ACADEMIC FACTORS AFFECTING THE RLE

PERFORMANCE OF THE SELECTED 4TH

YEAR NURSING STUDENTS IN OUR LADY
OF FATIMA UNIVERSITY

A Thesis presented to the Faculty of

Our Lady of Fatima University
College of Nursing

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NURSING
 CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction

The increasing demand of nurses all over the world greatly affects the decisions of the
people.
Though the news about the nurse’s jobs is getting scarce they still take the nursing course. And in
order to become competitive among the millions of nursing students, one must start it in school
through studying hard and retaining information.
Bean and Metzner (1985) describe academic factors as student’s primary involvement with
the academic process at the college and purports that among non traditional student’s academic
factors are less important than environmental factors in influencing retention (Metzner and Bean,
1987). Academic Integration, sometimes been used to describe a cluster of academic factors that
can influence retention, and has been defined as “the development of a strong affiliation with the
college environment both inside and outside of class” (Nora, 1993 p. 235)
For nursing students, the academic factors deemed most important for retention include
Personal Study Skills, Study Hours, Attendance, Class Schedule and General Academic Services
(college library, college counseling and computer library).
 Personal study skills, refers to specific elements, attitudes about the responsibility for study
and effort expended on academic pursuits, affect nursing student retention through academic
performance and psychological outcomes. Consistent with higher education, the increasingly
academically diverse nursing student population presents with varying study skills (Heller, Oros
and Durney-Crowley, 2000; Tanner, 1998). Additionally, used of varied study skills has been
associated with better academic outcomes (Napoli & Wortman, 1998), which in turn positively
influence retention. Effort expended on planning and study activities yields better academic
outcome (Flowers, 2002).
In the NURS model, personal study hours refer to the number of hours allocated exclusively
to positive study activities in which positive study behaviors and attitudes are actively used. In
this model, students with more personal study hours are expected to have more positive academic
outcomes and retentions than will students with inadequate personal study hours. Adequate study
hours are individually based and are defined as the least number of personal study hours needed
to achieve the short-term academic outcomes (passing exam, completing accurate care plan, etc.)
and long-term academic outcomes (successfully completing nursing course components).
The Metzner and Bean (1987) model included absenteeism as an academic variable
influencing attrition; however, the NURS model focuses on attendance. Nevertheless, the
literature regarding attendance reveals several interesting phenomena that are relevant for nursing
education. First, attendance (or absenteeism) should be monitored to help identify at-risk
students. Second, attendance should be monitored in relation to other variables with the purpose
of identifying students most at risk for attrition. In nursing, attendance is somewhat more
complex than it is among the general college population. Consequently, students may not
comprehend, value, or expect rigid attendance policies will be upheld, especially among
beginning students who have had no prior exposure to nursing courses.
 Attendance may be further differentiated between various nursing course components
such as theoretical (classroom hours), skills laboratory, and/or clinical hours. Clearly,
clinical attendance is a valuable dimension to learning and assists the student in connecting
theoretical information, nursing skills, and client’s competency. Absences create
complicated disadvantages; attendance creates valuable advantages. Attendance needs to be
viewed in relation to other variables and to the other dimensions of the NURS model if at
risk students are to be identified early.
Availability of courses, flexibility of courses, and convenience are factors that can
influence retention through academic and psychological outcomes (Bean and Metzner,
1985;
Burr, Burr, & Novak, 1999). Consistently, across three study samples, most nursing students
have identified “class schedule” as influencing retention. Responses ranged from “severely
restrictive” to “greatly supportive” (Jeffreys, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2002). Class schedule is
included in the NURS model because students’ perceptions of class schedule, with its
physical demands and time constraints can influence retention positively or negatively and
in varying degrees. Students’ perception of class schedule is the most important aspect to
assess.
General academic services are designed to assist students with their academic goals and
are available to all college students, regardless of academic major. They include the library,
counseling, and computer laboratories.
General academic services that are convenient accessible, and helpful will encourage
more active use of these support services.
 The assessment of nursing students’ perceptions of general academic services is valuable
(Lehna, Jackonen, & Wilson, 1996). Greater, comprehensive use of services, in conjunction
with other academic factors, positively influences retention by enhancing academic and
psychological outcomes. For example, maximizing use of various library services
appropriate
to course objectives can assist with improved study skills and academic integration, thus
enhancing retention. Counseling services have shown to be beneficial to nursing student
academic and psychological outcomes (Lehna et at., 1996). Higher education literature
reports that counseled students have higher rates than non-counseled students (Turner &
Berry, 2000; Wilson, Mason, & Ewing, 1997), Kraemer (1997) stated that commuter
students
who frequently use computer laboratory facilities on campus are more involved in cognitive
development than are other students; enhanced cognitive development enhances retention.
Also according to a journal of The Canadian Nurse; Mar 1, 2003 by BOLAN,
CHRISTINE M. and GRAINGER, PATRICIA “Success in nursing programs influenced by
such academic factors as overall. Similarly, non-academic factors associated attrition from
nursing programs perception of nursing as a career. (12) Other non-academic factors in
attrition...” this article states that nursing programs become successful in retaining
information to their learners by the influence of the academic factors.

