Tvet Teacher

sustainability
Article
Preparing TVET Teachers for Sustainable Development in the
Information Age: Development and Application of the TVET
Teachers’ Teaching Competency Scale
Junfeng Diao 1 and Ke Hu 2, *
1 School of Education, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China

2 School of Education, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350007, China
* Correspondence: hukeflame99@126.com
Abstract: Echoing research interests in recent concepts and models of TVET teachers’ teaching
competency, it is clear that the focus of existing scales needs to be updated. The paper summarizes
six aspects of TVET teachers’ competency in the information age and develops the corresponding
scale using 88 items. The data from 461 TVET teachers confirm the reliability and validity of the scale,
which serves as a measuring instrument the teaching competency of TVET teachers in the information
age. The paper collects answers from 815 TVET teachers, who are clustered into six types by k-means
clustering, each representing shared characteristics of a group of TVET teachers. The paper develops
a feasible method to classify TVET teachers according to the characteristics of their teaching ability in
six aspects, which can provide valuable clues for the designing of tailored teacher training programs
and teacher development strategies for vocational education teachers in the information age.
Keywords: TVET teachers; teaching competency; scale; k-means
Citation: Diao, J.; Hu, K. Preparing

TVET Teachers for Sustainable
Development in the Information Age: 1. Introduction
Development and Application of the Technology has changed almost every aspect of people’ lives. In the Industry 4.0 era,
TVET Teachers’ Teaching
the digital transformation of the world has created gaps in new knowledge and skills that
Competency Scale. Sustainability
need to be filled by the future workforce and the teachers who train it. To meet the demands
2022, 14, 11361. https://doi.org/
of in-service teachers and trainers, as well as TVET (Technical and Vocational Education
10.3390/su141811361
and Training) leaders who want to upscale their professional learning and development,
Academic Editor: Firoz Alam there is a need to clarify the status quo of teachers’ teaching competency. A scale can
be an efficient instrument in the evaluation of teacher teaching. It is commonly used
Received: 14 July 2022
for profiling in-service teachers, examining whether they meet the necessary competence
Accepted: 8 September 2022
Published: 10 September 2022
requirements, and giving directions regarding their career development [1]. Scales can also
be used for self-assessment of one’s professional competency level so as to plan one’s career
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral trajectory accordingly.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in In recent years, TVET teachers’ teaching competency has gained increasing atten-
published maps and institutional affil-
tion [2]. As Nessipbayeva noted, teaching competency is essential to an educator’s pursuit
iations.
of excellence [3]. Researchers and policymakers believe that promoting TVET teachers’
competency can enhance teaching practices, which will further increase student achieve-
ment and the cultivation of application-oriented talents [1,4–6]. However, there is a lack of
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
knowledge related to the fundamental questions: What is the exact meaning of the concept
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of TVET teachers’ competency in the information age and how can it be assessed? Some def-
This article is an open access article initions, models, or frameworks regarding TVET teachers’ competency already exist [7,8],
distributed under the terms and but none has taken the historical background of the information age into consideration.
conditions of the Creative Commons Neither has the corresponding competency scale been well examined in empirical research.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Some studies tried to measure TVET teachers’ teaching competency, but few show enough
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ evidence of the quality of the measurement instruments [9,10].
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11361. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811361 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11361 2 of 22
Therefore, this study aims to analyze the scales for TVET teachers’ teaching com-
petency in the information age and develop and validate a corresponding scale using
empirical evidence.
2. Literature Review
In the last 20 years, two kinds of technology transformation have fundamentally
changed the landscape of TVET: the transformation of TVET through ICT and the techno-
logical transformation of the world of work. Transforming TVET through ICT has been
accelerated since the Third International Congress on Technical and Vocational Education
and Training, held in Shanghai in 2012 [11]. As a result, digitalization, blended learning,
and online learning have become the catchphrases in TVET, although the degree of their
implementation differs from country to country [12].
2.1. Measurement of Teachers’ Competency in the Information Age

The relevant research on the framework of teachers’ teaching competency measure-
ment in the information age comes mainly from two main theoretical frameworks, TPACK
and DTC.
2.1.1. Relevant Research Based on TPACK

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) has been introduced as a
theoretical framework for understanding the teachers’ knowledge needed for effective tech-
nological integration. The TPACK framework is constructed based on Shulman Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK), including three core elements, namely, content knowledge
(CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technical knowledge (TK) [13]. Schmidt et al.
developed a questionnaire to measure the teaching competency of pre-service teachers’ [14].
Archambault and Crippen developed a 24-item scale, which consists of seven dimensions:
pedagogy, content, technology, pedagogical content, technological content, technological
pedagogy, and technological pedagogical content [15], to evaluate 596 K-12 teachers in the
United States.
Based on TPACK, Bostancioglu et al. developed a self-reported questionnaire regard-
ing English language teaching, using 36 computer-assisted language learning international
experts to assess the content validity [16]. They also employed the exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to explore and validate its potential
factors of structure through a survey of 542 English teachers. Eventually a 5-point Likert
scale of 76 items was developed. Ge and Han, also inspired by the TPACK measurement
scale, developed a 30-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire with four dimensions; in total,
465 undergraduate college teachers and 682 TVET teachers took part in the survey [17].
A self-reporting scale, based on the TPACK framework, helps teachers reflect on them-
selves, and tests teachers’ self-efficacy. However, assessing one’s own abilities accurately is
a difficult task because people may be unaware of their lack of knowledge and abilities, or
may underestimate their own competency [18].
2.1.2. Relevant Research Based on DTC (Digital Teaching Competence)

The DTC framework is the basis on which three major standards are built. In the
European Union, the DigCompEdu framework has been used to develop a self-assessment
tool, known as DigCompEdu CheckIn, currently being pre-tested among educators in
member states. The questionnaire has three versions for teachers in different types and
levels of educational institutions and divides teachers’ information literacy into six levels:
newcomer, explorer, integrator, expert, leader, and pioneer [19]. The scale has been widely
used in the European Union. For example, Trindada et al. translated the scale and applied
it to 127 primary and secondary school teachers in central and southern Portugal, finding it
of good reliability and validity [20].
The National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training (INTEF) has
proposed a Common Framework for Digital Teaching Competence, which consists of five
areas: information and information literacy, communication and collaboration, digital

content creation, safety, and problem solving. Each area consists of 3 to 6 competencies that
serve as a benchmark for digital teaching competency (DTC), with a total of 21 questions
for teachers’ self-evaluation [21].
Lázaro and Gisbert proposed the COMDID (Competència Digital Docent) framework
in which DTC is grouped into 4 dimensions [22]: didactic, curricular and methodological;
planning, organization and management of digital technological resources and spaces;
relational aspects, ethics and security; and personal and professional aspects. The question-
naire rates teachers’ information literacy at four levels, namely the beginner, the average,
the expert, and the transformer, with a total of 23 items. Although COMDID, INTEF, and
EU DigCompEdu have different structures, they have relatively clear inter-relationships, as
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Inter-relationship among COMDID, INTEF, and DigCompEdu.
COMDID INTEF DigCompEdu

3. teaching and learning
1. information and
1. didactic, curricular, and 4. assessment
information literacy
methodological 5. empowering learners
5. problem solving
6. equitable access
2. planning, organization, and
1. information and
management of digital
information literacy 2. digital resources
technological resources and
3. digital content creation
spaces
2. communication and
1. professional engagement
3. relational aspects, ethics, collaboration
5. empowering learners
and security 3. digital content creation
6. equitable access
4. safety
4. personal and professional
5. problem solving 1. professional engagement
aspects
2.2. Measurement of TVET Teachers’ Competency

