STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

education environment, only a handful focus on evaluation of the environment, and the majority of these studies have been descriptive in nature. Reed and Price (1991) suggested criteria for an audit (assessment) of the clinical nursing learning environment, including social climate, nursing climate, physical environment, relationship between classroom and practice settings, and learning outcomes. However, they did not identify specific criteria within these categories that should be addressed in such an assessment. Clinical agency evaluation criteria were also suggested by Reilly & Oermann (1992). They identified the importance of flexibility of the learning environment, appropriateness of client population and adequate client numbers, range of learning opportunities, current care practices at the agency, availability of records, student orientation, and resource/space availability as important in determining clinical learning environment adequacy. Bevil and Gross (1981) identified several factors to be considered in selecting appropriate clinical settings for nursing student learning experiences, and developed a tool for faculty use in evaluating clinical settings. The forced-choice instrument addressed the issues of (a) availability of staff to facilitate learning, (b) student opportunity to assess patients and give direct care, (c) availability of records to students for review and documentation, and (d) an atmosphere conducive to growth. No tool validity or reliability data was included in the publication and no data collection was reported—only a plan for administering the tool and interpreting the results was presented. In contrast, Windsor (1987) used a student-centered approach in her study of the clinical learning environment, conducting focused interviews to better understand the clinical experience from the student perspective. Her detailed interviews of nine senior nursing students indicated 14
that many aspects of the clinical environment affected the quality of the student experience. A variety of clinical assignments, opportunity for professional socialization, and staff approval contributed to improved learning, while staff criticism contributed to a “bad” clinical day. Windsor’s findings indicated that relationships of students with instructors, staff nurses, other students, and patients were all important in the clinical experience. Based on Windsor’s research, Peirce (1991) conducted a qualitative study investigating preceptored students’ perceptions of their clinical experience. Twenty-nine first level and 15 second level undergraduate nursing students participated in the study. The open-ended questionnaire data were analyzed for themes, with the variables identified as influencing the clinical experience grouped into the categories of school/faculty factors, clinical site organizational and personnel factors, and student factors. Within the clinical site factors, variables mentioned by students included: assignments, staff feedback, preceptor’s availability and interest in students, preceptor nursing skills, opportunity to perform skills, adequacy of orientation, quality of nursing care, student participation in unit life, and staff willingness to teach and to serve as role models. Faculty factors identified included direction and guidance, availability to students, and follow-up to clinical experiences. Peirce stated that an unexpected finding was the relative importance of the staff nurses to the quality of the student clinical experience. This finding is supported by the research of Wilson (1994), who noted that students perceived staff nurses as linked with the real world of clinical practice as opposed to the world of theory to which the instructor was perceived to be linked. Perese (1996) identified additional factors related to student perception of clinical experiences in a descriptive study of 38 baccalaureate nursing students at the conclusion of a psychiatric clinical rotation. The majority of factors identified as influencing the student clinical 15
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: contingencies present in the learni
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 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?