ACADEMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE RLE PERFORMANCE OF THE SELECTED 4TH YEAR NURSING STUDENTS IN OUR LADY OF FATIMA

UNIVERSITY
A Thesis presented to the Faculty of Our Lady of Fatima University College of Nursing

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NURSING

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
The increasing demand of nurses all over the world greatly affects the decisions of the people. Though the news about the nurse’s jobs is getting scarce they still take the nursing course. And in order to become competitive among the millions of nursing students, one must start it in school through studying hard and retaining information. Bean and Metzner (1985) describe academic factors as student’s primary involvement with the academic process at the college and purports that among non traditional student’s academic factors are less important than environmental factors in influencing retention (Metzner and Bean, 1987). Academic Integration, sometimes been used to describe a cluster of academic factors that can influence retention, and has been defined as “the development of a strong affiliation with the college environment both inside and outside of class” (Nora, 1993 p. 235) For nursing students, the academic factors deemed most important for retention include Personal Study Skills, Study Hours, Attendance, Class Schedule and General Academic Services (college library, college counseling and computer library).

Personal study skills, refers to specific elements, attitudes about the responsibility for study and effort expended on academic pursuits, affect nursing student retention through academic performance and psychological outcomes. Consistent with higher education, the increasingly academically diverse nursing student population presents with varying study skills (Heller, Oros and Durney-Crowley, 2000; Tanner, 1998). Additionally, used of varied study skills has been associated with better academic outcomes (Napoli & Wortman, 1998), which in turn positively influence retention. Effort expended on planning and study activities yields better academic outcome (Flowers, 2002). In the NURS model, personal study hours refer to the number of hours allocated exclusively to positive study activities in which positive study behaviors and attitudes are actively used. In this model, students with more personal study hours are expected to have more positive academic outcomes and retentions than will students with inadequate personal study hours. Adequate study hours are individually based and are defined as the least number of personal study hours needed to achieve the short-term academic outcomes (passing exam, completing accurate care plan, etc.) and long-term academic outcomes (successfully completing nursing course components). The Metzner and Bean (1987) model included absenteeism as an academic variable influencing attrition; however, the NURS model focuses on attendance. Nevertheless, the literature regarding attendance reveals several interesting phenomena that are relevant for nursing education. First, attendance (or absenteeism) should be monitored to help identify at-risk students. Second, attendance should be monitored in relation to other variables with the purpose of identifying students most at risk for attrition. In nursing, attendance is somewhat more complex than it is among the general college population. Consequently, students may not comprehend, value, or expect rigid attendance policies will be upheld, especially among beginning students who have had no prior exposure to nursing courses.

Attendance may be further differentiated between various nursing course components such as theoretical (classroom hours), skills laboratory, and/or clinical hours. Clearly, clinical attendance is a valuable dimension to learning and assists the student in connecting theoretical information, nursing skills, and client’s competency. Absences create complicated disadvantages; attendance creates valuable advantages. Attendance needs to be viewed in relation to other variables and to the other dimensions of the NURS model if at risk students are to be identified early. Availability of courses, flexibility of courses, and convenience are factors that can influence retention through academic and psychological outcomes (Bean and Metzner, 1985; Burr, Burr, & Novak, 1999). Consistently, across three study samples, most nursing students have identified “class schedule” as influencing retention. Responses ranged from “severely restrictive” to “greatly supportive” (Jeffreys, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2002). Class schedule is included in the NURS model because students’ perceptions of class schedule, with its physical demands and time constraints can influence retention positively or negatively and in varying degrees. Students’ perception of class schedule is the most important aspect to assess. General academic services are designed to assist students with their academic goals and are available to all college students, regardless of academic major. They include the library, counseling, and computer laboratories. General academic services that are convenient accessible, and helpful will encourage more active use of these support services.

