STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

experience involved nursing staff, including: role modeling, attitude, professionalism, staff support of nursing students, and staff workload. A review of the literature revealed only three recent studies aimed at developing and/or testing an instrument to evaluate the clinical education environment. Robins, Gruppen, Alexander, Fantone, and Davis (1996) developed an instrument to measure the medical school learning environment as part of an effort to improve student perceptions of their medical school experience. Although the authors did not specify whether their intent was to measure the classroom or the clinical environment, the reader might assume that the instrument was intended to measure the student learning environment in general, as no questions were addressed specifically to either the classroom or the clinical education component. The 435 completed instruments represented three years of data collection from medical students attending a large Midwest university. Student respondents rated the overall learning environment as well as the comfort of the environment for both men and women and for all races and ethnicities. The quality and amount of feedback provided to students, faculty involvement and interest in student education, and the program’s ability to promote critical thinking were also included in the instrument. No information as to the format of the questionnaire, student response options, or the reliability of the instrument was provided. Robins et al. (1996) did state that men and Caucasian students perceived some aspects of the learning environment more favorably, and that all medical students, regardless of gender or ethnicity valued a strong academic program and faculty who are respectful and supportive. Promotion of critical thinking and timely feedback were also identified by students as important. Regression analysis identified the strongest predictor of satisfaction as student perception that faculty placed a high priority on student education. 16
The second instrument-based clinical education evaluation study, conducted in Australia, focused on development of an objective measure of nursing students’ clinical learning environment in a psychiatric rotation. Farrell and Coombes (1994) developed the Student Nurse Appraisal of Placement (SNAP) inventory with input from nursing faculty, agency staff, and students. The inventory consisted of nine semantic differential items as well as an area for student comments and an open-ended question about student experiences. Items addressed physical resources, learning opportunities, availability of staff, opportunities to practice interpersonal and technical skills, and overall student perceptions. Analysis was conducted based on right and left deviation from the analogue center. No support for validity or reliability of the instrument was presented in the article, and the size of the sample used in this investigation was not identified. However, Farrell and Coombes did state that data were used in curriculum review and decisions related to clinical site use. Data analysis revealed evaluation differences between clinical sites; authors stated the items were in keeping with professionally agreed upon criteria related to adequate learning environments for students. The final instrument-based clinical evaluation study was based on the authors’ perception that there was a lack of well-tested instruments to measure clinical learning environment. Dunn and Burnett (1995) developed the Clinical Learning Environment Scale to measure the applied component of nursing education. The instrument was based on Orten’s Ward Learning Climate Survey (as cited by Dunn & Burnett, 1995) and was intended for use in the Australian nursing system. Authors extracted and revised 55 items from Orten’s survey and administered the items to 423 nursing students and faculty at an Australian university. Exploratory factor analysis combined with a literature review led to further revision of the instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis followed with further revision of factors. Their final instrument included 23 items with 17
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: that many aspects of the clinical e
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?