STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

positive and negatively worded items, with a goal of maintaining face validity of the instrument (Fraser, 1982). The short version of the ICEQ consists of five scales with five questions each. The shortened CES contains 24 questions divided evenly between six scales. The correlation between the long and short forms for the ICEQ was reported to vary from .84 to .97. Reported alpha reliability for the short form scales was .69 - .85. The correlation between long and short forms of the CES was .78 - .92 and the alpha reliability for the CES short form scales ranged from .78 - .92. In addition, Fraser and his colleagues reported case studies using the shortened versions of both the CES and MCI to assess and measure improvements in the learning environment of Australian elementary school students (Fraser & O’Brien, 1985; Fraser & Fisher, 1986). Teachers were informed of student perceptions of the environment and targeted specific areas for intervention, based on inventory results. Post intervention scale scores for each inventory were significantly different from initial scores, particularly in the areas targeted for intervention. Yet another instrument was developed by Fraser, Treagust, and Dennis (1986), based on an identified need for instruments to measure the learning environment in higher education classrooms. The College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) was designed to be used for smaller lecture or seminar-type university classes. The inventory contains seven scales (personalization, involvement, cohesiveness, satisfaction, task orientation, innovation, and individualization), with seven questions in each scale. Students respond to the instrument according to a four level agree to disagree Likert scale; half of the items are reverse- scored. Testing with 307 Australian post graduate and undergraduate students and 65 U.S. post graduate and undergraduate students resulted in class reliability coefficient alphas for the scales of .81 - .96, and correlation of individual scales with all other scales of .36 - .56. Each scale 24
significantly differentiated between classrooms (p< .001), with 32 - 42% of the variance in scale scores being due to class membership (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986). Fraser, Williamson, and Tobin (1987) used the CUCEI instrument to compare environmental perceptions of Australian students enrolled in an alternative high school geared toward the adult learner with the perceptions of students enrolled in more traditional education settings (evening technical school, traditional high school for adolescents only, and traditional setting including both older learners and adolescents). They found differences between school types on all seven scales of the CUCEI instrument. Overall, the evening technical school was rated most favorably, followed by the alternative high school, the conventional adolescent high school, and the high school integrating adolescents with adult learners. Recently, Fraser, Giddings, and McRobbie (1991) have developed a new questionnaire, called the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI), to measure the unique environment of science laboratory classes in secondary or tertiary level classes. The questionnaire has five scales (student cohesiveness, open-endedness, integration, rule clarity and material management). Students respond to questions on a five-point frequency Likert scale. The instrument was field tested simultaneously in six countries with over 6,000 students (Fraser, 1991). Scale alpha reliabilities by class were reported to vary from .75 - .83, with the mean correlation of individual scales with all other scales ranging from .07 - .37. Repeat investigation resulted in somewhat higher correlations (.18 - .57) between individual scales and all remaining scales (Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 1995). The researchers have also developed a “personal” form of the SLEI instrument, to obtain student perceptions of his/her own role within the classroom rather than perceptions of the class as a whole. 25
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: .32 for the student actual form and
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?