The Assessment Methods and Learning Approaches in Nursing Students of Kerman University of Medical Sciences in Iran

Abstract

<p class="MsoNormal"> <span lang="EN-US">The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into the relationship between the conventional methods of assessment in medical surgical courses and students’ approaches to learning. In this descriptive correlational study; the sample consisted of 198 undergraduate and postgraduate students studying nursing. Data were obtained using the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ<st1:chmetcnv unitname="F" sourcevalue="2" hasspace="False" negative="True" numbertype="1" tcsc="0" w:st="on">-2F</st1:chmetcnv>) and the Assessment preference inventory including personal characteristics and assessment methods. The results showed that mean grade for deep learning approaches were a bit higher than surface learning approaches. (Mean ± Standard error [SE] 34.27 ± 5.006 versus Mean ± Standard error [SE] 31.21 ± 5.52). The deep and surface approaches were proposed each with a motive and strategy subscale. In this regard; grades of 16.51 ± 2.73, 17.75 ± 3.28 and 14.6 ± 3.72, 16.61 ± 2.74 were obtained for deep motive and strategy and surface motive and strategy respectively. Regarding the relationship between learning approaches and clinical assessment methods; the results of ANOVA test showed significant differences only on surface learning strategy (p < 0.05) and between clinical, oral and practical group project assessments. In respect to the relationship between learning approaches and written assessment methods; there were also strong and significant correlations between True-False questions and a combination of tests groups in deep motive subscale and between project assessment and a combination of tests groups in surface strategy subscale (p < 0.05). Suggestions are offered for mixed and new assessment methods and techniques in medical education. In case of some new debates on evaluation, workshops and training courses are recommended.</span> </p

Students' Approaches to Learning (SAL) in a Curriculum Problem-Based Learning and Non-Problem-Based Learning

“…This finding is similar to previous studies that reported that students tend to adopt a deep approach to learning rather than surface approach to learning (Groves, 2005;Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Ginns, 2010;Gurpinar et al, 2013). Students with higher scores in deep approach to learning have higher internal motivation and intention to use deep approach to learning (Sabzevari, Abbaszade & Borhani 2013). Sabzevari, Abbaszade & Borhani (2013) have suggested in other studies that students who adopt deep approach to learning in the learning process deliver better results than students who adopt surface approach to learning (Papinczak, Young & Groves 2008).…”

“…Students with higher scores in deep approach to learning have higher internal motivation and intention to use deep approach to learning (Sabzevari, Abbaszade & Borhani 2013). Sabzevari, Abbaszade & Borhani (2013) have suggested in other studies that students who adopt deep approach to learning in the learning process deliver better results than students who adopt surface approach to learning (Papinczak, Young & Groves 2008). A deep learner is able to acquire skills in certain cases of problem solving, apply their own knowledge, and acquire new information while solving this problem with their clinical reasoning skills (Sadlo & Richardson, 2003;Papinczak, Young & Groves, 2008).…”

La relación de los contextos de aprendizaje “abierto” versus “cerrado” con las abordajes de aprendizaje de los estudiantes rurales de primer ciclo

“…Among the teaching practices that characterize an "open" environment are included: allowing students' freedom of choice (Ramsden, 1988); communicating clear goals and rules and providing a balanced workload (Diseth, 2007(Diseth, , 2013Diseth, Pallesen, Brunborg & Larsen, 2010;Lawless & Richardson, 2002;Lizzio, Wilson & Simons, 2002;Richardson & Price, 2003;Sabzevari, Abbaszade & Borhani, 2013); using students' language, besides discussing and questioning (Biggs & Moore, 1993;Chen & Dillon, 2012); explaining enthusiastically (Ramsden, 1988); relating content with personal knowledge and with outer world (Balasooriya et al, 2009;. Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983;Ramsden, 1988); teaching learning strategies (Biggs, 1987); demonstrating trust in students' abilities (Dart & Clarcke, 1991); helping students become aware of their personal conceptions (Svensson & Hogfors, 1988); allowing exploration, experimentation and problem solving (Ali & El Sebai, 2010;Beyaztaş & Senemoğlu, 2015;Dart et al, 2002;Sadlo & Richardson, 2003); encouraging understanding (Schmeck, 1988); engaging students in tasks that arouse curiosity (Biggs & Kirby, 1983), an autonomous and collaborative learning (Gibbs, 1992) and reciprocal teaching (Biggs, 1990;Ramsden, 1988); using corrective evaluation methods (Gibbs, 1992) and using open-ended responses based evaluation, as essays (Beyaztaş & Senemoğlu, 2015).…”

Assessing the Nursing and Midwifery Students Competencies in Communication With Patients With Severe Communication Problems

“…Studies have shown that nursing and midwifery schools do not effectively teach communication skills. Hence, nursing and midwifery students have difficulties in communicating with patients with normal hearing and speech (20,21). In addition, Taghizadeh et al investigated communication skills of midwives and reported that more than 50% of midwives were deficient in their verbal and nonverbal communication skills (2).…”

“…Some studies have also studied nursing students' communication skills (20) however, they did not focus on communication with clients with hearing and speech impairment.…”