4.2 Article

Student perceptions of the learning environment in Norwegian occupational therapy education programs

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/11038128.2020.1831058

关键词

Higher education; learning environment; students

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines occupational therapy students' perceptions of the learning environment and finds that these perceptions change over time. While there is initial similarity in perceptions during the first two years of study, differences reoccur in the third year.
Background To support students' motivation towards constructive and persistent study efforts, their learning environment needs attention. Aim To develop knowledge about occupational therapy students' perceptions of the learning environment and assess whether identified differences between education programs were stable or changed across the 3 years of study. Methods Norwegian occupational therapy students completed the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) while in their first, second, and third years of study. Differences between programs were analysed with multivariate and univariate analysis of variance. Results Among the first-year students, perceptions of the learning environment differed significantly between the six programs on five out of six scales. Apart from a continued difference on overall study satisfaction, the initial differences were no longer significant 1 year later. Differences on three scales (emphasis on independence, appropriate workload, and generic skills) were present in the third year of study. Conclusions and significance Students' perceptions of the learning environment became more similar over time, during the first 2 years of study, possibly reflecting that the students have become more accustomed to the student role and to the culture and requirements of the education programs. However, differences between study sites re-occurring in the third year suggest that group-based comparisons of learning environment perceptions across time may be inconclusive.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据