The assessment of nursing students’ perceptions of general academic services is valuable (Lehna, Jackonen, & Wilson, 1996). Greater, comprehensive use of services, in conjunction with other academic factors, positively influences retention by enhancing academic and psychological outcomes. For example, maximizing use of various library services appropriate to course objectives can assist with improved study skills and academic integration, thus enhancing retention. Counseling services have shown to be beneficial to nursing student academic and psychological outcomes (Lehna et at., 1996). Higher education literature reports that counseled students have higher rates than non-counseled students (Turner & Berry, 2000; Wilson, Mason, & Ewing, 1997), Kraemer (1997) stated that commuter students who frequently use computer laboratory facilities on campus are more involved in cognitive development than are other students; enhanced cognitive development enhances retention. Also according to a journal of The Canadian Nurse; Mar 1, 2003 by BOLAN, CHRISTINE M. and GRAINGER, PATRICIA “Success in nursing programs influenced by such academic factors as overall. Similarly, non-academic factors associated attrition from nursing programs perception of nursing as a career. (12) Other non-academic factors in attrition...” this article states that nursing programs become successful in retaining information to their learners by the influence of the academic factors. This study aimed to determine the academic factors such as hospital performance, strategic studying, personal study skills, attendance, and class schedule and identify whether these factors could distinguish differences among students, based on RLE performance.

Conceptual Framework
Most common academic factor affecting the RLE of the 4rth year nursing student
Affects their performance during their clinical duty by utilizing this academic factor to improved their knowledge and concepts about hospital skills

Academic factors Personal Study Skill Attendance General Academic Services Study Hours Class Schedule

RLE performance grade according to their clinical instructor

Performance of the students who attended Lecture before having their hospital duties

Performance of the students who attended their hospital duties before Lecture

RESEARCH PARADIGM
PROCESS
→ Identify the Academic Factors affecting the RLE performance of 4thYear Nursing Students. → Note the effects of this Academic Factors. → Test the significant relationship of Academic Factors with the RLE performance of 4th year Nursing Students.

INPUT → Academic Factors which affect the RLE performance of 4th Year Nursing Students.

OUTPUT → Ameliorate the RLE performance of the 4th Year Nursing Students

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study aimed to determine “Academic Factors Affecting the RLE Performance of the Selected 4th Year Nursing Students in Our Lady of Fatima University”. Specifically it sought to answers the ff questions: 1.What were the most common academic factors that greatly influenced the RLE of the 4th year nursing students? 2.How did these academic factors affect the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students during their Hospital duty hours? 3.What were the results of their performance in their hospital duty hours? 4.Is there a significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing student during their hospital duty hours? 5.Is there a significant difference between the grades of the students who attended hospital duties before lecture and those who had their lecture before having their hospital duties?

HYPOTHESES

There is no significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students. There is no significant difference between the grades of the students during their Lecture class hours and during their hospital duty hours.

CHAPTER II METHODS OF RESEARCH AND PROCEDURES

Research Design Survey Research was used in the study to determine the performance of the students. This was conducted through a paper-pen questionnaire. Here, the researchers used questionnaires and photocopies of the RLE record book of the students for measuring instrument in collecting data and to determine the academic factors affecting their RLE performance of the selected 4th year nursing students in Our Lady of Fatima University.

Population and Locale of the Study The researchers chose respondents in the 4th year level following a certain criteria. That the respondents should have their record grades of NCM 101 and 102 to use as the basis of this research study. 50 respondents were used in this study. The respondents were composed of 31 students who attended lecture first before their duties and 19 students who attended their duties first before lecture. The locale of this study was in Our Lady of Fatima University —Lagro, Quezon City. This was conducted in the 1st semester of the year 2008-2009. Data Gathering Tools The primary tool used in this study was Questionnaire. Because this was a simplified questions addressed to the respondents. In part 1 of the questionnaire multiple choice type of question was used. Then in part 2 of the questionnaire, the researchers used Likert scale to show the amount of agreement and disagreement of the respondents.

