- Email: [email protected]
The effects of undergraduate nursing student–faculty interaction outside the classroom on college grade point average
Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education in Practice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr
The effects of undergraduate nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on college grade point average Mahmoud Al-Hussami a, *, Mohammad Y.N. Saleh a, 2, Ferial Hayajneh a,1, Raghed Hussein Abdalkader b, Alia I. Mahadeen b a b
Faculty of Nursing, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan Maternal and Child Health Department, Faculty of Nursing, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Accepted 2 February 2011
Background: The effects of studentefaculty interactions in higher education have received considerable empirical attention. However, there has been no empirical study that has examined the relation between studentefaculty interaction and college grade point average. Purpose: This is aimed at identifying the effect of nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on students’ semester college grade point average at a public university in Jordan. Methods: The research was cross-sectional study of the effect of studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on the students’ semester college grade point average of participating juniors and seniors. Results: Total interaction of the students was crucial as it is extremely significant (t ¼ 16.2, df ¼ 271, P 0.001) in relation to students’ academic scores between those students who had 70 and those who had <70 academic scores. However, gender differences between students, and other variables were not significant either to affect students’ academic scores or students’ interaction. Conclusion: This study provides some evidence that studentefaculty interactions outside classrooms are significantly associated with student’s academically achievements. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Undergraduate students Studentefaculty interaction Outside classroom Grade point average
Studentefaculty interaction is an existing key concept in nursing which may be helpful in professional socialization of student nurse (Ware, 2008). The encouraging of frequent student and faculty contact has generally been considered one of the good practices of undergraduate education (Chickering and Gamson, 1991; Gappa et al., 2007; Mareno et al., 2010; Pascarella et al., 2006; Seifert et al., 2008; Strayer and Beitz, 2010). Although studentefaculty interaction is only one of the components of a plan to improve degree completion, confronting the challenge of the relations of students with their faculty members outside the classroom may assist institutions of higher education in meeting their challenges (Berdahl and McConnell, 1999; Kuh and Hu, 2001; Medved and Heisler, 2002). Thus, positive outcomes associated with studentefaculty contact outside the classroom have been reported for students of all types. Furthermore, the positive effects of student
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23138. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Al-Hussami), [email protected] (M.Y.N. Saleh), [email protected] (F. Hayajneh), [email protected] (R.H. Abdalkader), [email protected] (A.I. Mahadeen). 1 Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23138. 2 Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23155. 1471-5953/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.02.004
contact with faculty outside of class has been found to have a direct effect on educational outcomes that is independent of other college experiences and student characteristics (Katz et al., 2004). Several authors (Astin, 1993; Feldman and Newcomb, 1969; Jeffreys, 2007; Kim, 2006; Lau, 2003; Laird et al., 2009; Lundberg and Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella, 2006; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1987; Thomas, 2001) dealt with studentefaculty interaction as part of their study of the impact of colleges and universities on undergraduate students. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) viewed the college faculty as “the designated socializing agents” (p. 228) in the college. They affirmed that students saw faculty as having a greater impact than their peers on their “intellectual development and on their occupational and career choices” (p. 258). Feldman and Newcomb defended that intellectually meaningful contact, whether it be inside or outside the classroom, had the greatest impact on the outcomes mentioned. Furthermore, Heikkinen and Isola (2004) stated that student nurses’ professional development takes place in practical context of collaboration between student nurses, faculty members, and health care staff. The literature on student departure from higher education also focused on the role that studentefaculty interaction plays in the college environment (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2003;
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
Gardner et al., 2007). In a model on individual student departure, Tinto (1987) posited that students felt integrated into the social system (i.e., the college) through their experiences in the formal and informal academic and social systems of the college. This author asserted that studentefaculty interactions were part of these institutional experiences within the academic system. This author also affirmed that studentefaculty interactions outside the classroom were particularly important and defended their impact on persistence in college and on the social and intellectual development of the student. After having reviewed a substantial amount of literature on the impact of college, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) asserted that both the frequency and the content of studentefaculty interactions explained the impact this interaction had on a “wide range of outcomes” (p. 620). In addition, they defended that these effects existed when student background characteristics were controlled. Consistent with Feldman and Newcomb (1969), they found that the most influential studentefaculty contacts dealt with ideas or intellectual matters. Astin (1993) also defended the role of studentefaculty interaction in producing student outcomes. In a longitudinal study of more than 24,000 students from 217 institutions, this researcher found that the Student Orientation of the Faculty brought about “more substantial direct effects on student outcomes than any other environmental variable” (p. 342). According to Astin, this Student Orientation consisted of faculty’s concern for students’ academic and social problems, their commitment to the institution, their sensitivity to the issues of minorities, the ease with which students were able to see faculty outside office hours, and the frequency of opportunities for studentefaculty interaction. Astin declared that the strongest positive effects of this Student Orientation of the Faculty were on many satisfaction outcomes including satisfaction with the faculty and with the quality of instruction. Another research study specifically concerning the effect of studentefaculty interaction on the academic achievement of Latino students (Anaya and Cole, 2001) concluded that “student involvement in educationally related and distinctly academic interactions with professors appears to enhance student’s academic performance” (p. 6). In this study, the authors grouped studentefaculty interaction into three categories: “general, academically related, and primary personal contact” (p. 4). The authors found that most measures of studentefaculty contact were statistically significant. They also discovered that discussing course work, working with a professor on a research project, and discussing career plans were more likely to influence academic performance. In a more recent contribution, Kuh and Hu (2001) explored whether study findings from the 1970s and 1980s of the impact of faculty on students have persisted through the 1990s. In general Kuh and Hu reported that despite significance changes over time in higher education, both the frequency and nature of interactions between faculty and students continue to make important contributions to student outcomes. According to Tinto (1993) for students who commute to college, especially those who have multiple obligations outside college, the classroom may be only place where students and faculty meet, where education in the formal sense is experienced. For those students, in particular, the classroom is the crossroad where the social integration and academic integration convene. Studentefaculty interaction in clinical nursing education is an important part of the undergraduate program. Not only provides opportunities for students to apply the theory learned in the classroom to real world of clinical nursing, it is also a socialization process through which students are inducted into practices, expectations and real-life work environment of nursing profession (Bayer-Hummel, 2010). It provides the means for students to develop knowledge, cognitive and technological skills, and a value system for care of clients. Regardless of the setting for clinical
321
practice, though, the interaction of studentefaculty member plays a decisive role in developing meaningful experiences for students, so as to achieve prescribed outcomes and prepare students for present and future practice (Brown et al., 2005). Understanding students’ perspectives of nursing profession can provide insight for nurse educators and policy makers about student nurses’ beginning conceptualization of the profession and the development of students’ professional nursing identity. This knowledge can be used to develop educational experiences that support and enhance nurses’ future practice. The information gained will also add to the body of knowledge of nursing education by examining factors (gender, previous exposure to nursing experience, and choice of nursing education) that may influence students’ socialization into nursing and the inherent cultural definitions and how this may differ from other cultures. As the implementation of faculty student socialization programs in Jordan is new and emerging part of nursing profession; the current study introduces evidence based knowledge on facultyestudent interaction based on well integrated methodology, which enables faculty members to provide better quality of nursing education in Jordan. Consequently, student outcomes may be improved in terms of their GPA scores and reduced barriers may contribute students’ learning. The findings of this study can also be baseline to faculty members, nurse educators as well as student nurses and contribute to develop an educational platform which helps to introduce facultyestudent interaction outside classroom as a key concept in nursing curricula in Jordan. This present study examines the effects of the interaction on the quality of effort students exert in nursing courses in order to gain a better understanding of the importance of informal faculty contact. This examination addressed the need that a closer look is warranted at how studentefaculty interaction contributes to student learning in all institutional settings. The present study contributes to the above research on gender, studentefaculty interaction, and the effect on students in nursing-based courses. Furthermore, it examines the assert of the reviewed research that focuses on the importance and influence informal studentefaculty interaction has on the patterns of growth and development in nursing students. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom and demographic variables on students’ semester college grade point average (SCGPA) at public universities in Jordan. Based upon the existing research, it is hypothesized that positive studentefaculty interactions will result in higher level of academic achievement among college students. There has been no empirical work which directly examines the relationship between nursing studentefaculty interaction and students’ academic achievements. This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. Is there a difference in the students’ semester college grade point average (SCGPA) between students who had high studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom and those who had low studentefaculty interaction? 2. Is there a relationship between students’ characteristics and their college grade point average?
