A Comparison of the Performance of Registered Nurse Students in Flexible and Traditional Clinical Courses.

Autor/inn/en	Wolfe, Mary L.; Sands, Rosetta F.
Titel	A Comparison of the Performance of Registered Nurse Students in Flexible and Traditional Clinical Courses.
Quelle	(1981), (15 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Clinical Teaching (Health Professions); Course Organization; Educational Methods; Flexible Scheduling; Higher Education; Instructional Innovation; Nontraditional Education; Nursing Education; Nursing Students; Outcomes of Education; Program Effectiveness; Reentry Students; Teaching Methods + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Course organisation; Kurskonzept; Educational method; Erziehungsmethode; Flexible working hours; Flexible Arbeitszeit; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Educational Innovation; Bildungsinnovation; Non-traditional education; Alternative Erziehung; Pflegepädagogik; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Zweiter Bildungsweg; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode
Abstract	An experiment was conducted at the University of Maryland at Baltimore to determine if performances would differ for registered nurses enrolled in a baccalaureate program in nursing depending on whether they participated in a flexible clinical scheduling (FLEX) program or in the traditional (non-FLEX) program. Fifty-four students took part in the study, with 18 students enrolled in the FLEX program and the remainder in the traditional program. The clinical course format consisted of the following activities in which all 54 students participated: large group lectures, clinical conferences, and student-teacher conferences. Students in both programs spent 13 hours in the clinical work setting each week providing nursing care to selected clients. At the end of each week, the students submitted nursing process records on each client to the instructor responsible for the evaluation of their clinical achievement. Records were checked by instructors and returned to students to guide their performance. The crucial variable distinguishing students in the FLEX program from those in the non-FLEX program was the absence of an instructor in the clinical setting. Students were evaluated at the end of the 12-week clinical experience using the Clinical Evaluation Tool. A regression factorial analysis of variance was performed on the data gathered by these evaluations. Results showed no significant difference between the clinical achievement scores of FLEX and non-FLEX students. Although these results replicated those of an earlier similar study, caution is urged and further study with a wider sample recommended before implementation of such a program on a wider scale. (KC)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC