Organ Donation in Terms of Social, Educational, Religious Perception of University Students: Corum/Turkey

Abstract

Introduction: Critical thinking is the key element of nursing practice, because critical thinking constitutes the base of developing accurate communication. As critical thinking is influencing patient care potentially, it is very important. With this study it was aimed to determine the critical thinking levels of nursing students. Methods: This study was planned to be conducted as analytical descriptive type in Corum/Turkey in the year 2014. Sample of the study (N=298) consisted of all students visiting the Health High School. The data in the study was collected by using Student Descriptive Characteristics Inventory Form and California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI). For the statistical analyze during the assessment of obtained findings from the study, the SPSS 15.0 program was used. Significance was evaluated in p<0.05 level. Findings: Nursing students’ critical thinking point averages (208.7987±19.90634) were found low. Whereas students’ CCTDI sub-scale point averages regarding analyticity and open-mindedness are medium, it was determined that searching for the truth, systematicity, self-confidence and curiosity sub-scale point averages are low. In the study was detected that family structure and maternal education level have an impact on students’ critical thinking level and this difference was found statistically significant (p<0.05). According to CCTDI students’ critical thinking level was determined to be low. Conclusion: It is recommended to use educational methods intending to increase students’ critical level during nursing education, to encourage students to read books-magazines and newspapers, to perform intervention studies that evaluate the effects of different interventions in order to provide students with critical thinking skills.

Keywords: Nursing, education, California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI)

Introduction

Critical thinking is the key element of nursing practice, because critical thinking constitutes the base of developing accurate communication, problem solving ability, understand conceptual and theoretical features and nursing science (Moore, 2010; Andreou, Papastavrou, & Merkouris, 2014; Parker et al., 2014; Ulupınar, 2014; Kim, & Choi, 2014). Critical thinking gives nurses an opportunity to question events and make decisions about patients. It also provides that nurses make evaluations of their basic nursing education, professional experiences and research results and reflect these to their practice (Ucan, Tascı, & Ovayoglu, 2008; Parker et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2014). Thus, decisions, which provide to proceed and develop independently shall be taken, the needs of the patient shall be identified, the most appropriate interventions to meet the needs of the patient shall be determined and a step towards problem solving shall be done (Moore, 2010; Paterson, & Chapman, 2013; Parker et al., 2014).

Research Methods

3.Findings

In this study; 79.9% of students who participated in the study are girls and 72.3% (n=218) has three or more siblings. 64.4% (n=201) of students’ mothers and 46.6% (n=139) students’ fathers are primary graduates. The general structure of students’ families participating in the study 70.5% (n=210) is accepting-reassuring and the socio-economic level of 79.5% (n=237) is medium. It was seen that 83.9% (n=250) of students do not participate in social activities and 89.9% (n=268) in scientific activities. Additionally it was determined that 50.3% (n=150) of students number of books read per year is between 1-5 and 16.5% (n=49) do not read any book.

Whereas the minimum point, which can be scored in CCTDI is 60 and the maximum point is 360, the CCTDI point averages of students in this study is 208.7987±19.90634, obtained minimum point is 160 and the maximum is 256. CCTDI’s minimum point, which can be scored in each subscale is 10, the maximum is 60. The obtained CCTDI sub-scale point averages of students included in this study is given in Table 1.

According to CCTDI, 90.6% of students included in the study are located in the low critical thinking level. In the CCTDI sub scale evaluation was seen that most of the students have a lowcritical thinking level in sub scales except of analyticity and open-mindedness. 56.7% students have a medium critical thinking level in the analyticity sub scale and 48% in open-mindedness (Table 2).

Critical thinking level average of participating male students is 5.51 points lower than the average of female students. The difference of critical thinking point averages according to students’ genders is statistically not significant (p>0.05). It was determined that the influence of maternal education level to critical thinking is statistically significant (p<0.05), while the paternal education level is not (p>0.05). After having analysed between which groups is a statistical difference, which emerges under the influence of maternal education level to critical thinking level, it was observed that the difference reason is due to the difference of point averages of students with primary graduate mothers and students with secondary and university graduate mothers (Table 3).

It was determined that the participating students’ general family structure, socio-economic level’s influence on critical thinking level is statistically significant (p<0.05). In further analyses was observed that the resulting statistical difference of the students’ general family structure impact on critical thinking emerges because of the difference between students’ point averages who have a “extremely tolerant” family structure and students with “accepting-reassuring democratic” and “inconsistent” family structure. In further analyses in order to determine the difference between groups regarding the impact of socio-economic level on critical thinking level, it was detected that this was a result of the point average difference between students with “low socio-economic level”, “high socio-economic level” and “very high socio-economic level” (Table 3).

Furthermore it was observed that the students’ participation status in social and scientific activities do not influence the CCTDI point averages (p>0.05; Table 3), whereas the total number of read books do (p<0.05; Table 4). After having analysed the relation between the reading status and the sub scale of the students; it was seen that students who read 6-20 books per year have a high CCTDI sub scale point average compared to the ones who do not read any book. The sub scale point averages of searching for the truth, open-mindedness and curiosity were found statistically significant (p<0.05; Table 4).