There are different perspectives on the measurement of teachers’ teaching competency
in vocational education.
Some researchers have transferred the curriculum development method of vocational
education to TVET teachers’ teaching competency development, which is a great innovation.
DACUM, or developing a curriculum, is a method of analyzing and determining the
abilities required for a certain occupation. Currently, it has become a scientific, efficient, and
economical method of job analysis to determine the desired abilities of job positions. Zhu
Jianliu developed a measuring instrument using the DACUM method for higher vocational
college teachers, which consists of 45 5-point Likert items, covering 10 areas [23].
Some scholars have adopted statistical models and developed questionnaires. For
example, the Rasch model is used to measure latent traits, such as attitude or ability. It
shows the probability of an individual choosing a correct response on a test item [24].
Based on the Rasch model, Aziz et al. constructed a scale for TVET teachers. A total of
45 questions were used to evaluate the abilities of 53 teachers in a vocational college [25].
Md Yunos et al. also developed a survey questionnaire, with 84 5-point Likert items in
6 dimensions, based on the same model. The questionnaire proved to be reliable and valid
through a survey of 183 TVET teachers from Malaysia and Indonesia [26].
Some scholars have applied the framework of student competency to teacher com-
petency assessment. The KOMET competency assessment framework was originally
developed by the TVET Research Group at the University of Bremen [27]. The competency
model comprises requirement, content, and action dimensions [28]. Later, the Chinese
TVET experts adjusted KOMET into four dimensions: nominal competence, functional
competence, process competence, and design competence. Through two rounds of tests,
the questionnaire showed good reliability and validity.
Through literature research, we find that: firstly, the structure of teaching competency
evaluation under the TPACK and DTC frameworks is clear, and they have been widely
used, showing good reliability and validity, which provides academic literature support
for this study. Secondly, the evaluation of teachers’ teaching competency in the existing
research is mainly aimed at general teachers (such as primary school, secondary school,
and university teachers). The research is rare relative to the evaluation of the teaching
competency of teachers in vocational colleges. TVET teachers concentrate on practical
abilities and pay specific attention to practical operation and mastery of occupational skills.
Under the digital background, TVET teachers are facing digital transformation and spend
a significant amount of time on the application of information technology to practical
teaching Therefore, the measurement of TVET teachers’ teaching competency needs to take
teachers’ digital ability, practical skills, operational ability, and general teaching ability into
account. The ability to integrate these key elements and measure TVET teachers’ teaching
competency is insufficient in the existing research. Therefore, this study will make further
explorations and attempt, on the basis of the existing teacher teaching competency scale,
to develop and compile a teaching competency measurement scale that conforms to the
teaching characteristics of TVET teachers.
2.3. Multiple-Role Characteristics of TVET Teachers in the Information Age

TVET teachers and general education teachers have certain similarities. As for TVET
FOR PEER REVIEW teachers, they should share basic competences that are necessary for all teachers, 5 such
of 22
as curriculum development and curriculum teaching abilities. However, TVET teach-
ers should also have unique qualities. They are required to play three additional roles:
technician/engineer, digital citizen, and lifelong learner (As is shown in Figure 1) [29].
Figure 1. Multiple-role characteristics of TVET teachers in the information age.

159
Figure 1. Multiple-role characteristics of TVET teachers in the information age. 160
Based on previous studies (Table 2) and the analysis of the multiple-role characteris- 161
tics of TVET teachers (Figure 1), in this study, the first-level criteria are determined as 162
follows: curriculum development, curriculum teaching, professional knowledge, occupa- 163
Based on previous studies (Table 2) and the analysis of the multiple-role characteristics
of TVET teachers (Figure 1), in this study, the first-level criteria are determined as follows:
curriculum development, curriculum teaching, professional knowledge, occupational
ability, information literacy, and research and development.
Table 2. Basis of preliminary criteria construction.
First-Level Criteria Main Reference Sources

Curriculum development Wahba, 2006 [4]; Research group, 2010 [30]
Curriculum teaching Peterson, 2003 [31]
Professional knowledge Ally, 2019 [32]
Occupational ability Rofiq et al., 2019 [10]
Information literacy Ministry of Education of PRC, 2020 [6]
Research and development Ministry of Education of PRC, 2020 [6]
3. Methods
This section consists of the instrument development, the participants, the reliability
test, and the validity test.
3.1. Instrument Development

As stated in the literature review, several domains of TVET teachers’ teaching compe-
tency in the information age are identified: curriculum development, curriculum teaching,
professional knowledge, occupational ability, information literacy, and research and de-
velopment. All the detailed behaviors are analyzed and compared; the same or similar
behaviors were merged into one item, and behaviors inconsistent with our definition
were deleted. Finally, we come up with a pool of potential scale items for each domain.
A response format using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = relatively disagree,
3 = neutral, 4 = relatively agree, 5 = strongly agree) is adopted to measure teachers’ teach-
ing competency. Sub-dimensions (sections) and the number of items in each sub-dimension
are as follows:
1. Curriculum development: Job analysis, Professional task analysis, curriculum system
construction, and project curriculum development, with 18 items in total;
2. Curriculum teaching: Teaching design, teaching implementation, and implementation
evaluation, with 19 items in total;
3. Professional knowledge: Professional basic knowledge and knowledge of new tech-
nology, with 6 items in total;
4. Occupational ability: Occupational communication and cooperation skills, occupa-
tional practice skills, and occupational service skills, with 14 items in total;
5. Information literacy: Information awareness and attitude, information knowledge
and skills, information application and innovation, information social responsibility,
with 17 items in total;
6. Research and development section: research on teaching, professional development,
and professional ethics education, with 14 items in total.
3.2. Participants
A total of 461 Chinese TVET teachers, from a variety of specialties, in Shaanxi province,
Shandong province, and Jilin province participated in our study from 16 December 2020 to
8 January 2021. All teachers were informed that their participation was voluntary, and the
confidentiality of their responses was assured. Demographic characteristics are specified
in Table 3.
Table 3. Sample characteristics (N = 461).
Demographics and Professional Experiences Number (%)

Gender
Female 293 (63.56%)
Male 168 (36.44%)
Age
≤30 35 (7.59%)
31–40 166 (36.01%)
41–50 146 (31.67%)
51–60 113 (24.51%)
>60 1 (0.22%)
Years of teaching experience
1–5 years 61 (13.23%)
6–10 years 67 (14.53%)
11–20 years 155 (33.62%)
>20 years 178 (38.61%)
Years of industrial experience
None 195 (42.3%)
<1 112 (24.3%)
1–2 63 (13.67%)
2–3 20 (4.34%)
3–5 23 (4.99%)
5–10 22 (4.77%)
>10 26 (5.64%)
Highest diploma/degree attained
Bachelor’s 183 (39.7%)
Master’s 249 (54.01%)
Doctoral 3 (0.65%)
Other degrees 26 (5.64%)
Subject taught
agriculture and forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery 12 (2.6%)
civil construction 12 (2.6%)
equipment manufacturing 49 (10.63%)
biology and chemical engineering 10 (2.17%)
transportation 6 (1.3%)
electronic information 53 (11.5%)
food and grain 4 (0.87%)
medicine and health 123 (26.68)
finance and business 30 (6.51%)
culture and art 34 (7.38%)
education and physical education 123 (26.68%)
public security, judicature, public administration 5 (1.08%)
3.3. Reliability Test

