You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Healthcare
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

Published: 5 August 2021

Perception of the Online Learning Environment of Nursing Students in Slovenia: Validation of the DREEM Questionnaire

,
,
,
and
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
2
Research Group in Attention to Chronicity and Innovation in Health (GRACIS), TecnoCampus, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08002 Barcelona, Spain
3
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia
4
Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK
Healthcare2021, 9(8), 998;https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9080998
This article belongs to the Collection E-learning and Digital Training in Healthcare Education: Current Trends and New Challenges
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

At the time of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, several measures were in place to limit the spread of the virus, such as lockdown and restriction of social contacts. Many colleges thus had to shift their education from personal to online form overnight. The educational environment itself has a significant influence on students’ learning outcomes, knowledge, and satisfaction. This study aims to validate the tool for assessing the educational environment in the Slovenian nursing student population. To assess the educational environment, we used the DREEM tool distributed among nursing students using an online platform. First, we translated the survey questionnaire from English into Slovenian using the reverse translation technique. We also validated the DREEM survey questionnaire. We performed psychometric testing and content validation. I-CVI and S-CVI are at an acceptable level. A high degree of internal consistency was present, as Cronbach’s alpha was 0.951. The questionnaire was completed by 174 participants, of whom 30 were men and 143 were women. One person did not define gender. The mean age of students was 21.1 years (SD = 3.96). The mean DREEM score was 122.2. The mean grade of student perception of learning was 58.54%, student perception of teachers was 65.68%, student academic self-perception was 61.88%, student perception of the atmosphere was 60.63%, and social self-perception of students was 58.93%. Although coronavirus has affected the educational process, students still perceive the educational environment as positive. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement in all assessed areas.

1. Introduction

Due to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), which was reported in Wuhan, China [1,2,3,4] and soon after, the first major outbreak in Europe spread rapidly to Slovenia [5,6]. Governments issued directives on social isolation and living at home, so colleges and universities around the world were closed [7]. COVID-19 has forced education systems around the world to find alternatives to personal teaching [8]. Online distance learning platforms are the only available way of learning and teaching during unprecedented events such as the outbreak of COVID-19 [9,10,11]. However, it is important to distinguish between online distance education and distance learning in an emergency as a temporary solution. Online education provides students with flexibility and choice [12]. This involves implementing education using information and communication technology [13] and represents an easily accessible teaching method [14].
Online learning promotes student-centered learning, in which case courses are easy to manage [15], resulting in better knowledge and self-efficacy for some students [16]. It increases performance, encourages critical thinking, and improves writing skills for most students [17]. Through the accelerated use of online learning, educators and carers need to consider the pedagogical and practical challenges posed by the integration of online learning [18]. Negative aspects highlighted are a lack of appropriate infrastructure for some students, less effective communication and interaction, inability to implement practical applications, lack of socialization, lack of motivation, less objective exams, and the possibility of deteriorating health [19].
Despite growing evidence that online learning is just as effective as traditional learning tools, there is very little evidence of what works, when, and how online learning improves teaching and learning [20]. Therefore, in this study, we decided to evaluate the online learning environment of students using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) tool [21,22,23]. Any learning environment that meets students’ internal and external needs is likely to lead to better and more promising learning outcomes [24]. Achieving an optimal educational environment must meet the expectations of students regarding the school atmosphere, teaching, teachers, students, school staff, educational equipment, and the physical environment [25]. A good learning environment for students in clinical practice depends on the structure of student admission, the pedagogical atmosphere, and the participation of those involved [26]. The educational environment has an impact on students’ learning outcomes, preparation for practice, and student satisfaction [27]. Also, the perception of the learning environment is related to well-being and stress in students [28].
The main goal of the research is a validation of the questionnaire focusing on the assessment and perception of nursing students about the online learning environment. The goal is also to test psychometrically the DREEM tool [22,23]. The validation of the DREEM tool is performed within the Erasmus+ project Digital Toolbox for Innovation and Nursing Education (I-BOX), which aims to develop material for teaching nursing students and nurses. Based on the obtained results, we will also assess where the greatest deviations occur in the assessment of the learning environment and thus encourage the improvement of the learning environment for students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

We used quantitative research methodology [29,30,31]. Data for assessing the educational environment by undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students were collected using an online questionnaire between November 2020 and January 2021. The survey questionnaire was previously translated into Slovenian language and validated in the Slovenian environment for the first time.

