Introduction
Nursing education is the backbone of the healthcare system, producing skilled healthcare professionals who play a crucial role in patient care.1 Nursing teachers play a vital role in shaping the future of healthcare professionals, and their evaluation process can sometimes be challenging.2 One of the main problems they face during evaluation is ensuring a fair and accurate assessment of their students’ skills and knowledge.3 Nursing is a complex field that requires a combination of theoretical understanding and practical application, which can be difficult to measure in a standardized evaluation setting. The challenge lies in finding a balance between objective criteria, such as written exams, and subjective assessments, such as clinical performance evaluations. Moreover, nursing teachers often struggle with the limited time they must evaluate many students, which can lead to rushed assessments and potential biases.4, 5 To overcome these obstacles, nursing teachers need to employ various evaluation methods, including simulations, case studies, and peer evaluations, to provide a comprehensive and well-rounded assessment of their students’ capabilities. 6, 7 Additionally, open and transparent communication with students, along with constructive feedback, can help address any issues or concerns that may arise during the evaluation process.8
Paper checking is none other than a real-time teacher exam! Teachers have to check the exam paper of students in a liberal way. Evaluating students papers can be quite a challenge for teachers.9 It's not easy to assess the quality of their work, provide constructive feedback, and assign fair grades.10 Teachers have to consider various factors like content, organization, language skills, and critical thinking.11 It's important for teachers to have clear criteria and rubrics to ensure consistency and fairness in evaluating students' papers.12
Materials & Methods
Qualitative study, Nursing teachers, Nursing teachers in selected nursing colleges, selected nursing colleges of the city, convenient sampling technique, 50 nursing teachers, Self-structured questionnaire.(Table 1, Table 2) 13
Tools for data collection
Table 1
Percentage wise distribution of nursing teachers according to their demographic characteristics (n=50)
Table 2
Assessment with level of knowledge score (n=50)
Issues teacher faces during paper evaluation were, 12% of the nursing teachers responded that unreadable handwriting of students, 4% irrelevant answers and 6% inappropriate numbering of answers.
8% of nursing teachers responded that multiple choice questions is difficult to check, 14% responded that short answer questions are difficult and 40% of nursing teachers responded that long answer questions are difficult to check.
Each 10% of nursing teachers evaluates less than 20 papers and 40-60 papers in a single day and 80% of them evaluates 20-40 papers in a single day.
24% of nursing teachers feels that extra time should be given for paper evaluation excluding working hours in college and 38% of them feels that it depends on how many bundles of paper we have to check in a single day.
4% of nursing teachers revealed that diagrammatic presentation is difficult to evaluate, 6% feels that point based presentation and 58% of them revealed that paragraph-based presentation is difficult to evaluate.
40% of nursing teachers suggested that it can be emotionally draining to assess student’s performance and 60% of nursing teachers suggested that managing emotions is not a major concern.
34% of nursing teachers suggested that digital paper checking is easy, each 2% of them suggested that pen paper method is bets and appropriate time should be given.
Result
It is statistically interpreted that teachers faced various issues regarding pen paper evaluation. By using Interrater form method of reliability, it is found to be 0.7593 and hence tool is reliable and valid. The tabulated ‘F’ values were 3.15(df=2,47) which is less than the calculated ‘F’ i.e. 4.78 at 5% level of significance. Also, the calculated ‘p’=0.013 which was less than the acceptable level of significance i.e. ‘p’=0.05. Hence it is interpreted that better paper evaluation of nursing teachers is statistically associated with their issues faced during paper evaluation. (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8) (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5)
Figure 4
Percentage wise distribution of Nursing Teachers according to years of experience in MUHS paper evaluation
Figure 6
Percentage wise distribution of Nursing Teachers according to other universities evaluated theory papers
Table 3
Association of issues faced during paper evaluation by nursing teachers in relation to other university paper evaluated (n=50)
|
Other university paper evaluated |
No. of nursing teachers |
Mean score |
F-value |
p-value |
|
None |
24 |
18.29±2.69 |
0.99 |
0.40 NS, p>0.05 |
|
One |
18 |
18.94±2.36 |
||
|
Two |
6 |
17.83±2.48 |
||
|
More than two |
2 |
21±2.82 |
Discussion
The findings based on the study objectives and evaluates their implications. The first objective was to identify issues nursing teachers face during paper evaluation. Challenges included unreadable handwriting (12%), irrelevant answers (4%), inappropriate numbering (6%), and difficulty in evaluating multiple-choice (8%), short-answer (14%), and long-answer questions (40%). Regarding workload, 10% of teachers evaluate less than 20 papers or 40-60 papers daily, while 80% assess 20-40 papers. Additionally, 24% suggested extra time for evaluation, and 38% felt it depends on the workload. Difficulties in assessing diagrams (4%), pointbased answers (6%), and paragraph-based answers (58%) were noted. Emotional strain was a concern for 40%, but 60% did not view it as significant. Digital evaluation was favored by 34%, while 2% preferred pen-paper methods and better time allocation. The second objective examined associations between issues and demographic variables. Statistical analysis revealed: Age: No significantassociation (F=0.82, p=0.48).Specialization: Significant association (F=4.25, p=0.005).Designation: Significant association (F=8.64, p=0.0001). MUHS evaluation experience: No significant association (F=0.61, p=0.60). Teaching experience: No significant association (F=0.63, p=0.59). Reliability of the tool, measured using the Interrater method, was 0.7593, indicating it is reliable and valid.
Recommendations
Based on findings of the study it is recommended that.
The descriptive study can be replicated on large scale.
Study may be conducted to evaluate the issues faced by nursing teachers during paper evaluation.
The research can be done at selected nursing colleges of city.
Study may be conducted to evaluate the different types of issues faced by teachers and its frequency.
Conclusion
The significant change was observed in issues faced by teachers during assessment of annual pattern and semester pattern of Basic BSC Nursing students.14 The tools used was google forms which were provided them through google links and the respond was recorded.15 The demographic variables are found to have significant association with the teaching experiences of teachers. Also, the teachers faced various issues during the same.
Article
DOI
