Assessing how paramedical faculty’s professors and students at Kurdistan- Iraq Universities of Medical Sciences and Health Services perceive the quality of clinical learning environments through the application of the DREEM model | BMC Medical Education
Ethical considerations
This research was conducted under the supervision of the ethics committee at Malay Gowra Research Centre at Koya University OCT 1 2023. We obtained the code of ethics (MGRC.2023) from this committee and used a non-probability sampling method. The research process was explained to all participants, and their informed consent was obtained. We ensured that the participants’ information remained confidential.
Investigation settings and study population
The current cross-sectional study was conducted at the Kurdistan-Iraq University of Medical Sciences and Health Services from May 2023 to Feb 2024. The participants of this research included 125 professors from the nursing, anesthesiology, microbiology, and laboratory sciences departments of this university who had at least 5 years of teaching experience. Additionally, 552 students from the nursing, anesthesiology, laboratory science, and microbiology departments were also included. The samples were collected using the convenience sampling method, a type of non-probability sampling method that selects individuals who can be easily contacted or reached.
Interventions
In this research, we used the census method to collect data, which involves gathering information from the entire statistical population. The statistical population consists of 552 students and 125 professors. To ensure thorough coverage, we distributed 850 questionnaires to students and 250 questionnaires to professors. However, some questionnaires were excluded because they were incomplete or had incorrect answers. After carefully reviewing the questionnaires, we excluded those with incomplete answers or significant errors from the final analysis. In the end, we selected 552 complete questionnaires from students and 125 valid questionnaires from professors for analysis. After that, the participants were given the DREEM questionnaire to evaluate the opinions of the students, and a questionnaire designed by the researcher based on the DREEM questionnaire to evaluate the views of the professors. The questionnaires were then collected. Among the distributed questionnaires, five questionnaires from professors and eight questionnaires from students were incomplete and were not evaluated in the study process. Inclusion Criteria, Final-year students from paramedical departments such as nursing, anesthesia, laboratory science, and microbiology were included. Exclusion Criteria, Students and professors who did not meet these academic or departmental requirements, or those whose questionnaires were incomplete.
Data collection using the DREAM checklist
The research utilized the Dundee University Educational Environment Questionnaire (DREAM) as a model. Developed by Dr. Souraf at Dundee University in Scotland in 1997Footnote 1, this tool quantitatively assessed the educational environment and space. It served as a diagnostic tool for curriculum issues, evaluated the effectiveness of educational changes, and identified differences between real and ideal environments. The questionnaire aimed to gather demographic information and assess the clinical learning environments in nursing, anesthesiology, laboratory sciences, and microbiology. Comprising 50 questions across five areas, the DREAM questionnaire measured students’ views on the educational environment using a 5-point Likert scale (Perception of learning, perception of the teacher, perception of one’s academic ability, perception of the educational environment, perception of one’s social conditions) .
In the present study, we modified the DREEM questionnaire to evaluate professors’ perspectives on education. This questionnaire, which was originally designed to assess students’ views on education, consisted of 50 questions across 5 areas: perception of learning methods, perception of the professor’s own abilities, perception of students’ scientific ability, perception of the educational environment, and perception of students’ social conditions.
We employed a Likert scale ranging from “completely agrees” to “completely disagrees,” with scores ranging from 0 to 4. We calculated maximum scores for each area based on the DREEM model. The overall questionnaire score was then divided into four groups: unfavorable (0 to 50), semi-favorable (51 to 100), favorable (101 to 150), and very favorable (151 to 200). For professors, we excluded two domains: students’ understanding of their academic ability and social conditions. The modified questionnaire for professors consisted of 35 questions in three domains: learning environment (12 questions), educational space (12 questions), and professors (11 questions). The overall score for professors was adjusted to a maximum of 140 points and categorized into four ranges: very unfavorable (0 to 35), unfavorable (36 to 70), relatively favorable (71 to 105), and very favorable (106 to 140). In the research of Faleh Khairi Langroudi et al. in 2013, the factor analysis method was used to calculate the validity of this questionnaire and Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient was used to check its validity. The results showed that the reliability of the test through Cronbach’s alpha was 0.933. The validity of the test with KMO equals 0.910 and Bartlett 60936.37, which is statistically significant even beyond the level of P = .001. Therefore, the validity and reliability of this questionnaire was confirmed [17].
Statistical analysis
After collecting the data, we proceeded to check the information. Firstly, we examined the normal distribution of the data using statistical tests. Next, we utilized an independent t-test to assess and analyze the data for both professors and students. All statistical evaluations were conducted using SPSS version 22. The data was presented as mean ± standard deviation, with a significance level set at p < .05.
link