This study uses SPSS 24.0 to conduct the internal consistency test of the coefficient of
the Cronbach’s alpha reliability, the KMO, and the Bartlett tests, followed by Mplus 7.0 for
confirmatory factor analysis.
According to the general principles of questionnaire preparation, the evaluation of
each question item mainly includes six indicators, and if it shows any of the following
characteristics, the question should be modified or removed: (1) missing values—more than
10% of the questions are not filled in; (2) mean—the mean of a question is higher than 4.5
or lower than 1.5; (3) skewness coefficient—the absolute value of the skewness coefficient
of the topic is higher than 1; (4) t-test analysis—the t-test of independent samples from
the high and low groups does not reach the level of significant difference; (5) correlation
between the revised questions and the overall score—the correlation coefficient between
the revised questions and the total score is lower than 0.3; (6) Cronbach’s alpha coefficient—
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of an item is higher than the overall α coefficient of the
questionnaire [17].
Based on the data collected, the results of the item analysis are: (1) missing values—
none of the 88 questions show missing values; (2) mean—the mean of the 88 questions
ranges from 3.34 to 4.25; (3) skewness coefficient—the coefficient ranges from −0.802 to
−0.107, and the absolute value is less than 1; (4) t-test analysis—the t-test coefficients of
the items have reached the significant difference level; (5) correlation between the revised
questions and the overall score—the total correlation range of topics is between 0.644 and
0.855; (6) Cronbach’s alpha—the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire is 0.990,
and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each second-level criterion is lower than 0.990 (see
Table 4). Therefore, the scale has high reliability, and no items need to be removed.
Table 4. Reliability test.
First-Level Criteria α Items(n) Second-Level Criteria α

A1 Job analysis 0.937
A A2 Professional task analysis 0.847
Curriculum development 0.968 18
A3 Construction of curriculum system 0.933
A4 Development of project curriculum 0.919
B B1 Teaching design 0.931
Curriculum 0.976 19 B2 Teaching implementation 0.945
teaching B3 Implementation evaluation 0.956
C C1 Basic professional knowledge 0.913
Professional knowledge 0.929 6
C2 Knowledge of new technology 0.880
D1 Occupational communication and cooperation 0.935
D
0.967 14 D2 Occupational practice skills 0.919
Occupational ability
D3 Occupational service skills 0.948
E1 Information awareness and attitude 0.897
E E2 Information knowledge and skills 0.943
Information literacy 0.949 17
E3 Information application and innovation 0.946
E4 Information social responsibility 0.918
F1 Research on teaching 0.972
F
0.975 14 F2 Professional development 0.965
Research and development
F3 Professional ethics education 0.934
overall α 0.990
3.4. Validity Test

When the KMO value is less than 0.50, factor analysis is not suitable among the
variables. If the KMO value is greater than 0.80, the relationship between the item variables
is good, and the item variables are suitable for factor analysis. If the KMO value is greater
than 0.90, the relationship between the item variables is deemed as excellent, which means
that it is suitable to conduct factor analysis among the item variables [33].
In this study, the KMO is 0.977, which is greater than 0.8. The result of Bartlett’s
sphericity test reaches the significant level, and the cumulative interpreted variance is
75.78%. This indicates the data are suitable for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (see Table 5).
Table 5. KMO and Bartlett tests.
KMO 0.977
approximate chi-square 6754.422
Bartlett’s test for sphericity degrees of freedom 2441
significance <0.001
A total of six common factors were extracted through PCA (principal component
analysis) and PAF (principal axis factoring), of which the eigenvalue was greater than 1.
Then exploratory factor analysis was performed using the maximal variance method, and
direct oblimin was used for the interpretation of factors. According to the six factors, this
study sorted out the numerical analysis of load interpretation, eigenvalue, and percentage
of interpretation variance for each factor (See Appendix A, Table A1).
The results show that the items in the questionnaire can be extracted into six factors,
which correspond to the six dimensions of the TVET teachers’ teaching competency in
the information age. In the correlation analysis of the six dimension and 88 items, it
is found that:
(1) The items A4–3 and A4–4 are grouped into the Curriculum Teaching dimension;
(2) the items D1–1, D1–2, and D1–3 are grouped into the Research and Development dimen-
sion. This means that the boundary between Curriculum Development and Curriculum
Teaching is not clear. Hence, the A4–3 and A4–4 are modified to “Able to interpret curricu-
lum plans,” and “Able to design the project-based course,” respectively. A few words in F1
and D1, such as “project” and “explore” are prone to cause confusion, so the researcher
changed these statements.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to confirm whether the questions contained
in the questionnaire at all levels are in line with the original theoretical expectations. Struc-
tural equation modeling (SEM) software is used to verify and explore whether the factor
structure of the questionnaire is compatible with the samples. According to the question-
naires based on multiple-role characteristics of TVET teachers in the information age, an
SEM is established and tested by using Mplus 7.0. The six-factor model demonstrates an
acceptable fit to the data.
The χ2/df value is 2.77, the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and the comparative fit index
(CFI) are all above 0.9, and the RMSEA is 0.062. The model fitting effect is good (see Table 6).
The results show that the sample data can be well fitted to the six-dimensional factor model,
thus verifying the validity of the structural framework of the questionnaire [17,34].
Table 6. Evaluation indicators of model fit.
Statistic Standard Value of Fitness Actual Fitting Value

χ2/df <8.0 2.77
RMSEA <0.08 0.062
CFI >0.90 0.905
TLI >0.90 0.901
Based on the research process discussed above, an assessment instrument is proposed

(see Table 7). It consists of 3 levels of criteria, with 6 in level 1, 19 in level 2, and 88 in level 3.
Table 7. TVET teachers’ teaching competency scale.
First-Level Criteria Second-Level Criteria Items

(1) Able to design investigation forms according to the requirements of
specialty investigation programs.
(2) Able to analyze investigation data and write reports.
A1. (3) Able to participate in writing specialty construction plans.
Job analysis (4) Able to collect and analyze professional competence standards in
the industry.
(5) Able to use professional competence standards based on students’
actual situation.
(1) Able to design task and professional competency analysis forms
A2. according to investigations.
Professional task analysis (2) Able to select experts according to task analysis requirements.
(3) Able to organize or participate in task analysis conferences.
(1) Familiar with the specialty curriculum system, the curriculum
A. content requirements, and the interface between the various courses in
Curriculum order to build a specialty curriculum system.
Development (2) Able to design and write a teaching schedule.
A3. (3) Able to participate in the formulation of a curriculum plan.
Construction of curriculum (4) Able to write a specialty talent cultivation plan, according to the
system specialty curriculum system.
(5) Able to design a comprehensive practical training teaching program
and entrepreneurship teaching program.
(6) Able to interpret the logical relationship between professional
competence standards and talent cultivation plans.
(1) Able to formulate curriculum standards according to the
professional competence standards of industry practitioners.
A4.
(2) Able to formulate the implementation plan and main measures of
Development of project
the curriculum standards.
curriculum
(3) Able to interpret curriculum plans.
(4) Able to design the project-based course.
(1) Able to make clear the knowledge, skills, and attitude goals of
instructional design.
(2) Able to determine learning tasks and projects.
B1. (3) Able to determine teaching strategies.
Teaching design (4) Able to prepare training materials, equipment, and tools.
(5)Able to design a practical teaching environment.
(6) Able to design diagnostic evaluations.
(7) Able to design formative evaluations.
(1) Able to use physical objects, media display, teaching aids
demonstrations, experiments, and other situational guidance methods.
B. B2. (2) Able to organize practical training activities.
Curriculum teaching Teaching implementation (3) Able to organize simulated teaching activities.
(4) Able to organize entrepreneurship teaching activities.
(5) Have keen observation, analysis, and coping ability.
(1) Able to organize and implement course evaluation.
(2) Able to analyze and provide feedback regarding course evaluation.
(3) Able to determine the content and standard of teaching evaluation.
B3. (4) Able to organize and implement teaching evaluation.
Teaching evaluation (5) Able to analyze and provide feedback regarding teaching evaluation.
(6) Able to organize and implement student learning evaluation.
(7) Able to analyze and provide feedback regarding student
learning evaluation.
Table 7. Cont.

