Profile of Study Participants in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)
Most, 121 (65.0%) of the one hundred and eighty-five (185) study participants that were recruited into the study were classified as classroom-clinical faculty members while just 8 (4.0%) were deans of their departments. Also, majority, 73 (39.0%) of study participants had 1-5 years of clinical experience and few, 15 (8.0%) had 16-20 years of clinical experience. Additionally, almost half, 85 (46.0%) of faculty had 6-10 years of teaching experience and about 14 (8.0%) had taught for 16-20 years. (Table 1)
Table 1: Study participants profile in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs)
Profile of Respondents
|
Frequency (185)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Years of Clinical Experience
|
|
|
1-5
|
73
|
39.0
|
6-10
|
47
|
25.0
|
11-15
|
22
|
12.0
|
16-20
|
15
|
8.0
|
≥ 21
|
28
|
15.0
|
Years of Teaching Experience
|
|
|
≤ 5
|
16
|
9.0
|
6-10
|
85
|
46.0
|
11-15
|
46
|
25.0
|
16-20
|
14
|
8.0
|
≥ 21
|
24
|
13.0
|
Job Category
|
|
|
Classroom faculty
|
12
|
6.0
|
Classroom-clinical
|
121
|
65.0
|
Clinical instructor
|
22
|
12.0
|
Program Coordinator
|
22
|
12.0
|
Dean
|
8
|
4.0
|
Profile of Nursing Education Programme in Philippines
Majority, 9 (60.0%) of the fifteen (15) nursing education programme had been offered for more than 45 years whilst 3 ( 30.0%) each has been in existence for less than 26 and 36-45 years. Again, a little over half, 8 (53.0%) of the nursing education programme were being accredited by The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities – Commission on Accreditation (PACU-COA) whereas only 1 (7.0%) was accredited by Association of Christian Schools, Colleges and Universities Accrediting Agency (ACSU-AA). Though, 5 (33.0%) each of nursing education programme had be granted level 1 and level 2 accreditation status respectively, only 1 (7.0%) each of had been accorded candidature and level 4 correspondingly. (Table 2)
Table 2: Profile of Nursing Education Programme
Profile of Programme
|
Frequency (%)
|
Percentage (%)
|
Years of Establishment
|
|
|
≤ 25
|
3 (20.0)
|
20.0
|
36-45
|
3 (20.0)
|
20.0
|
≥ 46
|
9 (60.0)
|
60.0
|
Accreditation agency
|
|
|
PAASCU
|
6 (40.0)
|
40.0
|
ACSU-AA
|
1 (7.0)
|
7.0
|
PACU-COA
|
8 (53.0)
|
53.0
|
Level of accreditation
|
|
|
Candidature status
|
1 (7.0)
|
7.0
|
Level 1
|
5 (33.0)
|
33.0
|
Level 2
|
5 (33.0)
|
33.0
|
Level 3
|
3 (30.0)
|
30.0
|
Level 4
|
1 (7.0)
|
7.0
|
PAASCU - Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities, ACSU-AA - Association of Christian Schools, Colleges and Universities Accrediting Agency, PACU-COA - The Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities-Commission on Accreditation.
Quality of Nursing Education Programme as assessed by study participants
The assessment of the nursing education programme by study participants found an average of the grand weighted mean of 3.84, which indicates participants strongly agreed that nursing programme is of good quality. Nevertheless, administrators who were faculty members rated the quality of nursing education programme higher with a mean of 3.88 compared to a mean of 3.81 by faculty who were just instructors. The quality of the mission/vision/goals/objectives of the nursing education programme was appraised highest with a mean of 3.91 while the least rated was the admission of students with a mean of 3.76.(Table 3)
Table 3: Quality of Nursing Education as Perceived by Faculty Members
Quality Matrix
|
Faculty
|
Administrator
|
Average
|
WM
|
QD
|
WM
|
QD
|
WM
|
QD
|
Mission/Vision/Goals/Objectives
|
3.89
|
SA
|
3.93
|
SA
|
3.91
|
SA
|
Curriculum and instruction
|
3.86
|
SA
|
3.94
|
SA
|
3.90
|
SA
|
Administration of nursing programme
|
3.81
|
SA
|
3.94
|
SA
|
3.88
|
SA
|
Faculty development program
|
3.84
|
SA
|
3.88
|
SA
|
3.86
|
SA
|
Physical structure and equipment
|
3.81
|
SA
|
3.80
|
SA
|
3.81
|
SA
|
Student services
|
3.81
|
SA
|
3.96
|
SA
|
3.88
|
SA
|
Admission of students
|
3.73
|
SA
|
3.78
|
SA
|
3.76
|
SA
|
Quality assurance system
|
3.72
|
SA
|
3.84
|
SA
|
3.78
|
SA
|
Grand Weighted Mean (WM)
|
3.81
|
SA
|
3.88
|
SA
|
3.84
|
SA
|
Legend: 1.00-1.49 Strongly Disagree (SD), 1.50-2.49 Disagree (D), 2.50-3.49 Agree (A), 3.50-4.00 Strongly Agree (SA), Grand Weighted Mean (WM), Qualitative Description (QD)
Difference in Quality of Nursing Educational Program according to Profile of Programme
Significant differences existed in the quality of curriculum and instruction (p-value=0.007), physical development and equipment (p-value=0.001), student services (p-value=0.001), and admission of students (p-value=0.003) in relation to years of establishment of nursing education programme. Also, significant differences existed in the quality of administration of nursing programme (p-value=0.000), faculty development programme (p-value=0.001), physical structure and equipment (p-value=0.000), student services (p=0.001), admission of students (p=0.006) and quality assurance system (p-value=0.000) with respect to level of accreditation of nursing education programme. In contrast, only the quality of admission of students differed significantly (p=0.047) with regards to the type of accreditation agency. (Table 3)
Table 4: Difference in Quality of Nursing Educational Program according to Profile of Programme
Profile of Programme
|
Quality Matrix
|
F
|
p-value
|
Ho
|
Interpretation
|
Years of establishment
|
Mission/Vision/Goals/Objectives
|
0.397
|
0.673
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Curriculum and instruction
|
5.091
|
0.007*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Administration of nursing programme
|
1.181
|
0.309
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Faculty development program
|
2.553
|
0.081
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Physical structure and equipment
|
7.553
|
0.001*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Student services
|
7.315
|
0.001*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Admission of students
|
9.915
|
0.000*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Quality assurance system
|
2.034
|
0.134
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Accreditation agency
|
Mission/Vision/Goals/Objectives
|
0.069
|
0.933
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Curriculum and instruction
|
0.031
|
0.969
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Administration of nursing programme
|
0.343
|
0.710
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Faculty development program
|
0.811
|
0.446
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Physical structure and equipment
|
1.250
|
0.289
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Student services
|
0.160
|
0.853
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Admission of students
|
3.112
|
0.047*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Quality assurance system
|
0.005
|
0.995
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Level of accreditation
|
Mission/Vision/Goals/Objectives
|
1.652
|
0.163
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Curriculum and instruction
|
2.065
|
0.087
|
Accept
|
Not significant
|
Administration of nursing programme
|
14.391
|
0.000*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Faculty development program
|
4.592
|
0.001*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Physical structure and equipment
|
6.883
|
0.000*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Student services
|
4.484
|
0.001*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Admission of students
|
3.766
|
0.006*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
Quality assurance system
|
14.431
|
0.000*
|
Reject
|
Significant
|
The p-values denoted by ‘*’ are significant at a level of p < 0.05, Ho – denotes null hypothesis.