ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2022
Modifying the ASPECT Survey to Support the Validity of Student Perception Data from Different Active Learning Environments.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Qualitative analysis of students' perceptions of active learning practices in a highly structured microbiology course provides support for implementation of flipped and interactive classroom activities.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring students' perceptions of active learning activities may provide valuable insight into their engagement and subsequent performance outcomes. A recently published measure, the Assessing Student Engagement in Class Tool (ASPECT), was developed to assess student perceptions of various active learning environments. As such, we sought to use this measure in our courses to assess the students' perceptions of different active learning environments. Initial results analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the ASPECT did not function as expected in our active learning environments. Therefore, before administration within an introductory biology course that incorporated two types of active learning strategies, additional items were created and the wording of some original items were modified to better align with the structure of each strategy, thereby producing two modified ASPECT (mASPECT) versions. Evidence of response process validity of the data collected was analyzed using cognitive interviews with students, while internal structure validity evidence was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). When data were collected after a "deliberative democracy" (DD) activity, 17 items were found to contribute to 3 factors related to 'personal effort', 'value of the environment', and 'instructor contribution'. However, data collected after a "clicker" day resulted in 21 items that contributed to 4 factors, 3 of which were similar to the DD activity, and a fourth was related to 'social influence'. Overall, these results suggested that the same measure may not function identically when used within different types of active learning environments, even with the same population, and highlights the need to collect data validity evidence when adopting and/or adapting measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.