Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 27;22(1):504.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03547-9.

Development of a questionnaire to measure teachers' student-centred perspectives based on the Onion Model

Lukas Daniel Leatemia  1 , Jeroen J G van Merrienboer  2 , Astrid Pratidina Susilo  3
Affiliations

Development of a questionnaire to measure teachers' student-centred perspectives based on the Onion Model

Lukas Daniel Leatemia et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Teachers with a teacher-centred perspective have difficulties applying student-centred approaches in Problem Based Learning (PBL) because they are inclined to show teacher-centred behaviours. The six aspects explained in Korthagen's Onion Model (environment, behaviour, competencies, beliefs, identity, and mission) are assumed to contribute to teachers' perspectives, showing that both the environment and personal characteristics influence behaviours. For teachers to function properly in PBL, those six aspects should reflect a student-centred perspective. Previous instruments to measure teaching perspectives focused on only a few of these relevant aspects. Therefore, we developed the Student-Centred Perspective of Teachers (SCPT) questionnaire with subscales for each aspect in the Onion Model. This study aimed to provide evidence for its internal and external validity.

Methods: The SCPT was distributed in a survey to 795 teachers from 20 medical schools. For the internal validation, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to analyse theoretical fit model validation, convergent validation, and discriminant validation. For the external validation, teachers' perspective scores were compared among three groups of amount of PBL training using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests. The p-value for all tests was set at .05.

Results: A total of 543 out of 795 teachers (68.3%) participated. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed the evidence of the SCPT's internal validation with acceptable fit for the six subscales measured by 19 items and the following Composite Reliability scores: environment (.72), behaviour (.74), competencies (.63), beliefs (.55), identity (.76), and mission (.60). All items' factors loadings reached a good standard (.5 or greater). Only the environment subscale had the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) score higher than .5 and the Maximum Shared Variance score lower than the AVE score. ANOVA and Post-hoc LSD tests showed that teachers who participated in more PBL training showed significantly higher student-centred perspectives, providing evidence for external validity.

Conclusion: The SCPT is a reliable and valid instrument to measure teaching perspectives. Identifying aspects that do not represent the adoption of a student-centred perspective may provide valuable input for faculty development in the context of PBL.

Keywords: External validation; Internal validation; Onion Model; Problem-based learning; Teachers’ student-centred perspectives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The Onion Model [10]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The questionnaire development process with internal and external validation. SCPT = Student-Centred Perspective of Teachers questionnaire, SCPT-44 = SCPT consisted of 44 items, SCPT-19 = SCPT consisted of 19 items
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The structure model of the SCPT-19. Env = environment, comp = competency, blief = belief, ident = identity, miss = mission, bhv = behavior
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dolmans DHJM, de Grave W, Wolfhagen HIAP, van der Vleuten CPM. Problem-based learning: future challenges for educational practice and research. Med Educ. 2005;39(7):732–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02205.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frambach JM, Driessen EW, Chan LC, van der Vleuten CPM. Rethinking the globalisation of problem-based learning: how culture challenges self-directed learning. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):738–747. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04290.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hussain RMR, wan Mamat WH, Salleh N, Saat RM, Harland T. Problem-based learning in Asian universities. Stud High Educ. 2007;32(6):761–72. doi: 10.1080/03075070701685171. - DOI
    1. Kwan CY. PBL in Health Science Education: what is in a name 50 years after inception? J Med Education. 2019;23(3):182–187. doi: 10.6145/jme.201909_23(3).0005. - DOI
    1. Leatemia LD, Susilo AP, van Berkel H. Self-directed learning readiness of Asian students: students’ perspective on a hybrid problem based learning Curriculum. Int J Med Educ. 2016;7:385–392. doi: 10.5116/ijme.582e.021b. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources