Hemşirelik Eğitiminde Akran Değerlendirme: Sistematik Derleme

Year 2023, Volume: 26 Issue: 4, 307 - 328, 29.12.2023

Nazik Yalnız , Hülya Kaya

https://doi.org/10.5152/JANHS.2023.23510

Abstract

Amaç: Tanımlayıcı olarak planlanan bu araştırma ile (PRoSPERo***) hemşirelik eğitiminde akran değerlendirmesiyle ilgili araştırmaların sistematik olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Yöntemler: İki bağımsız araştırmacı tarafından Mayıs-Aralık 2022 tarihleri arasında EbsCo, PubMed, Google Scholar, TR Dizin veri tabanları taranmış ve 2012-2022 yılları arasında yayınlanmış hemşirelik araştırmaları incelenmiştir. Boolean operatörleri aracılığıyla anahtar kelimelerinin farklı kombinasyonları ile yapılan taramaların raporlandırılması PRISMA kontrol listesi, veri çekme formu ve EndNote 20 ile yürütülmüştür.

Bulgular: Dahil edilme kriterlerini karşılayan 47 makalenin incelenmesi sonucunda çalışmaların genel olarak deneysel olmayan, karma ve nitel araştırma tasarımında ve yurtdışında yapılan çalışmalar olduğu, akran değerlendirmesine daha çok klinik becerilerinin değerlendirmesinde yer verildiği bulunmuştur. Akran değerlendirmesinin güçlü yönleri; genel olarak avantajlarının vurgulandığı, öğrencilerin akran değerlendirmesinden memnun olduğu ve öğrenmeyi desteklediği, etkileşimi artırdığı, zayıf yönleri ise akran değerlendirmesinin iyi bir hazırlık süreci gerektirmesi, öğrencileri kısmen rahatsız hissetmesi ve değerlendirmenin zorluğu olarak belirlenmiştir.

Sonuç: Hemşirelik eğitiminde akran değerlendirmesinin güçlü yönlerinin desteklenmesi ve zayıf yönlerinin iyileştirilmesi, kullanımının yaygınlaştırılması önemlidir.

Keywords

Akran değerlendirme, hemşirelik eğitimi, hemşirelik öğrencis

Peer Assessment in Nursing Education: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective: This descriptive study (PRoSPERo***) aimed to systematically examine the research on peer review in nursing education.

Methods: Two independent researchers searched EbsCo, PubMed, Google Scholar, and TR Dizin databases between May and December 2022 and examined nursing research articles published between 2012 and 2022. The reporting of the searches with different combinations of keywords through Boolean operators was carried out with the PRISMA checklist, data extraction form, and EndNote 20.

Results: As a result of the review of 47 articles that met the inclusion criteria, it was found that the studies were generally non-experimental, mixed, and qualitative research designs and conducted abroad, and peer review was mostly used in the evaluation of clinical skills. The benefits of peer assessment were that it generally emphasized the advantages, students were satisfied with peer assessment, it supported learning and increased interaction, and the weaknesses were that peer assessment required a good preparation process, students felt partially uncomfortable, and assessment was difficult.

Conclusion: As a result, it is important to support the strengths and improve the weaknesses of peer assessment in nursing education and to expand its use

