Feedback Preferences in the Performance of Skills Laboratory Procedures of Generation Z Sophomore Nursing Students
Keywords:
Conjoint Analysis, Feedback Preferences, Generation Z, Nursing StudentsAbstract
Introduction: Generation Z students are a unique and truly digital-native generation who are now entering the nursing program and eventually, become a part of the healthcare workforce. Nurse Educators, therefore, must be guided with their teaching approaches to effectively interact with this generation of Nursing Students.
Method: A choice-based conjoint analysis study was conducted among 224 randomly selected Generation Z Sophomore Nursing Students from a higher education institution in Metro Manila, Philippines. Consenting respondents were surveyed and ranked 13 choice bundles with 4 attributes of feedback. Part-worth utilities and importance values were estimated to determine the feedback preferences of the respondents. Result: The most important attribute was the type of feedback (43.85%), followed by the timing (22.37%) and method (17.93%) of feedback. The source of feedback (15.85%), however, was the least important attribute. Results also indicated that the respondents preferred a feedback mechanism which involved immediate (utility = 0.66, SE = 0.18), constructive (utility = 1.11, SE = 0.24), and guided (utility = 0.19, SE = 0.24) appraisal from their teachers (utility = 0.59, SE = 0.18).
Conclusion: Generation Z Nursing Students prefer a feedback mechanism that provides immediate, constructive, and guided appraisal from their teachers or educators. Understanding the feedback preferences of Generation Z Nursing Students will provide better learning opportunities, and it can be utilized in formulating appropriate feedback strategies in the nursing curriculum.
Downloads
References
Boyd, M. P. (2015). Relations Between Teacher Questioning and Student Talk in One Elementary ELL Classroom.
Journal of Literacy Research, 47(3), 370-404. https://doi:10.1177/1086296x16632451
Carvalho, C., Santos, J., Conboy, J., & Martins, D. (2014). Instructor feedback: Exploring differences in students ‘perceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159,169–173. https://doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.12.351 Castillo, R. (2014). A paradigm shift to outcomes-based higher education: policies,
principles, and preparations. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR). 14. 174-186.
https://www.academia.edu/17214540/A_Paradigm_Shift_to_Outcomes- Based_Higher_Education_Policies_ Principles_and_Preparations
Cevikbas, M. & Argun Z. (2016). An innovative learning model in the digital age: the flipped classroom. Journal of Education and Training Studies, vol. 5, no.11, 2017, pp. 189–200. https://doi:10.11114/jets.v5i11.2322
Chicca, J., & Shellenbarger, T. (2018). Connecting with Generation Z: Approaches in Nursing Education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 13(3), 180–184. https://doi:10.1016/j.teln.2018.03.008
Corpuz, B. & Salandanan, G. (2015). Principles of Teaching 1. Lorimar Publishing, Inc., p. 73-75
Dabell, J. (2018). Effective teacher-student feedback practices. https://www.sec- ed.co.uk/best-practice/effective- teacher-student-feedback-practices
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2019). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 1–44. https://doi:10.10 80/10888691.2018.1537791
Dinmohammadi, M., Peyrovi, H., & Mehrdad, N. (2013). Concept analysis of professional socialization in nursing.
Nursing Forum, 48(1), 26– 34. https://doi:10.1111/nuf.12006
Hamid, Y. & Mahmood, S. (2010) Understanding constructive feedback: a commitment between teachers and students for academic and professional development. Journal Pak Med Assoc. 2010;60(3):224-227. https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20225784/
Hampton D. & Keys, Y. (2016). Generation z students: Will they change our nursing classroom. Journal of Nursing Education 7 (4). https://doi.10.5430/jnep.v7n4p111
Haghani, F. & Fakhari, M. (2014). Feedback in clinical education: Concept, barriers, and strategies. Iranian Journal of Medical Education.13(10):860-85. http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/article-1-3015-en.html
Harerimana, A. & Mtshali, N.G. (2019). Nursing students’ perceptions and expectations regarding the use of technology in nursing education. https://doi:10.25159/2520-5293/5103.
