constructs under
a dependent variable in the study.

4.6. Factor analysis of variables Culture learning in Design and Technology

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFAs) results in the learning culture in education Design and
technology explain procedures anti-image correlation analysis shows the correlation coefficient is
greater than 0.5, and this gives the impression that factor analysis can proceed. Measure of sampling
adequacy of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity showed that the KMO
value is .918, while the Bartlett Sphericity test is significant with the Chi-squarenya 5695.62 on 378
degrees of freedom.

Table 8 Test Suitability Factor Analysis and Uniform Items KMO and
Bartlett "s Test Against Cultural constructs of learning in design and technology education
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Bartletts Test of Sphericity

Measure of Sampling Adequacy

Approx. Chi-Square Spherecity
df
Sig

.918
5695.62
378
.000

4.6.1. Uniformity of the Cultural learning in Design and Technology Items

Table 9 shows the uniformity of the items in the learning culture of design and technology education.
The consistency is between .430 to .717.

Table 9 The Uniform Cultural learning in Design and Technology Item

Communalities
B1 Teacher delivering the lesson content with clear language
B2 Teachers deliver the subject matter in a simple way
understood
B5 Teachers teach according to my ability level
B6 Fun teaching me
B7 Teachers reward students
B8 Teachers use a variety of teaching techniques
C9 Teacher told me about the school's goals
C10 Teacher gave me the opportunity to make decisions
C11 Teacher told the steps that should be taken

Initial
1.000
1.000

Extraction
.621
.648

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

.524
.527
.439
.394
.499
.544
.524

C14 I was told about the academic improvement plan

D16 Teachers into the classroom right
D17 Teachers leave the classroom right
D18 Students fined if found in violation of rules
D19 Students with discipline problems
D20 Recorded student attendance at school every day
D21 School rules notified to students
D22 School staff safety a priority
D24 I feel safe at this school
D25 School environment is cheerful
D26 School environment encourages learning
E27 Teachers understand my feelings
E28 Teachers treat me as a friend
E29 Teachers treat students with good regardless
E30 Teachers be fair to students
E31 Teachers willing to listen to my opinion
E32 Teachers give good service to me
E33 Teacher available to me regardless of the time
E36 Teachers are prepared to meet me wherever

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

.468
.518
.446
.609
.430
.590
.477
.486
.580
.712
.705
.634
.585
.669
.631
.658
.650
.635
.717

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

An orthogonal rotation by varimax method was conducted to determine the factors in
explaining the variance in the number of Eigen values greater than 1. Orthogonal rotation is selected
to ensure that the observed variables are not correlated (jocko uncorrelated) to each other. Moreover,
it can make sure "factor structure matrix" fit and match "factor pattern matrix" when "factor
correlation matrix" is "Identity matrix" (Henson & Roberts, 2006). To determine the items belong to
certain factors, varimax method has been turning these factors with its own capacity. The main
purpose of this method is done to maximize the cargo variant with increased load factors high and
lower low values for each factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).

4.6.2. Total variance of constructs Cultural learning in Design and Technology

There are six components to the eigen value larger than 1. These six factors accounted for 56 864%
change in the overall variance. An orthogonal rotation by varimax method has been determined that
there are six factors to explain the total variance. Factor 1 accounted for 30 536% of the total
variance, and factor 2 of 7288% of the variance, factor 3, by 5944%, 4 factors of 4.784%, the factor of
5 by 4213%, and 6 factor of 4.098%. Other factors did not significantly contribute to the total
variance of the eigen value less than 1.
Table 10. total variance explained (n=588) The Cultural Component learning in Design and
Technology

Total Variance
Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared

Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings

Loadin
gs

Initial Eigenvalues

% of
Component

Total

Variance

Cumulative
%

% of
Total

% of

Variance Cumulative %

1
2

8.550
2.041

30.536
7.288

30.536
37.824

8.550
2.041

30.536
7.288

30.536
37.824

1.664

5.944

43.768

1.664

5.944

43.768

1.340

4.784

48.552

1.340

4.784

48.552

1.180

4.213

52.766

1.180

4.213

52.766

1.147

4.098

56.864

1.147

4.098

56.864

.915

3.267

60.131

.880

3.143

63.274

.821

2.932

66.206

10

.749

2.676

68.882

11

.722

2.580

71.462

12

.690

2.464

73.926

13

.645

2.303

76.230

14

.614

2.194

78.424

15

.584

2.087

80.510

16

.560

2.001

82.511

17

.542

1.936

84.447

18

.523

1.870

86.316

19

.484

1.730

88.047

20

.450

1.606

89.652

21

.435

1.555

91.207

22
23

.411
.392

1.468
1.401

92.676
94.077

24

.364

1.300

95.376

25

.356

1.272

96.648

26

.335

1.197

97.845

27

.318

1.136

98.981

28

.285

1.019

100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Cumulative %

3.80 13.570
0
3.04
10.888
92.58
9.243
82.56
9.165

13.570
24.458

62.07
21.84

7.400

50.266

6.598

56.864

33.701
42.865

4.6.3. Varimax rotation for Cultural Components of learning in design and technology
education
To determine the items included in these factors, varimax method has been turning these factors with
its own capacity. Found 1 factor has 6 items, factor 2 has 6 items, factor 3 has 5 items, factor 4 has 5
items, as well as factor 5 has three items, factor 6 also has three items (see Table 11 below).
Based on the analysis of the above factors, the researchers found that one factor is the items
that represent Interactions With Student Teachers, factor 2 refers to Sharing Plans, factor 3 describes
the Emphasis on Education, 4th factors related to Safety and Regularity, factor 5 is about feelings and
cheer students, while the factor 6 is concerned with the readiness of teachers.

