Dataset for “Active Learning, Student Perceptions, and Objective Achievement in an Integrated Human Functional Physiology Course”

Objective academic achievement was assessed using examination-based measures.</p><p dir="ltr">The dataset has been anonymized prior to sharing.</p><ol><li>DATA FILE</li></ol><p dir="ltr">The primary data file is provided as an Excel workbook:</p><p dir="ltr">new_journals Raw research data.xlsx</p><p dir="ltr">The workbook contains the data used for the statistical analyses reported in the manuscript.</p><ol><li>QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES</li></ol><p dir="ltr">The questionnaire included 10 items:</p><p dir="ltr">Q1.

Interest in the course/learning activities</p><p dir="ltr">Q2. Previewing and reviewing course material</p><p dir="ltr">Q3. Confidence in performance on the final examination</p><p dir="ltr">Q4.

Perceived usefulness of discussions and formative tests</p><p dir="ltr">Q5. Participation in learning activities</p><p dir="ltr">Q6. Interest in student presentations</p><p dir="ltr">Q7.

Perceived transfer of learning from presentations</p><p dir="ltr">Q8. Group and PowerPoint presentation preparation</p><p dir="ltr">Q9. Perceived transfer of self-study</p><p dir="ltr">Q10.

Perceived influence of presentations on examination performance</p><p dir="ltr">The exact item wording and response coding should be interpreted together with the questionnaire and Methods section of the associated manuscript.</p><ol><li>THEORY-INFORMED CONSTRUCTS</li></ol><p dir="ltr">For substantive analyses, four theory-informed composite constructs were derived from the questionnaire items:</p><p dir="ltr">Learning interest:<br>Q1 + Q6</p><p dir="ltr">Learning agency:<br>Q2 + Q5 + Q8</p><p dir="ltr">Learning transfer:<br>Q4 + Q7 + Q9</p><p dir="ltr">Self-efficacy:<br>Q3 + Q10</p><p dir="ltr">These composites were retained as exploratory observed indicators for substantive analyses following examination of the empirical factor structure.</p><ol><li>PERCEPTION–PERFORMANCE CALIBRATION</li></ol><p dir="ltr">Perception–performance calibration was examined by comparing students’ perceived learning with their demonstrated objective achievement.</p><p dir="ltr">The calibration analysis used standardized perceived-learning and objective-performance measures.

The resulting categories included:</p><ul><li>Concordant-low</li><li>Underestimation</li><li>Concordant-high</li><li>Overestimation</li></ul><p dir="ltr">The precise operational definitions and classification thresholds are described in the associated manuscript.</p><ol><li>OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES</li></ol><p dir="ltr">Objective achievement was assessed using examination-based measures, including:</p><ul><li>Biochemistry examination performance</li><li>Total multiple-choice-question (MCQ) performance</li></ul><p dir="ltr">The dataset contains the variables required to reproduce the reported analyses of objective achievement and perception–performance calibration.</p><ol><li>STATISTICAL ANALYSES</li></ol><p dir="ltr">The associated study used a combination of psychometric, correlational, regression, nonlinear, and machine-learning analyses.</p><p dir="ltr">Analyses included:</p><ul><li>Descriptive statistics</li><li>Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)</li><li>Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)</li><li>Internal consistency analysis</li><li>Correlation analysis</li><li>Perception–performance calibration</li><li>Hierarchical multiple regression</li><li>Robust regression/sensitivity analyses</li><li>Mediation analysis</li><li>Nonlinear analyses</li><li>Regression-tree analysis</li><li>Random-forest analysis</li></ul><p dir="ltr">The statistical analysis was conducted in R. The analysis workflow and statistical procedures are documented in the associated analysis script where applicable.</p><ol><li>DATA PROCESSING</li></ol><p dir="ltr">Composite scores and derived variables used in the manuscript were calculated from the underlying questionnaire and examination variables.</p><p dir="ltr">Standardized variables were generated where required for calibration and regression analyses.</p><p dir="ltr">No personally identifying information is included in the shared dataset.</p><p dir="ltr">Researchers reusing the dataset should refer to the associated manuscript for the precise definitions, inclusion criteria, scoring procedures, statistical models, and sensitivity analyses.</p><ol><li>ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS</li></ol><p dir="ltr">The dataset has been de-identified for public research use.</p><p dir="ltr">The data should be used only for legitimate scientific, educational, or methodological purposes and should not be used to attempt to identify individual participants.</p><p dir="ltr">Users of the dataset should comply with applicable institutional, ethical, and data-protection requirements.</p><ol><li>RECOMMENDED CITATION</li></ol><p dir="ltr">Users of this dataset should cite both the dataset deposited on Figshare and the associated research article.</p><p dir="ltr">Dataset citation:</p><p dir="ltr">Xue, Y. (2026).

Dataset for “Active Learning, Student Perceptions, and Objective Achievement in an Integrated Human Functional Physiology Course”. Figshare.</p><p dir="ltr">The final DOI and publication details should be added after the Figshare record has been published.</p><ol><li>CONTACT</li></ol><p dir="ltr">For questions concerning the dataset, variable definitions, analysis procedures, or appropriate reuse of the data, please contact the corresponding author of the associated manuscript.</p><ol><li>VERSION</li></ol><p dir="ltr">Dataset version: 1.0<br>Date: September 2026</p>