STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

scale scores attributed to class membership varied from 21 - 48%. Test-retest stability over a two-week interval varied from .91 to .98. Fraser and Fisher (1983) repeated reliability testing of the instrument, finding similar results. They also developed and tested a preferred form of the instrument, to measure the type of learning environments that students consider ideal. The instrument was tested with junior high Australian students and faculty. Preferred scale reliability alphas ranged from .60 - .86. Correlation of individual scales with all other scales varied from .16 - .43 for the preferred form. Each scale was able to differentiate between classrooms (p< .001) with the amount of variance in the CES scales attributable to class membership varying from 18 - 43%. Fraser (Fraser, 1983; Fraser & Fisher, 1983) developed yet another instrument, the Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ), for use in more individualized classroom settings. The ICEQ was based on review of literature related to classroom learning characteristics, interviews with teachers and students, and the identified need for a time and cost- efficient instrument to measure the learning environment of secondary students. It consists of 50 questions divided among five scales (personalization, participation, independence, investigation, and differentiation). Student response options range from “almost never” to “almost always”. Two forms of the instrument are available: one in which students or teachers respond to the actual classroom environment, and one in which students and/or teachers respond according to their preferred or ideal classroom environment. Reliability and validity testing was conducted with seventh through ninth grade students in 116 Australian classes (Fraser & Fisher, 1983). Scale internal consistency values for each scale ranged from .77 - .91 for the class actual form, and from .75 - .92 for the class preferred form. Correlations between each individual scale of the instrument and the other four scales were very similar across the two inventory forms, being .16 - 22
.32 for the student actual form and .17 - .35 for the student preferred form. Test-retest reliability was reported to vary from .67 - .83 for a group of 105 students. Each scale of the instrument was determined to differentiate between classrooms (by means of ANOVA results), with 20 - 43% of the variance in scale scores being attributable to class membership (Fraser, 1983). Fraser (1983) investigated application of the ICEQ in a classroom study aimed at improving the student learning environment in a private secondary school class of 31 seventh grade boys. Students completed both actual and preferred forms of the ICEQ instrument. The teacher was provided the student means for each scale and developed interventions directed at improving perceived personalization and participation scale scores. After one month of teacher interventions, reassessment with the actual ICEQ inventory demonstrated significant change in student perceptions of the environment related to the two scales targeted for intervention by the teacher. Fraser and Fisher (1982) also demonstrated a significant association between student cognitive outcomes and their perception of the classroom psychosocial environment, using the ICEQ and CES instruments. The magnitude of relationships was larger for the class than for the individual student. Fraser has also developed short forms of the ICEQ and CES, due to the perception that time and cost constraints may prevent teachers from using the longer forms to assess the learning environment and to measure improvements in the environment post-intervention (Fraser & Fisher, 1986). The goal for the development of the shortened tools was to increase efficiency of testing and scoring, while maintaining an accurate representation of mean class perceptions. The shortened inventories were developed as a result of several item analyses of the long form data from administration of these two tools, as well as from an attempt to achieve a balance of 23
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: etween 18 and 31% of variance in sc
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?