Conclusions

Critical thinking skill is a skill that has to be imparted to the nurses during their education because nurses faces many situations, where they have to use their critical thinking skills to take critical decisions while practicing their profession (Andreou, Papastavrou, & Merkouris, 2014; Hunter et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2014). In studies (Ozturk, & Ulusoy, 2008; Bulut, Ertem, & Sevil, 2009; Saglam, & Buyukuysal, 2013; Hunter et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2014; Paul, 2014) and in our study was determined that nursing students’ critical thinking level is low (Table 1). Analysing the studies with nursing students it was observed that critical thinking level points are not at the desired level in a manner similar to our study. As reasons why nursing students’ critical thinking levels are not at the desired level can be considered the differences in the education system, the perception of nursing as a profession to be specific to women and due to the social concept of gender.

Nurses have to search for the truth in order to evaluate disparate ideas and take patient-related decisions, furthermore they have to be open-minded in order to take patient-related decisions paying attention to the thoughts of his/her team and last but not least they have to be analytical, careful and systematic for a planned research in order to reason problems. Additionally they have to be curious in order to provide his/her personal development and must believe in him-/herself and his/her thoughts (Sullivan, 2012; Chan, 2013; Morrall, & Goodman, 2013). According to CCTDI students in our study have only received medium level point in the analyticity and openmindedness subscales. However, when we look at the sub scale scores of the students these features appear to be insufficient (Table 2).

It is reported that students’ critical thinking skills are influenced together with the innate characteristics by family structure, maternal-paternal education level, socio-economic level, environment, teacher attitude in school, physical condition, nutrition, sleep, rest period, age, development level, gender, religious beliefs, environmental factors etc. (Ozturk, & Ulusoy, 2008; Moor, 2010; Dirimese, & Dicle, 2012; Saglam, & Buyukuysal, 2013). In literature there are together with studies that do not indicate any relationship (Ozturk, & Ulusoy, 2008; Hunter et al., 2014) between critical thinking and gender also studies (Saglam, & Buyukuysal, 2013; Kim et al., 2014), which indicate a relationship. Although the difference of critical thinking point average between female and male students in our study is 6, no statistical significant difference was found between gender and CCTDI point average (p>0.05; Table 3). In our study was observed that the CCTDI point average difference regarding paternal education level is not statistically significant (p>0.05), whereas the difference concerning maternal education level was found statistically significant (p<0.05; Table 3). In further analyses it was concluded that students’ critical thinking levels of primary graduate mothers are significantly lower than students of high school graduates.

Attitude of mother-father may be the cause of the healthy or unhealthy development of a person. According to the values and beliefs of parents, there are accepting-reassuring and democratic, extremely authoritarian and rejecting, extremely tolerant, overprotective, aloof, indifferent and inconsistent family attitudes (Ozturk, & Ulusoy, 2008; Ulukaya, & Bilge, 2014). Social and conformist individuals grow in a democratic, accepting-reassuring adopted family structure. These grow up as active, independent decision-taking, creative, curious, not blindly tied to authority, social and conformist individuals. In contrast, in an overprotective, tolerant, indifferent, inconsistent and rejecting adopted family structure, aggressive, intolerant, vicious, tied to authority without questioning, shy and individuals with low self-confidence grow up (Ulukaya, & Bilge, 2014; Hallac, & Oz, 2014). The most family structures of students who participated in our study are accepting-reassuring and democratic. The CCTDI point average height of these students are similar with literature. (Ozturk, & Ulusoy, 2008; Kim, & Choi, 2014).

In this submitted study the CCTDI point averages of participating students, who defined their socio-economic level low, was found high and students with very high socio-economic level was found low, therefore this difference was seen statistically significant (p<0.05; Table 3). This finding is similar with literature (Zaybak, & Khorshid, 2006; Bulut, Ertem, & Sevil, 2009). The fact that the CCTDI point averages of nursing students, who identify their socio-economic level as low, is high, can be considered as low socio-economic level makes social life more difficult and therefore develops awareness. It can be concluded that as a result of this critical thinking skill increases.

Participating in social and scientific activities can be effective to develop the students’ critical thinking. The activities improve students’ critical thinking, be sociable, view and interpret events from different perspectives and develops decision making periods after having done analysis. Furthermore the activities make positive contribution to mental development together with physical development and human relations (Dirimese, & Dicle, 2012; Morrall, & Goodman, 2013; Parker et al., 2014). In our study was observed in accordance with literature (Zaybak, & Khorshid, 2006) that there are lots of students not participating in social and scientific activities. Additionally it was seen that students’ critical thinking point averages, who participate in social and scientific activities are in comparison to not participating students lower; this difference was not found statistically significant (p>0.05; Table 3).