Research design A cross-sectional design was utilized to measure the effect of studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on the SCGPA of participating juniors and seniors. The participants in the study course sections were randomly chosen from a list of course sections provided by the University Registrar’s Office. This list consisted of all course sections with course numbers above the 300 level but
322
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
below the 500 level. Juniors and seniors are students who have completed 60 credits and usually take several courses every semester above the 300 level but below the 500 level at the university. Course sections were existing groups and the students in those groups self-selected their participation in the course section. The faculty members were randomly selected by having selected the course sections randomly. These faculty members taught their normally assigned courses for the semester. Setting and population The participants in this study were nursing students at a public university located in the northwest of Jordan. The total undergraduate and graduate student population is 38,000 of which 90% are Jordanian. Seventy percent of the student population is from the county where the university is located. The other 30% come from the other counties of the country. The overall undergraduate and graduate student population is 49% male and 51% female. All the students who participate in the study were nursing students and 18 years or older. Many staff members had important academic, administrative, and political establishments in the kingdom; many have served as ministers in a number of government cabinets, top advisers to the Jordanian leadership, members of Parliament, and presidents of Jordanian public and private universities. Among its more than 30 percent female faculty members are freelance writers in the national and international magazines and journals. Most faculty members are active participants in conferences, workshops, and symposia abroad; and most take advantage of the various research and exchange awards. Given the global outlook, the progressive thinking and diverse background, these faculty members shoulder the responsibility of delivering a quality education of the 38,000 students who are pursuing a wide variety of undergraduate and graduate programs. All programs offered by the University combine traditional academic lecturing with the more liberal methodologies of instruction which are based on dialog, research, and creative thinking. In nursing school, there are 70 faculty members serving 1400 students of whom, 60% were females. Sample size To calculate the sample size power analysis technique (Bhopal, 2002) was used by applying the analysis of variance (ANOVA Test), and level of significance ¼ 0.05 and power relation (1 b) ¼ 0.8 have been adopted as an acceptable standards to run the power analysis for the purpose of estimating the sample size. An estimated sample of 275 students was included in the study. Sampling The students participating in the study were not randomly selected since students at this university can register freely for the courses they wish to take. Consequently, the groups in this study were naturally occurring groups. The number of students in each course was varying. Courses did not run at this institution if less than 25 students are registered. Total enrollment in courses is capped by the Registrar’s Office at a maximum number of 50 students. Data collection measures The interaction was measured by the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index of the fourth edition of the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998). The score which students obtain on this index measured the frequency and the content of studentefaculty interaction outside of class and operationalize the independent variable. The CSEQ (Pace,
1990; Pace and Kuh, 1998) is a survey which was developed in the 1970s and has been used “as a multi-institutional survey tool” (Gonyea et al., 2003, p. 3) since 1979. The instrument “inventories both the processes of learning (e.g., interactions with faculty, collaboration with peers, and writing experiences) and progress toward desired outcomes of college (e.g., intellectual skills, interpersonal competence, and personal values)” (Gonyea et al., 2003 p. 3). This study utilized 13 items from the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998) which make up the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index (Gonyea et al., 2003). This index was constructed in keeping with “the student learning and development literature in higher education” (Gonyea et al., 2003 p 7). All the items that make up the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index are on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never), 2 (occasionally), and 3 (very often) to 4 (often). Gonyea et al. (2003) also addressed the issue of the reliability of the fourth edition of the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998) by presenting information on the intercorrelations of the different scales and factors of the instrument. The authors reported that “the majority of correlations are in the 0.6 to 0.7 range with many much higher” (p. 17) is indicating that “questions are moderately related to each other and are reliable” (p. 17). In addition, Gonyea et al. (2003) also calculated Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for each of the scales and factors in order to determine “the internal consistency of the items in a scale or index” (p. 17). The authors reported that Cronbach’s alphas for the 13 scales and 8 factors ranged from 0.70 to 0.92, which they declared were “all within acceptable range” (p. 17). Data collection procedures Course sections were randomly chosen and this implies the random selection of the faculty members. The team of researchers provided the faculty members with an orientation. The team of researchers also visited the first class session of each of the course sections of students. In these sessions, the students received an orientation on the study from the team. Students were told that their professors are participating in a study for a group of researchers and that they were also being invited to participate. They were informed that the study was of major importance to the University for the purposes of self-study and accreditation. Furthermore, students were advised that their participation in the research study requires that they do what they always do in courses. Moreover, they requested to complete a survey at the end of the semester and to provide their student identification number so that their SCGPA can be obtained. They informed that the list of test numbers and identification numbers will be destroyed once their semester SCGPA is recorded. Finally, they were told that if they do not want to participate in the study they can refuse to complete the survey at the end of the course by handing in a survey with no answers. Nonetheless, those who did not complete the survey were asked to fill out the first section of the survey on background characteristics. This information obtained so as to determine if those who refuse to complete the survey share any particular characteristics. The survey was administered in the last class of the semester. A cover letter was accompanying the survey. Students were asked to read the cover letter and told that completion and handing in of the survey implies consent. Participants were informed that there will be a presentation of the results of the study at a future date that will be announced in the university media. During that presentation, students will learn about the results and will also be able to discuss their experiences during the study. Ethical considerations The study conducted with consideration of the ethical implication at each phase of the study process. Institutional report
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
approval from the University of Jordan Scientific Research Committee obtained prior to data collection. The human rights of participants were protected. Therefore, this research was designed to match the ethical principles of voluntary participation and made sure that the participants were not harmed and that their right to privacy, anonymity, and self determination were guaranteed respected. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. The descriptive analysis aimed to describe the frequencies, range, means, medians and standard deviations for personal and demographic characteristics of the students. The inferential statistics employed parametric tests where appropriate. Student t-test for independent groups and one way ANOVA were used to examine factors affecting students’ total scores and those factors associated with students’ interaction. All statistical procedures used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) were 0 95% confidence interval and a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed test) have been used. Moreover, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve analysis enables the researchers to decide whether the students’ interaction performance is superior or equal to students’ academic performance in terms of their academic scores. The ROC curve analysis draws a graphical plot of sensitivity and specificity of the scores at each possible threshold compared to a reference line, which evaluates the predictive performance of students’ interaction by a given area under the ROC curve. As a result, the findings of the ROC are crucial to select the possibly optimal tool in predicting students’ academic performance. ROC curve analysis was used to show the effects of the students’ interaction on students’ academic performance in terms of academic scores, which answers the main question of this study for how far students’ interaction is related to students’ academic scores. Results The study sample (N ¼ 275) consisted primarily of 71 percent (n ¼ 191) of 20e30 years old students where 60 percent (n ¼ 164) of participants were female. Majority of participants were single (94%) and most of them (74%) were of scientific stream. Only 21 percent (n ¼ 57) were previously educated before nursing and 57 percent (n ¼ 157) of them have come into nursing as their first choice. Of the sample, almost all participants (97%) have completed second year, living with their parents and having computer access (81% each). Although students had currently good university grades (29%), not working after university (73%), 300 to 499 JD monthly family income (28%) and reasonable study load of 13e15 credit hours (49), they were neutrally (63%) enthusiastic to nursing. The results show that the mean of students’ academic scores is 70.4 compared to 72.3 total interactions with academic staff. Students’ characteristics were examined in relation to their academic scores. Results show that age, stream of higher education, current university grades, job, and current university year were extremely affecting students’ academic scores as they were statistically significant. Total interaction of the students was crucial as it is extremely significant (t ¼ 16.2, df ¼ 271, P 0.001) in relation to students’ academic scores between those students who had 70 and those who had < 70 academic scores as shown in Table 1 (students who had less than 70 considered unsatisfactory scores according to the mean scores of the total sample which was 70.4). However, gender differences between students, previous education, family income, father’s and mother’s occupation and/or education, computer access, activities in academic assignments, enthusiasm to nursing, choice to study nursing, and current
323
Table 1 Factors associated students’ academic scores. Students’ characteristics N ¼ 275 Gender Male Female Total students’ interaction 70 <70 Age Stream of higher education Scientific Nursing Having previous education Yes No Father’s occupation Professional Non-professional Computer access Yes No Father’s education Mother’s education Family income Nursing Choice Current university year Current university grades Current taken credit hours Activities in academic work Enthusiasm to nursing a
M(SD)
df
t
F
272
1.870
271
16.2
P 0.063(1)
68.7 (12.5) 71.4 (11.06) <0.001 (1)a
76.5 (8.9) 61.2 (9.05) 4 272
2.93
0.001 (2)a 0.004 (1)a
271
0.47
0.63 (1)
214
0.83
0.83 (1)
271
0.26
0.26 (1)
4.82
71.6 (11.8) 66.9 (10.6) 71.0 (12.8) 70.1 (11.4) 69.7 (10.9) 70.1 (13.6) 70.7 (11.4) 68.6 (12.5) 2 2 6 2 4 6 4 6 3
2.3 0.07 1.09 1.58 3.7 12.1 2.03 0.84 2.05
0.09 0.90 0.36 0.207 0.006 <0.001 0.09 0.54 0.107
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)a (2)a (2) (2) (2)
0
Significant at a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed), t-test, ANOVA.
academic load were not significant either to affect students’ academic scores nor students’ interaction as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Alternatively, Stream of education and current university grades continued to affect students’ interaction. Besides that, father’s education was evident statistically amongst students’ interaction (f ¼ 4.47, df ¼ 2, P ¼ 0.012) (Table 2).
