- Email: [email protected]
NETNEP 2008 special edition
Nurse Education Today (2009) 29, 265–267
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
Guest Editorial
NETNEP 2008 special edition Sequels are no good. Everyone knows that they do not work, so how on Earth was the second NETNEP International Nurse Education Conference such a resounding success? I would suggest that it was for three main reasons.
Innovation and fresh stimulation Innovative education, much of this related to new technology, e-learning and Web 2.0, was a major feature of NETNEP 2008. Indeed, research and guidance into e-learning has been a feature of work published in NET for some time (Bennett and Glover, 2008; Farrell et al., 2007; Garrett and Jackson, 2006; Jacobsen, 2006). However, e-learning is so persistently supported, its popularity so widespread and its adoption by authorities so complete that it may justifiably come under suspicion as a meme (Dawkins, 1976). This, as Kelly et al. recognise, is a clear indicator of the need for critical scrutiny, particularly since part of the stimuli for e-learning is logistical need rather than primary efficacy (Hopcraft, 2002). It is vital to be clear on the motivating aim for e-learning, to be discriminating in blending with other methods, and to be prepared to incorporate critical evaluation. Ward and Sales present their findings of on-line evaluation of web-based curriculum delivery, noting the difficulty of engaging students in such evaluation even when they hold generally positive views of the resources in question. The complexity of electronic resources and engaging the commitment of the Net generation to the institution’s evaluatory needs should not be underestimated. Parker and Myrick also adopt a critical approach to the use of technology with the Net (or millennial) generation and find the need to clarify and adopt a relevant philosophical and theoretical approach to the exercise. Recognising the objective
of the learning (whether psychomotor skills development or enhancement of clinical judgement ability) is vital to successful use of the technology. Hall’s paper presents a pragmatic view of the utility and limitations of IT as a solution to problems in nursing education. Accepting that many pre-registration students now are of the NET generation and take readily to web-based approaches to learning, she notes, too, that by no means all students react positively to such resources. Moreover, just as in the practice of nursing, there is an essential element of human interaction which is vital to nurse education, and this element – best offered through traditional approaches – can be made remarkably varied and flexible, too. The skill, perhaps, is in learning when and how to apply an appropriate blend of approaches. Skiba’s questions (paraphrased by Hall) show us just how much remains to be clarified before we can be confident that we have the most effective blend.
Research and the evidence base for nurse education The second reason for the success of the conference was not so obvious to me until recently, but it relates to the strength of research evidence presented and a clear determination to offer a sound evidence base for the innovations and practices submitted to peer-review and public examination. A remarkable feeling of achievement and pride has filled researchers in nursing in the UK since 18th December 2008. This was the day that the results of the periodic Research Assessment Exercise were made public. This peer-review-based national assessment of research quality in universities across the UK revealed a major improvement in the quality of nursing research since the last exercise in 2001. As reported in The Guardian (18-12-08): ‘‘Nursing,
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.01.001
266 for many years medicine’s poor relation, has come of age in the 2008 research assessment exercise. Academics in the field can justifiably claim to be world-leading in terms of research. . . Nursing and midwifery was among the subjects with the most highly rated research in the results published today.’’ This was no isolated perception. The Chair of the main panel which included the subjects of nursing, allied health professions, dentistry and pharmacy declared that the result accurately reflected the true strength of nursing research: ‘‘Nursing research has finally matured. We saw some stunning research.’’ The RAE relates to the UK (and the paper by Lee and Metcalfe indicates alternative efforts in Australia), but while research in nursing has a more established place in some countries, it seems likely that the struggle to establish and maintain this quality of research in nursing is a common endeavour across the world. It is an aspiration which was clearly shared at the NETNEP conference, provoking considerable debate, and a significant proportion of papers at the conference reported the efforts made to establish and challenge the research base for nurse education. The predominance of research-based papers in this edition is impressive. Higgins et al. undertook research with students and educators to inform the curriculum in an area of health care which most would consider to be sensitive, some would find challenging, and others even inappropriate, but which previous research has consistently found to be a serious gap in nurse education. A critical approach to this study revealed issues and solutions which require action in both classroom and clinical practice to redress socialised views of sexuality and mental health. In contrast, Dobrowolska et al. researched the social context of nursing and its link to nurse education, both before and after registration. They found that, in one sense, nursing is what nurses do (occupational role), but social role was affected significantly by widespread changes in the whole educational system in Poland. Often, the focus of research is on education as a reaction to changes in practice, but in this case the effect of changes in education on the definition of practice was the focus. This illustrates that a simple cause and effect view of education and practice may well be misleading, and a much more accurate view may be one in which nursing practice and nurse education are seen to be more freely interactive and mutually developmental. The research into annotation by Ball et al. addresses an issue of communications between students and lecturers: an old problem with decep-
Editorial tively simple solutions. While students’ practice is readily accepted as a topic for appraisal, this study reviewed teachers’ practice and its effectiveness and acceptability to students. This approach of mutual appraisal is a vital issue for enhancing nurse education. The importance of students’ perception and involvement was a major feature at NETNEP 2008. Just as in this study, conference delegates were greatly impressed by students’ ability to contribute to debates, to express pertinent comment clearly, and to accept responsibility for critical appraisal. Begley recognises the severe limitations of evidence for the effectiveness of inter-professional learning, but calls for renewed efforts to maximise the use of such evidence as does exist and the adoption of a planned programme of development and evaluation to provide the required (rigorous) research findings. In the interim, and given the unceasing demand across the globe for inter-professional learning, a series of practical interventions is proposed, designed to maximise the potential for success. There is a serious lesson to be learned here. As it is so often the case in nursing, the lack of sufficient evidence to direct action must not be taken to imply the need to do nothing. Other sources of guidance exist and must be applied while simultaneous efforts are made to develop the evidence base.
