Ponce RER, Jiménez GI, Dávila MR

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 3-11
PDF size: 238.48 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the construct validity of a questionnaire to evaluate the virtual learning environment of the online course of the Family Medicine Research Seminar. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational, exploratory multivariate study. 110 students participated during six academic cycles of the Family Medicine Research Seminar course. A virtual classroom was designed in a Moodle environment; a questionnaire with 37 Likert-type questions and semantic differential was applied to evaluate the virtual environment of the course. Factor analysis was used to determine the construct validity of the questionnaire. Student participation was voluntary, anonymous and in accordance with the norms, recommendations and ethical guidelines in educational research. Results: The variance explained by the model was 80.03% with varimax factor rotation; the determinant of the multiple correlation matrix and Bartlett’s sphericity test were significant (p ‹ 0.0001); the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Index value was 0.613; eight factors were retained and Cronbach’s alpha reliability was 0.87. Conclusions: The construct validity of the questionnaire to evaluate the virtual learning environment of the online course of the research seminar was determined. Seven criteria of the factor analysis exceeded the minimum expected reference values. The global evaluation of the construct validity model was adequate.

REFERENCES

1. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultadde Medicina, División de estudios de Posgrado, EspecializacionesMédicas. [consultado: 16 ago 2024].Disponible en: http://www.sidep.fmposgrado.unam.mx:8080/fmposgrado/Cursos.jsp?medicallevel=ESPECIALIDADES-

2. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultadde Medicina. División de Estudios de Posgrado. Subdivisiónde Medicina Familiar. PUEM. El Plan Único deEspecializaciones Médicas en Medicina Familiar. [consultado:18 ago 2024]. Disponible en: https://medfam.fmposgrado.unam.mx/index.php/puem/

3. Mancebo-Alemany FM, Tornos-Tortajada MJ. La evaluaciónde cursos en línea: Una propuesta aplicadaa casos reales. En: Alcantud-Marín F. Teleformación:Diseño para todos. Valencia, España. 1998. Cap. VIII,p 206 -227. [consultado: 17 may 2024] Disponible en:https://www.academia.edu/85254205/Teleformaci%-C3%B3n_Dise%C3%B1o_para_todos

4. Sandia B, Montilva J, Barrios J. Cómo evaluar cursos enlínea. Educere. 2005;9(31):523-530.

5. Rodríguez Hernández MA, Flores Guerrero K, López dela Madrid MC. Modelo multidimensional para la evaluaciónde cursos en línea desde la perspectiva del estudiante.Apertura. Revista de Innovación Educativa;2010;2(2). Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=68820827006

6. Acón-Matamoros AG, Trujillo-Cotera A. Evaluaciónde un curso en línea: Criterios de calidad. CAES.2011;2(1):89-104.

7. Flores-Guerrero K, López de la Madrid MC. Evaluaciónde cursos en línea desde la perspectiva del estudiante:un análisis de métodos mixtos. Perspect Educ.2019;58(1):92-114.

8. Baldwin SJ, Ching YH. An online course design checklist:development and users’ perceptions. J ComputHigh Educ. 2019;31(1):156-172.

9. Baldwin SJ, Ching YH. Online Course Design: A Reviewof the Canvas Course Evaluation Checklist. IRRODL.2019;20(3):268–82.

10. AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational ResearchAssociation Approved by the AERA Council February2011. [consultado: 2 sep 2024]. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X11410403?journalCode=edra#:~:text=Education%20researchers%20are%20honest%2C%20fair,-jeopardize%20the%20welfare%20of%20others.

11. Code of Professional Responsibilities in EducationalMeasurement. [consultado 2 sep 2024]. Disponibleen: https://connect.springerpub.com/binary/sgrworks/faafad6cafa2a267/443c7b9d4b4473f0db5956924198feb4271637cbfd040356c5730c52cc9cdccd/9780826194893_ap04.pdf

12. Join Committee on Testing Practice. Code of Fair TestingPractices in Education. [consultado: 2 sep 2024]. Disponibleen: https://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf

13. California Community Colleges. Online Education Initiative.Course Design Rubric. CVC-OEI. [consultado: 27ago 2024]. Disponible en: https://onlinenetworkofeducators.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CVC_OEI_Course_Design_Rubric_rev_April_2020_ACC_52021.pdf

14. Gutiérrez-Moreno LI. Tendencias en la evaluación decursos en línea. HETS Online Journal. 2019:9(2):101-121.

15. Santiago RLN. Relación entre la idoneidad del estudiantepara aprender en línea y la evaluaciónde usabilidad de los cursos en línea [Tesis doctorado].Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico;2022. [consultado: 25 ago 2024]. Disponible en:https://www.proquest.com/openview/0ffd9ca53e0d-81c10efbe31ec878dda8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

16. Flores GK, López de la Madrid MC, Rodríguez HMA. Ladimensión pedagógica en el Modelo de Evaluación deCursos en Línea del Centro Universitario del Sur. [consultado:25 may 2024] Disponible en: https://recursos.educoas.org/sites/default/files/1908.pdf

17. SHSU online. Rubric for online course design withfeedback. [consultado: 18 sep 2024]. Disponible en:https://online.shsu.edu/campus/faculty-services/documents/rubrics/online-live-rubric-with-feedback.pdf

18. SHSU online. Rubric for Hybrid/Blended Course DesignWith Feedback. [consultado: 18 sep 2024]. Disponibleen: https://online.shsu.edu/campus/faculty-services/documents/rubrics/hybrid-blended-rubric-with-feedback.pdf

19. Rubric for online course design with feedback. SamHouston State University [consultado: 18 sep 2024].Disponible en https://online.shsu.edu/campus/faculty-services/documents/rubrics/online-live-rubric-with-feedback.pdf

20. SHSU Online. Rubric for online course design. SamHouston State University [consultado: 18 sep 2024].Disponible en https://online.shsu.edu/campus/faculty-services/documents/rubrics/Online-Rubric.pdf