Table 2 Factors associated with students’ academic interaction. Students’ characteristics N ¼ 275 Gender Male Female Age Stream of higher education Scientific Nursing Having previous education Yes No Father’s occupation Professional Non-professional Computer access Yes No Father’s education Mother’s education Family income Nursing Choice Current university year Current university grades Current taken credit hours Activities in academic work Enthusiasm to nursing a
0
M(SD)
df
t
F
P
271
1.12
4 271
2.3
0.055 (2) 0.018 (1)a
270
0.24
0.80 (1)
0.26 (1)
71.2 (12.1) 73.01 (13.4) 2.34
73.3 (12.7) 69.1 (13.1) 72.6 (13.6) 72.1 (12.8) 213
3.6
0.71 (1)
71.9 (12.7) 72.6 (14.4) 270
0.074
0.94 (1)
72.2 (12.5) 72.1 (14.7) 2 2 6 2 4 6 4 6 3
Significant at a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed), t-test, ANOVA.
4.47 1.14 0.82 0.90 1.82 6.62 1.91 0.15 2.61
0.012 0.31 0.54 0.40 0.12 <0.001 0.10 0.98 0.051
(2)a (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)a (2) (2) (2)
324
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
As orderly ranked in Table 3, the most important items were the students highly interactive with faculty members are ranked in order according to their frequencies of agreement which includes working harder as a result of feedback from instructor (60.8%, n ¼ 167), working harder to meet instructor’s expectations and standards (57.3%, n ¼ 157), talking with instructor about information related to course, grades, and assignments (57.1%, n ¼ 148), asking instructor for comments and critics of academic performance (53.8), discussing ideas for a term paper or other class project (53.4%, n ¼ 147) and asks for advice and help to improve writing (50.5%, n ¼ 139). As shown in Table 4, several items were agreed as upon least interaction between students and academic staff according to their frequencies such as discuss career plans and ambitions with faculty members (50.9%, n ¼ 140), socialized outside the class to have a snack or coffee (56.3%, n ¼ 155), discuss activities of a group or organization (52.4%, n ¼ 144) and talks with faculty members about something personal (59.1%, n ¼ 168). Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve analysis (ROC) is a graphical plot of the sensitivity and one minus the specificity for binary classifier system of a diagnostic test. It is used when sensitivity and specificity of students’ reaction scores are highly dependent on particular threshold scores of students’ academic scores (students who had less than 70 considered unsatisfactory scores according to the mean scores of the total sample which was 70.4). The evaluation of the students’ reaction was given by the area under the ROC curve, which enables the researcher to decide whether students’ reaction performance is superior or equal to students’ academic performance. The ROC procedure included data entry of the students’ academic scores variable as a state variable with a cut off value ¼ 70 as a positive value and the students’ reaction entered as test variable. A diagonal reference line, standard error under the nonparametric assumption and confidence interval of 95 percent were used. The ROC curve showed significant performance for the students’ reaction among the study sample (N ¼ 275). The students’ reaction curve was above the reference line which indicated a predictive usefulness as shown in Fig. 1. The values of area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the students’ reaction (Table 5) revealed significant differences compared to students’ academic performance.
Table 4 The items that the students were least interactive with faculty members. Item
Frequency (%)
N ¼ 275 Discuss career plans and ambitions with faculty members Socialized outside the class to have a snack or coffee Discuss activities of a group or organization Talks with faculty members about something personal
140 155 144 168
(50.9) (56.3%) (52.4%) (59.1%)
nursing courses. The evidence indicates that it is not necessarily detrimental for students to work while pursuing a clinical nursingbased education or courses therein. The actual amount of time spent at the job negatively affects the available amount of time students may interact with faculty outside the classroom. This negatively affects the quality of effort they exert while in class. The authors believe that the results are good news for universities. Despite the preliminary nature of the findings, the connection between studentefaculty interaction and grade point average is noteworthy because although it may be virtually impossible for university to change its institutional type, any institution implements the practices that faster rich and integrated learning environments like Pascarella et al. (2005), the authors found that studentefaculty interaction influenced learning outcome. Consistent with previous research (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) our results lend further support to the evidence that an institutional focus on good teaching and student
Discussion The findings of the present study contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the assertion that studentefaculty interaction has a significant influence on the grade point average of college students (Bengtsson and Ohlsson, 2010; Cottern and Wilson, 2006; Cox and Orehovec, 2007; Laird and Cruce, 2009; Porter, 2007; Rugutt and Chemosit, 2009). However, the effect of students having job has a positive effect with quality of effort in
Table 3 Top items that the students were highly interactive with faculty members. Item N ¼ 275 Works harder as a result of feedback from instructor Works harder to meet instructor’s expectations and standards Talks with instructor about information related to course, grades, and assignments Asks instructor for comments and critics of academic performance Discuss ideas for a term paper or other class project Asks for advice and help to improve writing
Frequency (%) 167 (60.8%) 157 (57.3%) 157 (57.1%) 148 (53.8%) 147 (53.4%) 139 (50.5%)
Fig. 1. ROC curve of the effects of students’ interaction on their academic scores.
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326 Table 5 The values of area under the ROC curve for the students’ reaction. Area
Std. error
P value
Asymptotic 95% confidence interval Lower bound
Upper bound
0.075
0.016
0.000
0.043
0.107
engagement in an active, collaborative, and supportive interaction with faculty members affect student learning and development. Our evidence suggests that any institution must place student learning at the center, can create an environment that maximize interaction with faculty and thus, the development of nursing outcomes for all students. The present study reveals that females in this sample have lower levels in interactions with faculty members. One explanatory reason may be that the educational norms and attitudes of nursing course are foreign to most female students. As noted by Seymour (1995) "treating male and female students alike faculty members are, in effect, treating women in ways that are understood by the men, but not by the women,” and in doing so, "faculty members are unwittingly discouraging women more than men by the same behavior because women do not know why they are being treated in this way and do not know how to respond to it” (p. 461). As stated previously, students who develop interpersonal relationships with faculty members have higher levels of academic skills development and higher rates of persistency in nursing courses (Astin, 1977; Davis and Terenzini, 1982; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1976). However, no significant difference is noted between female and male on the informal studentefaculty interaction variable. Despite similar patterns of informal interaction with faculty outside the classroom for both female and male, the disparity between the two remained. This disparity may be a reflection of the quality and do not the amount of interaction between female and faculty members. In other words, male and female students may be interacting with faculty outside the classroom at equivalent time amount, but the interpersonal relationship between the students and faculty may continue to be of a rigid nature. Some students my feel intimidated, and thus, the potential benefit and opportunity to ask questions and seek personal assistance is minimized. Furthermore, if the nursing course in characteristically impersonal, competitive, or lacking in any encouragement and feedback, it may not matter how much interaction female students have with faculty members. The study provides additional support the importance of studentefaculty interaction and offers a more comprehensive way of thinking about how students may wish to relate with their professors. Students are more likely to seek informal contacts with their professors outside of the classroom if they perceive them to be approachable, caring, and respectful. Such perceptions would encourage students to seek opportunities to talk about the course or their academic performance, or to obtain career guidance. It is important to note the implication of the studentefaculty interaction results. It is reasonable to think that students who take the time to interact with their professors, regardless of their gender and background, may be more likely to have a high grade point average. The methods and techniques by which nursing faculty members teach and develop their students must meet the educational and intellectual wants and needs of the student body. So it is vital that deans of nursing schools recognize and be sensitive to the influence, amount, and quality of interaction that takes place between their students and faculty members. As suggested from the evidence of the present study, students would benefit from higher
325
quality of informal interaction, as well as modern approaches to teaching that encompasses different learning styles and preferences. Furthermore, faculty members should be encouraged to share with their students more of their attitudes, interests, and values related to the discipline and disclose their educational and occupational history. In other words, faculty members should be attempting to develop better relationship, with students, especially when this reaction results in better learning environment. They would also be wise to encourage their students to engage in active learning strategies that could include small workgroups and applying class-obtained knowledge to their own lives, which has been documented as being highly conducive to the academic selfconfidence and self-efficacy. This in turn leads to higher levels of academic growth and achievement. Administrators of higher education must help nursing schools to develop ways to meet the expectation of nursing students. More in depth knowledge is needed of how the faculty differs in their teaching methods and how they interact with students both inside and outside their classrooms. This would provide valuable information for both administrators and faculty to promote the students’ intellectual wants and needs. This study is limited in several ways. First, the study relies only on studentefaculty interaction outside classroom, future drafts of this study can include a broader set of studentefaculty interaction measures, including communication with a faculty member by e-mail or in person, and talking with an instructor inside the class about issues and concepts derived from a course. Second, the questionnaire was designed to yield information regarding the experiences of students in universities. Hence, the study omits students’ experiences prior to entering higher education institutions. Future research should collect data from different types of institutions in order to determine whether the quality of studentefaculty interactions of the institution. Furthermore, future research should gather specific data about the background of professors in comparison with that of students. This will allow better interpretation of the data. Additional correlated of studenteprofessor interactions, such as satisfaction with school and retention, should also be researched. Moreover future research should examine not only out ofeclass interactions but also studentefaculty in-class interactions, as well.
