STUDENT EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

students. Students attending LMA and SMW had two distinct clinical rotations per semester, except senior students at LMA, who were placed in a rural site rotation for an entire semester. At SMA, only junior students had two clinical rotations per semester; sophomores and seniors remained at one primary clinical site throughout the semester. Procedure The SECEE instrument was administered to all classes of nursing students who were enrolled in a clinical nursing experience at each institution. The instruments were distributed during classroom sessions of nursing courses, for the sake of convenience in data gathering. Students were asked to evaluate the primary clinical site that they were currently experiencing. If students had concurrent clinical experiences at more than one site, they were assigned to evaluate the first clinical setting they experienced during the school week. Only primary clinical rotation sites were evaluated—observational and single day experiences at clinical sites were not included in data collection. Although these experiences are also important to student learning, inclusion of observational or single session sites in data collection would require students to complete multiple inventories (one for each site experienced) within a short time frame, potentially impacting the quality of student responses. To the investigator’s knowledge, all students had at least three clinical sessions at the site being evaluated prior to data collection. Data were collected during the 1998 spring semester. A sub-sample of sophomore and junior students at institution LMA completed the instrument twice during the semester, during two different clinical rotations. These data allowed comparison of individual student evaluations of distinct clinical sites during the same semester. The junior students at SMW and the senior students at SMA completed the inventory twice during the semester, but evaluated the same 44
clinical sites, for the purposes of test-retest reliability determination. The second administration of the inventory to the above groups of students was between three and four weeks after the first administration, following guidelines for test-retest reliability determination (Burns & Grove, 1993). All other students at the three institutions completed the SECEE inventory only once toward the end of the semester. Nursing instructors at institutions LMA, SMW, and SMA who distributed and collected the instruments read the “Statement to Participants” prior to instrument distribution, assuring students of confidentiality and anonymity as well as the voluntary nature of participation in the study. The investigator read the “Statement to Participants” as well as distributed and collected the SECEE inventories only for the sophomore and junior classes of students at LMA. All students were requested to identify their inventories with the first two letters of their mother’s first name and the last two digits of their social security number. Identification of student inventories was necessary for comparisons of students’ pretest and end of semester inventories. To the investigator’s knowledge, no time limitations were imposed for student completion of the inventory. Upon completion, the SMW and SMA student inventories were forwarded to the researcher by the deans of the nursing departments. LMA sophomore and junior student inventories were collected directly by the investigator and senior student inventories at LMA were forwarded to the investigator by nursing faculty. 45
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 and 48: Chapter 3 Methods The following sec
Page 49 and 50: added, based on the applied cogniti
Page 51: Limiting the number of items while
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?