Examining nursing students’ perceptions of educational environment: Further validation of DREEM instrument
Educational environment is an essential foundation for the effective learning process of students, which in turn contributes to the success of a curriculum.
The evaluation of educational environment from students’ perception has been considered as an indicator for the quality improvement of higher education. This study aimed to explore the Vietnamese nursing students’ perception of educational environment and identify internal consistency reliability of the Vietnamese version of the Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) instrument.
Subjects and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 102 second-year undergraduate nursing students in a medical university. An online survey, including the 50-item DREEM questionnaire, was used to obtain student’s perception of learning environment.
Results: The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the V-DREEM in this study was 0.95 and five sub-scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.85, demonstrating that the V-DREEM instrument has good internal consistency reliability for measurement. The overall score of DREEM was 143.89/200 (SD =17.50), indicating a positive educational environment perceived.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the items were rated high score, however, there were aspects perceived as problematic including teaching methods (The teaching is too teacher-centered), student-teacher interactions (The students irritate and annoy the teachers), and students’ learning approaches (I feel able to ask the questions I want).
Conclusion: The study results suggested the specific areas, including teaching methods, student-teacher interactions, and students’ learning approaches, that need more attention to enhance the educational environment for nursing students in Vietnam where the reform of nursing education has eventuated recently.
1. Introduction
Globally, the educational environment has been demonstrated as an important element for students’ learning that influences the effectiveness of a curriculum, students’ learning behaviors and academic achievement. Evaluation of the educational environment is the key component of curricula appraisal and quality improvement of courses. Particularly, in nursing education, understanding theimportance of the learning environment and its impact on students’ learning experience is essential for educational providers in resolving ongoing educational problems, refining curriculums, improving the quality of education as well as strengthening the learning experience and performance for students. Perceptions of nursing students on how the elements of the educational environment impact their learning experiences provide concrete evidence on the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the learning environment in which nursing students study in any medical institution.
1.1. Literature review
In Vietnam, nursing education currently includes undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Four-year bachelor’s undergraduate nursing programs are provided primarily at universities, while 2-year secondary and 3-year college programs are offered at provincial colleges. The length of the undergraduate nursing program for the bachelor’s degree in Vietnam is different with other countries, such as Indonesia (five years) and Australia (three years). Nursing education in Vietnam has been reformed exponentially by increasing training facilities and enhancing the quality of education to meet the demands of healthcare services and healthcare workforce. Traditional teaching methods have been replaced by active student-centered teaching and learning methods, while a competency-based curriculum for nursing students has also been developed and implemented. In addition, the nursing curricula in Vietnam have been integrated with the international nursing curricula through global training projects to improve the quality of education.
However, due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), global education has been affected, meaning many colleges and universities over the world were closed, the teaching and learning strategies had to adjust and adapt accordingly. With the option of studying on-campus no longer available, online learning has been adopted as a new way of teaching and learning used extensively during the outbreak. There were also significant challenges reported for students when studying online, such as limited interaction and communication with teachers, lower concentration in online classes then leading to more confusion, experience, and capacity shortage in using technology. In Vietnam, education has changed since 2020, such as adjusting the educational curriculum, reducing the content of the curriculum, and changing the teaching-learning method from face-to-face to online to cope with and adapt to the new situation. Nevertheless, during this period, there were limited studies conducted in Vietnam to explore how nursing students perceive their educational environment.
There is a variety of methodologies utilized to examine learning environment, such as questionnaires or qualitative approaches. The 50-item Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM) is one of the most validated instruments used to investigate educational environment experienced by students in higher health education. In addition, the findings from the DREEM have been reported to be consistent with results of qualitative approach, and demonstrate the strengths and limitations of any specific educational institution. The DREEM instrument was originally designed by Roff and her colleagues in 1997 to measure the educational environment particularly for medical schools. The English version of the DREEM, with consistently high reliability, has then been widely used to measure the perception of health students of educational environment experience, including medicine and nursing students. The DREEM then has been translated into different languages, validated and applied in multiple educational settings in non-English speaking countries, such as in Nigeria and Nepal, Trinidad, India, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Sweden, Indonesia, Green. TheVietnamese version of theDREEM had been created following a translation process and reported with good content validity by Hoang. However, there is a limitation of further validation of the DREEM instrument in the Vietnamese version to evaluate the educational environment after Hoang’s study, particularly under the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the total four years of bachelor’s undergraduate nursing programs, the junior first-year nursing students are in the transition process of learning from teaching-centered methods in the high school education environment toward student-centered learning at universities and not exposed to many areas of nursing curricula. While the third- and fourth-year nursing students are more likely to have a positive perception of the educational environment as they advance in each year of their study. This study, therefore, aimed to explore the perceptions of the second-year undergraduate nursing students on their current educational environment, who have had one year of learning experience at school and preparing for the first clinical placement and identify internal consistency reliability of the Vietnamese version of the DREEM instrument.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
A cross-sectional study was conducted at a medical univesity located in the North of Vietnam with the data collected from the second-year undergraduate nursing students.
2.2. Recruitment and Sampling
The study’s information was sent out and posted on online nursing student forums to invite and encourage second-year undergraduate nursing students to participate, such as XXXX Confessions (Facebook), and Nursing Class Groups (Zalo). Participants logged on using the link provided, the first page included information of study and consent form. They moved on to a questionnaire to see if they agreed. All participants had to complete mandatory questions before submitting. A convenient sample of second-year undergraduate nursing students was undertaken.
Inclusion criteria: nursing students who were in their second year, currently enrolled in the first semester of 2021, preparing for their first clinical placement in a specialty, and willing to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria: nursing students who were in the first, third or fourth year of their nursing education. A total of 102 out of 120 second year (85% responses) nursing students responded to participate in the study.
2.3. Data collection
Due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection was conducted using an online survey from August to October 2021. Several strategies were employed by researchers to minimize the likelihood of participants simply ticking answers without reading and considering the questions. For example, ‘instructions and guidance’ involved providing clear and explicit instructions at the survey outset, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful and honest responses. ‘Monitoring response pattern’ entailed researchers analyzing response patterns to detect anomalies or suspicious trends. Consistent patterns of response, such as ticking from top to bottom by many participants, might indicate inattentive or insincere responses.
2.4. Instrument
A questionnaire including two sections was used to collect data. Section one is participants’ demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, current accommodation, social group participation, academic achievement (GPA). Section two is the 50-item DREEM questionnaire utilized to explore nursing students’ perception of the educational environment.
The DREEM instrument is comprised of 50 items and categorized into five subscales including students’ perceptions of learning (12 items), students’ perceptions of teachers (11 items), students’ perceptions of academic self-perceptions (8 items), students’ perceptions of atmosphere (12 items), and students’ perceptions of social self-perceptions (7 items). Nine of the total 50 items, including 4, 8, 9, 17, 25, 35, 39, 48 and 50, are reverse items. Each item is scored on a five-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = unsure, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). Higher DREEM scores indicate a more positive educational environment. The DREEM’s results can be evaluated at three levels, including overall DREEM score, subscales and individual items, and the interpretation for each level is presented in Table 1.
Student’s course satisfaction was measured by nursing students’ responses to the statement “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course”, rated on a 5-point Likert scale where 5 – agree, 4 – agree somewhat, 3 – unsure, 2 – disagree somewhat, 1 – disagree. In the data analysis, this variable was categorized into two groups named “Agree” (if the statement was rated with a score of 4 and 5) and “Disagree” (if the statement was rated with a score of 3, 2, or 1).
| Levels | Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall DREEM score | 0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 |
Very poor Plenty of problems More positive than negative Excellent |
| Subscales | ||
| Students’ perceptions of learning | 0-12 13-24 25-36 37-48 |
Very poor Teaching is viewed negatively A more positive approach Teaching highly thought of |
| Students’ perceptions of teachers | 0-11 12-22 23-33 34-44 |
Abysmal In need of some retraining Moving in the right direction Model teachers |
| Students’ perceptions of academic self-perceptions | 0-8 9-16 17-24 25-32 |
Feeling of total failure Many negative aspects Feeling more on the positive side Confident |
| Students’ perceptions of atmosphere | 0-12 13-24 25-36 37-48 |
A terrible environment There are many issues that need changing A more positive atmosphere A good feeling overall |
| Students’ perceptions of social self-perceptions | 0-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 |
Miserable Not a nice place Not too bad Very good socially |
| Individual items | ≤ 2 Between 2 and 3 > 3 |
Problematic area Could be enhanced or improved Real positive points |
2.5. Statistical analysis
Stata software version 16 was utilized to enter and analyze data. Demographic variables were presented in frequencies. The Cronbach’s alpha test for both the total score and subscale scores was calculated to determine the internal consistency of the Vietnamese’s DREEM version.
