Beliefs and experiences of educators when involved in the design of a Learning-by-concordance tool: A qualitative interpretative study

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Professional Nursing Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.07.004
Marie-France Deschênes RN., PhD , Bernard Charlin MD, PhD , Haifa Akremi PT, PhD , Lise Lecours M Ed , Ahmed Moussa MD , Vincent Jobin MD , Nicolas Fernandez PhD
{"title":"Beliefs and experiences of educators when involved in the design of a Learning-by-concordance tool: A qualitative interpretative study","authors":"Marie-France Deschênes RN., PhD ,&nbsp;Bernard Charlin MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Haifa Akremi PT, PhD ,&nbsp;Lise Lecours M Ed ,&nbsp;Ahmed Moussa MD ,&nbsp;Vincent Jobin MD ,&nbsp;Nicolas Fernandez PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Based on the involvement of qualified educators in its design, the Learning-by-Concordance tool aims to promote the learning of reasoning in contexts of uncertainty. However, data are still scarce on the experience of educators in terms of sharing and exposing their reasoning processes using this tool.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study sought to explore the beliefs and experiences of educators when involved in the design of a Learning-by-Concordance tool.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This research used a descriptive qualitative design. Four dialogue groups were conducted with educators with different roles and responsibilities while designing a Learning-by-Concordance tool. A descriptive interpretative analysis of educators' verbatim quotes was done.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>A total of 14 participants took part in the study. The results show the discomfort of educators despite their recognized expertise. Three themes emerged: 1- the need to be reassured by the opinions of colleagues; 2-feeling like impostors; and 3- concerns for the quality of instructional supports.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The role taken by educators for teaching reasoning in contexts of uncertainty is to draw on practical experience where different types of knowledge intersect and are mobilized, to overcome feelings of insecurity, and to engage in close and authentic conversation with learners.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Professional Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Professional Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8755722324001169","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Based on the involvement of qualified educators in its design, the Learning-by-Concordance tool aims to promote the learning of reasoning in contexts of uncertainty. However, data are still scarce on the experience of educators in terms of sharing and exposing their reasoning processes using this tool.

Purpose

This study sought to explore the beliefs and experiences of educators when involved in the design of a Learning-by-Concordance tool.

Method

This research used a descriptive qualitative design. Four dialogue groups were conducted with educators with different roles and responsibilities while designing a Learning-by-Concordance tool. A descriptive interpretative analysis of educators' verbatim quotes was done.

Findings

A total of 14 participants took part in the study. The results show the discomfort of educators despite their recognized expertise. Three themes emerged: 1- the need to be reassured by the opinions of colleagues; 2-feeling like impostors; and 3- concerns for the quality of instructional supports.

Conclusions

The role taken by educators for teaching reasoning in contexts of uncertainty is to draw on practical experience where different types of knowledge intersect and are mobilized, to overcome feelings of insecurity, and to engage in close and authentic conversation with learners.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教育工作者在参与设计 "协调学习 "工具时的信念和经验:定性阐释研究
研究背景 基于合格教育工作者的参与设计,"对照学习 "工具旨在促进在不确定情况下的推理学习。本研究旨在探讨教育工作者在参与设计 "协调学习 "工具时的信念和经验。在设计 "通过协调学习 "工具的过程中,与不同角色和职责的教育工作者开展了四个对话小组。对教育工作者的逐字引文进行了描述性解释分析。研究结果表明,尽管教育工作者拥有公认的专业知识,但他们仍然感到不适。出现了三个主题:1- 需要从同事的意见中得到安慰;2- 感觉自己是冒名顶替者;3- 对教学支持质量的担忧。结论教育者在不确定情境中进行推理教学时所扮演的角色是,借鉴不同类型知识交叉运用的实践经验,克服不安全感,并与学习者进行密切而真实的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
8.00%
发文量
153
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: The Journal will accept articles that focus on baccalaureate and higher degree nursing education, educational research, policy related to education, and education and practice partnerships. Reports of original work, research, reviews, insightful descriptions, and policy papers focusing on baccalaureate and graduate nursing education will be published.
期刊最新文献
Expanding clinical placement opportunities: Exploring night shift experiences for nursing students Newly graduated and nurse resident competencies: Perceptions of nurse faculty and acute care hospital leaders in the state of Maryland Navigating challenges and cultivating connections: Faculty experiences teaching RN-BSN students Competence of the academic clinical nurse educator: A concept analysis Examining the influence of social support and resilience on academic self-efficacy and learning outcomes in pre-licensure student nurses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1