2.2. Assessment Tool

To assess the online educational environment, we used the DREEM tool [22,23]. DREEM is a validated tool for assessing the educational environment in health care professions worldwide [32]. In addition to being used to diagnose deficiencies in the current educational environment, DREEM is also used to compare different groups, monitor the same group over time, and assess factors influencing the educational environment [33,34]. The DREEM tool includes five subscales: students’ perception of learning (SPL); students’ perception of teachers (SPT); students’ academic self-perception (SAP); students’ perception of the atmosphere (SPA) and students’ social self-perception (SSP). The maximum score is 200 [35]. The use of the questionnaire was previously authorized by the authors [22,23]. The survey questionnaire was translated from English into Slovenian and then back to the original language [36]: Independently by two researchers, the survey questionnaire was translated from English into Slovenian. Both researchers had the necessary knowledge of English, andragogy, and nursing. Thus, we obtained two versions of the translation, which we merged into one in the next step, based on consultation between experts. If disagreement was present, a third researcher was involved. In the last step, two experts with the necessary knowledge of English translated a joint version of the Slovenian questionnaire into English. Thus, we obtained two forms of reverse translation and subsequently merged them into a common form [29,30].
Questionnaires were distributed using an online survey platform ENKA from which the results were then downloaded and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.

2.2.1. Validation of Assessment Tool

We assessed the validity of the content and the validity of the construct in the survey questionnaire and performed confirmatory factor analysis [37,38]. To determine the content validity, we included experts who have the necessary knowledge in the field [29,30,37,39]. Based on the recommendations where six to ten experts are required [40], we included six experts who work as nursing teachers. The questions in the questionnaire were rated on a four-point scale from 1 to 4, where 1 represents statements that are not relevant; 2, deficient/poorly understood statements; 3, partially understandable/partially relevant statements; and 4, entirely understandable/completely relevant claims [41]. To assess the content validity of the questionnaire, we calculated the content validity of individual claims (I-CVI) and content validity of the whole questionnaire (S-CVI) [41,42,43,44,45,46]. For the internal reliability analysis, we calculated Cronbach’s α, which presents us with a measure of internal reliability between several items [47]. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and interpreted the values as follows: ≥0.90, excellent; 0.80–0.89, good; 0.70–0.79, acceptable; 0.60–0.69, questionable; 0.50–0.59, poor; and <0.50, unacceptable [48]. Correlations between items are an essential element in the analysis of the items representing a specific concept. Correlations between items examine the extent to which ratings of one item are related to ratings of all other scale items [49,50,51].
I-CVI represents the quotient between the number of experts who rated each question with a grade of 3 or 4 and between the number of all experts, which in our case was six [42,44,45,46,52]. The probability of agreement was calculated using the formula Pc = [N!/A! (N-A)!] 0,5N where N represents the number of evaluators, and A represents the number of consents [42,44,45,46,52,53]. We used the following formula to calculate the kappa determination of the compliance agreement: k = (I-CVI − Pc)/(1 − Pc). I-CVI represents item content validity index, and Pc represents the probability of chance agreement [42,44,45,46,52]. The S-CVI represents the proportion of questions rated by two experts with a score of 3 or 4 [39,42,52].

2.2.2. Perception of the Learning Environment

The DREEM tool includes 50 items, 41 positive and nine negatives, related to learning perception (12 items), teacher perception (11 items), academic self-perception (eight items), atmospheric perception (12 items), and social self-perception (seven items). Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale (from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree), where reverse-coding is used for nine statements [22,32]. Questions 4, 8, 9, 17, 25, 35, 39, 48, and 50 are reverse-coded [22,32,54]. The highest score indicates an ideal educational environment [22,32]. The categorization of the sub-scale for all items is as follows: lower than 50 represents a very poor level, range 51–75 is defined as a “plenty of problems” category, range 76–150 represents more positive than negative category, and higher than 150 represents an excellent score [35]. When analysing an individual item, it is necessary to pay attention to those with a mean score lower than 2. There are also possible improvements in the measured assumptions with a mean score between 2 and 3 [55,56,57].

2.3. Ethics of Research

Before the research, we obtained ethical permission from the institutional ethical commission (No. 038/2020/2176-02/504). The authors of the questionnaire were asked for permission to use and translate it. Individuals who submitted responses to the online questionnaire also agreed to participate in the survey [22,23]. As part of the research, we sent students an invitation to participate in the research by e-mail. The online questionnaire also informed the participants about the purpose and goals of the research. Participants had the opportunity to refuse to participate in the anonymous survey. The survey was conducted from November 2020 until January 2021. We also informed them that we would use the results exclusively for research. In doing so, we will not disclose information from which the individuals involved could be identified. The risks and burdens of research are minimal.