(1) Have the basic knowledge related to the specialty.
C1.
(2) Have relevant work experience.
Professional basic knowledge
(3) Have the practical application of basic professional knowledge.
C.
Professional (1) Able to continuously learn advanced technical knowledge in
knowledge related fields.
C2.
(2) Able to understand and strive to learn the application of new
Knowledge of new technology
technical knowledge.
(3) Able to analyze the application of new technical knowledge.
D1. (1) Able to collect and analyze industry information.
Occupational communication (2) able to cooperate with industry personnel on projects and training.
and cooperation skills (3) Able to assist local government in talents-training services.
(1) Able to arrange teaching tasks in the campus training base
according to the professional teaching process.
(2) Able to check and evaluate the operational status of the campus
training base (such as security risks).
D2.
(3) Able to guide students to obtain qualification certificates.
Occupational practice skills
D. (4) Able to guide students to participate in skills competitions.
Occupational ability (5) Able to guide students regarding internships.
(6) Able to participate in the establishment of an off-campus
professional training base.
(1) Able to analyze and identify industry training needs.
(2) Able to set training plans according to industry
competency standards.
D3. Occupational service skills
(3) Able to implement training and evaluate its effectiveness.
(4) Able to participate in technical activities of industry enterprises.
(5) Able to produce industrial enterprises’ technological achievements.
(1) Able to understand the important role of the effective application of
information technology in innovating the teaching mode, improving
the quality of vocational education, and promoting the teaching reform
of vocational education.
(2) Have the consciousness to carry out the integration of information
technology and course education in teaching, and to carry out the
E1.
educational and teaching reform accordingly.
Information awareness and
(3) Have the awareness to build and share digital teaching resources,
attitude
E. such as online courses and virtual simulation training systems.
Information literacy (4) Focus on the latest developments of information technology (such
as big data, cloud computing, Internet of things, VR/AR, artificial
intelligence, 5G network, blockchain, etc.) and education concepts, and
try to apply them to talent cultivation in vocational education.
(5) Have the consciousness to apply the evaluation to the ICT teaching.
(1) Understand the basic concepts and theoretical basis of ICT teaching.
E2.
(2) Understand the characteristics and functions of digital teaching
Information knowledge and
resources and teaching tools.
skills
(3) Able to create digital teaching resources.
Table 7. Cont.

(1) Able to apply information technology to communicate with
students about learning.
(2) Able to use information technology to create
family-school cooperation.
(3) Able to use information technology to collaborate and communicate
with colleagues in teaching and research.
E3. (4) Able to use information technology to construct the teaching mode
Information application and of “theory-practice” and “learning-working,” combining the virtual
innovation with the real.
(5) Able to apply information technology to implement the teaching
process and production process of the school-enterprise cooperation
teaching model.
(6) Able to use mobile terminals, VR/AR, Internet of things, 5G, and
other technologies to build a new model of experiment, practical
training, and practical teaching.
(1) Able to ensure that all students have equal access to learning
resources, tools, and environments.
(2) Able to cultivate students’ knowledge of information security,
E4. awareness of protecting their own and others’ privacy, awareness of
Information social distinguishing healthy information from harmful information, and
responsibility awareness of using information technology in a safe and healthy way.
(3) Able to teach students the knowledge of laws and regulations
related to the use of information technology and ethical concepts,
cultivate students’ legal awareness, and demonstrate the relevant
normative behavior.
(1) Able to carry out applied science and technology research related to
the specialty, and can put forward constructive suggestions for the
school’s scientific research management.
(2) Able to host applied science and technology research projects.
(3) Able to carry out vocational education teaching reform research and
F1.
actively put forward constructive suggestions for school education and
Research on teaching
teaching reform.
(4) Able to host vocational education teaching research projects.
(5) Able to transform scientific research achievements into specialty
construction and actively put forward constructive suggestions for the
specialty construction of the school.
F. (1) Able to master professional skills related to the specialty.
Research and (2) Able to propose goals, tasks, and measures for personal
Development professional development.
F2.
(3) Able to participate in on-the-job training and short-term training.
Professional development
(4) Able to organize, design, and participate in teaching and
research activities.
(5) Able to promote the development of team building.
(1) Familiar with and able to consciously abide by the national
vocational education laws, regulations, and policies.
F3. Professional ethics
(2) Able to comply with professional ethics and relevant industry rules
education
and regulations.
(3) Able to educate students about professional ethics, laws, and
regulations in related industries.
(4) Able to evaluate the performance of students’ professional ethics.
The proposed assessment instrument can be used as a reference point when formulat-
ing national policies for supporting TVET teachers’ professional development. Besides, it
can also help analyze the status quo of a country’s TVET teachers’ competency level and
identify strengths and areas for improvement.
4. Process and Results

This section includes the survey design and implementation, sample background
characteristics, classification of these TVET teachers, and validation of clustering.
4.1. Survey Design and Implementation

Based on the scale, an online questionnaire survey was conducted to analyze and
investigate the teaching competency level of TVET teachers in the information age. Larger
amounts of sample data are used to analyze the characteristics of teachers’ teaching compe-
tency and classify teachers accordingly. The target group is the teachers of higher vocational
and secondary vocational colleges in China. Convenient sampling is adopted. The sur-
vey started 23 March 2021 and ends 23 May 2021. A total of 1203 questionnaires were
collected. The study eliminated the questionnaires if: (1) the response time is longer
than 200 s, which means about 1 s for each of the 104 items in the questionnaire. This
caused 247 questionnaires to be eliminated; (2) all items have the same answers, due to
which 103 questionnaires were eliminated; (3) the answers follow certain patterns or are
obviously illogical; 39 questionnaires were deemed invalid because of this. After data
cleaning, 815 responses were considered valid, the rate of effectiveness of the questionnaire
being 67.7%.
4.2. Sample Background Characteristics

The samples are from 11 schools in 8 provinces across China, including 6 higher
vocational colleges and 5 secondary vocational schools. See Table 8 for details.
Table 8. The details of the institutions surveyed.
Institutions Region Higher Vocational Colleges/Secondary Number Proportion (%)

Vocational Schools
SDKJ East Higher vocational colleges 142 17.4
GDGM East Higher vocational colleges 38 4.7
TJGY East Higher vocational colleges 21 2.6
GDQG East Secondary vocational schools 41 5.0
SHGS East Secondary vocational schools 19 2.3
SDZY East Higher vocational colleges 101 12.4
BDDL Middle Higher vocational colleges 61 7.5
YCZZ West Secondary vocational schools 52 6.4
WSCK West Secondary vocational schools 53 6.5
LZZY West Higher vocational colleges 259 31.8
WSTY West Secondary vocational schools 28 3.4
As can be seen from the data, the sample covered a wide range of TVET teachers from
different backgrounds (see Table 9).
Table 9. The situation of the sample surveyed.
Item Category Number Proportion (%)

Male 290 35.6%
Gender Female 525 64.4%
Under 31 83 10.2%
31–40 287 35.2%
Age 41–50 258 31.7%
51–60 186 22.8%
61 and above 1 0.1%
1–5 156 19.1%
Length of time 6–10 100 12.3%
working in schools 11–20 360 44.2%
21 and above 199 24.4%
Table 9. Cont.
Item Category Number Proportion (%)