As the data is normally distributed, means and standard deviations were calculated and utilized for scores of each item, subscale, and scale of the Vietnamese’s DREEM. The association of the demographic characteristics and the DREEM total score were assessed using a one-way ANOVA, independent Samples T-Test and Pearson test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
2.6. Ethical Considerations
This study obtained ethical approval from the Ethical Review Board for Biomedical Research of Vinmec International Hospital JSC – VinUnivesity (No.114/2020/QD-VMEC). All study information was given to the participant in accordance with the survey link. The participants’ submission of their completed surveys indicated their consent to participate in the study.
3. Results
3.1. Demographic characteristics
The participants’ characteristics are presented in Table 2. Among 102 respondents, seventeen (16.67%) were males and eighty-five (88.33%) were female. Most students were living in private accommodation outside the university campus (65.68%) and one third were living in campus accommodation (30.39%). Approximately two thirds of participants did not have a part-time job (71.57%). The mean GPA of a ten – point scale of nursing students in the first year was 5.92 (SD = 0.67).
| Variables | n | Percentages (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male Female |
17 85 |
16,67 83,33 |
| Age | Median = 19 | IQR = 0 | |
| Current accommodation arrangement | Campus accommodation Private accommodation Living with family |
31 67 4 |
30,39 65,68 3,84 |
| Part-time job | No Yes |
73 29 |
71,57 28,43 |
| Gender | No Yes |
85 17 |
83,33 16,67 |
| Student affairs/ services in school | No Yes |
32 70 |
31,37 68,63 |
| GPA in the 1st year | Mean = 5,92; SD = 0,67 | Range (Mix – Max) = 4 – 7,55 |
3.2. Students’ perception of their current nursing educational environment
Table 3 shows the overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the V-DREEM in this study was 0.95 and five sub-scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.85, demonstrating that the V-DREEM instrument has good internal consistency and adequate reliability for measurement.
The total mean score of the DREEM was 143.89 out of 200 (SD = 17.50) which indicated that students’ perception of the educational environment was more positive than negative. Regarding each domain of the DREEM instrument, the total mean score of the perception of learning subscale was 35.28 out of 48 (SD = 4.69), which represented a more positive perception of participants of the learning environment.
For the domain perception of teachers with the maximum score of 44, students perceived the performance of teachers to move in the right direction with the mean score 31.68 (SD = 4.00). The mean score of the academic self-perception domain (M = 23.96, SD = 3.71) suggested that nursing students felt more on the positive side of their academic achievement. For domain perceptions of atmosphere, the total score was 33.47 (SD = 4.39); this score indicated a positive participant perception of atmosphere. The score of the last subscale social self-perceptions (M = 19.50, SD = 3.27) demonstrated students’ perception of the social environment in the school was acceptable. (Table 3)
| Scale | No. of items | Mean | SD | Score interpretation | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Perception of Learning Environment | 50 | 143,89 | 17,50 | More positive than negative | 0,948 |
| Students’ perceptions of learning (SPL) | 12 | 35,28 | 4,69 | A more positive approach | 0,855 |
| Students’ perceptions of teachers (SPT) | 11 | 31,68 | 4,00 | Moving in the right direction | 0,828 |
| Students’ academic self-perception (SAP) | 8 | 23,96 | 3,71 | Feeling more on the positive side | 0,843 |
| Students’ perception of atmosphere (SPA) | 12 | 33,47 | 4,39 | A more positive atmosphere | 0,80 |
| Students’ social self-perceptions (SSP) | 7 | 19,50 | 3,27 | Not too bad | 0,743 |
In terms of individual items of the Vietnamese DREEM, a total of 29 items were perceived in positive points with a mean score more than 3.0 36. There were three items perceived with the highest scores, including “The teachers are knowledgeable” (M = 3.45, SD = 0.52), “The teachers appear to have effective communication skills with students” (M = 3.36, SD = 0.54) and “There are opportunities for me to develop interpersonal skills” (M = 3.25, SD = 0.52). Scores of 18 items presented in all five groups were between 2.0 and 3.0, indicating that these aspects of the educational environment need to be enhanced, such as “The teaching over emphasizes factual learning”, “The teachers get angry in teaching sessions”, “I am able to memorize all I need”, “I find the experience disappointing”, “There is a good support system for students who get stressed”. In addition, there were three items perceived as problematic areas that were scored less than 2.0 and need to be paid attention to improve the educational environment, particularly “The teaching is too teacher-centered” (M = 1.89, SD = 1.01), “The students irritate and annoy the teachers” (M = 1.77, SD = 1.02), “I feel able to ask the questions I want” (M = 0.77, SD = 0.6). The detailed information is presented in Tables 4 and 5.