This study aimed to determine the academic factors such as hospital performance,
strategic studying, personal study skills, attendance, and class schedule and identify
whether these factors could distinguish differences among students, based on RLE
performance.
 Conceptual Framework

Affects their performance during

Most common academic
factor affecting the RLE
of the 4rth year nursing
student
their clinical duty by utilizing this
academic factor to improved their
knowledge and concepts about
hospital skills

Academic factors
Personal Study Skill RLE performance grade
Attendance according to their clinical
General Academic Services instructor
Study Hours
Class Schedule

Performance of Performance
the students of the students
who attended who attended
Lecture before their hospital
having their duties before
hospital duties Lecture
 RESEARCH PARADIGM
PROCESS INPUT OUTPUT

→ Identify the → Academic → Ameliorate

Academic Factors
affecting the RLE
Factors the RLE
performance of which affect performance
4thYear Nursing the RLE of the 4th Year
Students.
→ Note the effects performance Nursing
of this Academic of 4th Year Students
Factors. Nursing
→ Test the
significant Students.
relationship of
Academic Factors
with the RLE
performance of 4th
year Nursing
Students.
 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study aimed to determine “Academic Factors Affecting the RLE Performance of
the Selected 4th Year Nursing Students in Our Lady of Fatima University”.
Specifically it sought to answers the ff questions:

1.What were the most common academic factors that greatly influenced the RLE of the 4th
year nursing students?

2.How did these academic factors affect the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing
students during their Hospital duty hours?

3.What were the results of their performance in their hospital duty hours?

4.Is there a significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE performance
of the 4th year nursing student during their hospital duty hours?

5.Is there a significant difference between the grades of the students who attended hospital
duties before lecture and those who had their lecture before having their hospital
duties?
 HYPOTHESES

 There is no significant relationship between

the academic factors and the RLE performance
of the 4th year nursing students.

 There is no significant difference between the

grades of the students during their Lecture
class hours and during their hospital duty
hours.
 CHAPTER II
METHODS OF RESEARCH AND PROCEDURES

 Research Design
Survey Research was used in the study to determine
the performance of the students. This was conducted
through a paper-pen questionnaire. Here, the researchers
used questionnaires and photocopies of the RLE record
book of the students for measuring instrument in collecting
data and to determine the academic factors affecting their
RLE performance of the selected 4th year nursing students
in Our Lady of Fatima University.
 Population and Locale of the Study
The researchers chose respondents in the 4th year level
following a certain criteria. That the respondents should have their
record grades of NCM 101 and 102 to use as the basis of this
research study. 50 respondents were used in this study. The
respondents were composed of 31 students who attended lecture
first before their duties and 19 students who attended their duties
first before lecture.
The locale of this study was in Our Lady of Fatima University
—Lagro, Quezon City. This was conducted in the 1st semester of
the year 2008-2009.