Book reading provides that critical thinking is activated, multiple thinking is learned and imagination is developed. Furthermore it is reported that reading books help that individuals with different perspectives, researching the cause and effect relation, asking right questions by evaluating the ideas, productive, self-confident, able to think freely and critically, broad-minded grow up (Paterson, & Chapman, 2013; Karadeniz, 2014). In literature (Zaybak, & Khorshid, 2006) was reported that there is a significant relation between critical thinking and reading books and emphasized that students with high critical thinking level have a high book reading level. In our study was determined that 50.3% read 1-5 books per year and a statistically significant was found between the number of books read per year and their CCTDI point averages (p<0,05; Table 4). Additionally it was determined that the CCTDI sub scale point averages of students, who read annually 6-20 books are higher than the ones who do not read any book and that the sub-scale point averages of searching the truth, open-mindedness and curiosity is statistically significant (p<0.05). This finding is an expected finding for critical thinking, reading, questioning, analysing and researching individuals.

This study is limited with the findings obtained from 298 students, who are visiting the Health School and were available during the time of the study students and therefore included in the study.

It is thought to conduct more comprehensive studies in future that may reflect the critical thinking skills and increased critical thinking skill level of all students throughout the country.

In accordance with the obtained findings from the study; it is recommended that students’ critical thinking skill level increasing methods and techniques are used in nursing education, critical thinking skill developing program is added to the syllabus, critical thinking skill acquiring teaching environment is ensured, reading books, magazines and newspapers is encouraged, participating scientific and social activities is supported and intervention studies in order to assess the effects of different attempts to provide students with critical thinking skills are done.

References

• Andreou, C., Papastavrou, E. & Merkouris, A. (2014). Learning styles and critical thinking relationship in baccalaureate nursing education: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Bulut, S., Ertem, G. & Sevil, U. (2009). Examination of nursing students' level of critical thinking. DEUHYO ED, 2(2), 27-38.

• Chan, Z.C.Y. (2013). A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.01.007.

• Dirimese, E. & Dicle, A. (2012). Evaluation of critica lthinking dispositions on nurses and nursing student’s. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(2), 89-98.

• Goodman, B. (2011). The need for a ‘sustain ability curriculum’ in nurse education. Nurse Education Today, doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.010.

• Hallac, S. & Oz, F. (2014). A theoretical perspective of family concept. Current Approaches in Psychiatry, doi: 10.5455/cap.20130625102321.

• Hunter, S., Pitt, V., Croce, N. & Roche, J. (2014). Critical thinking skills of undergraduate nursing students: Description and demographic predictors. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.08.005.

• Karadeniz, A. (2014). Critical reading self-efficacy perception scale validity and reliability study. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, doi: 10.14686/BUEFAD.201416210.

• Kim, D.H., Moon, S., Kim, E.J., Kim, Y.J. & Lee, S. (2014). Nursing students' critica lthinking disposition according to academic level and satisfaction with nursing. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.012.

• Kim, K.S. & Choi, J.H. (2014). A study on problem solving ability of nursing students. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, doi: DOI: 10.14257/astl.2014.47.81.

• Kokdemir, D. (2003). "Decision Making and Problem Solving Under Uncertainty." Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Social Psychology, Ankara University, Ankara.

• Moore, K. (2010). The three-partharmony of adult learning, critical thinking, and decision-making. Journal of Adult Education, 39(1), 1-10.

• Morrall, P. & Goodman, B. (2013). Critical thinking, nurse education and universities: Some thoughts on current issues and implications for nursing practice. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2012.11.011.

• Ozturk, N. & Ulusoy, H. (2008). Baccalaureate and masters' degree nursing students' levels of critical thinking and factors influencing critical thinking. Maltepe University E-Journal of Nursing Science & Art, 1(1), 15-25.

• Parker, V., Gilles, M., Lantry, G. & McMillan, M. (2014). New graduate nurses' experiences in their first year of practice. Nurse EducationToday, doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.07.003.

• Paterson, C. & Chapman, J. (2013). Enhancing skills of critical reflection to evidence

• learning in professional practice. Physical Therapy in Sport, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.ptsp.2013.03.004.

• Paul, S.A. (2014). Assessment of critical thinking: A Delphi study. Nurse Education Today, doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.03.008.

• Saglam, A.C. & Buyukuysal, E. (2013). Critical thinking levels of senior students at education faculties and their views on obstacles to critical thinking. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 258-78.

• Sullivan, E.A. (2012). Critical thinking in clinical nurse education: Application of Paul’s model of critical thinking. Nurse Education in Practice, doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2012.03.005.

• Ucan, O., Tascı S. & Ovayoglu, N. (2008). Critical thinking and nursing." Journal of Fırat Health Services (E-Journal), 3(7), 17-27.

• Ulukaya, S. & Bilge, F. (2014). The self and parental attitudes as predictors of academic procrastination. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 5(41), 89-102.

• Ulupınar, S. (2014). The effect of psychodrama application on nursing students'problem-solving skills. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 55-62.

• Zaybak, A. & Khorshid, L. (2006). The investigation of the level of critical thinking of students in Ege Universıty school of nursing. Journal of Ege University Nursing Faculty, 22(2), 137-46.