Under 1 137 34.8%
Length of time 1–2 74 18.8%
2–3 39 9.9%
working in 3–5 37 9.4%
enterprises 5–10 45 11.4%
10 and above 62 15.7%
Bachelor’s 309 37.9%
Highest degree Master’s 409 50.2%
Doctoral 17 2.1%
other 80 9.8%
Education and Physical Education 217 26.6%
Cultural and Artistic 129 15.8%
Electronic Information 112 13.7%
Equipment Manufacturing 91 11.2%
Finance and Commerce 91 11.2%
Disciplinary Energy Power and Materials 44 5.4%
Civil construction 22 2.7%
Transportation 19 2.3%
Medicine and Hygiene 18 2.2%
Biology and Chemicals 13 1.6%
Public Administration and Services 13 1.6%
Junior 178 21.8%
Intermediate 345 42.3%
Professional titles Associate professor 257 31.5%
Professor 35 4.3%
4.3. Classification of the TVET Teachers

In order to analyze and characterize the teaching competency level of different types
of TVET teachers, this study used SPSS 24 and Excel to cluster the sample teachers.
In this paper, the questionnaire results were first normalized to Z-score, and the data
with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 are in a normal distribution (see Table 10).
Table 10. Z-score of first-level indicator (excerpt).
Case/Indicator A B C D E F
C1 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.60 1.60 1.14
C2 0.70 1.27 1.30 0.44 1.26 1.53
C3 0.85 1.12 −0.03 0.83 0.75 0.45
C4 0.94 0.54 1.08 0.57 0.74 0.84
C5 −1.38 −0.08 1.30 1.29 0.07 0.55
C6 −0.50 −0.55 0.41 0.17 −0.29 0.33
C7 −0.73 −1.42 −0.03 −0.72 −0.77 0.55
C8 −0.70 −0.72 −1.37 −0.72 −1.11 −1.04
C9 −1.36 −1.60 −1.59 −0.73 −1.03 −1.21
C10 0.85 1.27 −0.03 1.22 −0.10 1.04
With SPSS, the two-order clustering, k-means clustering method, and systematic
clustering method were used to carry out tentative analyses, and the clustering results
obtained by k-means clustering were found to be ideal, with no category with too many
or too few people and each cluster showing clear characteristics, which had the best
explanatory power. Therefore, the k-means clustering method was selected for this study,
and the teachers were divided into six categories (see Table 11).
Table 11. Clustering results.
Indicator/Clustering 1 2 3 4 5 6
Z-score A (Curriculum Development) 0.94 −2.08 −1.22 −0.53 0.38 −0.54
Z-score B (Curriculum Teaching) 1.03 −2.38 −1.19 −0.61 0.14 0.10
Z-score C (Professional Knowledge) 1.00 −2.4 −1.23 −0.52 0.03 0.44
Z-score D (Occupational Ability) 0.96 −2.18 −1.19 −0.55 0.31 −0.36
Z-score E (Information Literacy) 0.98 −2.41 −1.17 −0.63 0.23 0.03
Z-score F (Research and Development) 1.01 −2.15 −1.32 −0.63 0.22 0.04
The study attempted to determine the level and characteristics of teaching competency
of six types of teachers; see Table 12. Inspired by the COMET competence model [28], the
paper adopted five notions to describe teachers’ teaching competence in each aspect. From
the lowest to the highest, they are beginners, advanced beginners, competent teachers,
skillful teachers, and teaching experts.
Table 12. The level and characteristics of teaching competency of six types of teachers.
A B C D E F
Type/Indicator Curriculum Curriculum Professional Occupational Information Research and
Development Teaching Knowledge Ability Literacy Development
teaching teaching
1 skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers
experts experts
2 beginners beginners beginners beginners beginners beginners
advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced advanced
3
beginners beginners beginners beginners beginners beginners
competent competent competent competent competent
4 competent teachers
teachers teachers teachers teachers teachers
5 skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers
competent
6 competent teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers skillful teachers
teachers
4.4. Validation of Clustering

The advantages and disadvantages of clustering must be judged comprehensively by
researchers, according to their own professional knowledge and experience. This study
adopted the following two methods to verify the clustering effect.
Cluster analysis can be verified by comparing the variables between categories.
As shown in Table 13, all variables showed significant differences among categories
(sig < 0.000), indicating that the clustering results are credible.
Table 13. ANOVA.
Cluster Error
F Sig.
Mean Square df Mean Square df
Z-score(A) 119.47 5 0.27 809 446.15 0.000
Z-score(B) 128.24 5 0.21 809 600.34 0.000
Z-score(C) 127.32 5 0.22 809 580.51 0.000
Z-score(D) 118.51 5 0.27 809 432.94 0.000
Z-score(E) 125.33 5 0.23 809 541.27 0.000
Z-score(F) 127.41 5 0.22 809 582.46 0.000
The study then adopted the clustering results as the dependent variable to establish
canonical discriminant equations to examine the effect of clustering (Equation D1-D5, D10 -
D50 ). The results (Table 14) showed a high rate of recall, indicating that the clustering effect
was good.
D1 = 0.361 × Zscore(A) + 0.389 × Zscore(B) + 0.373 × Zscore(C) + 0.328 × Zscore(D) + 0.407 × Zscore(E) + 0.283 × Zscore(F)
D2 = 0.601 × Zscore(A) − 0.135 × Zscore(B) − 0.662 × Zscore(C) + 0.423 × Zscore(D) − 0.051 × Zscore(E) − 0.04 × Zscore(F)
D3 = −0.081 × Zscore(A) + 0.267 × Zscore(B) − 0.51 × Zscore(C) + 0.166 × Zscore(D) + 0.685 × Zscore(E) − 0.954 × Zscore(F)
D4 = 0.432 × Zscore(A) − 0.409 × Zscore(B) + 0.667 × Zscore(C) + 0.109 × Zscore(D) − 0.305 × Zscore(E) − 0.407 × Zscore(F)
D5 = 0.253 × Zscore(A) − 0.814 × Zscore(B) + 0.257 × Zscore(C) − 0.327 × Zscore(D) + 0.66 × Zscore(E) + 0.001 × Zscore(F)
Table 14. The classification results (a,c).
Case Predicting Group Membership Information

Total
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 230 0 0 0 5 0 235
2 0 34 0 0 0 0 34
3 0 1 99 1 0 0 101
Count 4 0 0 1 130 0 3 134
5 1 0 0 0 227 3 231
Original 6 0 0 0 0 2 78 80
1 97.9 0 0 0 2.1 0 100.0
2 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0
3 0 1.0 98.0 1.0 0 0 100.0
% 4 0 0 0.7 97.0 0 2.2 100.0
5 4 0 0 0 98.3 1.3 100.0
6 0 0 0 0 2.5 97.5 100.0
1 230 0 0 0 5 0 235
2 0 34 0 0 0 0 34
3 0 2 97 2 0 0 101
Count 4 0 0 1 130 0 3 134
5 2 0 0 1 225 3 231
Cross 6 0 0 0 4 2 74 80
validation
method 1 97.9 0 0 0 2.1 0 100.0
2 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0
3 0 2.0 96.0 2.0 0 0 100.0
% 4 0 0 0.7 97.0 0 2.2 100.0
5 0.9 0 0 0.4 97.4 1.3 100.0
6 0 0 0 5.0 2.5 92.5 100.0
Canonical discriminant functions using original variables can be obtained using the
following equations:
D10 = −22.328 + 0.799 × A + 1.133 × B + 1.064 × C + 0.729 × D + 1.149 × E + 0.888 × F
D20 = 2.012 + 1.329 × A − 0.392 × B − 1.888 × C + 0.939 × D − 0.145 × E − 0.125 × F

D30 = 1.221-0.180 × A + 0.777 × B − 0.147 × C + 0.369 × D + 1.933 × E − 2.994 × F
D40 = 1.160 + 0.955 × A − 1.191 × B + 1.903 × C + 0.242 × D − 0.860 × E − 1.276 × F
D50 = 0.128 + 0.559 × A − 2.367 × B + 0.732 × C − 0.726 × D + 1.862 × E + 0.003 × F
The cross-validation method is used to investigate the discrimination effect. As shown
in Table 14, the correct rate of grouping the original cases was 97.9%, and the correctly
classified rate of cross-validation was 96.9%, reaching a very high judgment rate, indicating
that the establishment of discrimination was very effective.
5. Conclusions and Discussion

Responding to the recent call for a measuring instrument of TVET teachers’ teaching
competency, the present study develops the TVET Teachers’ Teaching Competency Scale
in the Information Age based on previous studies and an analysis of the multiple-role
characteristics of TVET teachers in the information age. The questionnaire consists of
88 items in 6 aspects. In the pilot study, an analysis of data from Chinese TVET teachers
from three provinces confirmed the reliability and validation of the scale.
The study then collected data from a larger sample size for further analysis. Another
815 TVET teachers from 8 Chinese provinces participate in an online questionnaire survey.
The results reconfirmed the validity and reliability of the scale. The teachers were classified
into 6 types based on their evaluation results; each type represents different characteristics
of TVET teachers’ teaching competency.
Identifying the category to which a TVET teacher belongs using the scale is impor-
tant for the sustainable development of teachers and institutions. The paper develops a
method to classify TVET teachers according to the characteristics of their teaching ability
in six aspects, which can provide valuable clues for the designing of tailored training for
vocational education teachers in the information age. It also provides a sound basis for the
lifelong learning of teachers. Through this scale, teachers will gain agility in learning and
implementing up-to-date skills, improving the quality of educational output, and further
promoting the sustainable development and digital transformation of vocational education.
If applied in a wider context, the scale will contribute to formulating generalized guidelines
for the sustainable development of teachers.
The purpose of this study is to develop a scale for the development of vocational
education teachers’ teaching competency and to apply it in educational practice. From the
practical perspective of education development, the level of teachers’ teaching competency
is the key factor affecting the quality of teaching. Among the 17 goals of the United Nations
Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2030, Goal 4 puts forward “ensuring inclusive
and fair quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” [35].
How can we ensure quality education? This study believes that high-quality education
needs to provide high-quality teacher resources. Especially in the digital age, the rapid
development of information technology breaks the limitation of learning time and space,
which makes it possible for people to learn anytime and anywhere. This also provides
more space for further promoting education equity and establishing more digital learning
opportunities. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to train more excellent teachers, so
that they can expand the scope of education through digital platforms. For the field of
vocational education, the underdeveloped areas—rural marginal suburbs—are the main
sources of vocational education students. However, the educational resources in these
areas are relatively scarce, and it is difficult to attract excellent teachers to teach in these
areas. The scarcity of high-quality teachers has a great impact on the teaching quality
of local vocational education. If we can help these areas train more excellent teachers
through information technology, it will help to improve the teaching quality in these
areas. Regarding how to improve the teaching competency of TVET teachers, this study
believes that in order to achieve this goal, we not only need the support of ICT ability,
but also a more scientific scale of TVET teachers’ teaching competency to help teachers
in education management institutes to formulate more appropriate teaching and training
plans, effectively improving teachers’ teaching competency. From this point of view, the
use of a TVET teachers’ teaching competency scale to improve the teaching quality of
vocational education and the goal of sustainable development are closely linked. Only by
providing more excellent teachers can we achieve inclusive and fair quality education to
the greatest extent, providing more learning opportunities for the disadvantaged students.
The questionnaire employed in the study shows the potential to be a useful instrument
in measuring TVET teachers’ teaching competency, but there are still limitations. First, the
questionnaire is in Chinese and its validity needs to be tested in different countries and
languages in future research. Second, this study adopts a convenience sampling method,
with all participants from several Chinese provinces, representing only a very small part of
China and the world. Hence, future research should collect samples from other regions
across the world to better understand the issue.
Author Contributions: Data curation, J.D.; Funding acquisition, J.D.; Writing—original draft, J.D.;
Writing—review & editing, J.D. and K.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. EFA of items.
Common Factor Explained

Factor Items Variance Factor Loading Eigenvalue Variance
Ratio
A1–1 Able to design investigation forms according
to the requirements of specialty 0.660 0.625
investigation programs.
A1–2 Able to analyze investigation data and 0.704 0.617
write reports.
A1–3 Able to participate in writing specialty
0.646 0.612
construction plans.
A1–4 Able to collect and analyze professional
0.704 0.614
competence standards in the industry.
A1–5 Able to use professional competence
0.772 0.639
standards based on students’ actual situation.
A2–1 Able to design task and professional
competency analysis forms according 0.778 0.641
to investigations.
A2–2 Able to select experts according to task
0.781 0.588
analysis requirements.
A2–3 Able to organize or participate in task
0.746 0.603
analysis conferences.
A3–1 Familiar with the specialty curriculum
A. system, curriculum content requirements, and the
Curriculum 0.782 0.722 42.75 59.38%
Development interface between the various courses, to build a
specialty curriculum system.
A3–2 Able to design and write a teaching schedule. 0.750 0.659
A3–3 Able to participate in the formulation of a
0.767 0.721
curriculum plan.
A3–4 Able to write specialty talent cultivation plan
0.774 0.672
according to the specialty curriculum system.
A3–5 Able to design the comprehensive practical
training teaching program and entrepreneurship 0.771 0.663
teaching program.
A3–6 Able to interpret the logical relationship
between professional competence standards and 0.772 0.639
talent cultivation plans.
A4–1 Able to formulate curriculum standards
according to the professional competence 0.743 0.665
standards of industry practitioners.
A4–2 Able to formulate the implementation plan
0.738 0.612
and main measures of the curriculum standards.
A4–3 Able to interpret teaching plans. 0.699 0.477
A4–4 Able to write a complete project curriculum
0.647 0.485
implementation plan.
Table A1. Cont.

Ratio
B1–1 Make clear the knowledge, skills and attitude
0.713 0.670
goals of instructional design.
B1–2 Able to determine learning tasks and projects. 0.772 0.709
B1–3 Able to determine teaching strategies. 0.750 0.665
B1–4 Able to prepare training materials,
0.738 0.564
equipment, and tools.
B1–5 Able to design the practical
0.772 0.520
teaching environment.
B1–6 Able to design a diagnostic evaluation. 0.689 0.610
B1–7 Able to design a formative evaluation. 0.730 0.663
B2–1 Able to use physical objects, media display,
teaching aids demonstration, experiments, and 0.763 0.734
other situational guidance methods.
B2–2 Able to organize practical training activities. 0.781 0.787
B2–3 Able to organize simulated
0.787 0.771
B. teaching activities.
Curriculum B2–4 Able to organize 4.43 65.53%
teaching 0.700 0.703
entrepreneurship teaching activities.
B2–5 Have keen observation, analysis, and
0.766 0.705
coping ability.
B3–1 Able to organize and implement
0.791 0.696
course evaluation.
B3–2 Able to analyze and provide feedback for
0.790 0.715
course evaluation.
B3–3 Able to determine the content and standard 0.812 0.738
of teaching evaluation.
B3–4 Able to organize and implement
0.834 0.704
teaching evaluation.
B3–5 Able to analyze and provide feedback for
0.820 0.760
teaching evaluation.
B3–6 Able to organize and implement student
0.799 0.743
learning evaluations.
B3–7 Able to analyze and provide feedback on
0.790 0.715
student learning evaluation.
C1–1 Have the basic knowledge related to
0.762 0.798
the specialty.
C1–2 Have relevant work experience. 0.755 0.749
C1–3 Have the practical application of basic
0.780 0.786
professional knowledge.
C.
Professional C2–1 Able to continuously learn advanced 2.57 69.10%
knowledge 0.772 0.667
technical knowledge in related fields.
C2–2 Able to understand and strive to learn the 0.760 0.649
application of new technical knowledge.
C2–3 Able to analyze the application of new
0.749 0.629
technical knowledge.
D1–1 Able to analyze industry training needs and
0.742 0.373
identify industry training needs.
D1–2 Cooperate with industry personnel on
0.765 0.343
projects and training.
D. D1–3 Able to assist local government in

0.725 0.356
Occupational talents-training ser-vices. 2.04 71.94%
ability D2–1 Able to arrange teaching tasks in the campus
training base according to the professional 0.716 0.624
teaching process.
Table A1. Cont.