3. Results

Of the 298 invited participants, 174 participants completed the questionnaire (response rate: 58.4%). Of these, 17% (n = 30) were men and 83% (n = 143) were women (one person did not specify their gender). The average age of the participants was 21.1 years (SD = 3.96). The youngest person was 18 years old, and the oldest was 46 years old. Other basic characteristics of the students involved are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.

3.1. DREEM Tool Validation Results

The DREEM questionnaire was backtranslated from English into Slovenian by two experts. The content validity and reliability of the DREEM tool questionnaire in the Slovenian environment to assess the perception of the learning space in nursing students are presented below.

3.1.1. Content Validity of the Questionnaire

Table 2 presents the I-CVI, Pc, and k coefficient calculations for all questions in the DREEM tool. I-CVI for all questions in the Slovenian version of the questionnaire is acceptable. The I-CVI for all questions except question 20 was 1.000. The I-CVI for question twenty, “The teaching is well focused,” was 0.833. The probability of agreement on all questions is 0.016, and on the twentieth question, 0.094. Kappa on the determination of the agreement on adequacy for all questions is 1. For the twentieth question, it is 0.816.
Table 2. Content validity of the DREEM tool.
The evaluation of two experts was included in the S-CVI assessment. None of them rated the question with a score of 1 or a score of 2 with a final S-CVI of 1.000 and is acceptable for the Slovenian environment (Table 3).
Table 3. Scale content validity of the DREEM tool.

3.1.2. Reliability of the Questionnaire

Supplementary Materials presents the correlations between the items in each scale in the DREEM tool questionnaire. Item correlations ranged between −0.038 and 0.620.
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.951, which indicates a high level of internal consistency. Table 4 represents the values of Cronbach’s alpha with specific items deleted. Removing any question other than question 17, “Cheating is a problem in this school,” and question 25, “The teaching over-emphasizes factual learning,” would reduce the value of Cronbach’s alpha. Corrected item-total correlation for question 17 was 0.186, and 0.192 for question 25.
Table 4. Item-total statistics.
Figure 1 presents a graph for screen analysis. The graph shows the eigenvalue scree plot for 50 instrument elements and points at one factor.
Figure 1. Analysis Scree Plot.

3.2. Results of Perception of the Learning Environment

Online teaching was perceived more positively than negatively. The mean assessment of student perception of learning is 28.1/48, student perception of teachers is 28.9/44, student academic self-perception is 19.8/32, student perception of the atmosphere is 29.1/48, and social self-perception of students is 16.5/28 (Table 5). All individual subscales are statistically related (p < 0.001).
Table 5. Mean score of DREEM tool.
Based on the Shapiro–Wilk test for women and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for men, we found that the individual values of the scales in students were unevenly distributed according to gender. Based on the Mann–Whitney U test, we identified a statistically significant relationship between the assessment of student perception of learning by gender (U = 1346,500; p = 0.024). The mean SPL score for men was 24.9/48 (SD = 8.82). For women, this mean score was 28.9/48 (SD = 7.27). There is no statistically significant difference by gender between the other subscales. Nevertheless, in all subscales, the scores were higher for women than for men: subscale SPT (29.3 vs. 28.1), subscale SAP (20.0 vs. 19.0), subscale SPA (29.4 vs. 28.6), and subscale SSP (16.4 vs. 16.6) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Gender comparison in subscales.
To show the relationship between age and individual subscales, we performed a Pearson correlation test. The age of students is statistically significantly related to the SAP subscale score (r = 0.212; p = 0.007) and the SPA subscale score (r = 9.213; 0.007). Based on the Kruskal–Wallis test, we found that the study program attended by students affects the SAP score. The mean grade of SAP students attending the undergraduate first degree study program nursing care is 19.7/32 (SD = 5.05), the score of students attending the postgraduate second degree study program nursing care is 25.67/32 (1.53), and the score of students who attend a postgraduate third degree study program nursing care is 26/32 (SD = 8.49).
The mean assessment of student perception of learning is 28.1/48, which means a more positive perception. Problematic assumptions with a mean grade of ≤2 in the SPL subscale are “I am encouraged to participate in class,” which has an average grade of 1.8 (SD = 0.83), and “The teaching over-emphasizes factual learning,” which has a mean grade of 1.3 (SD = 0.68) (Table 6); 69.2% of men (n = 18) and 64% of women (n = 80) agree that teachers being encouraging to participate. Table S1 in Supplementary Materials present the links between SPL items.
Table 6. Subscale SPL.
The mean score of student perception of teachers is 28.9/44, which means that it is moving in the right direction. The item “The teachers are authoritarian” received the lowest mean value of 1.9 (SD = 0.98) (Table 7); 39.4% of respondents (n = 62) do not agree with this statement, and 25.5% (n = 48) neither agree nor disagree with this statement. Table S2 in Supplementary Materials present the links between SPT items.
Table 7. Subscale SPT.
The mean score of students’ academic self-perception is 19.8/32, representing that feelings are more on the positive side. None of the items in the SAP subscale received a lower mean score than 2 (Table 8). With the highest mean score, the item “I have learned a lot about empathy in my profession” stands out, with a mean score of 3.1 (SD = 0.65). A total of 89.9% of respondents (n = 134) agree that they learned a lot about empathy in the profession during their studies in the current year. Table S3 in Supplementary Materials present the links between SAP items.
Table 8. Subscale SAP.
A score of students’ perceptions of the atmosphere is 29.1/48, meaning that the atmosphere is more positive than negative. The lowest score was given to the statement “This school is well timetabled” and was 1.5 (SD = 1.10) (Table 9); 51.3% of respondents (n = 81) disagree that the schedule is well planned, 25.9% (n = 41) neither agree nor disagree with the statement. Table S4 in Supplementary Materials present the links between SPA items.
Table 9. Subscale SPA.
The mean score of students’ social self-perception is 16.5/28, meaning that social perception is not too bad (Table 10). The item “There is a good support system for students who get stressed” and the item “I am too tired to enjoy this course” get a lower score of 2, more specifically 1.8 (SD = 1.06) and 1.7 (SD = 0.97). 43.1% of the surveyed (n = 69) students are too tired to participate in the lectures. Table S4 in Supplementary Materials present the links between SPL items.
Table 10. Subscale SSP.
Supplementary Materials represents the inter-item correlations of the subscale.