Data Gathering Procedure The first step done by the researchers was to select for the potential respondents of these study. The researchers took samples through Non-Probability scheme. They used Quota Sampling which was a type of Non-probability Sampling. In a nonrandomized form, the researchers selected the respondents from the cross-section of the population. A helped from friends and relatives of the researchers who were also 4th year nursing students were sought to identify and locate the respondents of this study. Thus the identification of the respondents became purposive and chain referral at the same time. After they had identified and located the respondents, the researcher approached and visited them personally to introduced herself, build rapport and stated the objectives of their study. The respondents agreed to participate in the study. A questionnaire was given to answer. They were also asked whether they can photocopy their RLE performance grade. All the respondents were assured that their grades and response were appreciated and treated confidentially.

Statistical Treatment of Data
The researchers compiled and tabularized all the data to organize the RLE grades of the selected 4th year nursing students. They also used questionnaires and photocopied RLE grades of the fifty 4th year nursing students as respondents. The statistics used were mean (X), standard deviation (SD) and the T-test of difference. Additionally, the researchers had chosen the Chi Square Formula for their research study. Because the type of question they used in the questionnaires was answerable by a yes or no. This formula was really intended for the type of question the researchers had chosen. The following formula to compute chi-square: (O-E)² x²= Σ -----------E Where O = observed frequency E = expected frequency Σ = sum the calculated values

CHAPTER III PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Table 1 Distribution of the most common Academic Factor according to 4th year nursing students.
Academic Factors Personal study skills Study hours Class schedule Attendance General academic services Frequency 22 10 11 1 6 Relative Frequency 44 % 20 % 22 % 2% 12 %

The results showed that 44% of the students chose personal study skills as their most common academic factor. Next to it 22% chose class schedule, 20% study hours, 12% chose general academic services and lastly 2% of the students chose attendance. Additionally, use of varied personal study skill has been associated with better academic outcomes (Napoli and Wortman,1998) which in turn positively influence the result of the student’s performance.

Student

QUESTIONS 2 4 5 4 4 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 3 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 1 5 4 5 1 5 5 2 1 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 4 5 4 2 5 5 5 Average 4.5 5 4.25 4.5 4.25 2 4.75 4 4.75 2 5 5 4.25 2 4.25 4 4.75 4.5 4 4.5 4.25 4.5

Table 2 Distribution of how the Academic Factor affects the hospital duty according to 4th year nursing student’s scale

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NORMS: 5 – Strongly Agree 4 – Agree 3 – Moderately Agree 2 – Disagree 1 – Strongly Disagree

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

QUESTIONS 2 3 5 1 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 1 1 4 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 5 5 3 5 4 5 1 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 1 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 1 3 3 5 4 2 5 5 3 2 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 4 1 1 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 2 3 Average 3.75 4.25 1 3.75 3.50 4.50 5 3.75 4 4.25 4.75 1 2.50 3.75 4.75 3.25 3.25 4.75 4.75 3.75 2.25 2.75

Student 45 46 47 48 49 50 TOTAL

QUESTIONS 2 5 3 1 5 4 5 195 3 5 3 5 5 4 4 198 4 5 2 3 5 3 4 187 5 4 2 1 4 5 5 193 Average 4.75 2.50 2.50 4.75 4 4.50 193.25

The table showed that majority of the student’s scale (total of 39) had an average of 3.0-5.0 which means they agreed that by utilizing the academic factors will improve their knowledge and concepts about hospital skills. It also showed the total average of their scale which was 193.25.

Student 1 2

NCM 101 2.25 1.75 2 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.25 1.75 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.75 2.25

NCM 102 1.75 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.75 2.00 1.75 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50

Average 2 2 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2 2 2.38 2.38 2.50 2 2.13 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.63 2.38

Table 3 Results of the performance of the 4th year nursing students during their hospital duties in NCM 101 and 102.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

NORMS: 1.0– Excellent 1.25 - 2.0 – Very Good 2.25 - 2.75 – Good 3.0 – Passing

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

NCM 101 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50

NCM 102 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50

Average 2 2.38 2.50 2.38 2.38 2.13 2 2.38 2.38 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.13 2.13 2.50 2.38 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50

Student 46 47 48 49 50 TOTAL

NCM 101 2.50 2.00 2.75 2.50 2.25
114.75

NCM 102 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50
111.75

Average 2.25 2.25 2.36 2.25 2.38
113.11

The table showed that the 4th year nursing student’s performance during their hospital duty in NCM 101 and 102 were all passed. Because their grades were in 1.25 – 2.75, this means very good or good. It also showed the average of each grades in the table.