| Each item | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
| Students’ perceptions of learning (SPL) | ||
| 1. I am encouraged to participate in class 7. Teaching is often stimulating 13. Teaching is student-centred 16. The teaching helps to develop my competence 20. The teaching is well focused 21. The teaching helps to develop my confidence 24. The teaching time is put to good use 25. The teaching over emphasizes factual learning* 38. I am clear about the learning objectives of the course 44. The teaching encourages me to be an active learner 47. Long-term learning is emphasized over short-term learning 48. The teaching is too teacher-centered* |
3,24 2,90 3,12 3,21 3,22 3,17 3,09 2,07 3,14 3,12 3,13 1,89 |
0,55 0,67 0,63 0,60 0,54 0,58 0,55 1,0 0,56 0,51 0,61 1,01 |
| Students’ perceptions of teachers (SPT) | ||
| 2. The teachers are knowledgeable | 3,45 | 0,52 |
| Students’ academic self- perception (SAP) | ||
| 5. Learning strategies which worked for me before continue to work for me now 10. I am confident about passing this year 22. I feel I am being well prepared for my profession 26. Last year’s work was good preparation for this year’s work 27. I am able to memorise all I need 31. I have learned a lot about empathy in my profession 41. My problem-solving skills are being well developed 45. Much of what I have to learn seems relevant to a career in healthcare |
2,78 2,92 3,18 3,21 2,44 3,23 3,04 3,17 |
0,75 0,74 0,58 0,57 0,79 0,58 0,64 0,68 |
| Students’ perception of atmosphere (SPA) | ||
| 11. The atmosphere is relaxed during ward teaching 12. This school is well time-tabled 17. Cheating is a problem in this school* 23. The atmosphere is relaxed during teaching. 30. There are opportunities for me to develop interpersonal skills 6. The teachers are patient with students. 8. The teachers make fun of their students* 9. The teachers are strict and controlling* 18. The teachers appear to have effective communication skills with students 29. The teachers are good at providing feedback to students 32. The teachers provide constructive criticism 37. The teachers give clear examples 39. The teachers get angry in teaching sessions* 40. The teachers are well prepared for their classes 49. The students irritate and annoy the teachers |
3 3,08 2,25 3,02 3,25 3,20 2,91 2,81 3,36 3,09 3,19 3,20 2,51 3,19 1,77 |
0,64 0,62 1,23 0,66 0,52 0,53 0,98 0,97 0,54 0,62 0,56 0,49 1,10 0,59 1,02 |
| Students’ social self-perceptions (SSP) | ||
| 3. There is a good support system for students who get stressed 4. I am too tired to enjoy this course* 14. I am rarely bored in this course 15. I have good friends in this school 19. My social life is good 28. I seldom feel lonely 46. My accommodation is pleasant |
2,5 2,5 2,81 3,14 2,81 2,72 3,02 |
0,84 0,88 0,75 0,5 0,71 0,78 0,64 |
And
| Items could be enhanced | Items are problematic |
|---|---|
| Teaching is often stimulating The teaching over emphasizes factual learning* The teachers make fun of their students* The teachers are strict and controlling* The teachers get angry in teaching sessions* Learning strategies which worked for me before continue to work for me now I am confident about passing this year I am able to memorise all I need Cheating is a problem in this school* I find the experience disappointing* I am able to concentrate well The enjoyment outweighs the stress of the course The atmosphere motivates me as a learner There is a good support system for students who get stressed I am too tired to enjoy this course* I am rarely bored in this course My social life is good I seldom feel lonely |
The teaching is too teacher-centered* The students irritate and annoy the teachers. I feel able to ask the questions I want* |
3.3. The associations between the Vietnamese DREEM, demographic characteristics, and students’ course satisfaction
There is an association between the student’s course satisfaction with the nursing program and the DREEM (Table 6). The students who reported “Agree” with the statement of “students’ satisfaction with the nursing program”, perceived higher scores for the Vietnamese DREEM than those who reported “Disagree”, p<0.05. Students perceiving “Yes” with the statement of “Student affairs/services in school” were more likely to give higher scores for the DREEM than those who perceived “No”, p=0.05. However, there is no statistically significant difference between the DREEM and demographic characteristics of participants, such as age, gender, current accommodation arrangement, part-time job, , social group participation, student affairs/services in school, and their GPA in the first year.
4. Discussion
In this study, the internal consistency of the V-DREEM was evaluated to conduct for further psychometric assessment. Feasibility was determined by analyzing the response rate and questionnaire completeness. The study revealed that all participants submitted completed questionnaires without any missing values, indicating a general understanding of the Vietnamese version of the DREEM measurement.
Importantly, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient results for the DREEM displayed good internal consistency in this study. This finding aligns with the results of Hoang’s study (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80) conducted in the Vietnamese educational context.
However, this study was conducted amidst the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Vietnam’s educational system, differing from Hoang’s study. Despite these differences, the findings illustrate that the V-DREEM instrument maintains good reliability.
The total mean score of the Vietnamese DREEM in this study indicated the medical university has achieved a positive perception of nursing students of the educational environment. This finding suggests that the second-year nursing students are more likely to enjoy their learning experience at this educational facility.
Even though, the positive perception of educational environment has been illustrated in other international studies and another study conducted in Vietnam, the overall mean score in this study is higher. According to Rochmawati and colleagues, higher DREEM score reflects a more student-centered curriculum, thus, this result suggests that the nursing curricula in this school is more likely student-centered.
In addition, currently significant changes in nursing education in the present nursing school might result in a more positive educational environment perceived by nursing students. For example, nursing teachers are more responsible for teaching than medical doctors and the quality of human resources is also higher with more nurses having master’s and doctorate degrees.
Furthermore, the school where this study was conducted has implemented the nursing competency-based practice standards to rebuild the nursing curriculum which might be a contribution to create a positive learning environment for nursing students. Another possible element contributing to a high score of DREEM in this study is that the study sample included only second-year nursing students who have adapted to the changes in teaching methods and educational environment of the nursing curricula.
Previous studies involving nursing students from the first year to the fourth year reported lower score of DREEM as there was a significant difference between the students’ perception of learning environment and the year enrollment. Particularly, a study conducted by Shrestha and colleagues in Eastern Nepal revealed the highest DREEM score among the first-year students, followed by the third-year students and second-year students respectively and the fourth-year students had the lowest mean score.
This might be because the fourth-year students are exposed to all the areas in the nursing curricula and more stressed than other years. Contract result to the present finding, a research conducted in Egypt found that nursing students had a negative view of their learning environment. The differences in the groups studied and the environments they were in could explain the differences in their perceptions.
The subscale scores of the DREEM in this study according to the interpretation of the DREEM suggested by indicated that the nursing students’ perception of learning, teachers, their academic self, and atmosphere were positive. These findings align with studies from other countries.
The domain of social self-perception in this study was perceived as acceptable plus with five out of seven items (3, 4, 14, 19, 28) scored between 2.0 and 3.0, suggesting the specific areas of student support could be enhanced. This may be because although there is available support for students in the school, nevertheless, several students still felt lonely, tired, and stressed which was explained by evidence from individual items (3, 4, 28, 42).
These problems are commonly reported in health education in previous studies. There are effective support programs suggested in research to help university students to deal with academic stress, social loneliness and tiredness, such as peer-support programs 42and mentoring programs.
In terms of examining each item of the DREEM, those items in this study were categorized into three different areas, such as problematic area with a mean score less than 2.0, could be enhanced area with the mean score between 2.0 and 3.0, and real positive area with a mean score more than 3.0.
According to McAleer and Roff, items scored three and more than three illustrating the positive areas. The nursing students in this study perceived that the teachers are knowledgeable and appear to have effective communication skills with students, and there are opportunities for them to develop interpersonal skills. This finding demonstrates the positive atmosphere present in the education institution, which is consistent with the finding seen in the study conducted by Sharkawy.
In this study, there were three problematic items perceived by the nursing students, including “The teaching is too teacher-centered”, “The students irritate and annoy the teachers” and “I feel able to ask the questions I want”. This finding is inconsistent with the result of Ramsbotham and colleagues’ 2016 study conducted in the Vietnamese context, where they found that the mean item scores of V-DREEM ranged from 2.12 to 3.03, with none of the items scored in the problematic range.
A possible explanation is that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to limitations in communication and interaction between teachers and students due to the shift to online teaching methods. Consequently, teachers faced difficulties in organizing learning activities, and students were less engaged in these online activities. Additionally, some teachers or instructors lacking experience in learner-centered teaching tended to rely on traditional teaching methods rather than utilizing learner-centered approaches.
Consequently, students still passively studied and did not want to be engaged and involved in learning activities. The interaction between students and teachers, therefore, was limited and they did not want to ask questions that they wanted. Based on these results, this study suggests that Vietnamese nursing institutions should pay more attention in applying a student-centered teaching approach which is considered as a key element in enhancing students’ overall scores regarding the learning environment.
This study shows that students who were satisfied with the nursing program in the nursing school were more likely to have a positive perception of the educational environment. Essentially, it implies that when students feel content with the nursing program itself-its structure, curriculum, faculty, resources, etc.
They are inclined to view the overall educational environment more positively. It’s a connection indicating that a satisfying experience within the program contributes to a favorable perception of the broader educational setting, likely due to the impact of their positive experiences within the program on their overall educational outlook.
A similar finding was seen in a study conducted by Sharkawy where the first-year students had the highest score in perception of learning environment compared to second, third and four-year students. This might be explained by their enjoyment of the initial year of the nursing program and experiencing less stress related to their studies.
Another finding in this study was that students who perceived “Yes” for the statement of available student affairs/services in their school were more likely to give a higher DREEM score than those perceived “No”. Even though the current school has got student affairs/services, there were still some students who may not be approached to support them dealing with their psychological problems.
In fact, there is a limitation of mental health services to support undergraduates, who are often in a high pressure from their academic courses, students’ life, during their study among educational institutions in Vietnam. Majority of participants in this study were female, however, the gender factor was unlikely to have impact on the study results. This finding is consistent with other studies, in which gender did not affect the students’ perception of the educational environment.
However, the study results need to be interpreted with its limitations. This present study explored the perception of the second-year undergraduate nursing students at one point in time in a Vietnamese medical university, thus, the results may not be representative for other groups of nursing students and the setting was limited to one institution of nursing.
These elements reduce the generalizability of the study results. In addition, the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly impacted on education. Consequently, there is a need for further development of questions regarding online learning to address emerging issues. Controlling participant behavior and ensuring genuine responses in the online data collection setting were also challenging for researchers.
5. Implications
Even though this study was conducted in Vietnam, there are broader implications for international undergraduate nursing education. Evaluating the educational environment, including curricula, institutional culture and learning environment, provides meaningful understanding of how and what nursing students learn and extends more evidence of nursing students’ perception of potential areas that facilitate and barrier their learning at the university.
Educational providers in the nursing field, therefore, should consider the study findings in determining the possible areas of interruption to nursing students’ learning that need to be paid attention to and improved. Within the Vietnamese context, the study results demonstrate the Vietnamese version of the DREEM is an ideal instrument with good reliability that has been validated and highly recommended for a wide use in Vietnam and other educational institutions should use it to evaluate the educational environment.
6. Conclusion
In this study, the perception of nursing students of their educational environment is more positive than negative. Continuously improving the quality of learning environment is important in this nursing school as there were three learning environment areas that need to be improved, including teaching methods, student-teacher interactions, and students’ learning approaches.
Future studies should be conducted among different year-groups of nursing students and a qualitative approach is recommended to have an in-depth understanding of students’ perception toward their educational environment, particularly in nursing education.
References
[1] Pai PG, Menezes V, Srikanth S, Subramanian AM, Shenoy JP. Medical students’ perception of their educational environment. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research. 2014;8(1):103-7.
[2] Shrestha E, Mehta RS, Mandal G, Chaudhary K, Pradhan N. Perception of the learning environment among the students in a nursing college in Eastern Nepal. BMC medical education. 2019;19(1):1-7.
[3] Ramsbotham J, Dinh H, Truong H, Huong N, Dang T, Nguyen C, et al. Evaluating the learning environment of nursing students: A multisite cross-sectional study. Nurse education today. 2019;79:80-5.
[4] Fuenzalida B, Pizarro M, Fuentes J, San Martín C, Rojas V, López-Fuenzalida A, et al. Educational environment perception in Physiotherapy undergraduate students: Mixed methodology. Educación médica. 2020;21(3):158-67.