Conclusion In general, the results for this study are consistent with previous work that highlights the importance of studentefaculty interaction with respect to achievement (Kuh and Hu, 2001; Sax et al., 2005). This study also provides some evidence that studentefaculty interactions are significantly associated with student’s academically achievements. Faculty members should not reduce the benefit of formal, informal, and social interaction with students; such interaction appears to provide an important foundation for student effort and from which students can begin to pursue more academically oriented interactions.
References Anaya, G., Cole, D., 2001. Latino student achievement: exploring the influence of studentefaculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development 42, 3e5. Astin, A., 1977. Four Critical Years: Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitude, and Knowledge. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Astin, A., 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. Jossey-Bas, San Francisco. Bayer-Hummel, T., 2010. The effects of jeopardy as a test preparation strategy for nursing students. Teaching and Learning in Nursing 5, 1e15.
326
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
Bhopal, R., 2002. Concepts of Epidemiology: An Integrated Interaction to the Ideas, Theories, Principles and Methods of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK. Bengtsson, M., Ohlsson, B., 2010. The nursing and medical students’ motivation to attain knowledge. Nurse Education Today 30 (2), 150e156. Berdahl, R., McConnell, T., 1999. Autonomy and accountability. In: Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R., Gumport, P. (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 70e88. Brown, L., Herd, K., Humphries, G., Paton, M., 2005. The role of the lecturer in practice placements: what do students think? Nurse Education in Practice 5, 84e90. Center for Postsecondary Research, 2003. National Survey of Student Engagement: 2003 Annual Report. http://www.iub.edui-nssei2003 Retrieved 30.11.09., from the Indiana University at Bloomington Website. Chickering, A., Gamson, Z., 1991. Appendix A: seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 47, 63e69. Cottern, S., Wilson, B., 2006. Studentefaculty interactions: dynamics and determinants. Higher Education 51, 487e519. Cox, B., Orehovec, E., 2007. Facultyestudent interaction outside the classroom: a typology from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education 30 (4), 343e362. Davis, J., Terenzini, P., 1982. Students and faculty: classroom and beyond. Plantings 3, 1e9. Feldman, K., Newcomb, T., 1969. The Impact of College on Students: An Analysis of Our Decades of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Gappa, J., Austin, A., Trice, A., 2007. Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s Strategic Imperative. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Gardner, E., Deloney, L., Grando, V., 2007. Nursing student descriptions that suggest changes for the classroom and reveal improvements needed in study skills and self-care. Journal of Professional Nursing 23 (2), 98e104. Gonyea, R., Kish, K., Kuh, G., Muthiah, R., Thomas, A., 2003. College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition. Indiana University, Bloomington. for Postsecondary research, policy, and planning. Heikkinen, E., Isola, A., 2004. Student nurses’ experiences and perceptions of envy in one nurse education environment in Finland. Nurse Education Today 24 (3), 160e168. Jeffreys, M., 2007. Tracking students through program entry, progression, graduation, and licensure: assessing undergraduate nursing student retention and success. Nurse Education Today 27 (5), 406e419. Katz, J., Woods, S., Cameron, C., Milam, S., 2004. Essential qualifications for nursing students. Nursing Outlook 52 (6), 277e288. Kim, Y. 2006. Studentefaculty interaction in college. Examining it causalities predictors, and racial differences. University of California, Los Angeles, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kuh, G., Hu, S., 2001. The effects of studentefaculty interaction in the1990s. The Review of Higher Education 24 (3), 309e332. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., Associates, 2005. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Laird, T., Cruce, T., 2009. Individual and environmental effects on part-time enrolment status on studentefaculty interaction and self-reported gains. The Journal of Higher Education 80 (3), 290e314. Laird, T., Niskode-Dossett, A., Kuh, G., 2009. What general education courses contribute to essential learning outcomes? The Journal of General Education 58 (2), 65e84. Lau, L., 2003. Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education 124 (1), 126e136.
Lundberg, C., Schreiner, L., 2004. Quality and frequency of facultyestudent interaction as predictors of learning: an analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development 45 (5), 549e565. Mareno, N., Bremmer, M., Emerson, C., 2010. The use of audience response systems in nursing education: best practice guidelines. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 7, 1e17. Medved, C., Heisler, J., 2002. A negotiated order exploration of critical studentefaculty interaction: studenteparents manage multiple roles. Communication Education 51 (2), 105e120. Pace, C., 1990. College Student Experiences Questionnaire, revised 3rd edition. University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los Angeles. Available from the center for postsecondary research and planning, Indiana University. Pace, C., Kuh, G., 1998. College Student Experiences Questionnaire, 4th edition. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Available from the Center for postsecondary research and planning, Indiana University. Pascarella, T., 2006. How college affects students: ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development 47 (5), 508e520. Pascarella, E., Cruce, T., Umbach, P., Wolniak, G., Kuh, G., Carini, R., Hayek, J., Gonyea, R., Zhao, C., 2006. Institutional selectively and good practices in undergraduate education: how strong is the link? The Journal of Higher Education 77, 251e285. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 1976. Informal interaction with faculty and freshman ratings of academic and freshman ratings of academic and nonacademic experience of college. Journal of Educational Research 70, 35e41. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 1991. How College Marcs Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 2005. How College Affects Students. A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, Sanfrancisco. Pascarella, E., Wolniak, G., Seifert, T., Cruce, T., Blaich, C., 2005. Liberal arts colleges and liberal arts education: new evidence on impacts. ASHE Higher Education Report 31 (3), 1. Porter, S., 2007. Student engagement: a different perspective. Teaching Professor 21 (1), 4e6. Rugutt, J., Chemosit, C., 2009. What motivates students to learn? Contribution of student-to-student relations, studentefaculty interaction, and critical thinking skills. Educational Research Quarterly 32 (3), 16e28. Sax, J., Bryant, A., Harper, C., 2005. The differential effects of studentefaculty interaction on college for women and men. Journal of College Student Development 46 (6), 642e659. Seifert, T., Goodman, K., Lindsay, N., Jorgensen, J., Wolniak, G., Pascarella, C., 2008. The effects of liberal arts experiences on liberal arts outcome. Research of High Education 49, 107e125. Seymour, E., 1995. The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: an explanatory account. Science Education 79, 437e473. Strayer, R., Beitz, J., 2010. Factors influencing pharmacology knowledge acquisition in traditional versus nontraditional baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing 26 (5), 301e308. Thomas, M., 2001. Informal studentefaculty interaction: ITS relationship to educational gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community College Review 29 (1), 35e57. Tinto, V., 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Tinto, V., 1987. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Ware, S., 2008. Developing a self-concept of nurse in baccalaureate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 5 (1).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nurse Education in Practice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr
The effects of undergraduate nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on college grade point average Mahmoud Al-Hussami a, *, Mohammad Y.N. Saleh a, 2, Ferial Hayajneh a,1, Raghed Hussein Abdalkader b, Alia I. Mahadeen b a b
Faculty of Nursing, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan Maternal and Child Health Department, Faculty of Nursing, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Accepted 2 February 2011
Background: The effects of studentefaculty interactions in higher education have received considerable empirical attention. However, there has been no empirical study that has examined the relation between studentefaculty interaction and college grade point average. Purpose: This is aimed at identifying the effect of nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on students’ semester college grade point average at a public university in Jordan. Methods: The research was cross-sectional study of the effect of studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on the students’ semester college grade point average of participating juniors and seniors. Results: Total interaction of the students was crucial as it is extremely significant (t ¼ 16.2, df ¼ 271, P 0.001) in relation to students’ academic scores between those students who had 70 and those who had <70 academic scores. However, gender differences between students, and other variables were not significant either to affect students’ academic scores or students’ interaction. Conclusion: This study provides some evidence that studentefaculty interactions outside classrooms are significantly associated with student’s academically achievements. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Undergraduate students Studentefaculty interaction Outside classroom Grade point average
Studentefaculty interaction is an existing key concept in nursing which may be helpful in professional socialization of student nurse (Ware, 2008). The encouraging of frequent student and faculty contact has generally been considered one of the good practices of undergraduate education (Chickering and Gamson, 1991; Gappa et al., 2007; Mareno et al., 2010; Pascarella et al., 2006; Seifert et al., 2008; Strayer and Beitz, 2010). Although studentefaculty interaction is only one of the components of a plan to improve degree completion, confronting the challenge of the relations of students with their faculty members outside the classroom may assist institutions of higher education in meeting their challenges (Berdahl and McConnell, 1999; Kuh and Hu, 2001; Medved and Heisler, 2002). Thus, positive outcomes associated with studentefaculty contact outside the classroom have been reported for students of all types. Furthermore, the positive effects of student
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23138. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Al-Hussami), [email protected] (M.Y.N. Saleh), [email protected] (F. Hayajneh), [email protected] (R.H. Abdalkader), [email protected] (A.I. Mahadeen). 1 Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23138. 2 Tel.: þ962 6 5355000x23155. 1471-5953/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2011.02.004
contact with faculty outside of class has been found to have a direct effect on educational outcomes that is independent of other college experiences and student characteristics (Katz et al., 2004). Several authors (Astin, 1993; Feldman and Newcomb, 1969; Jeffreys, 2007; Kim, 2006; Lau, 2003; Laird et al., 2009; Lundberg and Schreiner, 2004; Pascarella, 2006; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1987; Thomas, 2001) dealt with studentefaculty interaction as part of their study of the impact of colleges and universities on undergraduate students. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) viewed the college faculty as “the designated socializing agents” (p. 228) in the college. They affirmed that students saw faculty as having a greater impact than their peers on their “intellectual development and on their occupational and career choices” (p. 258). Feldman and Newcomb defended that intellectually meaningful contact, whether it be inside or outside the classroom, had the greatest impact on the outcomes mentioned. Furthermore, Heikkinen and Isola (2004) stated that student nurses’ professional development takes place in practical context of collaboration between student nurses, faculty members, and health care staff. The literature on student departure from higher education also focused on the role that studentefaculty interaction plays in the college environment (Center for Postsecondary Research, 2003;
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
Gardner et al., 2007). In a model on individual student departure, Tinto (1987) posited that students felt integrated into the social system (i.e., the college) through their experiences in the formal and informal academic and social systems of the college. This author asserted that studentefaculty interactions were part of these institutional experiences within the academic system. This author also affirmed that studentefaculty interactions outside the classroom were particularly important and defended their impact on persistence in college and on the social and intellectual development of the student. After having reviewed a substantial amount of literature on the impact of college, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) asserted that both the frequency and the content of studentefaculty interactions explained the impact this interaction had on a “wide range of outcomes” (p. 620). In addition, they defended that these effects existed when student background characteristics were controlled. Consistent with Feldman and Newcomb (1969), they found that the most influential studentefaculty contacts dealt with ideas or intellectual matters. Astin (1993) also defended the role of studentefaculty interaction in producing student outcomes. In a longitudinal study of more than 24,000 students from 217 institutions, this researcher found that the Student Orientation of the Faculty brought about “more substantial direct effects on student outcomes than any other environmental variable” (p. 342). According to Astin, this Student Orientation consisted of faculty’s concern for students’ academic and social problems, their commitment to the institution, their sensitivity to the issues of minorities, the ease with which students were able to see faculty outside office hours, and the frequency of opportunities for studentefaculty interaction. Astin declared that the strongest positive effects of this Student Orientation of the Faculty were on many satisfaction outcomes including satisfaction with the faculty and with the quality of instruction. Another research study specifically concerning the effect of studentefaculty interaction on the academic achievement of Latino students (Anaya and Cole, 2001) concluded that “student involvement in educationally related and distinctly academic interactions with professors appears to enhance student’s academic performance” (p. 6). In this study, the authors grouped studentefaculty interaction into three categories: “general, academically related, and primary personal contact” (p. 4). The authors found that most measures of studentefaculty contact were statistically significant. They also discovered that discussing course work, working with a professor on a research project, and discussing career plans were more likely to influence academic performance. In a more recent contribution, Kuh and Hu (2001) explored whether study findings from the 1970s and 1980s of the impact of faculty on students have persisted through the 1990s. In general Kuh and Hu reported that despite significance changes over time in higher education, both the frequency and nature of interactions between faculty and students continue to make important contributions to student outcomes. According to Tinto (1993) for students who commute to college, especially those who have multiple obligations outside college, the classroom may be only place where students and faculty meet, where education in the formal sense is experienced. For those students, in particular, the classroom is the crossroad where the social integration and academic integration convene. Studentefaculty interaction in clinical nursing education is an important part of the undergraduate program. Not only provides opportunities for students to apply the theory learned in the classroom to real world of clinical nursing, it is also a socialization process through which students are inducted into practices, expectations and real-life work environment of nursing profession (Bayer-Hummel, 2010). It provides the means for students to develop knowledge, cognitive and technological skills, and a value system for care of clients. Regardless of the setting for clinical
321
practice, though, the interaction of studentefaculty member plays a decisive role in developing meaningful experiences for students, so as to achieve prescribed outcomes and prepare students for present and future practice (Brown et al., 2005). Understanding students’ perspectives of nursing profession can provide insight for nurse educators and policy makers about student nurses’ beginning conceptualization of the profession and the development of students’ professional nursing identity. This knowledge can be used to develop educational experiences that support and enhance nurses’ future practice. The information gained will also add to the body of knowledge of nursing education by examining factors (gender, previous exposure to nursing experience, and choice of nursing education) that may influence students’ socialization into nursing and the inherent cultural definitions and how this may differ from other cultures. As the implementation of faculty student socialization programs in Jordan is new and emerging part of nursing profession; the current study introduces evidence based knowledge on facultyestudent interaction based on well integrated methodology, which enables faculty members to provide better quality of nursing education in Jordan. Consequently, student outcomes may be improved in terms of their GPA scores and reduced barriers may contribute students’ learning. The findings of this study can also be baseline to faculty members, nurse educators as well as student nurses and contribute to develop an educational platform which helps to introduce facultyestudent interaction outside classroom as a key concept in nursing curricula in Jordan. This present study examines the effects of the interaction on the quality of effort students exert in nursing courses in order to gain a better understanding of the importance of informal faculty contact. This examination addressed the need that a closer look is warranted at how studentefaculty interaction contributes to student learning in all institutional settings. The present study contributes to the above research on gender, studentefaculty interaction, and the effect on students in nursing-based courses. Furthermore, it examines the assert of the reviewed research that focuses on the importance and influence informal studentefaculty interaction has on the patterns of growth and development in nursing students. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of nursing studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom and demographic variables on students’ semester college grade point average (SCGPA) at public universities in Jordan. Based upon the existing research, it is hypothesized that positive studentefaculty interactions will result in higher level of academic achievement among college students. There has been no empirical work which directly examines the relationship between nursing studentefaculty interaction and students’ academic achievements. This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. Is there a difference in the students’ semester college grade point average (SCGPA) between students who had high studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom and those who had low studentefaculty interaction? 2. Is there a relationship between students’ characteristics and their college grade point average?
