STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

constraints experienced by students were the only strengths or limitations not specifically addressed by the scaled-response portion of the instrument. Finally, students were asked to make any further comments they wished to communicate, related either to their clinical experience or to the evaluation instrument. Most comments were general in nature and related to either preceptor or staff issues (both positive and negative comments) or to general perceptions about the agency environment. Three study limitations became evident during data analysis, with the physical layout of the demographic section contributing to two of the limitations. The semester identification item was found to have 57 missing responses. This did not affect data analysis, as data collection occurred during only one semester. However, it might affect analysis, if data were to be collected over the span of several semesters. In addition, the item that requested students to identify the clinical site being evaluated was found to be problematic. Twenty-six students identified clinical sites only by institution (hospital) or clinical rotation (psychiatric), rather than by specific unit or department, even though instructions requested inclusion of the unit or department. This resulted in the need to create two general agency clinical site groups for ANOVA analysis, potentially impacting analysis results. However, the majority of missing data was from students evaluating one specific rotation in psychiatry, so validity testing of the instrument was assumed to be minimally affected. The third study limitation that became apparent during data analysis related to the unequal numbers of students evaluating the variety of clinical sites. Due to senior students having precepted clinical experiences in a wide variety of community and hospital settings, the number of students evaluating some sites was very small. Thus, it was necessary to group individual sites prior to ANOVA analysis. This grouping may have masked extreme scores for 36
sites having few respondents. If individual site data were needed for settings having very few students, it would be necessary to review inventories rating these settings individually, or to combine data for two or more semesters in order to achieve a larger sample size per site for quantitative analysis. Research Questions The original SECEE inventory appeared to adequately reflect nursing students’ perceptions of some aspects of the clinical learning environment, based on data from students enrolled in one nursing education program. However, the inventory did not reflect the full range of factors impacting the clinical learning environment. As there continued to be no other published instruments addressing student perceptions of the clinical education environment, the investigator chose to continue refinement and testing of the SECEE inventory. The goals of inventory revision were to produce an instrument that was a valid and reliable measure of student perceptions, that reflected more fully the range of environmental impacts on student learning, and that was practically useful to nursing educators. Based on the results from administration of the original SECEE inventory and on further review of the applied learning environment literature, the following questions were posed for continued research. 1. Is it possible to revise the original SECEE instrument to include all issues critical to the nursing clinical education environment, while maintaining brevity and practicality of use by nursing educators? 2. Is the revised SECEE inventory a reliable instrument for measuring student perceptions of their clinical (applied) learning environment? 37
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 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: espondents. Analysis of item respon
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?