Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of technology-enabled active learning
Open accessAbstract
This article reports on the design, development, and validation of a new instrument, the Technology-Enabled Active Learning Inventory (TEAL), to measure students’ perceptions of active learning in a technology-enabled learning context. By laying the theoretical foundation, a conceptual framework for technology-enabled active learning was developed. The conceptual framework formed the basis of the instrument development process including the design, development and validation of TEAL to measure students’ perceptions of active learning in a technology-enabled learning context. The self-reporting questionnaire consisted of four scales: interactive engagement, problem-solving skills, interest and feedback. All scales were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey items were designed to measure the four aspects of technology-enabled active learning and were verified by two panels using a formalised card sorting procedure as well as confirmatory factor analysis of a small-scale (n = 61) pilot survey. The TEAL questionnaire demonstrated internal consistency. Reliability as measured by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ranged from 0.83 to 0.88 indicating good reliability and internal consistency of the items. The resultant instrument is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used in future research to gather and represent data on students’ perceptions of active learning in a technology-enabled learning context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Assessing critical thinking in higher education often relies on standardized tools such as CCTST, WGCTA, and Critical Thinking Disposition Scales.
“Assessing critical thinking in higher education often relies on standardized tools such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), and the Critical Thinking Disposition Scales [1,77].”
From Systematic literature review on critical thinking in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as [77]
Cites
Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research
Prince, M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x · Cited by 7,334 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Prior research confirms that the proper application of active learning methodologies also results in greater retention and understanding, higher development of thinking and application skills and enhanced improvement of learner ability to collaborate with others (Kvam, 2000; Prince, 2004).”
BackgroundBroadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007 · Cited by 1,692 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Research has also demonstrated that active learning methods, when implemented correctly in or outside of the classroom setting, ensure positive student behaviour, facilitate learning and enhance student achievement (Broadbent & Poon, 2015; Han, Capraro, & Capraro, 2015).”
BackgroundHan, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0 · Cited by 496 · see citing works
The effect of authentic m‐learning activities on student engagement and motivation
Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12559 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Systematic literature review on critical thinking in higher education
Rothinam, N., Vengrasalam, R., Naidu, S., Nachiappan, S., & Jabamoney, S. (2025) · Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology · doi:10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7377 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Assessing critical thinking in higher education often relies on standardized tools such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), and the Critical Thinking Disposition Scales [1, 77].”
- Authors
- Shroff, R. H., Ting, F. S. T., & Lam, W. H.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
- Published
- 2019-08-24
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1449-3098 (ISSN-L)
- 1449-5554
- OpenAlex
- W2899722506
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University Grants Committee
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University
- Directorate for STEM Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
- Keywords
- student perceptions, instrument development, questionnaire validation, interactive engagement, problem-solving skills, student interest, feedback, conceptual framework, card sorting, reliability statistics, internal consistency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review