Hauer, K. & Kogan, J. (2012). Realizing the potential value of feedback. Med Educ.; 46: 140-2. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04180.x
Jurenka, R., Stareček, A., Vraňaková, N. & Caganova, D. (2018). The learning styles of the generation group
z and their influence on learning Results in the Learning Process. 251-260. https://doi.10.1109/
ICETA.2018.8572186.
Kheradmand, N. & Sayadiyan, S. (2016). Comparative investigation of the effects of immediate and delayed error correction on the achievement of male and female Iranian EFL learners’ writing skills, International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, 6(1), 31-39. http://ijsse.com/sites/default/files/issues/2016/v6i1/paper-04.pdf
Kleinschmit, M. (2015). Generation Z characteristics: 5 infographics on the Gen Z lifestyle. https:// www.
visioncritical.com /generation-z-infograp
Kogan, J.R., Conforti, L.N., Bernabeo, E.C., Durning, S.J., Hauer, K.E., & Holmboe, E.S. (2012) Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Med Educ.2012;46(2):201–15. https://doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04137.x
Macayan, J. (2017). Implementing outcome-based education (obe) framework: implications for assessment of students’ performance. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review. 8. 1-10. https://www.academia. edu/34442717/Implementing_Outcome-Based_Education_OBE_Framework_Implications_for_Assessment_ of_S tudents_Performance
Mannino, J. (2016). Educating nursing students for practice in the 21st century. International Archives of Nursing and Health Care. 2. https://doi.10.23937/2469-5823/1510026.
Masadeh, T. & Elfeky, A. (2017). Immediate versus delayed feedback in promoting student teachers’ skills for lesson plan implementation. British Journal of Education. Vol.5. pp.43-58.
Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andres, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G.& Melis. E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies, Computers & Education, 71, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271644871_ Interactional_Feed back_Dimension_in_Instructed_Second_Language_Learning
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562. https://
doi:10.1177/1362168816644940N
Natesan, S. M., Stehman, C., Shaw, R., Story, D., Krzyzaniak, S. M., & Gottlieb, M. (2019). Curated collections for educators: five key papers about receiving feedback in medical education. Cureus. https://doi:10.7759/ cureus.5728
O’Mara, L., McDonald, J., Gillespie, M., Brown, H., & Miles, L. (2014). Challenging clinical learning environments: experiences of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education Practice. 2014;14(2):208–13. https:// doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2013.08.012
Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English,
(Ph.D. Dissertation): Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/
bitstream/1807/65728/1/Quinn_Paul_20 1406_PhD_thesis.pdf
Saito, H. & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer ratings in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research. 8. 31-54. https://doi.10.1191/1362168804lr133oa.
Zehra, R. (2015). Effects of Personality on Blue Ocean leadership, the impact of Blue OceanLeadership on life satisfaction. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318760677_Effects_of_Person ality_on_Blue_Ocean_ leadership_the_impact_of_Blue_Ocean_Leadersh ip_on_life_satisfaction
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal Of Teacher Education & Teaching
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
-
Copyright Ownership
All content published in this journal, including articles, images, and other materials, is the exclusive property of the journal. Authors transfer the copyright to the journal upon acceptance for publication. -
Usage Rights
The journal holds the rights to publish, reproduce, distribute, and archive all accepted works in any format or medium. Authors may share their published work for non-commercial purposes with proper acknowledgment of the journal as the original publisher. -
Open Access Policy
Articles are made available for reading and downloading for educational and research purposes. Any commercial use or reproduction requires prior written permission from the journal. -
Restrictions
Users may not alter, sell, or republish the content without formal authorization from the journal. -
Third-Party Content
Any material not owned by the journal is clearly identified, and separate permissions may be required for its use. -
Disclaimer
While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, the journal is not liable for any misuse, errors, or omissions in published content. Authors are responsible for the originality and authenticity of their submissions.
