STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

in identification and modification of environmental factors impacting student behavior was presented by authors. One of the first quantitative inventories developed to measure student perceptions of the classroom learning environment, the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), was initially developed in the late 1960’s by the Harvard Project Physics (Fraser, Anderson & Walberg, 1982). The final form of the instrument contains 105 items divided equally among 15 scales (cohesiveness, diversity, formality, speed, material environment, friction, goal direction, favoritism, difficulty, apathy, democracy, cliqueness, satisfaction, disorganization, and competitiveness). Secondary level students report their level of agreement with the stated items according to a four point Likert scale. Statistical testing of the instrument was reported by Fraser, Anderson and Walberg (1982). Reported scale consistency (alpha reliability coefficients) for inventory scales varied from .56 - .85. Within class correlations per scale were .31 - .92. Test retest reliability ranged from .51 - .73, and correlations among the 15 scales varied from .08 - .40. Fraser and Fisher (1982) developed a modified version of the LEI, called the My Class Inventory (MCI), for use with younger children, 8-12 years old. This instrument contains five scales (cohesiveness, friction, difficulty, satisfaction, and competitiveness), rather than the original fifteen. The MCI consists of 38 questions with yes/no response options. The inventory was initially tested with 2305 seventh grade science students in Tasmania, Australia. The scale consistency (Crohnbach’s alpha) scores ranged from .73 - .88. Correlation of each scale with all others ranged from .13 - .30. ANOVA testing demonstrated that each scale was able to differentiate between classrooms (p< .01). An eta squared value of .18 - .31 indicated that 20
etween 18 and 31% of variance in scale scores was attributable to class membership (Fraser & Fisher, 1983). The MCI instrument has been used in several studies as a dependent measure for classroom improvement initiatives, although the majority of studies have been conducted in other countries. Studies by Fraser and O’Brien (1985) and Diamantes (1994) demonstrated that teacher interventions to improve the learning environment based on analysis of pre-intervention MCI data resulted in significant improvement in student perceptions of the targeted dimensions (scales) of the learning environment. Fraser also developed an abbreviated version of the MCI, consisting of 25 questions divided into five scales. Reliability testing with 758 third grade Australian students resulted in findings similar to the long form, with the instrument being able to differentiate between classrooms (p< .001), and the scales accounting for significant variance in student cognitive outcomes (post-test scores), when controlling for prior knowledge and general ability (Fisher & Fraser, 1981). Another inventory designed to measure student perceptions of the classroom learning environment, the Classroom Environment Scale (CES), was developed by Trickett and Moos (1973). It was the result of literature review, interviews with students and faculty, and classroom observations. The final version of CES consists of 90 items divided equally among 10 scales (involvement, affiliation, support, task orientation, competition, order/organization, rule clarity, teacher control and innovation). Student responses are limited to true and false. Initial instrument testing with American junior high and senior high school students resulted in scale consistency (alpha reliability) scores of .67 - .85, with correlation of individual scales with all other scales ranging from .10 - .31 (Trickett & Moos, 1973). The amount of variance in CES 21
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: Empirical Investigations of the Tra
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?