Cited by 43Innovative Teaching MethodsOnline and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ perceptions of technology-enabled active learning

Open access
Shroff, Ronnie Homi, Ting, Fridolin Sze Thou, Lam, Wai Hung·2019·Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.14742/ajet.4472

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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