Keywords

Nursing education, nursing student, peer assessmen

References

• 1. Karaöz S. Hemşirelik eğitiminde klinik değerlendirmeye genel bakış: güçlükler ve öneriler. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi. 2013;6(3):149-158.
• 2. Alzaid JM. The effect of peer assessment on the evaluation process of students. IES. 2017;10(6):159-173. [CrossRef]
• 3. Topping KJ. Peer assessment. Theor Pract. 2009;48(1):20-27.[CrossRef]
• 4. Tornwall J. Peer assessment practices in nurse education: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;71:266-275. [CrossRef]
• 5. Topping KJ. Peer assessment: learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Int Edu Psycho. 2017;1(1):1-17.
• 6. Fertelli TK, Tuncay Fo. The effect of peer assessment method on the perception of nursing diagnosis and academic self-efficacy in nursing process teaching. Int J Caring Sci. 2020;13(2):812-819.
• 7. De Brún A, Rogers L, Drury A, Gilmore B. Evaluation of a formative peer assessment in research methods teaching using an online platform: a mixed methods pre-post study. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;108:105166. [CrossRef]
• 8. Fertelli TK. Peer assessment in learning of nursing process: critical thinking and peer support. Int J Caring Sci. 2019;12:331-339.
• 9. Ghaljeh M, Rezaee N, Arbabisarjou A. Comparison of self-, peer, and teachers’ evaluation about the clinical skills of nursing students at the department of psychiatry. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:397. [CrossRef]
• 10. o’Neill G, McEvoy E, Maguire T. Developing a national understanding of assessment and feedback in Irish higher education. Ir Educ Stud. 2020;39(4):495-510. [CrossRef]
• 11. Prado ML, Testoni AK, Kempfer SS, Ferraz F, Lopes CR, Bernardi MC. Formative evaluation of the nursing program at a University in the South of Brazil: technological Tool to the Approach of the UnifiedHealth System. Open J Soc Sci. 2014;02(2):1-6. [CrossRef]
• 12. Keçeci A, Demiray A. Hemşirelik eğitiminde dönüşüm: kanıta dayalı eğitim. Hacettepe Univ Hemşirelik Fak Derg. 2018;4(3):65-73.
• 13. Wong BSH, Shorey S. Nursing students’ experiences and perception of peer feedback: a qualitative systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;116:105469. [CrossRef]
• 14. Tornwall J, McGaughy M, Schubert C. Peer review: factors that motivate students to provide supportive peer feedback. Nurse Educ. 2022;47(2):114-119. [CrossRef]
• 15. Tornwall J, McDaniel J. Key strategies in scholarly writing instruction for doctor of nursing practice students: a Q-methodology study. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;108:105192. [CrossRef]
• 16. Casler K, Bobek H, Pittman o, Tornwall J. The effect of asynchronous group discussions on nurse practitioner student debriefin experience in virtual simulation. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2022;34(7):901-908. [CrossRef]
• 17. Brown LG, Cicchino A. Asynchronous peer review feedback in an undergraduate nursing course: what students can teach each other about writing. Nurse Educ. 2022;47(5):303-307. [CrossRef]
• 18. Weaver K, Jones AR. An innovative educational trio for physical assessment in an undergraduate nursing course. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021;42(4):257-258. [CrossRef]
• 19. Tornwall J, Xie K, Yu SL, Stein D, Zurmehly J, Nichols R. Effects of knowledge and value on quality of supportive peer feedback. Nurse Educ. 2021;46(3):174-179. [CrossRef]
• 20. Jonassen S, Yarbrough A. Integrating technology in skills lab: using smartphones for urinary catheter validation. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37(4):702-705. [CrossRef]
• 21. Hwang GJ, Wu YJ, Chang CY. A mobile-assisted peer assessment approach for evidence-based nursing education. Comput Inform Nurs. 2021;39(12):935-942. [CrossRef]
• 22. Kars Fertellİ T, Özkan Tuncay F. The relation between self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and teacher evaluation in clinic evaluation of nursing students: a pilot study abstract. OTSBD. 2020;5(1):127-135. [CrossRef]