4. Discussion

To the best of the authors ‘knowledge, this is the first study to assess students’ perceptions of the educational environment in Slovenia. We wanted to obtain information to assess the learning environment of nursing students. Our study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when colleges were forced to move their education online. Thus, despite the challenges of social distancing, isolation, and quarantine measures [58], they continued to provide education for nurses [59].
The assessment of the learning environment in the nursing student participants of this study is more positive than negative, as in many studies where this tool was used [15,35,54,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]. So far, only one study has been conducted that provides researchers with insight into the differences between personal and online teaching. In the United Kingdom, researchers conducted a national cross-sectional study to assess the learning environment during online teaching. They found that the assessment of the learning environment was lower than in live teaching [21].
We wanted to assess if there are differences between individual scales according to gender. In our study, differences were detected only in the assessment of learning perception (SPL), where women had a higher score than men (28.9 for women vs. 24.9 for men, p = 0.024). No statistically significant differences were detected in other subscales. The overall score is also higher for women (124.3; SD = 29.04) compared with men (116.1; SD = 32.1). Similar results were also obtained in another study where researchers found higher scores in women than in men [62]. This means that women have a better perception of the educational environment. Studies detect gender differences in study habits, which in turn affect student outcomes [69]. Also, female students are more willing to participate and work in a team than male students [70]. There are also differences in the acceptance of e-learning between men and women [71]. In contrast to our study, however, Fooladi found that perceptions of the learning environment are lower in women among vulnerable groups [72].
There is no statistically significant difference between years of enrolment in our study. The highest DREEM score is detected in the first year of study, where the mean grade is 124.15 (SD = 31.89). Other research finds that perception of the learning environment differs according to student performance, and also a difference between individual years of study [73]. Shrestha, et al., also note that the learning environment assessment is highest among students in the first year of study [74].
Of particular concern is that most students disagree with the claim that the schedule is well planned. Only 20.7% of respondents (n = 36) rate schedules as well-planned. This can also be related to the observation that 40.2% of students (n = 70) are often too tired to participate in lectures. Students are primarily concerned with time management in distance learning [75,76]. It is important to reduce the academic burden on students and help students develop time management skills, which significantly contributes to their success [77,78]. Stress and overload in nursing students can lead to burnout, anxiety, and depression [79].
Nebhinani, et al. point out that there is a great need to plan and implement various stress management programs [80]. Only 23.5% of respondents (n = 41) in our study agree that a good support system is in place in the presence of stress. Like our study, students in eastern Nepal perceived that they do not have a good support system during times of stress [74]. Numerous studies have found increased stress in students due to an outbreak of coronavirus disease [10,81,82,83], so support in this area is particularly important at this time. Stress connected with distance learning for students mainly leads to a lack of concentration, motivation, and technical difficulties [84].
56.3% of students (n = 98) believe that teachers focus too much on teaching based on data memorization, and 36.2% of students (n = 63) believe that teachers are too authoritative in their work. Nevertheless, most students (n = 117; 67.2%) believe that teaching is sufficiently focused on developing competencies related to their profession.
Health science students will receive such a good education, but its effectiveness must be rigorously and regularly evaluated [85]. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that such research is continued, and the rate of improvement is assessed. Only in this way can we achieve the best possible learning environment for students.

