STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to why students were unable to respond to an item, and perhaps point to the need for further inventory modifications. The inventory contained four items for which a low score reflects a negative, rather than positive, characteristic of the environment. These items were reverse-coded prior to data analysis. The two demographic items (semester and clinical site being evaluated) on the initial instrument that were found to have missing or incomplete student responses in the initial data collection were altered to guard against recurrence of missing data. An additional objective in revision of the inventory was to encompass more fully the wide range of environmental influences on learning that had been identified through previous research investigations (Peirce, 1991; Windsor, 1987). In order to accomplish this objective, four items addressing student opportunities for learning and success, the impact of both instructor and resource staff behaviors on the student experience, and relationships with other students were added to the inventory. The initial instrument did not address the impact of the instructor on the learning environment. Based on research literature support for inclusion of instructor variables in a comprehensive educational environment evaluation (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986; Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 1995; Robins et al., 1996; Trickett & Moos, 1973), the issues of instructor feedback to students, instructor serving as a role model for professional nursing, adequate instructor guidance, instructor encouragement of students helping each other, and instructor availability for questions or assistance were addressed through the addition of one inventory item for each issue. Two inventory items related to adequate preceptor/resource nurse guidance in learning new skills and preceptor/resource nurse feedback to students were also 40
added, based on the applied cognition literature (Bevil & Gross, 1982; Peirce, 1991; Slavin, 1997). An item addressing the range of learning opportunities at the site was also added, as a result of multiple student comments about learning opportunities on the open-ended items of the initial instrument as well as from further literature review (Farrell & Coombes, 1994; Reilly & Oermann, 1992). In addition, eight items asking about clear communication of student responsibilities, whether students are encouraged to identify and pursue learning opportunities, whether students were allowed increased independence as their skills improved, if they experienced difficulty obtaining assistance when needed, whether adequate support was provided during attempts at a new skill, whether the student found responsibilities overwhelming, if nursing students helped each other, and whether the atmosphere was conducive to learning were added, based on review of both the applied and traditional classroom learning literature (Cust, 1996; Fraser & Fisher, 1983; Slavin, 1997). Two questions were removed from the instrument, due to the perception that not all nursing students would have adequate prior knowledge and experience to make reliable judgements about the items. The forced-choice items asking whether students felt their preceptor/resource nurse was prepared to serve as a resource to students and requesting student recommendation about future use of the agency as a clinical education site were removed during instrument revision. If either of these issues were critically important to a particular student s/he could comment on them via the open-ended questions. The forced-choice instrument items encompass four predetermined factors or scales: communication and feedback, learning opportunities, learning support and assistance, and department atmosphere (see appendix B for a list of items within each scale). The four scales are 41
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 and 44: espondents. Analysis of item respon
Page 45 and 46: sites having few respondents. If in
Page 47: Chapter 3 Methods The following sec
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?