• 23. Sterling-Fox C, Smith JP, Gariando o, Charles P. Nursing skills video selfies: an innovative teaching and learning strategy for undergraduate nursing students to master psychomotor skills. SAGE Open Nurs. 2020;6:2377960820934090. [CrossRef]
• 24. Jiménez-Rodríguez D, Belmonte Garcia T, Arizo Luque V. Perception of nursing students about the implementation of GREENS© methodology in nursing studies. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;92:104495. [CrossRef]
• 25. Webber-Ritchey KJ, Badowski D, Gibbons L. An online asynchronous physical assessment lab (oAPAL) for graduate nursing students using low-fidelity simulation with peer feedback. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2020;41(6):378-379. [CrossRef]
• 26. Lai CY, Chen LJ, Yen YC, Lin KY. Impact of video annotation on undergraduate nursing students’ communication performance and commenting behaviour during an online peer-assessment activity. Australas J Educ Technol. 2020;36(2):71-88. [CrossRef]
• 27. Stewart P, Greene D, Coke S. Effects of a peer evaluation technique on nursing students’ anxiety levels. Nurse Educ. 2018;43(4):219-222.[CrossRef]
• 28. Kim-Godwin YS, Turrise S, Lawson S, Scott M. Student perceptions of peer evaluation in an online RN-to-BSN course. Nurse Educ. 2018;43(6):317-321. [CrossRef]
• 29. Kim SS, De Gagne JC. Instructor-led vs. peer-led debriefing in preoperative care simulation using standardized patients. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;71:34-39. [CrossRef]
• 30. Wikander L, Bouchoucha SL. Facilitating peer based learning through summative assessment - an adaptation of the objective Structured Clinical Assessment tool for the blended learning environment. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;28:40-45. [CrossRef]
• 31. Solheim E, Plathe HS, Eide H. Nursing students’ evaluation of a new feedback and reflection tool for use in high-fidelity simulation-Formative assessment of clinical skills. A descriptive quantitative research design. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;27:114-120. [CrossRef]
• 32. Smallheer BA, Stone E, Hicks J, Galbreath C. Use of video recording to facilitate peer-to-peer learning in a prelicensure nursing program. Teach Learn Nurs. 2017;12(2):158-160. [CrossRef]
• 33. Duers LE. The learner as co-creator: a new peer review and self-assessment feedback form created by student nurses. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;58:47-52. [CrossRef]
• 34. Livsey KR. Use of the creighton tool during a home visit simulation experience. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2016;37(5):283-284. [CrossRef]
• 35. Lai CY. Training nursing students’ communication skills with online video peer assessment. Comput Educ. 2016;97:21-30. [CrossRef]
• 36. Gabriele KM, Holthaus RM, Boulet JR. Usefulness of video-assisted peer mentor feedback in undergraduate nursing education. Clin Simul Nurs. 2016;12(8):337-345. [CrossRef]
• 37. Chan ZCY. Student peer reviewers’ views on teaching innovations and imaginative learning. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;39:155-160. [CrossRef]
• 38. Sethares KA, Morris NS. Learning about and benefiting from peer review: a course assignment for doctoral students at two different universities. J Nurs Educ. 2016;55(6):342-344. [CrossRef]
• 39. Adwan J. Dynamic online peer evaluations to improve group assignments in nursing e-learning environment. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;41:67-72. [CrossRef]
• 40. Wu XV, Heng MA, Wang W. Nursing students’ experiences with the use of authentic assessment rubric and case approach in the clinical laboratories. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(4):549-555. [CrossRef]
• 41. Tai HC, Pan MY, Lee Bo. Applying Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model to develop an online English writing course for nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35(6):782-788. [CrossRef]
• 42. o’Brien T, Talbot L, Santevecchi E. Strengthening clinical skillsusing peer-student validation. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(5):237-240.[CrossRef]
