Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Klinik Değerlendirilmesinde Öz, Akran ve Eğitici Değerlendirme Arasındaki İlişki: Pilot Bir Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, bir lisans hemşirelik programının klinik uygulamasında olan öğrencilerin klinik değerlendirilmesinde öz, akran ve eğitici değerlendirmeler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek-tir.
Materyal ve Metod: Çalışmaya ikinci sınıfta okuyan 70 hemşire-lik öğrenci katıldı. Araştırma verileri, Öğrenci Bilgi Formu, Klinik Performans Değerlendirme Ölçeği kullanılarak toplandı. Çalışmada öz, akran ve eğitici değerlendirmeler arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek için Pearson Korelasyon testi, öz, akran ve eğitici değerlendirmele-rinin karşılaştırılmasında ise Paired Sample t Testi kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: Öz ve akran değerlendirme puanlarının eğitici değerlen-dirme puanından yüksek olduğu ve aradaki farkın anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir (p<0,05). Tüm değerlendirmeler arasında pozitif korelasyon olduğu bulunmuştur. Öğrencilerin çoğunluğunun öz ve akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin olumlu düşüncelerinin olduğu belir-lendi (öz değerlendirme % 92,8; akran değerlendirmesi % 97,1).
Sonuç: Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin kendilerine ve akranlarına eğiti-ciden daha fazla puan verdikleri, değerlendirmeyi objektif olarak yapamadığı görülmüştür. Bu yöntemlerin öğrencinin klinik değer-lendirmesinde tek başına kullanılması uygun değildir. Fakat eğitici değerlendirme yöntemini desteklemek, öğrencilerin gelişmesini ve değerlendirme sürecinde aktif olmasını sağlamak amacıyla klinik değerlendirmede kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz değerlendirme,akran değerlendirme,eğitici değerlendirme

The Relation Between Self-Evaluation, Peer-Evaluation and Teacher Evaluation in Clinic Evaluation of Nursing Students: A Pilot Study Abstract

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to examine the relation between self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and teacher evaluations in clinic evaluation of students who attend clinic application of a bachelor degree nursing education program.
Materials and Meyhods: 70 sophomore nursing students partici-pated in the study. The study data were collected using the Student Information Form, Clinic Performance Evaluation Scale for Nur-sing Students. In the study, Pearson’s correlation test was used to compare self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and teacher evaluation, and Paired Sample t test was used to compare self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and teacher evaluation.
Results: It was determined that the self and peer evaluation scores were higher than the teacher evaluation score and the difference was significant (p <0.05). A positive correlation was found between all evaluations (p<0.05). It was determined that the majo-rity of the students had positive opinions about self and peer eva-luations (self-evaluation: 92.8%, peer-evaluation; 97.1%).
Conclusion: Self-evaluation and peer-evaluation methods are not appropriate to be used solely for clinic evaluations of students. However, they can be used in clinic evaluation to support teacher evaluation method and to contribute to students’ development and to enable them to be active in the evaluation process.

Keywords

• Self-evaluation,peer evaluation,teacher evaluation

References

1. 1. Karaöz S. Hemşirelik eğitiminde klinik değerlendirmeye genel bakış: Güçlükler ve öneriler. DEUHFED. 2013;6(3):149-158.
2. 2. Adib-Hajbaghery M, Karbasi-Valashani K, Heidari-Haratmeh A. Correlation of clinical skills self-assessment of nursing internship trainees with their teachers’ evaluation. Nurs Midwifery Stud. 2012;1(2):94-99.
3. 3. Karayurt Ö, Mert H, Beser A. A study on development of a scale to assess nursing students’ performance in clinical settings. J Clin Nurs. 2008;18(8):1123-1130.
4. 4. Han Y, James DH, McLain RM. Relationships between student peer and faculty evaluations of clinical performance: A pilot study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3(8):170-178.
5. 5. Löfmark A, Thorell-Ekstrand I. Nursing students’ and preceptors’ perceptions of using a revised assessment form in clinical nursing education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(3): 275-280.
6. 6. Uysal K. Öğrencilerin ölçme değerlendirme sürecine katılması: akran değerlendirme ve öz değerlendirme. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bolu, Türkiye. 2008. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp Erişim: May 23, 2018.
7. 7. Hunt JA, Hutchings M. Innovative group-facilitated peer and educator assessment of nursing students’ group presentations. Health Sci. 2014;8(1):22-31.
8. 8. Tighe SM, Bradshaw C. Peer‐supported review of teaching: Making the grade in midwifery and nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2013;33(11):1347-1351.