Ratio
D2–2 Able to check and evaluate the
operational status of the campus training base 0.742 0.603
(such as security risks).
D2–3 Able to guide students to obtain
0.746 0.668
qualification certificates.
D2–4 Able to guide students to participate in
0.747 0.748
skills competitions.
D2–5 Able to guide students
0.795 0.748
regarding internships.
D2–6 Able to participate in the establishment
0.703 0.652
of an off-campus professional training base.
D3–1 Able to analyze industry training needs
0.816 0.626
and identify industry training needs.
D3–2 Able to set training plans according to
0.800 0.617
industry competency standards.
D3–3 Able to implement training and evaluate
0.821 0.623
its effectiveness.
D3–4 Able to participate in technical activities
0.813 0.564
of industry enterprises.
D3–5 Able to produce industrial enterprises’
0.783 0.631
technological achievements.
E1–1 Able to understand the important role of
the effective application of information
technology in innovating the teaching mode,
0.804 0.638
improving the quality of vocational education,
and promoting the teaching reform of
vocational education.
E1–2 Have the consciousness to carry out the
integration of information technology and
0.811 0.656
course teaching in teaching, and carry on the
education and teaching reform accordingly.
E1–3 Have the awareness of building and
sharing digital teaching resources, such as 0.742 0.628
online courses and virtual simulation
training systems.
E1–4 Focus on the latest development of
information technology (such as big data,
cloud computing, Internet of things, VR/AR,
artificial intelligence, 5G network, blockchain, 0.763 0.636
E. etc.) and education concepts, and try to apply
Information literacy them to talent cultivation in 1.47 73.98%
vocational education.
E1–5 Have the consciousness that applies the
0.837 0.703
evaluation to the ICT teaching.
E2–1 Understand the basic concepts and
0.775 0.615
theoretical basis of ICT teaching.
E2–2 Understand the characteristics and
functions of digital teaching resources and 0.796 0.627
teaching tools.
E2–3 Know how to create digital
0.747 0.557
teaching resources.
E3–1 Able to apply information technology to
0.771 0.601
communicate with students about learning.
E3–2 Able to use information technology to
0.773 0.615
create family-school cooperation.
collaborate and communicate with colleagues 0.754 0.614
in teaching and research.
Table A1. Cont.

Ratio
construct the teaching mode of
0.776 0.597
“theory-practice” and “learning-working,”
combining the virtual and the real.
E3–5 Able to apply information technology to
implement the teaching process and
0.800 0.622
production process of the school-enterprise
cooperation teaching model.
E3–6 Able to use mobile terminals, VR/AR,
Internet of things, 5G, and other technologies
0.821 0.635
to build a new model of experiment, practical
training, and practical teaching.
E4–1 Able to ensure that all students have
equal access to learning resources, tools, 0.771 0.774
and environments.
E4–2Able to cultivate students’ knowledge of
information security, awareness of protecting
their own and others’ privacy, awareness of
distinguishing healthy information from 0.775 0.747
harmful information, awareness of using
information technology in a safe and
healthy way.
E4–3 Able to teach students the knowledge of
laws and regulations related to the use of
information technology and ethical concepts, 0.811 0.757
cultivate students’ legal awareness, and
demonstrate the relevant normative behavior.
F1–1 Able to carry out applied science and
technology research related to the specialty, and
0.767 0.689
can put forward constructive suggestions for
the school’s scientific research management.
F1–2 Able to host applied science and
0.751 0.755
technology research projects.
F1–3 Able to carry out vocational education
teaching reform research, and actively put
0.809 0.635
forward constructive suggestions for school
education and teaching reform.
F1–4 Able to host vocational education 0.761 0.665
teaching research projects.
F1–5 Able to transform scientific research
achievements into specialty construction, and
0.781 0.662
actively put forward constructive suggestions
for the specialty construction of the school.
F.
Research and F2–1 Able to master professional skills related 1.29 75.78%
Development 0.740 0.539
to specialty.
F2–2 Able to propose goals, tasks, and measures
0.737 0.507
for personal professional development.
F2–3 Able to participate in on-the-job training
0.739 0.557
and short-term training.
F2–4 Able to organize, design, and participate
0.694 0.469
in teaching and research activities.
F2–5 Able to promote the development of
0.717 0.496
team building.
F3–1 Familiar with and consciously abide by
the national vocational education laws, 0.774 0.787
regulations, and policies.
F3–2 Able to comply with professional ethics
0.771 0.785
and relevant industry rules and regulations.
Table A1. Cont.