 Data Gathering Tools

The primary tool used in this study was Questionnaire.
Because this was a simplified questions addressed to the
respondents. In part 1 of the questionnaire multiple choice type of
question was used. Then in part 2 of the questionnaire, the
researchers used Likert scale to show the amount of agreement and
disagreement of the respondents.
 Data Gathering Procedure
The first step done by the researchers was to select for the
potential respondents of these study. The researchers took samples
through Non-Probability scheme. They used Quota Sampling
which was a type of Non-probability Sampling. In a non-
randomized form, the researchers selected the respondents from
the cross-section of the population. A helped from friends and
relatives of the researchers who were also 4th year nursing
students were sought to identify and locate the respondents of this
study. Thus the identification of the respondents became
purposive and chain referral at the same time.
After they had identified and located the respondents, the
researcher approached and visited them personally to introduced
herself, build rapport and stated the objectives of their study. The
respondents agreed to participate in the study.
A questionnaire was given to answer. They were also asked
whether they can photocopy their RLE performance grade. All the
respondents were assured that their grades and response were
appreciated and treated confidentially.
 Statistical Treatment of Data
The researchers compiled and tabularized all the data to organize the RLE
grades of the selected 4th year nursing students. They also used questionnaires
and photocopied RLE grades of the fifty 4th year nursing students as
respondents.
The statistics used were mean (X), standard deviation (SD) and the T-test
of difference. Additionally, the researchers had chosen the Chi Square Formula
for their research study. Because the type of question they used in the
questionnaires was answerable by a yes or no. This formula was really intended
for the type of question the researchers had chosen.

The following formula to compute chi-square:

(O-E)²
x²= Σ ------------
E
Where O = observed frequency
E = expected frequency
Σ = sum the calculated values
 CHAPTER III
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Table 1
Distribution of the most common Academic Factor according to 4th year nursing
students.

Academic Factors Frequency Relative Frequency

Personal study skills 22 44 %

Study hours 10 20 %

Class schedule 11 22 %

Attendance 1 2%

General academic services 6 12 %

The results showed that 44% of the students chose personal study skills as
their most common academic factor. Next to it 22% chose class schedule, 20% study hours, 12%
chose general academic services and lastly 2% of the students chose attendance. Additionally, use
of varied personal study skill has been associated with better academic outcomes (Napoli and
Wortman,1998) which in turn positively influence the result of the student’s performance.
 QUESTIONS
Student
2 3 4 5 Average

Table 2 1 4 4 5 5 4.5

Distribution of how the 2 5 5 5 5 5

Academic Factor affects the 3 4 5 5 3 4.25

hospital duty according to 4th 4 4 4 5 5 4.5

5 5 5 2 5 4.25
year nursing student’s scale
6 3 3 1 1 2
7 5 4 5 5 4.75
8 3 4 4 5 4
9 5 4 5 5 4.75
NORMS: 10 3 3 1 1 2
5 – Strongly Agree 11 5 5 5 5 5
4 – Agree 12 5 5 5 5 5
3 – Moderately Agree 13 5 5 2 5 4.25
2 – Disagree 14 3 3 1 1 2
1 – Strongly Disagree 15 4 4 4 5 4.25
16 4 3 5 4 4
17 5 4 5 5 4.75
18 5 4 5 4 4.5
19 5 5 4 2 4
20 4 4 5 5 4.5
21 3 4 5 5 4.25
22 5 5 3 5 4.5
 QUESTIONS QUESTIONS
Student Student
2 3 4 5 Average 2 3 4 5 Average
23 3 3 4 5 3.75 45 5 5 5 4 4.75
24 5 3 4 5 4.25 46 3 3 2 2 2.50
25 1 1 1 1 1 47 1 5 3 1 2.50
26 3 4 4 4 3.75 48 5 5 5 4 4.75
27 4 3 3 4 3.50 49 4 4 3 5 4
28 5 5 3 5 4.50 50 5 4 4 5 4.50
29 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL
195 198 187 193 193.25
30 4 3 4 4 3.75
31 4 5 4 3 4
32 5 4 4 4 4.25  The table showed that majority
33 5 5 5 4 4.75 of the student’s scale (total of
34 1 1 1 1 1 39) had an average of 3.0-5.0
35 1 5 3 1 2.50 which means they agreed that by
36 4 4 3 4 3.75 utilizing the academic factors
37 5 4 5 5 4.75 will improve their knowledge
38 3 3 4 3 3.25
and concepts about hospital
39 3 4 2 4 3.25
skills. It also showed the total
40 5 5 5 4 4.75
average of their scale which was
41 5 4 5 5 4.75
193.25.
42 3 4 3 5 3.75
43 3 2 2 2 2.25
44 1 3 4 3 2.75
 Student NCM 101 NCM 102 Average
1 2.25 1.75 2
2 1.75 2.25 2