Table 11 Rotated Component Matrix for Cultural Variables learning in Design and Technology
Exploratory Rotation Method
Varimax and Uniform Value Items (n = 588)
Disclosure Item
1
(Teacher Interaction with Students)
E29 Teachers serve students well without
calculate the background
E31 Teachers willing to listen to my opinion
E28 Teacher consider me as a friend
E30 Teachers be fair to students
E27 Teachers understand my feelings
E32 Teachers give good service to me
(Sharing Plan)
C10 Teacher gave me the opportunity to make
results
B7 Teacher reward students
C9 Teacher told me about the school's goals
C14 I was informed about academic
improvement plan
B8 Teachers using a variety of teaching
techniques
C11 Teachers tell the steps that must be taken
(Emphasis on Education)
B2 Teachers deliver the subject matter in a way
that is easily understood
B1 Teacher delivering the lesson content with
clear language
D16 Teachers into the classroom right
B6 Fun teaching me
B5 Teachers teach according to my ability level
(Safety and Regularity)
D18 Students fined if found to have violated
rules
D20 Recorded student attendance at school
every day
D21 School rules notified to students

Component
3
4

.742
.720
.698
.687
.666
.628

.678
.641
.630
.610
.545
.517

.744
.729
.541
.513
.470

.757
.729
.614

D19 Students with discipline problems

D22 School staff safety a priority

.585
.522

(Feelings and Fun)

D25 School environment is cheerful
D26 School environment encourages learning
D24 I feel safe at this school

.786
.752
.591

(Readiness Teacher)
E36 Teachers are prepared to meet me wherever
E33 Teacher available to me regardless of the
time
D17 Teachers ready to leave class right

.741
.719
.475

The Eigenvalue

8.550 2.041 1.664 1.340 1.180 1.147

Percentage of Variance Explained

30.536 7.288 5.944 4.784 4.213 4.098

Cumulative Percentage of Variance Explained

30.536 37.824 43.768 48.552 52.766 56.864

4.6.4. Dropping Items After Varimax Rotation In constructs Culture school

There are 9 items that have been dropped in the culture of learning in education Design and
technology after a varimax rotation. Item is removed and identified as cross-loading items. Please see
Table 12 below.

Table 12 Abortion Items After Varimax Rotation to construct learning culture in education Design
and technology
No. Item
C12
D23
B3
E37
E34
B4
C13
C15
E35

Statement
Teachers get my views on the appropriateness of schedule additional classes.
Safety of the school environment are emphasized.
Teachers relate subject matter with my past experience.
Teachers praise students with positive behaviors.
Teachers are willing to listen to my personal problem.
Teachers use a variety of teaching aids such as charts, radio, and cassette.
Teachers get my views on topics that should be emphasized.
Academic success of the school was announced to students
Teachers help solve my learning.

5.0 SUMMARY
The main purpose of this study is to report the validity and reliability of the items in the questionnaire
Culture School used to measure the views of secondary school students in Malaysia. This study uses
the basic theory and statistics to identify these items constituting 28 items Cultural learning in design
and technology. Questionnaire proposed learning culture in education Design and technology that
contains 44 items proposed by the validity of the expert analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Only
28 of an item is received and collected questionnaires to be learning culture in education Design and
technology of the final version. Factor analysis for the 28 items was created six key factors. Eigen
value indicates that the questionnaire items is more than one contributing factor to the total variance
of 56.86%. These factors is the emphasis on education, planning, sharing, security and orderliness,
teacher and student interaction, emotion and excitement of students and teacher.

Results from this study suggest learning culture in education Design and technology
dimensions to produce the good reliability to measure student views on the role of school culture in
improving their academic performance. The reliability of the whole item of the six dimensions (28
items) in the actual study was .910. Therefore, these items suitable for use in exploratory research.
This study has its weaknesses and limitations of participants consisted of high school students
(grades 2) only. Therefore, future studies should be extended to primary school students, and also
involves principals and teachers as the most basic and important unit in developing the school's
academic success. But it is hoped that the instrument learning culture in education Design and
technology will be useful to researchers inventory especially interested to understand more about the
role of culture in learning design and technology education, particularly in boost academic
achievement of students in Malaysia as a whole.

REFERENCES
Abu Bakar bin Nordin, (1995). Affective evaluation. Kajang: Time Enterprise