Limitations

There is a possibility of bias due to low response to the survey questionnaire. The reason for this might be in the fact that questionnaires were sent to the students in an online form, which usually results in low response rates. The study also took place within one faculty and cannot be generalized on a wider scale. Also, the limitation is that the assessment of the educational environment was carried out only during online teaching and cannot be compared with the evaluation of the learning environment during the traditional implementation of the learning process. Another limitation is that the online survey was conducted only from November 2020 to January 2021 and not in other study periods.

5. Conclusions

Nursing students generally rate their learning environment more positively than negatively, but there is still room for improvement in all categories. Greater emphasis is needed on the organization and timing of lessons to achieve better concentration of students in classes and reduce their level of stress. Educational organizations are also recommended to set up a good support system for students. The need to change the approach by teachers and their role was also perceived. With an authoritative approach and too much emphasis on factual learning, we negatively affect the student’s motivation and willingness to work. Teachers can improve this through appropriate pedagogical and andragogic education.
It is important that learning organizations and teachers also focus on providing a suitable and appropriate learning environment for students during distance learning. This is the only way they can contribute to positive learning outcomes and gain student experience. However, this presents a unique challenge, as the teacher has no contact with students when teaching online.
In the future, we plan to conduct a longitudinal study to observe the impact and variation of different factors in assessment of the learning environment over time.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare9080998/s1, Inter-item correlations of the subscale.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.G., C.C., E.C., and G.Š.; Data curation, L.G., N.F., C.C., E.C., and G.Š.; Formal analysis, L.G. and G.Š.; Methodology, L.G., N.F., and G.Š.; Supervision, L.G. and G.Š.; Validation, L.G., N.F., and G.Š.; Visualization, L.G. and G.Š.; Writing—original draft, L.G. and G.Š.; Writing—review & editing, L.G., N.F., C.C., E.C., and G.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The project “Digital Toolbox for Innovation in Nursing Education (I-BOX)” has been funded with support from the European Commission (2019-1-ES01-KA203-065836) under the Erasmus+ program. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. This study was also supported by the “knowledge through creative pathways 2016–2020” scheme cofunded by the European Union from the European Social Fund and the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Research Agency (grant numbers N2-0101 and P2-0057).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor (038/2020/2176-02/504, 10.06.2020).