[5] Kang S, Ho TTT, Nguyen TAP. Capacity Development in an Undergraduate Nursing Program in Vietnam. Frontiers in public health. 2018;6:146.
[6] Rochmawati E, Rahayu GR, Kumara A. Educational environment and approaches to learning of undergraduate nursing students in an Indonesian School of Nursing. Nurse Education in Practice. 2014;14(6):729-33.
[7] Schwartz S. Educating the Nurse of the Future. Report of the Independent Review of Nursing Education. 2019.
[8] Chapman H, Lewis P, Osborne Y, Gray G. An action research approach for the professional development of Vietnamese nurse educators. Nurse education today. 2013;33(2):129-3
[9] Harvey T, Calleja P, Thi DP. Improving access to quality clinical nurse teaching – A partnership between Australia and Vietnam. Nurse education today. 2013;33(6):671-6.
[10] Lewis PA, Osborne Y, Gray G, Lacaze A-M. Design and Delivery of a Distance Education Programme: Educating Vietnamese Nurse Academics from Australia. Procedia, social and behavioral sciences. 2012;47:1462-8.
[11] 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. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(21):1-15
[12] Rajab MH, Gazal AM, Alkattan K. Challenges to Online Medical Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Curēus (Palo Alto, CA). 2020;12(7):e8966-e.
[13] 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. Journal of medical Internet research. 2020;22(9):e21279-e.
[14] Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of educational technology systems. 2020;49(1):5-22
[15] Tien Pham Do Nhat. Ensuring and certifying the quality of higher education in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic: Impacts and issues. Vietnam Educational Science Magazine.2021;37(1):1-7.
[16] Bakhshialiabad H, Bakhshi M, Hassanshahi G. Students’ perceptions of the academic learning environment in seven medical sciences courses based on DREEM. Advances in medical education and practice. 2015;6:195.
[17] Bouhaimed M, Thalib L, Doi SA. Perception of the educational environment by medical students undergoing a curricular transition in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice. 2009;18(3):204-8
[18] Kadam Y, Quraishi S, Waghachavare V, Dhobale R, Mane A, Gore A. A cross-sectional study of students’ perception of educational environment and its determinants using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure scale. BLDE university journal of health sciences. 2020;5(1):53-9.
[19] Haraldseid C, Friberg F, Aase K. Nursing students’ perceptions of factors influencing their learning environment in a clinical skills laboratory: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today. 2015;35(9):e1-e6.
[20] Regan L, Hopson LR, Gisondi MA, Branzetti J. Creating a better learning environment: a qualitative study uncovering the experiences of Master Adaptive Learners in residency. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):141
[21] Idon PI, Suleiman IK, Olasoji HO. Students’ Perceptions of the Educational Environment in a New Dental School in Northern Nigeria. Journal of Education and practice. 2015;6(8):139-47.
[22] Denz-Penhey H, Murdoch JC. A comparison between findings from the DREEM questionnaire and that from qualitative interviews. Medical teacher. 2009;31(10):e449-e53.
[23] Roff S, McAleer S, Harden RM, Al-Qahtani M, Ahmed AU, DezaH, et al. Development and validation of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Medical teacher. 1997;19(4):295-9.
[24] Miles S, Swift L, Leinster SJ. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM): A review of its adoption and use. Medical Teacher. 2012;34(9):e620-e34
[25] Roff S. The Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM)-a generic instrument for measuring students’ perceptions of undergraduate health professions curricula. Medical teacher. 2005;27(4):322-5.
[26] Roff S, McAleer S, Ifere OS, Bhattacharya S. A global diagnostic fool for measuring educational environment: comparing Nigeria and Nepal. Medical teacher. 2001;23(4):378-82.
[27] Bassaw B, Roff S, McAleer S, Roopnarinesingh S, De Lisle J, Teelucksingh S, et al. Students’ perspectives on the educational environment, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Trinidad. Medical teacher. 2003;25(5):522-6.
[28] Mayya S, Roff S. Students Perceptions of Educational Environment: A Comparison of Academic Achievers and Under-Achievers at Kasturba Medical College, India. Education for health (Abingdon, England). 2004;17(3):280-91.
[29] Jiffry M, McAleer S, Fernando S, Marasinghe R. Using the DREEM questionnaire to gather baseline information on an evolving medical school in Sri Lanka. Medical teacher. 2005;27(4):348-52.
[30] Riquelme A, Oporto M, Oporto J, Méndez JI, Viviani P, Salech F, et al. Measuring students’ perceptions of the educational climate of the new curriculum at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: performance of the Spanish translation of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Education for health (Abingdon, England). 2009;22(1):112.
[31] Edgren G, Haffling A-C, Jakobsson U, Mcaleer S, Danielsen N. Comparing the educational environment (as measured by DREEM) at two different stages of curriculum reform. Medical teacher. 2010;32(6):e233-e8.
[32] Kossioni AE, Varela R, Ekonomu I, Lyrakos G, Dimoliatis IDK. Students’ perceptions of the educational environment in a Greek Dental School, as measured by DREEM. European Journal of Dental Education. 2012;16(1):e73-e8
[33] Hoang LV. Translation, Adaption and Content Validation of the DREEM instrument: A Vietnamese Nursing Education Pilot Project (Master Dissertation). : Queensland University of Technology, Australia 2013.
[34] D’Souza Prima Jenevive J, Shalini GN. Impact of Educational Environment and Learning Approaches on Academic Outcome of Undergraduate Nursing Students. International journal of caring sciences. 2019;12(3):1530-6.
[35] Hoang LV, Ramsbotham J. Translation and Validation of the DREEM instrument in educational assessment: Initial research in nursing education in Vietnam. Vietnam National Nursing Journal. 2020;31:84-8.
[36] McAleer S, Roff S. A practical guide to using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). AMEE medical education guide. 2001;23(5):29-33.
[37] Said NM, Rogayah J, Hafizah A. A study of learning environments in the Kulliyyah (Faculty) of Nursing, International Islamic University Malaysia. The Malaysian journal of medical sciences: MJMS. 2009;16(4):15.
[38] Nasir N, Mulud ZA. Psychological Stress in Final Year Nursing Students: The role of clinical environment. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal. 2020;5(14):61-6.
[39] Sharkawy S.A E-HAA, Hassan A.K. Students’ perceptions of educational environment in the faculties of nursing at Assiut, Sohag and South Valley universities. Assiut University Bulletin for Environmental Researches. 2013;16(2):167-97.
[41] Vaughan B, Carter A, Macfarlane C, Morrison T. The DREEM, part 1: Measurement of the educational environment in an osteopathy teaching program. BMC medical education. 2014;14(1):99
[42] Zawawi AH, Elzubeir M. Using DREEM to compare graduating students′ perceptions of learning environments at medical schools adopting contrasting educational strategies. Medical teacher. 2012;34(sup1):S25-S31
[43] Abrams MP, Salzman J, Espina Rey A, Daly K. Impact of Providing Peer Support on Medical Students’ Empathy, Self-Efficacy, and Mental Health Stigma. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9).
[44] Nimmons D, Giny S, Rosenthal J. Medical student mentoring programs: current insights. Advances in medical education and practice. 2019;10:113.
[45] Nghia TLH, Phuong PTN, Huong TLK. Implementing the student-centred teaching approach in Vietnamese universities: the influence of leadership and management practices on teacher engagement. Educational Studies. 2020;46(2):188-204.
[46] Benlahcene A, Lashari SA, Lashari TA, Shehzad MW, Deli W. Exploring the Perception of Students Using Student-Centered Learning Approach in a Malaysian Public University. International journal of higher education. 2020;9(1):204.
[47] Pham H-H, Ho T-T-H. Toward a ‘new normal’with e-learning in Vietnamese higher education during the post COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Research & Development. 2020;39(7):1327-31.
[48] Dimoliatis IDK, Vasilaki E, Anastassopoulos P, Ioannidis JPA, Roff S. Validation of the Greek translation of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Education for health (Abingdon, England). 2010;23(1):348.
[49] Prashanth GP, Ismail SK. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure: A prospective comparative study of undergraduate medical students’ and interns’ perceptions in Oman. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2018;18(2):e173-e8
Author: Hoang Thi Hue, Hai Duong Medical Technical University
Author: Bui Thi Hien, Phan Hong Anh, Nguyen Thi Hoa Huyen, Hoang Lan Van, College of Health Sciences, VinUniversity
You are viewing the article:
Examining nursing students’ perceptions of educational environment: Further validation of DREEM instrument
Link https://tampacific.com/jns/examining-nursing-students-perceptions-of-educational-environment-further-validation-of-dreem-instrument.html
* This work is licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.