4.5 Article

From me to we: Transforming values and building professional community through narratives

期刊

NURSE EDUCATION IN PRACTICE
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 142-146

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.08.007

关键词

Affective learning activities; Constructionist pedagogy; Narrative; Transformative learning

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Entering high acuity environments for the first time is a daunting experience for nursing students and new graduates. They are challenged to be both highly skilled and critical thinkers. In addition, because of increasing acuity and the burgeoning prevalence of patients with long-term, multi-faceted health care issues, particularly in the elderly population, students also need advanced interpersonal communication skills. Nurse academics need to respond to these imperatives by examining the fundamental values of the profession so that they can provide learning opportunities that place equal emphasis on developing affective attributes alongside cognitive and psychomotor skills. This paper presents a novel values-based learning activity using transformative learning principles. Three extracts from a book were chosen that conveyed the uncertainty and insecurity that a novice Intensive care nurse overcame to become a competent, professional, trusted practitioner, her passion to be part of a caring profession and the positive role models who shaped her values. Transformative Learning questions were developed to promote critical reflection on the shared values of the profession and the transition from the personal to professional self. Students' insights from the activity focused on their aspirations to provide patientcentred care and included recognition of the emotional labour of caring, the need to rise above negative cultures, how to challenge out-dated practices and the importance of strengthening professional identity. Krathwohl et al. (1964) Stages of Affective Learning was used to evaluate the activity. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据