Data Availability Statement

Data is currently not available for sharing, due to the further data collection process. Contact the first author for more information.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pollard, C.A.; Morran, M.P.; Nestor-Kalinoski, A.L. The COVID-19 pandemic: A global health crisis. Physiol. Genom. 2020, 52, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Akande, O.W.; Akande, T.M. COVID-19 pandemic: A global health burden. Niger. Postgrad. Med. J. 2020, 27, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Alhajjaj, H.A. The effects of the covid-19 pandemic on students in Jordanian schools: A qualitative study. PalArchs J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 2020, 17, 13787–13800. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hiscott, J.; Alexandridi, M.; Muscolini, M.; Tassone, E.; Palermo, E.; Soultsioti, M.; Zevini, A. The global impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2020, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Velikonja, N.K.; Erjavec, K.; Verdenik, I.; Hussein, M.; Velikonja, V.G. Association between preventive behaviour and anxiety at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia. Slov. J. Public Health 2020, 60, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zadnik, V.; Mihor, A.; Tomsic, S.; Zagar, T.; Bric, N.; Lokar, K.; Oblak, I. Impact of COVID-19 on cancer diagnosis and management in Slovenia–preliminary results. Radiol. Oncol. 2020, 54, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rajab, M.H.; Gazal, A.M.; Alkattan, K. Challenges to online medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cureus 2020, 12, e8966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus. Strengthening Online Learning When Schools Are Closed: The Role of Families and Teachers in Supporting Students during the COVID-19 Crisis. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/strengthening-online-learning-when-schools-are-closed-the-role-of-families-and-teachers-in-supporting-students-during-the-covid-19-crisis-c4ecba6c/ (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  9. Mahdy, M.A.A. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the academic performance of veterinary medical students. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 594261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Son, C.; Hegde, S.; Smith, A.; Wang, X.; Sasangohar, F. Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e21279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Shawaqfeh, M.S.; Al Bekairy, A.M.; Al-Azayzih, A.; A Alkatheri, A.; Qandil, A.M.; A Obaidat, A.; Al Harbi, S.; Muflih, S.M. Pharmacy Students Perceptions of Their Distance Online Learning Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2020, 7, 2382120520963039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bozkurt, A.; Sharma, R.C. Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, i–vi. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lawn, S.; Zhi, X.; Morello, A. An integrative review of e-learning in the delivery of self-management support training for health professionals. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dhawan, S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2020, 49, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mukhtar, K.; Javed, K.; Arooj, M.; Sethi, A. Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2020, 36, S27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tannenbaum, C.; Van Hoof, K. Effectiveness of online learning on health researcher capacity to appropriately integrate sex, gender, or both in grant proposals. Biol. Sex Differ. 2018, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gernsbacher, M.A. Why internet-based education? Front. Psychol. 2015, 5, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ellman, M.S.; Schwartz, M.L. Article Commentary: Online Learning Tools as Supplements for Basic and Clinical Science Education. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2016, 3, JMECD–S1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Radu, M.C.; Schnakovszky, C.; Herghelegiu, E.; Ciubotariu, V.A.; Cristea, I. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality of Educational Process: A Student Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Regmi, K.; Jones, L. A systematic review of the factors–enablers and barriers–affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dost, S.; Hossain, A.; Shehab, M.; Abdelwahed, A.; Al-Nusair, L. Perceptions of medical students towards online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national cross-sectional survey of 2721 UK medical students. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e042378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Roff, S. The Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM)—A generic instrument for measuring students’ perceptions of undergraduate health professions curricula. Med. Teach. 2005, 27, 322–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Roff, S.; McAleer, S.; Harden, R.M.; Al-Qahtani, M.; Ahmed, A.U.; Deza, H.; Groenen, G.; Primparyon, P. Development and validation of the Dundee ready education environment measure (DREEM). Med. Teach. 1997, 19, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Irfan, F.; Al Faris, E.; Al Maflehi, N.; Karim, S.I.; Ponnamperuma, G.; Saad, H.; Ahmed, A.M. The learning environment of four undergraduate health professional schools: Lessons learned. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Aghamolaei, T.; Shirazi, M.; Dadgaran, I.; Shahsavari, H.; Ghanbarnejad, A. Health students’ expectations of the ideal educational environment: A qualitative research. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2014, 2, 151. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ekstedt, M.; Lindblad, M.; Löfmark, A. Nursing students’ perception of the clinical learning environment and supervision in relation to two different supervision models—A comparative cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2019, 18, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Flott, E.A.; Linden, L. The clinical learning environment in nursing education: A concept analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016, 72, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Helou, M.A.; Keiser, V.; Feldman, M.; Santen, S.; Cyrus, J.W.; Ryan, M.S. Student well-being and the learning environment. Clin. Teach. 2019, 16, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  30. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice; Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research; Pearson: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  32. Riga, V.; Kossioni, A.; Lyrakos, G. Can DREEM Instrument (Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure) measure the learning environment in a School of Education? Educ. J. Univ. Patras UNESCO Chair 2015, 2, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