Table 3 3 2 2.25 2.13

Results of the performance of 4 2.25 2.25 2.25

the 4th year nursing students 5 2.50 1.75 2.13

during their hospital duties in 6 2.50 2.00 2.25

NCM 101 and 102. 7 2.25 1.75 2

8 1.75 2.25 2
9 2.25 2.50 2.38
10 2.25 2.50 2.38
11 2.50 2.50 2.50
NORMS: 12 2.25 1.75 2
1.0– Excellent 13 2.25 2.00 2.13
1.25 - 2.0 – Very Good 14 2.25 2.00 2.13
2.25 - 2.75 – Good
15 2.25 2.25 2.25
3.0 – Passing
16 2.25 2.25 2.25
17 2.50 2.25 2.38
18 2.25 2.50 2.38
19 2.50 2.75 2.38
20 2.25 2.50 2.38
21 2.75 2.50 2.63
22 2.25 2.50 2.38
Student NCM 101 NCM 102 Average Student NCM 101 NCM 102 Average
24 2.00 2.00 2 46 2.50 2.00 2.25
25 2.25 2.50 2.38 47 2.00 2.50 2.25
26 2.50 2.50 2.50 48 2.75 2.00 2.36
27 2.50 2.25 2.38 49 2.50 2.00 2.25
28 2.25 2.50 2.38 50 2.25 2.50 2.38
29 2.25 2.00 2.13 TOTAL 114.75 111.75 113.11
30 2.25 1.75 2
31 2.25 2.50 2.38
32 2.50 2.25 2.38
 The table showed that the 4th
33 2.25 2.00 2.13
year nursing student’s
34 2.50 2.00 2.25
performance during their
35 2.25 2.00 2.13
hospital duty in NCM 101
and 102 were all passed.
36 2.25 2.25 2.25
Because their grades were in
37 2.25 2.25 2.25
1.25 – 2.75, this means very
38 2.00 2.25 2.13
good or good. It also showed
39 2.25 2.00 2.13
the average of each grades in
40 2.50 2.50 2.50 the table.
41 2.25 2.50 2.38
42 2.25 2.25 2.25
43 2.25 2.25 2.25
44 2.25 2.25 2.25
45 2.50 2.50 2.50
 Student x y xy x² y²
1 4.5 2 9 20.25 4
2 5 2 10 25 4
3 4.25 2.13 9.0525 18.0625 4.5369
4 4.5 2.25 10.125 20.25 5.0625
5 4.25 2.13 9.0525 18.0625 4.5369
6 2 2.25 4.5 4 5.0625
7 4.75 2 9.5 22.5625 4
Table 4A
8 4 2 8 16 4
Significant Relationships
9 4.75 2.38 11.305 22.5625 5.6644
between Academic Factors
10 2 2.38 4.76 4 5.6644
and the RLE Performance.
11 5 2.50 12.5 25 6.25
12 5 2 10 25 4
13 4.25 2.13 9.0525 18.0625 4.5369
14 2 2.13 4.26 4 4.5369
15 4.25 2.25 9.5625 18.0625 5.0625
16 4 2.25 9 16 5.0625
17 4.75 2.38 11.305 22.5625 5.6644
18 4.5 2.38 10.71 20.25 5.6644
19 4 2.38 9.52 16 5.6644
20 4.5 2.38 10.71 20.25 5.6644
21 4.25 2.63 11.1775 18.0625 6.9169
22 4.5 2.38 10.71 20.25 5.6644
Student x y xy x² y²