Student 1 2 3 4 5 6

x 4.5 5 4.25 4.5 4.25 2 4.75 4 4.75 2 5 5 4.25 2 4.25 4 4.75 4.5 4 4.5 4.25 4.5

y 2 2 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2 2 2.38 2.38 2.50 2 2.13 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.63 2.38

xy 9 10 9.0525 10.125 9.0525 4.5 9.5 8 11.305 4.76 12.5 10 9.0525 4.26 9.5625 9 11.305 10.71 9.52 10.71 11.1775 10.71

x² 20.25 25 18.0625 20.25 18.0625 4 22.5625 16 22.5625 4 25 25 18.0625 4 18.0625 16 22.5625 20.25 16 20.25 18.0625 20.25

y² 4 4 4.5369 5.0625 4.5369 5.0625 4 4 5.6644 5.6644 6.25 4 4.5369 4.5369 5.0625 5.0625 5.6644 5.6644 5.6644 5.6644 6.9169 5.6644

Table 4A Significant Relationships between Academic Factors and the RLE Performance.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

x 3.75 4.25 1 3.75 3.5 4.5 5 3.75 4 4.25 4.75 1 2.5 3.75 4.75 3.25 3.25 4.75 4.75 3.75 2.25 2.75

y 2.38 2 2.38 2.50 2.38 2.38 2.13 2 2.38 2.38 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.13 2.13 2.50 2.38 2.25 2.25 2.25

xy 8.925 8.5 2.38 9.375 8.33 10.71 10.65 7.5 9.52 10.115 10.1175 2.25 5.325 8.4375 10.6875 6.9225 6.9225 11.875 11.305 8.4375 5.0625 6.1875

x² 14.0625 18.0625 1 14.0625 12.25 20.25 25 14.0625 16 18.0625 22.5625 1 6.25 14.0625 22.5625 10.5625 10.5625 22.5625 22.5625 14.0625 5.0625 7.5625

y² 5.6644 4 5.6644 6.25 5.6644 5.6644 4.5369 4 5.6644 5.6644 4.5369 5.0625 4.5369 5.0625 5.0625 4.5369 4.5369 6.25 5.6644 5.0625 5.0625 5.0625

Table 4B Testing for the Significance of r.
HYPOTHESES TEST STATISTICS CRITICAL VALUE COMPUTED VALUE FOR t DECISION

• t – test for the HO: ρ = 0 significance There is no significant of r relationship • two – tailed at between the α = 0.05 level of academic factors significance and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students. HA: ρ ≠ 0 There is a significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students.

± 2.0210

t = 0.21

Accept HO: ρ = 0

Figure 3 Test for the significance of r

Rejection Region

Acceptance Region

- 2.0210 

0.21

+ 2.0210

Since the computed t- value (0.21) is lesser than the critical value (± 2.0210) then Ho should be accepted. Accepting Ho means that there is no significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students during their hospital duty hours at 0.05 level of significance.

Student

NCM 101 2.25 1.75 2 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.25 1.75 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 42.75

NCM 102 1.75 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.75 2.00 1.75 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.75 41.5

Average
2 2 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2 2 2.38 2.38 2.50 2 2.13 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.38 2.38 2.38

(x-x)² 0.0441 0.0441 0.0064 0.0016 0.0064 0.0016 0.0441 0.0441 0.0289 0.0289 0.0841 0.0441 0.0064 0.0064 0.0016 0.0016 0.0289 0.0289 0.0289 0.4811

Table 5A Significant Differences of Duties First before Lecture.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 TOTAL

This table showed the grades of the RLE performance grade in NCM 101 and 102 of the 4th year nursing students who had their duties first before attending their lectures. It also showed the average and the (x- )² of each grade in the NCM’s.