• 43. Currey J, oldland E, Considine J, Glanville D, Story I. Evaluation of postgraduate critical care nursing students’ attitudes to, and engagement with, team-based learning: a descriptive study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31(1):19-28. [CrossRef]
• 44. Roh YS, Lee SJ, Mennenga H. Factors influencing learner satisfaction with team-based learning among nursing students. Nurs Health Sci. 2014;16(4):490-497. [CrossRef]
• 45. Miles LW, Mabey L, Leggett S, Stansfield K. Teaching communication and therapeutic relationship skills to baccalaureate nursing students: a peer mentorship simulation approach. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2014;52(10):34-41. [CrossRef]
• 46. Valler-Jones T. The impact of peer-led simulations on student nurses. Br J Nurs. 2014;23(6):321-326. [CrossRef]
• 47. Hodgson P, Chan K, Liu J. outcomes of synergetic peer assessment: first-year experience. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 2014;39(2):168-178. [CrossRef]
• 48. Lin KY, Shen YF. The nursing students’ attitude toward using blogs in a nursing clinical practicum in Taiwan: a 3-R framework. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33(9):1079-1082. [CrossRef]
• 49. Han Y, James DH, McLain RM. Relationships between student peer and faculty evaluations of clinical performance: a pilot study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3(8):170-178. [CrossRef]
• 50. SooKim-Godwin Y, Rivers Livsey K, Ezzell D, Highsmith C, Winslow H, Aikman AN. Students like peer evaluation during home visit simulation experiences. Clin Simul Nurs. 2013;9(11):e535-e542.
• 51. Rush S, Firth T, Burke L, Marks-Maran D. Implementation and evaluation of peer assessment of clinical skills for first year student nurses. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012;12(4):219-226. [CrossRef]
• 52. Mosalanejad L, Ghodsi Z, Ghobadifar MA. The effıcacy of two actıve methods of teachıng on students’ competency. Middle East J Nurs. 2012;6(6):21-25.
• 53. Mehrdad N, Bigdeli S, Ebrahimi H. A comparative study on self, peer and teacher evaluation to evaluate clinical skills of nursing students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;47:1847-1852. [CrossRef]
• 54. Yang K, Woomer GR, Matthews JT. Collaborative learning among undergraduate students in community health nursing. Nurse Educ Pract. 2012;12(2):72-76. [CrossRef]
• 55. Grierson LEM, Barry M, Kapralos B, Carnahan H, Dubrowski A. The role of collaborative interactivity in the observational practice of clinical skills. Med Educ. 2012;46(4):409-416. [CrossRef]
• 56. Shiu AT, Chan CW, Lam P, Lee J, Kwong AN. Baccalaureate nursing students’ perceptions of peer assessment of individual contributions to a group project: a case study. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(3):214-218. [CrossRef]
• 57. Yin S, Chen F, Chang H. Assessment as learning: how does peer assessment function in students’ learning? Front Psychol. 2022;13:912568. [CrossRef]
• 58. Kısa N, Uysal F, Kavak Y. Bologna sürecinin öğrenci merkezli öğrenme boyutu: eğitim fakültesi öğretim programlarına yansımalar. Yükseköğretim Derg. 2020;10(1):85-95. [CrossReff]
• 59. Panadero E, Alqassab M. An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assess Eval High Educ. 2019;44(8):1253-1278. [CrossRef]
• 60. Aldridge MD. Nursing students’ perceptions of learning psychomotor skills: a literature review. Teach Learn Nurs. 2017;12(1):21-27.[CrossRef]
• 61. Erman Aslanoğlu A. Grup içinde bireyin değerlendirilmesi: akran ve öz değerlendirme. Boğaziçi Univ Eğitim Derg. 2017;34(2):35-50.
• 62. Saeedi M, Ghafouri R, Tehrani FJ, Abedini Z. The effects of teaching methods on academic motivation in nursing students: a systematic review. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:271. [CrossRef]
• 63. Double KS, McGrane JA, Hopfenbeck TN. The ımpact of peer assessment on academic performance: a meta-analysis of control group studies. Educ Psychol Rev. 2020;32(2):481-509.[CrossRef]
• 64. Dagmura H, Daldal E, Bakır H, et al. Is peer assessment reliable in objectively structured clinical examination? Bagcilar Med Bull. 2021;6(1):7-13. [CrossReff]