Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34970392›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2022

Modifying the ASPECT Survey to Support the Validity of Student Perception Data from Different Active Learning Environments.

Nicole Naibert, Erin E Shortlidge, Jack Barbera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicole NaibertDepartment of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0711-6888
Erin E ShortlidgeDepartment of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-1178
Jack BarberaDepartment of Chemistry, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3887-3301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

active learningengagementfactor analysisstructural validityundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID34970392
PMCPMC8672914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.