23 3.75 2.38 8.925 14.0625 5.6644

24 4.25 2 8.5 18.0625 4
25 1 2.38 2.38 1 5.6644
26 3.75 2.50 9.375 14.0625 6.25
27 3.5 2.38 8.33 12.25 5.6644
28 4.5 2.38 10.71 20.25 5.6644
29 5 2.13 10.65 25 4.5369
30 3.75 2 7.5 14.0625 4
31 4 2.38 9.52 16 5.6644
32 4.25 2.38 10.115 18.0625 5.6644
33 4.75 2.13 10.1175 22.5625 4.5369
34 1 2.25 2.25 1 5.0625
35 2.5 2.13 5.325 6.25 4.5369
36 3.75 2.25 8.4375 14.0625 5.0625
37 4.75 2.25 10.6875 22.5625 5.0625
38 3.25 2.13 6.9225 10.5625 4.5369
39 3.25 2.13 6.9225 10.5625 4.5369
40 4.75 2.50 11.875 22.5625 6.25
41 4.75 2.38 11.305 22.5625 5.6644
42 3.75 2.25 8.4375 14.0625 5.0625
43 2.25 2.25 5.0625 5.0625 5.0625
44 2.75 2.25 6.1875 7.5625 5.0625
 Table 4B
Testing for the Significance of r.

HYPOTHESES TEST CRITICAL COMPUTED VALUE DECISION

STATISTICS VALUE FOR t

HO: ρ = 0 • t – test for the ± 2.0210 t = 0.21 Accept HO: ρ = 0

There is no significant significance
relationship of r
between the • two – tailed at
academic factors α = 0.05 level of
and the RLE significance
performance of
the 4th year
nursing students.
HA: ρ ≠ 0
There is a significant
relationship
between the
academic factors
and the RLE
performance of
the 4th year
nursing students.
 Figure 3
Test for the significance of r

Rejection Region Acceptance Region

- 2.0210 0.21 + 2.0210

 Since the computed t- value (0.21) is lesser than the critical value (±
2.0210) then Ho should be accepted. Accepting Ho means that there is no
significant relationship between the academic factors and the RLE
performance of the 4th year nursing students during their hospital duty
hours at 0.05 level of significance.
 (x-x)²
Student NCM 101 NCM 102 Average

1 2.25 1.75 0.0441

Table 5A 2

2 1.75 2.25 2 0.0441

Significant Differences
3 2 2.25 2.13 0.0064
of Duties First before
4 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.0016
Lecture.
5 2.50 1.75 2.13 0.0064
6 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.0016
 This table showed 7 2.25 1.75 2 0.0441
the grades of the 8 1.75 2.25 2 0.0441
RLE performance 9 2.25 2.50 2.38 0.0289
grade in NCM 101 10 2.25 2.50 2.38 0.0289
and 102 of the 4th
11 2.50 2.50 0.0841
year nursing 2.50

students who had 12 2.25 1.75 2 0.0441

their duties first 13 2.25 2.00 2.13 0.0064

before attending 14 2.25 2.00 2.13 0.0064

their lectures. It 15 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.0016
also showed the 16 2.25 2.25 2.25 0.0016
average and the 17 2.50 2.25 2.38 0.0289
(x- )² of each grade 18 2.25 2.50 2.38 0.0289
in the NCM’s. 19 2.50 2.75 2.38 0.0289
TOTAL 42.75 41.5 41.92 0.4811
 Student NCM 101 NCM 102 Average (x-x)²
1 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

2 2.75 2.50 2.63 .1089

3 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

4 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

Table 5B 5 2.00 2.00 2 .09

Significant Difference of 6 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