Ratio
F3–3 Able to educate students about
professional ethics, laws, and regulations in 0.746 0.773
related industries.
F3–4 Able to evaluate the performance of
0.694 0.756
students’ professional ethics.
References
1. Seameo Voctech; GIZ. Regional TVET Teacher Standard for ASEAN: Essential Competences for TVET Teachers in ASEAN.
Available online: https://asean.org/?static_post=regional-tvet-teacher-standard-asean-essential-competence-tvet-teachers-
asean (accessed on 14 July 2022).
2. Minghat, A.; Ana, A.; Jamaludin, S.; Mustakim, S.; Shumov, P. Identification of teaching competencies among TVET instructors
towards the realization of 4th industrial revolution. Bull. Natl. Acad. Sci. Repub. Kazakhstan 2020, 5, 233–240. Available online:
http://bulletin-science.kz/images/pdf/v20205/233-240.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022). [CrossRef]
3. Nessipbayeva, O. The Competencies of the Modern Teacher. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567059.pdf
(accessed on 14 July 2022).
4. Wahba, M. Competence Standards for Technical and Vocational Education and Training TVET. Available online: https://unevoc.
unesco.org/e-forum/CompetenceStandardsforTVET.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
5. Ismail, A.; Hassan, R.; Abu Bakar, A.; Hussin, H.; Mat Hanafiah, M.A.; Asary, L.H. The development of TVET educator
competencies for quality educator. J. Tech. Educ. Train. 2018, 10, 38–48. [CrossRef]
6. The Ministry of Education of PRC. On the Release of the Code for Digital Campus of Vocational Colleges by the Ministry of
Education. Official Website of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.
cn/srcsite/A07/zcs_zhgg/202007/t20200702_469886.html (accessed on 14 July 2022).
7. Australian Government. TAE10 Training and Education. Available online: https://training.gov.au/Training/Details/TAE10
8. Volmari, K.; Helakorpi, S.; Frimodt, R. Competence Framework for VET Professions—Handbook for Practitioners. Avail-
able online: https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/etv/Upload/Information_resources/Bookshop/560/111332_Competence_
framework_for_VET_professions.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
9. Diep, P.C.; Hartmann, M. Green skills in vocational teacher education—A model of pedagogical competence for a world of
sustainable development. TVET@Asia 2016, 6, 1–19.
10. Rofiq, Z.; Surono, S.; Triyono, M.B.; Purwoko, B. Developing the standard competencies for vocational teacher candidates of
mechanical engineering. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1273, 12–32. [CrossRef]
11. UNESCO. The 3rd International Congress on Technical and Vocational Education and Training. 2012. Available online: https:
//uil.unesco.org/lifelong-learning/3rd-international-congress-technical-and-vocational-education-and-training (accessed on 5
April 2022).
12. Subrahmanyam, G. Trends Mapping Study: Digital Skills Development in TVET Teacher Training. 2022. Available online:
https://unevoc.unesco.org/pub/trends_mapping_study_digital_skills_development_in_tvet_teacher_training.pdf (accessed on
5 April 2022).
13. Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.J. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’
knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2006, 108, 1017–1054. [CrossRef]
14. Schmidt, D.; Baran, E.; Thompson, A.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M.; Shin, T. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK):
The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2009, 42, 123–149.
[CrossRef]
15. Archambault, L.; Crippen, K. Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemp. Issues
Technol. Teach. Educ. 2009, 9, 71–88.
16. Bostancioglu, A.; Handley, Z. Developing and validating a questionnaire for evaluating the EFL ‘Total PACKage’: Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2018, 31, 572–598.
[CrossRef]
17. Ge, W.; Han, X. Developing A Validated Questionnaire to Measure Teaching Competency for University Teachers in Digital Age.
e-Educ. Res. 2017, 38, 123–128. [CrossRef]
18. Willermark, S. Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. J.
Educ. Comput. Res. 2018, 56, 315–343. [CrossRef]
19. European Commission. Testing the Check-In Self-Reflection Tools. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu/
self-assessment (accessed on 14 July 2022).
20. Trindade, S.; Moreira, J.; Nunes, C. Self-evaluation scale of teachers’ digital competences: Construction and validation procedures.
Texto Livre Ling. Tecnol. 2019, 6, 152–171. [CrossRef]
21. Calderón-Garrido, D.; Farran, X.C. Adaptación del “marco común de competencia digital gocente” al área de educación musical.
Didact. Rev. De Investig. Didáct. Específicas 2020, 7, 74–85. [CrossRef]
22. Lázaro Cantabrana, J.L.; Gisbert, M. Elaboració d’una rúbrica per avaluar la competència digital del docent. Univ. Tarracon. Rev.
Ciènc. L’Educ. 2015, 1, 48–63. [CrossRef]
23. Zhu, J. Construction of the Competency Model for Professional Teachers in Higher Vocational Ccolleges and Its Application.
Ph.D. Thesis, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China, 2016.
24. Glen, S. Rasch Model/Rasch Analysis: Definition, Examples. Available online: https://www.statisticshowto.com/rasch-model/
25. Aziz, N.; Ahmad, H.; Nashir, I. Validation of technical and vocational teachers’ competency evaluation instrument using the
Rasch model. J. Pendidik. Sains Mat. Malays. 2019, 9, 18–25. [CrossRef]
26. Yunus, M.J.; Ibrahim Mukhtar, M.; Alias, M.; Lee, M.F.; Tee, T.K.; Rubani, S.N.K.; Hamid, H.; Yunus, F.A.; Sulaiman, J.; Sumarwati,
S. Validity of vocational pedagogy constructs using the rasch measurement model. J. Tech. Educ. Train. 2017, 9, 35–45.
27. Rauner, F.; Haasler, B.; Heinemann, L.; Philipp, G. Messen Beruflicher Kompetenzen: Band I: Grundlagen und Konzeption des
KOMET-Projekts; Münster, LIT; University of Bremen: Bremen, Germany, 2009.
28. Zhao, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Rauner, F. KOMET-based professional competence assessments for vocational education and training (VET)
teachers in China. In Vocational Education and Training in Times of Economic Crisis: Technical and Vocational Education and Training:
Issues, Concerns and Prospects; Pilz, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [CrossRef]
29. Diao, J.; Yang, J. Multiple-role perspective on assessing teaching ability: Reframing TVET teachers’ competency in the information
age. J. Educ. Technol. Dev. Exch. (JETDE) 2021, 14, 57–77. [CrossRef]
30. Research Group on the Project of European Union Asia-Link. Curriculum Design about Curriculum Development; Higher Education
Press: Beijing, China, 2010; pp. 18–19.
31. Peterson, C. Bringing addie to life: Instructional design at its best. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermed. 2003, 12, 227–241.
32. Ally, M. Competency profile of the digital and online teacher in future education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 2019, 20,
302–318. [CrossRef]
33. Wu, M. Practice of Questionnaire Statistical Analysis—Operation and Application of SPSS; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing,
China, 2010; pp. 208–211.
34. Wu, M. Structural Equation Model—Operation and Application of AMOS; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2019;
p. 240.
35. UNESCO. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.sdg4education2030.org/the-goal
(accessed on 5 September 2022).
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Tvet Teacher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tvet Teacher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 School of Education, Hainan Normal University, Haikou 571158, China

Keywords: TVET teachers; teaching competency; scale; k-means

Citation: Diao, J.; Hu, K. Preparing

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11361. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811361 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Measurement of Teachers’ Competency in the Information Age

2.1.1. Relevant Research Based on TPACK

2.1.2. Relevant Research Based on DTC (Digital Teaching Competence)

areas: information and information literacy, communication and collaboration, digital

Table 1. Inter-relationship among COMDID, INTEF, and DigCompEdu.

COMDID INTEF DigCompEdu

2.2. Measurement of TVET Teachers’ Competency

2.3. Multiple-Role Characteristics of TVET Teachers in the Information Age

Figure 1. Multiple-role characteristics of TVET teachers in the information age.

Table 2. Basis of preliminary criteria construction.

First-Level Criteria Main Reference Sources

3.1. Instrument Development

Table 3. Sample characteristics (N = 461).

Demographics and Professional Experiences Number (%)

3.3. Reliability Test

Table 4. Reliability test.

First-Level Criteria α Items(n) Second-Level Criteria α

3.4. Validity Test

Table 5. KMO and Bartlett tests.

Table 6. Evaluation indicators of model fit.

Statistic Standard Value of Fitness Actual Fitting Value

Based on the research process discussed above, an assessment instrument is proposed

Table 7. TVET teachers’ teaching competency scale.

First-Level Criteria Second-Level Criteria Items

First-Level Criteria Second-Level Criteria Items

First-Level Criteria Second-Level Criteria Items

4. Process and Results

4.1. Survey Design and Implementation

4.2. Sample Background Characteristics

Table 8. The details of the institutions surveyed.

Institutions Region Higher Vocational Colleges/Secondary Number Proportion (%)

Table 9. The situation of the sample surveyed.

Item Category Number Proportion (%)

Item Category Number Proportion (%)

4.3. Classification of the TVET Teachers

Table 10. Z-score of first-level indicator (excerpt).

Table 11. Clustering results.

4.4. Validation of Clustering

Table 13. ANOVA.

Table 14. The classification results (a,c).

Case Predicting Group Membership Information

D10 = −22.328 + 0.799 × A + 1.133 × B + 1.064 × C + 0.729 × D + 1.149 × E + 0.888 × F

D20 = 2.012 + 1.329 × A − 0.392 × B − 1.888 × C + 0.939 × D − 0.145 × E − 0.125 × F

5. Conclusions and Discussion

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Table A1. EFA of items.

Common Factor Explained

Table A1. Cont.

Common Factor Explained

D. D1–3 Able to assist local government in

Table A1. Cont.

Common Factor Explained

Table A1. Cont.

Common Factor Explained

Table A1. Cont.

Common Factor Explained

You might also like