  33. Whittle, S.R.; Whelan, B.; Murdoch-Eaton, D.G. DREEM and beyond; studies of the educational environment as a means for its enhancement. Educ. Health 2007, 20, 7. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jeyashree, K.; Shewade, H.D.; Kathirvel, S. Development and psychometric testing of an abridged version of Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM). Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2018, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bhosale, U. Medical students’ perception about the educational environment in western Maharashtra in medical college using DREEM scale. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. JCDR 2015, 9, JC01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Colina, S.; Marrone, N.; Ingram, M.; Sánchez, D. Translation quality assessment in health research: A functionalist alternative to back-translation. Eval. Health Prof. 2017, 40, 267–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Artino, A.R., Jr.; La Rochelle, J.S.; Dezee, K.J.; Gehlbach, H. Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87. Med. Teach. 2014, 36, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tsang, S.; Royse, C.F.; Terkawi, A.S. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2017, 11, S80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Waltz, C.F.; Strickland, O.L.; Lenz, E.R. (Eds.) Measurement in Nursing and Health Research; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rubio, D.M.; Berg-Weger, M.; Tebb, S.S.; Lee, E.S.; Rauch, S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc. Work Res. 2003, 27, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yusoff, M.S.B. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Resource 2019, 11, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cilar, L.; Pajnkihar, M.; Štiglic, G. Validation of the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale among nursing students in Slovenia. J. Nurs. Manag. 2020, 28, 1335–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fijačko, N.; Fekonja, Z.; Denny, M.; Sharvin, B.; Pajnkihar, M.; Štiglic, G. Using content validity for the development of objective structured clinical examination checklists in a Slovenian Undergraduate Nursing program. In Teaching and Learning in Nursing; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 2006, 29, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Polit, D.F.; Beck, T.; Owen, S.V. Focus on research methods is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity. Res. Nurs. Health 2007, 30, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boateng, G.O.; Neilands, T.B.; Frongillo, E.A.; Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R.; Young, S.L. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Front. Public Health 2018, 6, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bujang, M.A.; Omar, E.D.; Baharum, N.A. A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS 2018, 25, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Balk, E.M.; Gazula, A.; Markozannes, G.; Kimmel, H.J.; Saldanha, I.J.; Resnik, L.J.; Trikalinos, T.A. Lower Limb Prostheses: Measurement Instruments, Comparison of Component Effects by Subgroups, and Long-Term Outcomes; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  49. Cohen, R.J.; Swerdlik, M.E.; Phillips, S.M. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement; Mayfield Publishing Co.: California City, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  50. Piedmont, R.L. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. In Inter-Item Correlations; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 3303–3304. [Google Scholar]
  51. Piedmont, R.L.; Hyland, M.E. Inter-item correlation frequency distribution analysis: A method for evaluating scale dimensionality. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1993, 53, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vrbnjak, D.; Pahor, D.; Nelson, J.W.; Pajnkihar, M. Content validity, face validity and internal consistency of the Slovene version of Caring Factor Survey for care providers, caring for co-workers and caring of managers. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2017, 31, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Larsson, H.; Tegern, M.; Monnier, A.; Skoglund, J.; Helander, C.; Persson, E.; Malm, C.; Broman, L.; Aasa, U. Content validity index and intra-and inter-rater reliability of a new muscle strength/endurance test battery for Swedish soldiers. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Al-Natour, S.H. Medical Students’ Perceptions of their Educational Environment at a Saudi University. Saudi J. Med. Med. Sci. 2019, 7, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. McAleer, S.; Roff, S. A practical guide to using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). AMEE Med. Educ. Guide 2001, 23, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
  56. Miles, S.; Swift, L.; Leinster, S.J. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM): A review of its adoption and use. Med. Teach. 2012, 34, e620–e634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Vaughan, B.; Carter, A.; Macfarlane, C.; Morrison, T. The DREEM, part 1: Measurement of the educational environment in an osteopathy teaching program. BMC Med. Educ. 2014, 14, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dewart, G.; Corcoran, L.; Thirsk, L.; Petrovic, K. Nursing education in a pandemic: Academic challenges in response to COVID-19. Nurse Educ. Today 2020, 92, 104471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Morin, K.H. Nursing education after COVID-19: Same or different? J. Clin. Nurs. 2020, 29, 3117–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Al-Mohaimeed, A. Perceptions of the educational environment of a new medical school, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Health Sci. 2013, 7, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Badiee Aval, S.; Morovatdar, N. Perceptions of Students toward the Educational Environment Based on the DREEM Tool in a New Nursing Scholl in Iran. J. Patient Saf. Qual. Improv. 