SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal for the Mathematics Education and Teaching Practices / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Development of the Techno-mathematical Literacy Scale (TmLS): A validity and reliability study

Barış Demir(Kocaeli University)
Hasan Said Tortop(International Vision University)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-07
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results indicated that the model demonstrated a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.868; CFI = .952; GFI = .924; RMSEA = .071; SRMR = .059).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument to assess Techno-Mathematical Literacy (TmL).
📊
Key Findings & Data:TmL is conceptualized as an individual’s self-efficacy perception regarding their ability to integrate mathematical knowledge and reasoning processes within the contemporary technological ecosystem through the use of technological tools, mathematical communication in digital environments, and data-driven reasoning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results indicated that the model demonstrated a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.868; CFI = .952; GFI = .924; RMSEA = .071; SRMR = .059).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Confirmatory Factor Analysis · Exploratory Factor Analysis · Mathematics teachers

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument to assess Techno-Mathematical Literacy (TmL). TmL is conceptualized as an individual’s self-efficacy perception regarding their ability to integrate mathematical knowledge and reasoning processes within the contemporary technological ecosystem through the use of technological tools, mathematical communication in digital environments, and data-driven reasoning. The study was conducted within the framework of a psychometric scale development model based on Classical Test Theory. The study group consisted of 348 pre-service mathematics teachers enrolled at three different public universities in Türkiye; following the data-cleaning process, the analyses were carried out with 342 participants. As a result of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), a four-factor structure consisting of 12 items was obtained, explaining 73.141% of the total variance. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results indicated that the model demonstrated a good fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.868; CFI = .952; GFI = .924; RMSEA = .071; SRMR = .059). The internal consistency coefficients, composite reliability, and average variance extracted values were found to be within acceptable limits. The results of the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio supported the discriminant validity of the model. The findings indicate that the Techno-Mathematical Literacy Scale (TmLS) is a psychometrically robust measurement instrument. The scale can be used not only in the context of teacher education but also with different samples to determine individuals’ techno-mathematical competencies in technology-supported mathematics learning environments.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demir, B., Tortop, H. S. (2026). Development of the Techno-mathematical Literacy Scale (TmLS): A validity and reliability study. Journal for the Mathematics Education and Teaching Practices, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21054112

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Demir, B., Ekici, H. B., Balı, S. Z. & Uysal, Ş (2023). Matematik Okuryazarlığına Yeni Bir Bakış: TeknoMatematik Okuryazarlık. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2023.26
  3. Drijvers, P., & Sinclair, N. (2024). The role of digital technologies in mathematics education: Purposes and perspectives. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01535-x
  4. European Commission. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Publications Office of the European Union.
  5. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  6. Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
  7. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance- based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  8. Hoyles, C., Wolf, A., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., & Kent, P. (2002). Mathematical skills in the workplace. London, United Kingdom: Science, Technology and Mathematics Council Hoyles,
  9. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving Mathematics at Work: The Need for Techno- Mathematical Literacies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203854655
  10. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Kent, P., & Bakker, A. (2010). Improving mathematics at work: The need for technomathematical literacies. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
  11. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  12. Kartika, H., & Hastari, R. C. (2022). Techno-mathematical literacies in digital age: Which categories are important for teachers? Jurnal Kajian Pembelajaran Matematika, 6(2), 76–83.
  13. Kent, P., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2005). Techno-mathematical Literacies in the Workplace. Mathematics Statistics and Operational Research. 5. 10.11120/msor.2005.05010016.
  14. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  15. Ladel, S., & Kortenkamp, U. (2019). A meta-study on functions of technology in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 51(2), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01052-7
  16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD],(2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.
  17. Ovadiya, T. (2023). Teacher-researchers can develop techno-mathematical literacy by posing and teaching problems with digital tools. Thirteenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME13), Jul 2023, Budapest, Hungary.
  18. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23– 74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  19. Sinclair, N., & Robutti, O. (2016). Technology and mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop et al. (Eds.), Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education (pp. 281–310). Springer.
  20. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  21. van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. (2017). Which techno-mathematical literacies are essential STEM skills for engineers? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9810-x
  22. van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. (2023). Designing an instrument to measure the development of techno-mathematical literacies in an innovative mathematics course for future engineers in STEM education. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55(7), 1243-1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01507-1
  23. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127