STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An endeavor such as this is not accomplished without the support and encouragement of others. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to study with faculty and students who so willingly have shared their knowledge and experience, and supported others in accomplishing their goals. I am also grateful to the Swiger Foundation for providing me the opportunity to focus solely on studies, without financial concerns. My sincere thanks to my doctoral committee who supported this research endeavor and made the process of dissertation completion as painless as possible. Thanks particularly to Dr. Anne Nardi who has provided me with unwavering support and encouragement throughout the last three years. Thanks to Dr. Rayne Sperling Dennison for hours of help with data analysis and to Dr. Julie Vargas for helping me maintain a ”balanced perspective”. Also, my appreciation to Dr. Karen Miles and Dr. Lynne Ostrow, who helped me to focus the application of all that I have learned to the field of Nursing. Without the assistance of others, data collection would have been nearly impossible. I greatly appreciate the assistance of Dr. Donna Hartweg, Dr. Shari Metcalfe, Dr. Joan Clites and Dr. Karen Miles for their assistance with data collection. Thanks also to the nursing faculty at the three institutions used for data collection, for making time during class to gather data. I am also very thankful for the support of my husband, Dave, and children Kallie and Bryce during the past three years. The road has been long, but the end is in sight. Finally, I thank God for providing me the opportunity to accomplish this longstanding goal and for keeping my family intact during the process. iv
Table of Contents List of Tables vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Definition of Terms 4 Chapter 2: Review of Literature 6 Theoretical Perspectives on the Learning Environment 6 Theoretical Perspectives on Evaluation of the Learning Environment 12 Empirical Investigations of the Applied Learning Environment in Nursing 13 Empirical Investigations of the Traditional Classroom Learning Environment 19 Statement of the Problem 31 Preliminary Investigation 32 Research Questions 37 Chapter 3: Methods 39 Instrument Revisions 39 Population 43 Procedure 44 Chapter 4: Results 46 Descriptive Analysis 47 Missing Data 48 Descriptive Statistics 49 Parametric Analyses 50 Institutional Differences in Student Response to SECEE Instrument 54 Instrument Reliability Determination 57 Test-Retest Reliability 60 Differences in Scale Scores According to Clinical Site Groups 67 Analysis of Narrative Inventory Data 75 Student Narrative Responses Reflecting SECEE Item Content 77 Student Narrative Responses not Addressed by Forced Choice Item Content82 Chapter 5: Discussion 85 Research Question 1 85 Brevity and Practicality of Use 85 Content Validity 86 Research Question 2 88 Inventory Reliability 88 Scale Reliability 88 Research Question 3 91 Construct Validity 91 Research Question 4 94 Removal of SECEE Items 94 v
Page 1 and 2: STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUC
Page 3: significant for any of the four sca
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 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?