Lecture first before Duty 7 2.50 2.50 2.50 .04

8 2.50 2.25 2.38 .0064

9 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

10 2.25 2.00 2.13 .0289

11 2.25 1.75 2 .09

12 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

13 2.50 2.25 2.38 .0064

14 2.25 2.00 2.13 .0289

15 2.50 2.00 2.25 .0025

16 2.25 2.00 2.13 .0289

17 2.25 2.25 2.25 .0025

18 2.25 2.25 2.25 .0025

19 2.00 2.25 2.13 .0289

20 2.25 2.00 2.13 .0289

21 2.50 2.50 2.50 .04

22 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

 NCM 101 NCM 102 Average (x-x)²
Student

23 2.25 2.25 2.25 .0025

24 2.25 2.25 2.25 .0025

25 2.25 2.25 2.25 .0025

26 2.50 2.50 2.50 .04

27 2.50 2.00 2.25 .0025

28 2.00 2.50 2.25 .0025

29 2.75 2.00 2.36 .0036

30 2.50 2.00 2.25 .0025

31 2.25 2.50 2.38 .0064

TOTAL
72 70.25 71.19 0.6435

 This table showed the grades of the RLE performance grade in

NCM 101 and 102 of the 4th year nursing students who had their
lectures first before having their hospital duties. It also showed the
average and the (x- )² of each grade in the NCM’s.
 Table 5C
Interpretation for Figure 2

HYPOTHESES TEST STATISTICS CRITICAL COMPUTED DECISION

VALUE VALUE
Ho: µDF =µLF • t-test for two sample ± 2.1010 0.19 Accept
There is no significant means Ho: µDF =µLF
difference between • Level of
the grades of the Significance:
students during α= 0.05
their Lecture class
hours and during
their hospital duty
hours.
HA: µDF ≠ µLF
There is a significant
difference between
the grades of the
students during
their Lecture class
hours and during
their hospital duty
hours.
 Figure 4
Test for the significant difference between the grades of the students during their
Lecture class hours and during their hospital duty hours.

Rejection Region Acceptance Region

- 2.1010 0.19 + 2.1010

 Computation shows that the computed t- value (0.19) is lesser than the
critical t- value (± 2.1010), this lead to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis. Acceptance of the null hypothesis means that there is no
significant difference between the grades of the students who attended
hospital duties before lecture and those who had their lecture before having
their hospital duties.
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION
 Summary of Findings
Based on the data gathered and the computations obtained from the
statistical treatment, the following findings are:
3. Out of the five academic factors, personal study skill got the highest frequency
of 22 or 44% relative frequency. Then class schedule got 11 or 22%, study hours
10 or 20%, general academic services 6 or 12% and lastly attendance which only
got 1 or 2% of relative frequency.
4. Majority of the student’s scale had an average 3.0-5.0 which means they agreed
that by utilizing the academic factors will improve their knowledge and concepts
about hospital skills. It also showed the total average of their scale which was
193.25.
5. The 4th year nursing student’s performance during their hospital duty in NCM
101 and 102 were all passed. Because their grades were in 1.25 – 2.75, this
means very good or good. Even after the researchers computed their average, the
results were still very good and good.
6. YGH
7. GH
 Conclusions
The following are the formulated conclusions based on
the findings above:
3. The most common academic factor used by the 4th year
nursing students was Personal Study Skills.
4. Academic factors affect the RLE performance of the nursing
students during their hospital duty by utilizing the factors to
improved knowledge and concepts about hospital skills and
improved their hospital rating
5. The results of the RLE performance grade of the 4th year
nursing students were all passed.
6. There was no significant relationship between the academic
factors and the RLE performance of the 4th year nursing
students.
7. There was no significant difference between the grades of the
students who attended hospital duties before lecture and those
who had their lecture before having their hospital duties.
 Recommendations
In regards to the presented conclusions, the following
recommendations are:
1. Advising the students to recognize also the other academic factors aside
from the personal study skill. This will give them the chance to choose
among the factors that will best suit their type of studying.
2. Students are aware on what the academic factors can do to their
performance.
3. The students should maintain and keep up a good performance in their
hospital duties.
4. Students should strengthen more the used of academic factors. Though
majority of them believe that those factors has a good effect on their
performance, they should utilize it seriously during their study
5. This only suggests that before having a hospital duty, students must first
attended their theoretical lecture first. Because lectures will give them
knowledge and background about the things they should do in their duties.