Research design A cross-sectional design was utilized to measure the effect of studentefaculty interaction outside the classroom on the SCGPA of participating juniors and seniors. The participants in the study course sections were randomly chosen from a list of course sections provided by the University Registrar’s Office. This list consisted of all course sections with course numbers above the 300 level but
322
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
below the 500 level. Juniors and seniors are students who have completed 60 credits and usually take several courses every semester above the 300 level but below the 500 level at the university. Course sections were existing groups and the students in those groups self-selected their participation in the course section. The faculty members were randomly selected by having selected the course sections randomly. These faculty members taught their normally assigned courses for the semester. Setting and population The participants in this study were nursing students at a public university located in the northwest of Jordan. The total undergraduate and graduate student population is 38,000 of which 90% are Jordanian. Seventy percent of the student population is from the county where the university is located. The other 30% come from the other counties of the country. The overall undergraduate and graduate student population is 49% male and 51% female. All the students who participate in the study were nursing students and 18 years or older. Many staff members had important academic, administrative, and political establishments in the kingdom; many have served as ministers in a number of government cabinets, top advisers to the Jordanian leadership, members of Parliament, and presidents of Jordanian public and private universities. Among its more than 30 percent female faculty members are freelance writers in the national and international magazines and journals. Most faculty members are active participants in conferences, workshops, and symposia abroad; and most take advantage of the various research and exchange awards. Given the global outlook, the progressive thinking and diverse background, these faculty members shoulder the responsibility of delivering a quality education of the 38,000 students who are pursuing a wide variety of undergraduate and graduate programs. All programs offered by the University combine traditional academic lecturing with the more liberal methodologies of instruction which are based on dialog, research, and creative thinking. In nursing school, there are 70 faculty members serving 1400 students of whom, 60% were females. Sample size To calculate the sample size power analysis technique (Bhopal, 2002) was used by applying the analysis of variance (ANOVA Test), and level of significance ¼ 0.05 and power relation (1 b) ¼ 0.8 have been adopted as an acceptable standards to run the power analysis for the purpose of estimating the sample size. An estimated sample of 275 students was included in the study. Sampling The students participating in the study were not randomly selected since students at this university can register freely for the courses they wish to take. Consequently, the groups in this study were naturally occurring groups. The number of students in each course was varying. Courses did not run at this institution if less than 25 students are registered. Total enrollment in courses is capped by the Registrar’s Office at a maximum number of 50 students. Data collection measures The interaction was measured by the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index of the fourth edition of the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998). The score which students obtain on this index measured the frequency and the content of studentefaculty interaction outside of class and operationalize the independent variable. The CSEQ (Pace,
1990; Pace and Kuh, 1998) is a survey which was developed in the 1970s and has been used “as a multi-institutional survey tool” (Gonyea et al., 2003, p. 3) since 1979. The instrument “inventories both the processes of learning (e.g., interactions with faculty, collaboration with peers, and writing experiences) and progress toward desired outcomes of college (e.g., intellectual skills, interpersonal competence, and personal values)” (Gonyea et al., 2003 p. 3). This study utilized 13 items from the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998) which make up the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index (Gonyea et al., 2003). This index was constructed in keeping with “the student learning and development literature in higher education” (Gonyea et al., 2003 p 7). All the items that make up the StudenteFaculty Interaction Index are on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never), 2 (occasionally), and 3 (very often) to 4 (often). Gonyea et al. (2003) also addressed the issue of the reliability of the fourth edition of the CSEQ (Pace and Kuh, 1998) by presenting information on the intercorrelations of the different scales and factors of the instrument. The authors reported that “the majority of correlations are in the 0.6 to 0.7 range with many much higher” (p. 17) is indicating that “questions are moderately related to each other and are reliable” (p. 17). In addition, Gonyea et al. (2003) also calculated Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for each of the scales and factors in order to determine “the internal consistency of the items in a scale or index” (p. 17). The authors reported that Cronbach’s alphas for the 13 scales and 8 factors ranged from 0.70 to 0.92, which they declared were “all within acceptable range” (p. 17). Data collection procedures Course sections were randomly chosen and this implies the random selection of the faculty members. The team of researchers provided the faculty members with an orientation. The team of researchers also visited the first class session of each of the course sections of students. In these sessions, the students received an orientation on the study from the team. Students were told that their professors are participating in a study for a group of researchers and that they were also being invited to participate. They were informed that the study was of major importance to the University for the purposes of self-study and accreditation. Furthermore, students were advised that their participation in the research study requires that they do what they always do in courses. Moreover, they requested to complete a survey at the end of the semester and to provide their student identification number so that their SCGPA can be obtained. They informed that the list of test numbers and identification numbers will be destroyed once their semester SCGPA is recorded. Finally, they were told that if they do not want to participate in the study they can refuse to complete the survey at the end of the course by handing in a survey with no answers. Nonetheless, those who did not complete the survey were asked to fill out the first section of the survey on background characteristics. This information obtained so as to determine if those who refuse to complete the survey share any particular characteristics. The survey was administered in the last class of the semester. A cover letter was accompanying the survey. Students were asked to read the cover letter and told that completion and handing in of the survey implies consent. Participants were informed that there will be a presentation of the results of the study at a future date that will be announced in the university media. During that presentation, students will learn about the results and will also be able to discuss their experiences during the study. Ethical considerations The study conducted with consideration of the ethical implication at each phase of the study process. Institutional report
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
approval from the University of Jordan Scientific Research Committee obtained prior to data collection. The human rights of participants were protected. Therefore, this research was designed to match the ethical principles of voluntary participation and made sure that the participants were not harmed and that their right to privacy, anonymity, and self determination were guaranteed respected. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical procedures. The descriptive analysis aimed to describe the frequencies, range, means, medians and standard deviations for personal and demographic characteristics of the students. The inferential statistics employed parametric tests where appropriate. Student t-test for independent groups and one way ANOVA were used to examine factors affecting students’ total scores and those factors associated with students’ interaction. All statistical procedures used Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) were 0 95% confidence interval and a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed test) have been used. Moreover, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve analysis enables the researchers to decide whether the students’ interaction performance is superior or equal to students’ academic performance in terms of their academic scores. The ROC curve analysis draws a graphical plot of sensitivity and specificity of the scores at each possible threshold compared to a reference line, which evaluates the predictive performance of students’ interaction by a given area under the ROC curve. As a result, the findings of the ROC are crucial to select the possibly optimal tool in predicting students’ academic performance. ROC curve analysis was used to show the effects of the students’ interaction on students’ academic performance in terms of academic scores, which answers the main question of this study for how far students’ interaction is related to students’ academic scores. Results The study sample (N ¼ 275) consisted primarily of 71 percent (n ¼ 191) of 20e30 years old students where 60 percent (n ¼ 164) of participants were female. Majority of participants were single (94%) and most of them (74%) were of scientific stream. Only 21 percent (n ¼ 57) were previously educated before nursing and 57 percent (n ¼ 157) of them have come into nursing as their first choice. Of the sample, almost all participants (97%) have completed second year, living with their parents and having computer access (81% each). Although students had currently good university grades (29%), not working after university (73%), 300 to 499 JD monthly family income (28%) and reasonable study load of 13e15 credit hours (49), they were neutrally (63%) enthusiastic to nursing. The results show that the mean of students’ academic scores is 70.4 compared to 72.3 total interactions with academic staff. Students’ characteristics were examined in relation to their academic scores. Results show that age, stream of higher education, current university grades, job, and current university year were extremely affecting students’ academic scores as they were statistically significant. Total interaction of the students was crucial as it is extremely significant (t ¼ 16.2, df ¼ 271, P 0.001) in relation to students’ academic scores between those students who had 70 and those who had < 70 academic scores as shown in Table 1 (students who had less than 70 considered unsatisfactory scores according to the mean scores of the total sample which was 70.4). However, gender differences between students, previous education, family income, father’s and mother’s occupation and/or education, computer access, activities in academic assignments, enthusiasm to nursing, choice to study nursing, and current
323
Table 1 Factors associated students’ academic scores. Students’ characteristics N ¼ 275 Gender Male Female Total students’ interaction 70 <70 Age Stream of higher education Scientific Nursing Having previous education Yes No Father’s occupation Professional Non-professional Computer access Yes No Father’s education Mother’s education Family income Nursing Choice Current university year Current university grades Current taken credit hours Activities in academic work Enthusiasm to nursing a
M(SD)
df
t
F
272
1.870
271
16.2
P 0.063(1)
68.7 (12.5) 71.4 (11.06) <0.001 (1)a
76.5 (8.9) 61.2 (9.05) 4 272
2.93
0.001 (2)a 0.004 (1)a
271
0.47
0.63 (1)
214
0.83
0.83 (1)
271
0.26
0.26 (1)
4.82
71.6 (11.8) 66.9 (10.6) 71.0 (12.8) 70.1 (11.4) 69.7 (10.9) 70.1 (13.6) 70.7 (11.4) 68.6 (12.5) 2 2 6 2 4 6 4 6 3
2.3 0.07 1.09 1.58 3.7 12.1 2.03 0.84 2.05
0.09 0.90 0.36 0.207 0.006 <0.001 0.09 0.54 0.107
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)a (2)a (2) (2) (2)
0
Significant at a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed), t-test, ANOVA.
academic load were not significant either to affect students’ academic scores nor students’ interaction as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Alternatively, Stream of education and current university grades continued to affect students’ interaction. Besides that, father’s education was evident statistically amongst students’ interaction (f ¼ 4.47, df ¼ 2, P ¼ 0.012) (Table 2).
Table 2 Factors associated with students’ academic interaction. Students’ characteristics N ¼ 275 Gender Male Female Age Stream of higher education Scientific Nursing Having previous education Yes No Father’s occupation Professional Non-professional Computer access Yes No Father’s education Mother’s education Family income Nursing Choice Current university year Current university grades Current taken credit hours Activities in academic work Enthusiasm to nursing a
0
M(SD)
df
t
F
P
271
1.12
4 271
2.3
0.055 (2) 0.018 (1)a
270
0.24
0.80 (1)
0.26 (1)
71.2 (12.1) 73.01 (13.4) 2.34
73.3 (12.7) 69.1 (13.1) 72.6 (13.6) 72.1 (12.8) 213
3.6
0.71 (1)
71.9 (12.7) 72.6 (14.4) 270
0.074
0.94 (1)
72.2 (12.5) 72.1 (14.7) 2 2 6 2 4 6 4 6 3
Significant at a ¼ 0.05 (2-tailed), t-test, ANOVA.
4.47 1.14 0.82 0.90 1.82 6.62 1.91 0.15 2.61
0.012 0.31 0.54 0.40 0.12 <0.001 0.10 0.98 0.051
(2)a (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)a (2) (2) (2)
324
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
As orderly ranked in Table 3, the most important items were the students highly interactive with faculty members are ranked in order according to their frequencies of agreement which includes working harder as a result of feedback from instructor (60.8%, n ¼ 167), working harder to meet instructor’s expectations and standards (57.3%, n ¼ 157), talking with instructor about information related to course, grades, and assignments (57.1%, n ¼ 148), asking instructor for comments and critics of academic performance (53.8), discussing ideas for a term paper or other class project (53.4%, n ¼ 147) and asks for advice and help to improve writing (50.5%, n ¼ 139). As shown in Table 4, several items were agreed as upon least interaction between students and academic staff according to their frequencies such as discuss career plans and ambitions with faculty members (50.9%, n ¼ 140), socialized outside the class to have a snack or coffee (56.3%, n ¼ 155), discuss activities of a group or organization (52.4%, n ¼ 144) and talks with faculty members about something personal (59.1%, n ¼ 168). Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve analysis (ROC) is a graphical plot of the sensitivity and one minus the specificity for binary classifier system of a diagnostic test. It is used when sensitivity and specificity of students’ reaction scores are highly dependent on particular threshold scores of students’ academic scores (students who had less than 70 considered unsatisfactory scores according to the mean scores of the total sample which was 70.4). The evaluation of the students’ reaction was given by the area under the ROC curve, which enables the researcher to decide whether students’ reaction performance is superior or equal to students’ academic performance. The ROC procedure included data entry of the students’ academic scores variable as a state variable with a cut off value ¼ 70 as a positive value and the students’ reaction entered as test variable. A diagonal reference line, standard error under the nonparametric assumption and confidence interval of 95 percent were used. The ROC curve showed significant performance for the students’ reaction among the study sample (N ¼ 275). The students’ reaction curve was above the reference line which indicated a predictive usefulness as shown in Fig. 1. The values of area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the students’ reaction (Table 5) revealed significant differences compared to students’ academic performance.
Table 4 The items that the students were least interactive with faculty members. Item
Frequency (%)
N ¼ 275 Discuss career plans and ambitions with faculty members Socialized outside the class to have a snack or coffee Discuss activities of a group or organization Talks with faculty members about something personal
140 155 144 168
(50.9) (56.3%) (52.4%) (59.1%)
nursing courses. The evidence indicates that it is not necessarily detrimental for students to work while pursuing a clinical nursingbased education or courses therein. The actual amount of time spent at the job negatively affects the available amount of time students may interact with faculty outside the classroom. This negatively affects the quality of effort they exert while in class. The authors believe that the results are good news for universities. Despite the preliminary nature of the findings, the connection between studentefaculty interaction and grade point average is noteworthy because although it may be virtually impossible for university to change its institutional type, any institution implements the practices that faster rich and integrated learning environments like Pascarella et al. (2005), the authors found that studentefaculty interaction influenced learning outcome. Consistent with previous research (Astin, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) our results lend further support to the evidence that an institutional focus on good teaching and student
Discussion The findings of the present study contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the assertion that studentefaculty interaction has a significant influence on the grade point average of college students (Bengtsson and Ohlsson, 2010; Cottern and Wilson, 2006; Cox and Orehovec, 2007; Laird and Cruce, 2009; Porter, 2007; Rugutt and Chemosit, 2009). However, the effect of students having job has a positive effect with quality of effort in
Table 3 Top items that the students were highly interactive with faculty members. Item N ¼ 275 Works harder as a result of feedback from instructor Works harder to meet instructor’s expectations and standards Talks with instructor about information related to course, grades, and assignments Asks instructor for comments and critics of academic performance Discuss ideas for a term paper or other class project Asks for advice and help to improve writing
Frequency (%) 167 (60.8%) 157 (57.3%) 157 (57.1%) 148 (53.8%) 147 (53.4%) 139 (50.5%)
Fig. 1. ROC curve of the effects of students’ interaction on their academic scores.
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326 Table 5 The values of area under the ROC curve for the students’ reaction. Area
Std. error
P value
Asymptotic 95% confidence interval Lower bound
Upper bound
0.075
0.016
0.000
0.043
0.107
engagement in an active, collaborative, and supportive interaction with faculty members affect student learning and development. Our evidence suggests that any institution must place student learning at the center, can create an environment that maximize interaction with faculty and thus, the development of nursing outcomes for all students. The present study reveals that females in this sample have lower levels in interactions with faculty members. One explanatory reason may be that the educational norms and attitudes of nursing course are foreign to most female students. As noted by Seymour (1995) "treating male and female students alike faculty members are, in effect, treating women in ways that are understood by the men, but not by the women,” and in doing so, "faculty members are unwittingly discouraging women more than men by the same behavior because women do not know why they are being treated in this way and do not know how to respond to it” (p. 461). As stated previously, students who develop interpersonal relationships with faculty members have higher levels of academic skills development and higher rates of persistency in nursing courses (Astin, 1977; Davis and Terenzini, 1982; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1976). However, no significant difference is noted between female and male on the informal studentefaculty interaction variable. Despite similar patterns of informal interaction with faculty outside the classroom for both female and male, the disparity between the two remained. This disparity may be a reflection of the quality and do not the amount of interaction between female and faculty members. In other words, male and female students may be interacting with faculty outside the classroom at equivalent time amount, but the interpersonal relationship between the students and faculty may continue to be of a rigid nature. Some students my feel intimidated, and thus, the potential benefit and opportunity to ask questions and seek personal assistance is minimized. Furthermore, if the nursing course in characteristically impersonal, competitive, or lacking in any encouragement and feedback, it may not matter how much interaction female students have with faculty members. The study provides additional support the importance of studentefaculty interaction and offers a more comprehensive way of thinking about how students may wish to relate with their professors. Students are more likely to seek informal contacts with their professors outside of the classroom if they perceive them to be approachable, caring, and respectful. Such perceptions would encourage students to seek opportunities to talk about the course or their academic performance, or to obtain career guidance. It is important to note the implication of the studentefaculty interaction results. It is reasonable to think that students who take the time to interact with their professors, regardless of their gender and background, may be more likely to have a high grade point average. The methods and techniques by which nursing faculty members teach and develop their students must meet the educational and intellectual wants and needs of the student body. So it is vital that deans of nursing schools recognize and be sensitive to the influence, amount, and quality of interaction that takes place between their students and faculty members. As suggested from the evidence of the present study, students would benefit from higher
325
quality of informal interaction, as well as modern approaches to teaching that encompasses different learning styles and preferences. Furthermore, faculty members should be encouraged to share with their students more of their attitudes, interests, and values related to the discipline and disclose their educational and occupational history. In other words, faculty members should be attempting to develop better relationship, with students, especially when this reaction results in better learning environment. They would also be wise to encourage their students to engage in active learning strategies that could include small workgroups and applying class-obtained knowledge to their own lives, which has been documented as being highly conducive to the academic selfconfidence and self-efficacy. This in turn leads to higher levels of academic growth and achievement. Administrators of higher education must help nursing schools to develop ways to meet the expectation of nursing students. More in depth knowledge is needed of how the faculty differs in their teaching methods and how they interact with students both inside and outside their classrooms. This would provide valuable information for both administrators and faculty to promote the students’ intellectual wants and needs. This study is limited in several ways. First, the study relies only on studentefaculty interaction outside classroom, future drafts of this study can include a broader set of studentefaculty interaction measures, including communication with a faculty member by e-mail or in person, and talking with an instructor inside the class about issues and concepts derived from a course. Second, the questionnaire was designed to yield information regarding the experiences of students in universities. Hence, the study omits students’ experiences prior to entering higher education institutions. Future research should collect data from different types of institutions in order to determine whether the quality of studentefaculty interactions of the institution. Furthermore, future research should gather specific data about the background of professors in comparison with that of students. This will allow better interpretation of the data. Additional correlated of studenteprofessor interactions, such as satisfaction with school and retention, should also be researched. Moreover future research should examine not only out ofeclass interactions but also studentefaculty in-class interactions, as well.
Conclusion In general, the results for this study are consistent with previous work that highlights the importance of studentefaculty interaction with respect to achievement (Kuh and Hu, 2001; Sax et al., 2005). This study also provides some evidence that studentefaculty interactions are significantly associated with student’s academically achievements. Faculty members should not reduce the benefit of formal, informal, and social interaction with students; such interaction appears to provide an important foundation for student effort and from which students can begin to pursue more academically oriented interactions.
References Anaya, G., Cole, D., 2001. Latino student achievement: exploring the influence of studentefaculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development 42, 3e5. Astin, A., 1977. Four Critical Years: Effects of College on Beliefs, Attitude, and Knowledge. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Astin, A., 1993. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. Jossey-Bas, San Francisco. Bayer-Hummel, T., 2010. The effects of jeopardy as a test preparation strategy for nursing students. Teaching and Learning in Nursing 5, 1e15.
326
M. Al-Hussami et al. / Nurse Education in Practice 11 (2011) 320e326
Bhopal, R., 2002. Concepts of Epidemiology: An Integrated Interaction to the Ideas, Theories, Principles and Methods of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford: UK. Bengtsson, M., Ohlsson, B., 2010. The nursing and medical students’ motivation to attain knowledge. Nurse Education Today 30 (2), 150e156. Berdahl, R., McConnell, T., 1999. Autonomy and accountability. In: Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R., Gumport, P. (Eds.), American Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 70e88. Brown, L., Herd, K., Humphries, G., Paton, M., 2005. The role of the lecturer in practice placements: what do students think? Nurse Education in Practice 5, 84e90. Center for Postsecondary Research, 2003. National Survey of Student Engagement: 2003 Annual Report. http://www.iub.edui-nssei2003 Retrieved 30.11.09., from the Indiana University at Bloomington Website. Chickering, A., Gamson, Z., 1991. Appendix A: seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 47, 63e69. Cottern, S., Wilson, B., 2006. Studentefaculty interactions: dynamics and determinants. Higher Education 51, 487e519. Cox, B., Orehovec, E., 2007. Facultyestudent interaction outside the classroom: a typology from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education 30 (4), 343e362. Davis, J., Terenzini, P., 1982. Students and faculty: classroom and beyond. Plantings 3, 1e9. Feldman, K., Newcomb, T., 1969. The Impact of College on Students: An Analysis of Our Decades of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Gappa, J., Austin, A., Trice, A., 2007. Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s Strategic Imperative. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Gardner, E., Deloney, L., Grando, V., 2007. Nursing student descriptions that suggest changes for the classroom and reveal improvements needed in study skills and self-care. Journal of Professional Nursing 23 (2), 98e104. Gonyea, R., Kish, K., Kuh, G., Muthiah, R., Thomas, A., 2003. College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition. Indiana University, Bloomington. for Postsecondary research, policy, and planning. Heikkinen, E., Isola, A., 2004. Student nurses’ experiences and perceptions of envy in one nurse education environment in Finland. Nurse Education Today 24 (3), 160e168. Jeffreys, M., 2007. Tracking students through program entry, progression, graduation, and licensure: assessing undergraduate nursing student retention and success. Nurse Education Today 27 (5), 406e419. Katz, J., Woods, S., Cameron, C., Milam, S., 2004. Essential qualifications for nursing students. Nursing Outlook 52 (6), 277e288. Kim, Y. 2006. Studentefaculty interaction in college. Examining it causalities predictors, and racial differences. University of California, Los Angeles, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kuh, G., Hu, S., 2001. The effects of studentefaculty interaction in the1990s. The Review of Higher Education 24 (3), 309e332. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., Associates, 2005. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Laird, T., Cruce, T., 2009. Individual and environmental effects on part-time enrolment status on studentefaculty interaction and self-reported gains. The Journal of Higher Education 80 (3), 290e314. Laird, T., Niskode-Dossett, A., Kuh, G., 2009. What general education courses contribute to essential learning outcomes? The Journal of General Education 58 (2), 65e84. Lau, L., 2003. Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education 124 (1), 126e136.
Lundberg, C., Schreiner, L., 2004. Quality and frequency of facultyestudent interaction as predictors of learning: an analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development 45 (5), 549e565. Mareno, N., Bremmer, M., Emerson, C., 2010. The use of audience response systems in nursing education: best practice guidelines. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 7, 1e17. Medved, C., Heisler, J., 2002. A negotiated order exploration of critical studentefaculty interaction: studenteparents manage multiple roles. Communication Education 51 (2), 105e120. Pace, C., 1990. College Student Experiences Questionnaire, revised 3rd edition. University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation, Los Angeles. Available from the center for postsecondary research and planning, Indiana University. Pace, C., Kuh, G., 1998. College Student Experiences Questionnaire, 4th edition. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Available from the Center for postsecondary research and planning, Indiana University. Pascarella, T., 2006. How college affects students: ten directions for future research. Journal of College Student Development 47 (5), 508e520. Pascarella, E., Cruce, T., Umbach, P., Wolniak, G., Kuh, G., Carini, R., Hayek, J., Gonyea, R., Zhao, C., 2006. Institutional selectively and good practices in undergraduate education: how strong is the link? The Journal of Higher Education 77, 251e285. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 1976. Informal interaction with faculty and freshman ratings of academic and freshman ratings of academic and nonacademic experience of college. Journal of Educational Research 70, 35e41. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 1991. How College Marcs Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., 2005. How College Affects Students. A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, Sanfrancisco. Pascarella, E., Wolniak, G., Seifert, T., Cruce, T., Blaich, C., 2005. Liberal arts colleges and liberal arts education: new evidence on impacts. ASHE Higher Education Report 31 (3), 1. Porter, S., 2007. Student engagement: a different perspective. Teaching Professor 21 (1), 4e6. Rugutt, J., Chemosit, C., 2009. What motivates students to learn? Contribution of student-to-student relations, studentefaculty interaction, and critical thinking skills. Educational Research Quarterly 32 (3), 16e28. Sax, J., Bryant, A., Harper, C., 2005. The differential effects of studentefaculty interaction on college for women and men. Journal of College Student Development 46 (6), 642e659. Seifert, T., Goodman, K., Lindsay, N., Jorgensen, J., Wolniak, G., Pascarella, C., 2008. The effects of liberal arts experiences on liberal arts outcome. Research of High Education 49, 107e125. Seymour, E., 1995. The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: an explanatory account. Science Education 79, 437e473. Strayer, R., Beitz, J., 2010. Factors influencing pharmacology knowledge acquisition in traditional versus nontraditional baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing 26 (5), 301e308. Thomas, M., 2001. Informal studentefaculty interaction: ITS relationship to educational gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community College Review 29 (1), 35e57. Tinto, V., 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, 2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Tinto, V., 1987. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Ware, S., 2008. Developing a self-concept of nurse in baccalaureate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 5 (1).