STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Due to an identified need to assess the degree to which a classroom’s environment is consistent with a more constructivist philosophy, Taylor and Fraser (1991) developed the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). The inventory items are divided among the four scales of autonomy, prior knowledge, negotiation, and student-centeredness. Reported scale reliability scores for the actual version of this instrument ranged from .61 - .79. Idiris and Fraser slightly modified the original CLES instrument to measure the perceived learning environment of 1175 agricultural science students in 20 different Nigerian secondary schools. They added the Investigation and Differentiation scales contained in the ICEQ to the original CLES scales, and dropped the Prior Knowledge scale. Within-scale reliability scores varied from .71 to .96 with the school mean as the unit of analysis and from .55 - .82 with the individual as the unit of analysis. Correlation of each individual scale with all other scales varied from .33 - .49 for group data, somewhat higher than scale correlations reported for the MCI, CES, ICEQ, and SLEI, but comparable to those reported for the CUCEI. Between scale correlations using individual data were slightly lower at .24 - .39. The actual form was found to differentiate significantly (p< .001) between perceptions of students in different schools, with 14 - 45% of the variance in scale scores accounted for by school membership (Idiris & Fraser, 1994). Very recently, Cannon (1997) administered both the preferred and the actual forms of the original CLES instrument to 108 American students enrolled in college science courses (biology, chemistry and physics). He reported within-scale reliability scores ranging from .63 - .89 for the actual (perceived) inventory form and from .35 - .91 for the preferred form. Chemistry students’ scale reliability scores for the Prior Knowledge and Autonomy scales were noticeably lower than other reliability scores, at .35 and .57 respectively. Cannon found that student perceived scores 26
were lower than preferred scores for all scales, indicating that the learning environments in all three types of science classes fell short of what students preferred for these environments. Generally, all of the instruments described above have been demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable for use in assessment of classroom learning environments (Fraser, 1991). Within-scale reliabilities indicated that students respond consistently to each of the scales within the inventories. Correlations of individual scales with the other scales in an inventory indicated the concepts measured by each of the instruments are distinct but somewhat overlapping. All inventories have been shown to discriminate between the learning environments of students in different classes. Each of the inventories measures somewhat different factors, as evidenced by the different scales in the instruments. Fraser (1991) created a matrix of the scales included in six of the above instruments (LEI, CES, ICEQ, MCI, CUCEI, and SLEI), categorizing each instrument’s scales according to the three dimensions of the human environment (Relationship, Personal Development, and System Maintenance and Change) identified by Moos (1979). It was evident from review of this matrix that several of the instruments contain some of the same or very similar scales, but that none contain exactly the same scales. This author has further summarized Fraser’s matrix, focusing on the scales included in the six instruments and frequency of identification of each scale among the instruments. In addition, the scales identified in the more recent CLES inventory have been included in the matrix summary. Table 1 identifies each scale (factor) measured by the seven previously identified instruments and the frequency of scale identification across the instruments. It is apparent that student cohesiveness or affiliations, involvement or participation, satisfaction, competitiveness, and diversity or individualization are considered important factors in the 27
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 and 32: .32 for the student actual form and
Page 33: significantly differentiated betwee
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?