2018, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bakhshialiabad, H.; Bakhshi, G.; Hashemi, Z.; Bakhshi, A.; Abazari, F. Improving students’ learning environment by DREEM: An educational experiment in an Iranian medical sciences university (2011–2016). BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Edgren, G.; Haffling, A.C.; Jakobsson, U.L.F.; Mcaleer, S.; Danielsen, N. Comparing the educational environment (as measured by DREEM) at two different stages of curriculum reform. Med. Teach. 2010, 32, e233–e238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Farooq, S.; Rehman, R.; Hussain, M.; Dias, J.M. Comparison of undergraduate educational environment in medical and nursing program using the DREEM tool. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 69, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hamid, B.; Faroukh, A.; Mohammadhosein, B. Nursing students’ perceptions of their educational environment based on DREEM model in an Iranian university. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS 2013, 20, 56. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hongkan, W.; Arora, R.; Muenpa, R.; Chamnan, P. Perception of educational environment among medical students in Thailand. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2018, 9, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Keskinis, C.; Bafitis, V.; Karailidou, P.; Pagonidou, C.; Pantelidis, P.; Rampotas, A.; Sideris, M.; Tsoulfas, G.; Stalkos, D. The use of theatre in medical education in the emergency cases school: An appealing and widely accessible way of learning. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2017, 6, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Ogun, O.A.; Nottidge, T.E.; Roff, S. Students’ perceptions of the learning environment in two Nigerian medical schools offering different curricula. Ghana Med. J. 2018, 52, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Alzahrani, S.S.; Soo Park, Y.; Tekian, A. Study habits and academic achievement among medical students: A comparison between male and female subjects. Med. Teach. 2018, 40, S1–S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wilhelmsson, M.; Ponzer, S.; Dahlgren, L.O.; Timpka, T.; Faresjö, T. Are female students in general and nursing students more ready for teamwork and interprofessional collaboration in healthcare? BMC Med. Educ. 2011, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ramírez-Correa, P.E.; Arenas-Gaitán, J.; Rondán-Cataluña, F.J. Gender and acceptance of e-learning: A multi-group analysis based on a structural equation model among college students in Chile and Spain. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140460. [Google Scholar]
  72. Fooladi, M.M. Gender influence on nursing education and practice at Aga Khan university school of nursing in Karachi, Pakistan. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2008, 8, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Ahmed, Y.; Taha, M.H.; Al-Neel, S.; Gaffar, A.M. Students’ perception of the learning environment and its relation to their study year and performance in Sudan. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2018, 9, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shrestha, E.; Mehta, R.S.; Mandal, G.; Chaudhary, K.; Pradhan, N. Perception of the learning environment among the students in a nursing college in Eastern Nepal. BMC Med. Educ. 2019, 19, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Fidalgo, P.; Thormann, J.; Kulyk, O.; Lencastre, J.A. Students’ perceptions on distance education: A multinational study. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Parker, E.B.; Howland, L.C. Strategies to manage the time demands of online teaching. Nurse Educ. 2006, 31, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ghiasvand, A.M.; Naderi, M.; Tafreshi, M.Z.; Ahmadi, F.; Hosseini, M. Relationship between time management skills and anxiety and academic motivation of nursing students in Tehran. Electron. Physician 2017, 9, 3678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Quina Galdino, M.J.; Preslis Brando Matos de Almeida, L.; Ferreira Rigonatti da Silva, L.; Cremer, E.; Rolim Scholze, A.; Trevisan Martins, J.; Haddad, F.L.; do Carmo, M. Burnout among nursing students: A mixed method study. Investig. Educ. Enferm. 2020, 38, e07. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Chaabane, S.; Chaabna, K.; Bhagat, S.; Abraham, A.; Doraiswamy, S.; Mamtani, R.; Cheema, S. Perceived stress, stressors, and coping strategies among nursing students in the Middle East and North Africa: An overview of systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nebhinani, M.; Kumar, A.; Parihar, A.; Rani, R. Stress and coping strategies among undergraduate nursing students: A descriptive assessment from Western Rajasthan. Indian J. Community Med. Off. Publ. Indian Assoc. Prev. Soc. Med. 2020, 45, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Aiyer, A.; Surani, S.; Gill, Y.; Ratnani, I.; Sunesara, S. COVID-19 anxiety and stress survey (cass) in high school and college students due to coronavirus disease 2019. Chest 2020, 158, A314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lai, A.Y.K.; Lee, L.; Wang, M.P.; Feng, Y.; Lai, T.T.K.; Ho, L.M.; Lam, V.S.F.; Ip, M.S.M.; Lam, T.H. Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on international university students, related stressors, and coping strategies. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 584240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A.J.; Pantaleón, Y.; Dios, I.; Falla, D. Fear of COVID-19, Stress, and Anxiety in University Undergraduate Students: A Predictive Model for Depression. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 3041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Lischer, S.; Safi, N.; Dickson, C. Remote learning and students’ mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: A mixed-method enquiry. Prospects 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Khalil, R.; Mansour, A.E.; Fadda, W.A.; Almisnid, K.; Aldamegh, M.; Al-Nafeesah, A.; Alkhalifah, A.; Al-Wutayd, O. The sudden transition to synchronized online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A qualitative study exploring medical students’ perspectives. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
The Burden of Diabetes-Related Preventable Hospitalization: 11-Year Trend and Associated Factors in a Region of Southern Italy
Previous
Costs of Stroke and Incidence of First Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation at Time of Stroke. Neurology Ward Hospital Poznań, Poland 2018
Next