41.92

Student 1 2 3 4

NCM 101 2.25 2.75 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.25

NCM 102 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.50 2.00 1.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.00 2.50 2.50

Average
2.38 2.63 2.38 2.38 2 2.38 2.50 2.38 2.38 2.13 2 2.38 2.38 2.13 2.25 2.13 2.25 2.25 2.13 2.13 2.50 2.38

(x-x)²
.0064 .1089 .0064 .0064 .09 .0064 .04 .0064 .0064 .0289 .09 .0064 .0064 .0289 .0025 .0289 .0025 .0025 .0289 .0289 .04 .0064

Table 5B Significant Difference of Lecture first before Duty

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Student 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 TOTAL

NCM 101 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 72

NCM 102 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 70.25

Average
2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.36 2.25 2.38

(x-x)²
.0025 .0025 .0025 .04 .0025 .0025 .0036 .0025 .0064

71.19

0.6435

 This table showed the grades of the RLE performance grade in NCM 101 and 102 of the 4th year nursing students who had their lectures first before having their hospital duties. It also showed the average and the (x- )² of each grade in the NCM’s.

Table 5C Interpretation for Figure 2
HYPOTHESES TEST STATISTICS CRITICAL VALUE COMPUTED VALUE DECISION

Ho: µDF =µLF There is no significant difference between the grades of the students during their Lecture class hours and during their hospital duty hours. HA: µDF ≠ µLF There is a significant difference between the grades of the students during their Lecture class hours and during their hospital duty hours.

• •

t-test for two sample means Level of Significance: α= 0.05

± 2.1010

0.19

Accept Ho: µDF =µLF

Figure 4 Test for the significant difference between the grades of the students during their Lecture class hours and during their hospital duty hours. Rejection Region Acceptance Region

- 2.1010

0.19

+ 2.1010

Computation shows that the computed t- value (0.19) is lesser than the critical t- value (± 2.1010), this lead to the acceptance of the null hypothesis. Acceptance of the null hypothesis means that there is no significant difference between the grades of the students who attended hospital duties before lecture and those who had their lecture before having their hospital duties.

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

Summary of Findings Based on the data gathered and the computations obtained from the statistical treatment, the following findings are: Out of the five academic factors, personal study skill got the highest frequency of 22 or 44% relative frequency. Then class schedule got 11 or 22%, study hours 10 or 20%, general academic services 6 or 12% and lastly attendance which only got 1 or 2% of relative frequency. Majority of the student’s scale had an average 3.0-5.0 which means they agreed that by utilizing the academic factors will improve their knowledge and concepts about hospital skills. It also showed the total average of their scale which was 193.25. The 4th year nursing student’s performance during their hospital duty in NCM 101 and 102 were all passed. Because their grades were in 1.25 – 2.75, this means very good or good. Even after the researchers computed their average, the results were still very good and good. YGH GH

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Conclusions The following are the formulated conclusions based on the findings above: The most common academic factor used by the 4th year nursing students was Personal Study Skills. Academic factors affect the RLE performance of the nursing students during their hospital duty by utilizing the factors to improved knowledge and concepts about hospital skills and improved their hospital rating The results of the RLE performance grade of the 4th year nursing students were all passed. There was no significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing students. There was no significant difference between the grades of the students who attended hospital duties before lecture and those who had their lecture before having their hospital duties.

Recommendations In regards to the presented conclusions, the following recommendations are:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Advising the students to recognize also the other academic factors aside from the personal study skill. This will give them the chance to choose among the factors that will best suit their type of studying. Students are aware on what the academic factors can do to their performance. The students should maintain and keep up a good performance in their hospital duties. Students should strengthen more the used of academic factors. Though majority of them believe that those factors has a good effect on their performance, they should utilize it seriously during their study This only suggests that before having a hospital duty, students must first attended their theoretical lecture first. Because lectures will give them knowledge and background about the things they should do in their duties.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful