STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Issue Identified Identified by Agency Staff/Preceptor (continued) Agency Literature Nursing Nursing Trad. Classrm. Contracts * Faculty * Students * Instruments Staff workload allows time to work with students X X Staff communicate with/provide feedback to students X X X Attitude of staff toward working with students X X X X Staff are skillful and serve as role models for students X X Agency/staff remain ultimately responsible for patients X X Staff prepared to work with students ** X X Staff education level (AD, diploma, BSN) ** X X Recommendations related to continued affiliation ** X Changes recommended related to agency experience ** X X Agency keeps faculty informed of student progress ** X X X Assist in determining student assignments ** X X Note. (*) indicates information gathered prior to development of the original version of the SECEE inventory. Note. (**) indicates issues that are important in determining the full nature of the clinical environment but that are outside the realm of the current focus of instrument development: measurement of student perceptions of their clinical education environments. 128
Appendix E 129
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 and 116: Conclusion The applied learning asp
Page 117 and 118: References American Association of
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: Table of Specifications for Student
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?