9. 9. Al-Kadri HM, Al-Moamary MS, Al-Takroni H, Roberts C, Van der Vleuten CP. Self-assessment and students’ study strategies in a community of clinical practice: a qualitative study. Med Educ Online. 2012;17(1):11204.
10. 10. Yurdabakan I. The effect of co- and peer assessment training on self-assessment skills of teacher trainees. Edu Sci. 2012;37(163):190-201.
11. 11. Mehrdad N, Bigdeli S, Hossein Ebrahimi H. A comparative study on self, peer and teacher evaluation to evaluate clinical skills of nursing students. Procd Soc Behv. 2012;47:1847-1852.
12. 12. Baxter P, Norman G. Self-assessment or self-deception? A lack of association between nursing students’ self-assessment and performance. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(11):2406-2413.
13. 13. Casey D, Burke E, Houghton C, ve ark. Use of peer assessment as a student engagement strategy in nurse education. Nurs Health Sci. 2011;13(4):514-520.
14. 14. Topping KJ. Peer assessment, Theory Pract. 2009;48(1):20-27.
15. 15. Taras M. Student self-assessment: processes and consequences. Teach High Edu. 2010; 15(2):199-209.
16. 16. Atwa HS, Al Rabia MW. Self and peer assessment at Problem-Based Learning (PBL) sessions at the faculty of medicine. Intel Prop Rights. 2014;2(3):118-124.
17. 17. Rush SA, Firth T, Burke L, Maran DB. Implementation and evaluation of peer assessment of clinical skills for first year student nurses. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012;12:219-226.
18. 18. Topping K. Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility. In: Segers M, Dochy F, Cascallar E, ed. Optimizing New Modes of Assessment: Search of Qualities and Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Inc; 2003:55-87.
19. 19. Tan KHK. Meanings and practices of power in academics’ conceptions of student self-assessment. Teach High Edu. 2009;14(4): 361-373.
20. 20. Kench PL, Field N, Agudera M, Gill M. Peer assessment of individual contributions to a group project: student perceptions. Radiography. 2009;15(2):158-165.
21. 21. Delaram M, Tootoonchi M. Comparing self- and teacher-assessment in obstetric clerkship course for midwifery students of shahrekord university of medical sciences. Med Educ. 2010;9(3): 231-238.
22. 22. Evans AW, Leeson RMA, Petrie A. Reliability of peer and self-assessment scores compared with trainers’ scores following third molar surgery. Med Educ. 2007;41(9):866-872.
23. 23. Falchikov N, Goldfinch J. Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Rev Educ Res. 2000;70(3):287-322.
24. 24. Machado JL, Machado VM, Grec W, Bollela VR, Vieira JE. Self- and peer assessment may not be an accurate measure of PBL tutorial process. BMC Med Educ. 2008;8:55-61.
25. 25. Papinczak T, Young L, Groves M, Haynes M. An analysis of peer, self, and tutor assessment in problem-based learning tutorials. Med Teach. 2007;29(5):122-132.
26. 26. Alias M, Masek A, Salleh HHM. Self, peer and teacher assessments in problem based learning: Are they in agreements? Procd Soc Behv. 2015;204(2015):309-317.
27. 27. Ibabe I, Jauregizar J. Online self-assessment with feedback and metacognitive knowledge. High Edu. 2010;59(2): 243-258.
28. 28. Chaves JF, Constance MB, Chaves JA, Fisher ML. Self, peer, and tutor assessments of MSN competencies using the PBL-evaluator. J Nurs Educ. 2006;45(1):25-31.
29. 29. Sluijsmans D. Student involvement in assessment. The training of peer assessment skills. Open University, Doctoral Dissertation. Nederland. 2002.
30. 30. Cartney P. Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assess Eval High Educ. 2010;35(5):551-564.