Susan Miles1, Sam J Leinster. 1. Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. susan.miles@uea.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to compare staff and student perceptions of student experience with the UEA MB/BS educational environment. METHODS: All MB/BS students were asked to complete a standard course evaluation at the end of the 2005/06 academic year, which included the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). MB/BS teaching staff were asked to complete a revised version of the DREEM. RESULTS: Data from 403 students and 73 teaching staff were compared. The overall DREEM was 144/200 for staff and 141/200 for students. Initial analysis suggested that staff believed that students' were experiencing more positive learning and teaching environments than students actually were, and they viewed the students' social experience as more negative than it actually was. However, staff were unable to comment on number of aspects of the educational environment and scored these as 'unsure'. This distorted the mean values for the subscales. When this was adjudged for, the differences disappeared. CONCLUSIONS: Staff did not believe that students were experiencing a perfect educational environment; in most cases their views were closely aligned. But staff 's unfamiliarity with aspects of the educational environment suggests a continuing need to provide feedback to staff about students' actual experiences, to enable provision of a better environment for students.
AIM: The aim was to compare staff and student perceptions of student experience with the UEA MB/BS educational environment. METHODS: All MB/BS students were asked to complete a standard course evaluation at the end of the 2005/06 academic year, which included the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). MB/BS teaching staff were asked to complete a revised version of the DREEM. RESULTS: Data from 403 students and 73 teaching staff were compared. The overall DREEM was 144/200 for staff and 141/200 for students. Initial analysis suggested that staff believed that students' were experiencing more positive learning and teaching environments than students actually were, and they viewed the students' social experience as more negative than it actually was. However, staff were unable to comment on number of aspects of the educational environment and scored these as 'unsure'. This distorted the mean values for the subscales. When this was adjudged for, the differences disappeared. CONCLUSIONS: Staff did not believe that students were experiencing a perfect educational environment; in most cases their views were closely aligned. But staff 's unfamiliarity with aspects of the educational environment suggests a continuing need to provide feedback to staff about students' actual experiences, to enable provision of a better environment for students.
Authors: Tim Dornan; Arno Muijtjens; Jennifer Graham; Albert Scherpbier; Henny Boshuizen Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Redhwan A Al-Naggar; Mahfoudh Abdulghani; Muhamed T Osman; Waqar Al-Kubaisy; Aqil Mohammad Daher; Khairun Nain Bin Nor Aripin; Ali Assabri; Dawood A Al-Hidabi; Mohamed Izham B Mohamed Ibrahim; Ahmed Al-Rofaai; Hisham S Ibrahim; Hassanain Al-Talib; Alyaa Al-Khateeb; Gamil Qasem Othman; Qaid Ali Abdulaziz; Karuthan Chinna; Yuri V Bobryshev Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2014-06-09