STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

which they were enrolled, according to their academic level, and according to clinical site group. The majority of issues raised by students in response to open-ended questions had already been addressed by the forced-choice portion of the inventory. Recommendations were made for revision of the instrument to include other issues raised by students as well as to remove items that were either too general or that did not correlate well with other items in the inventory. Recommendations were also made to reduce the incidence of missing demographic data and to improve the ease of scoring the inventory. Implementation of these recommendations together with those for repositioning some items within-scales should improve both the reliability of the instrument and the ease of scoring and interpretation of data. Following revisions and testing, the instrument will even more closely reflect student perceptions of their clinical learning environment. The goal for the development of an instrument to measure student perceptions of their clinical learning environments is to provide accurate information to nursing faculty and administrators about the quality of the learning environment at all clinical sites used by a nursing program. Data from the SECEE inventory could be used together with other information to make decisions about taking action to improve the clinical learning environment and to monitor the success of actions taken, in terms of both the quality of the learning environment and student learning outcomes. 108
References American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (1997). Draft Standards for Accreditation of Baccalaureate and Graduate Nursing Education Programs November, 1997. [On-line]. Available: http://www. aacn.nche.edu/Accred/standard.htm. Co. Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing (6 th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Berliner, D. C. (1983). Developing conceptions of classroom environments: some light on the T in classroom studies of ATI. Educational Psychologist, 18, 1-13. Bevil, C. W. & Gross, L. C. (1981). Assessing the adequacy of clinical learning settings. Nursing Outlook, 29, 658-661. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42. Burns, N. & Grove, S.K. (1993). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique & utilization (2 nd ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company. Cannon, J. R. (1997). The constructivist learning environment survey may help halt student exodus from college science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 67-71. Carver, R. (1996). Theory for practice: A framework for thinking about experiential education. The Journal of Experiential Education, 19 (1), 8-13. Cheney, C. D. (1991). The source and control of behavior. In W. Ishaq (Ed.) Human behavior in today’s world (pp. 73-86). New York: Praeger. Cheney, D. (1991). A rational technology of education. In W. Ishaq (Ed.) Human behavior in today’s world (pp. 163-170). New York: Praeger. Clark, J. A. (1995). Tertiary students’ perceptions of their learning environments: a new procedure and some outcomes. Higher Education Research and Development, 14, 1-12. Cust, J. (1996). A relational view of learning: Implications for nurse education. Nursing Education Today, 16, 256-266. Diamantes, T. (1994). Reducing differences between student actual and preferred classroom environments. ED 378 036. Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, J. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 109
Page 1 and 2:
STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUC
Page 3 and 4:
significant for any of the four sca
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents List of Tables vi
Page 7 and 8:
Tables List of Tables 1. Identifica
Page 9 and 10:
Student Evaluation of Clinical Educ
Page 11 and 12:
development of different skills and
Page 13 and 14:
Examples of applied learning enviro
Page 15 and 16:
hear about a topic, but must contac
Page 17 and 18:
with others and participation in a
Page 19 and 20:
ideal applied learning environment
Page 21 and 22:
contingencies present in the learni
Page 23 and 24:
that many aspects of the clinical e
Page 25 and 26:
The second instrument-based clinica
Page 27 and 28:
Empirical Investigations of the Tra
Page 29 and 30:
etween 18 and 31% of variance in sc
Page 31 and 32:
.32 for the student actual form and
Page 33 and 34:
significantly differentiated betwee
Page 35 and 36:
were lower than preferred scores fo
Page 37 and 38:
Table 1. Identification and Frequen
Page 39 and 40:
Although the above-mentioned learni
Page 41 and 42:
The original two-page SECEE instrum
Page 43 and 44:
espondents. Analysis of item respon
Page 45 and 46:
sites having few respondents. If in
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter 3 Methods The following sec
Page 49 and 50:
added, based on the applied cogniti
Page 51 and 52:
Limiting the number of items while
Page 53 and 54:
clinical sites, for the purposes of
Page 55 and 56:
Descriptive Analysis Data from the
Page 57 and 58:
Study participants responded “can
Page 59 and 60:
Table 2 SECEE Inventory Forced-choi
Page 61 and 62:
Item 22. Students helped each other
Page 63 and 64:
Table 3 Scale Means and Standard De
Page 65 and 66: sites more favorably (M = 11.81) th
Page 67 and 68: Table 6 Reliability Coefficients fo
Page 69 and 70: assists in reducing the confounding
Page 71 and 72: Table 8 ANOVA Results, Student Leve
Page 73 and 74: Table 10 Scale Score Means and Stan
Page 75 and 76: Sophomore SMA students rated the Le
Page 77 and 78: Support at site group 5 more positi
Page 79 and 80: Table 12 Scale Score Means and Stan
Page 81 and 82: SMA 14 n = 7 Site Group Comm. / 17
Page 83 and 84: Analysis of Narrative Inventory Dat
Page 85 and 86: Analysis of the narrative student c
Page 87 and 88: Student comments reflecting scaled
Page 89 and 90: Table 17 Frequencies of Student Res
Page 91 and 92: Table 18 Frequencies of Student Res
Page 93 and 94: Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusion
Page 95 and 96: their own clients as a hindrance to
Page 97 and 98: the Department Atmosphere scale, an
Page 99 and 100: end of semester perception of the l
Page 101 and 102: minimal grouping of sites was requi
Page 103 and 104: the instrument, the investigator fe
Page 105 and 106: also may have averted a higher inci
Page 107 and 108: number of students reporting that n
Page 109 and 110: 6. Add a fifth response item to the
Page 111 and 112: with individual patients, and are a
Page 113 and 114: separately at each item pertaining
Page 115: Conclusion The applied learning asp
Page 119 and 120: Fraser, B. J. & O’Brien, P. O. (1
Page 121 and 122: Reilly, D. E. & Oerman, M. H. (1992
Page 123 and 124: Appendix A Original SECEE Instrumen
Page 125 and 126: Key: 1 = very seldom 2 = sometimes
Page 127 and 128: Inventory Scale Item Number Communi
Page 129 and 130: Appendix C Revised SECEE Instrument
Page 131 and 132: Key: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3
Page 133 and 134: Key: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3
Page 135 and 136: Table of Specifications for Student
Page 137 and 138: Appendix E 129
Page 139 and 140: Appendix F 131
Page 141 and 142: KARI SAND-JECKLIN 2003 White Oak Dr
Page 143 and 144: Staff Nurse: employed part-time at
show all

STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?