STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
differences between academic ranks of students in all but one scale score at SMA. However, at<br />
SMW institution, only one scale score (Department Atmosphere) was found to have significant<br />
differences according to student academic level. The ANOVA results indicate that the SECEE<br />
instrument did detect differences between student levels, but that the differences found were not<br />
consistent across institutions. This finding was not unexpected, as the nursing programs at<br />
LMA, SMA, and SMW have institution-specific programs of study and clinical foci for each<br />
academic level. An interesting sidelight is that when differences were detected between levels of<br />
students, the junior students appeared to perceive their clinical education environments less<br />
positively than did the sophomore or senior students (see Table 10 in the Results section). These<br />
findings present another possible topic for research, beyond that of instrument validation. It may<br />
be of interest to find out why students at one level perceive their environments more or less<br />
positively than students at other levels.<br />
Scale score differences were also found between students evaluating different clinical site<br />
groups at the two small institutions (SMA and SMW). The clinical sites at the smaller<br />
institutions required much less grouping prior to ANOVA analysis, and thus clinical groups were<br />
most likely more homogeneous. No scale score differences were found between site groups at<br />
LMA institution; however, the 35 different clinical sites evaluated by LMA students were<br />
collapsed into 10 site groups, prior to analysis. This forced grouping meant that as many as<br />
seven distinct clinical learning sites were grouped together for analysis. Although the sites were<br />
grouped according to the type of nursing care provided at the facility, the nature of the learning<br />
environment (facilities, equipment, staff, and patient population) may have been very different.<br />
Thus, student evaluations may have varied greatly within one site group. It is encouraging to<br />
note that differences between clinical site groups were found for the institutions for which<br />
92