Integration of education, practice and research The final stimulus for success was the huge effort made by delegates to draw together education, practice and research. Some issues seem to have been with us since the dawn of professional nursing, fostered, indeed, by Florence Nightingale herself. Levett-Jones and Lathlean set themselves the task of identifying why students turn to compliance and conformity in an effort to fit in when in clinical practice. The strength of the socialising effect of clinical practice has been known for a long time, and seems to be just as dominant today. This study highlights the continuing mismatch for some students between the endeavour of education to promote innovation, inquiry and assertiveness with the reality of ‘‘surviving’’ clinical practice. Another block to the integration of practice, education and research is explored by Lee and Metcalfe. Competing demands on clinicians and academics can easily prevent engagement in research (notably that investigating education and practice).
Editorial Collaboration in a clinical school of nursing was found to be mutually beneficial in supporting research, education and practice, and, most significantly, led to improvements in patient care. Education, practice and research were all well-represented in Dublin, but the challenge of integrating these endeavours clearly continues, particularly with evidence of the ultimate result of enhancing the outcomes of nursing practice.
NETNEP Sydney 2010 Dublin saw delegates revisiting perennial problems, tackling novel technologies, and searching for evidence to drive their work. So what should the aspiration be for Sydney in 2010? It must be for delegates to continue to identify the crucial issues of the time and to drive the agenda; for the consumers of nurse education (students and patients/clients) to be central to the endeavour from planning to evaluation; and for the opportunities presented by such a truly international gathering of expertise and innovation to be grasped and exploited to the full. Sydney must not be a sequel. It must be the seamless continuation of a joint endeavour to move nurse education forward from a sound evidence base and into a future defined by the ever-changing world of health, illness and disease, nursing, and the available means to
267 address the health problems of individuals and populations. The long-time emblem of the Royal College of Nursing once included the inscription ‘‘tradimus lampada’’. The NETNEP conference series should be a consistent means to ‘‘hand on the lamp’’.
References Bennett, P.N., Glover, P., 2008. Video streaming: implementation and evaluation in an undergraduate nursing program. Nurse Education Today 28, 253–258. Dawkins, R., 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, p. 192. Farrell, G.A., Cubit, K.A., Bobrowski, C.L., Salmon, P., 2007. Using the www to teach undergraduate nurses clinical communication. Nurse Education Today 27, 427–435. Garrett, B., Jackson, C., 2006. A moibile clinical e-portfolio for nursing and medical students using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nurse Education Today 26, 647–654. Hopcraft, A., 2002. E-learning and educational diversity. Nurse Education Today 22, 83–84. Jacobsen, H., 2006. A comparison of on-campus first year undergraduate nursing students’ experiences with face-toface and on-line discussions. Nurse Education Today 26, 494– 500.
Tony Long Professor of Child and Family Health, University of Salford School of Nursing, UK Chair, International Scientific Committee, NETNEP Dublin 2008, UK E-mail address: [email protected]
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
Guest Editorial
NETNEP 2008 special edition Sequels are no good. Everyone knows that they do not work, so how on Earth was the second NETNEP International Nurse Education Conference such a resounding success? I would suggest that it was for three main reasons.
Innovation and fresh stimulation Innovative education, much of this related to new technology, e-learning and Web 2.0, was a major feature of NETNEP 2008. Indeed, research and guidance into e-learning has been a feature of work published in NET for some time (Bennett and Glover, 2008; Farrell et al., 2007; Garrett and Jackson, 2006; Jacobsen, 2006). However, e-learning is so persistently supported, its popularity so widespread and its adoption by authorities so complete that it may justifiably come under suspicion as a meme (Dawkins, 1976). This, as Kelly et al. recognise, is a clear indicator of the need for critical scrutiny, particularly since part of the stimuli for e-learning is logistical need rather than primary efficacy (Hopcraft, 2002). It is vital to be clear on the motivating aim for e-learning, to be discriminating in blending with other methods, and to be prepared to incorporate critical evaluation. Ward and Sales present their findings of on-line evaluation of web-based curriculum delivery, noting the difficulty of engaging students in such evaluation even when they hold generally positive views of the resources in question. The complexity of electronic resources and engaging the commitment of the Net generation to the institution’s evaluatory needs should not be underestimated. Parker and Myrick also adopt a critical approach to the use of technology with the Net (or millennial) generation and find the need to clarify and adopt a relevant philosophical and theoretical approach to the exercise. Recognising the objective
of the learning (whether psychomotor skills development or enhancement of clinical judgement ability) is vital to successful use of the technology. Hall’s paper presents a pragmatic view of the utility and limitations of IT as a solution to problems in nursing education. Accepting that many pre-registration students now are of the NET generation and take readily to web-based approaches to learning, she notes, too, that by no means all students react positively to such resources. Moreover, just as in the practice of nursing, there is an essential element of human interaction which is vital to nurse education, and this element – best offered through traditional approaches – can be made remarkably varied and flexible, too. The skill, perhaps, is in learning when and how to apply an appropriate blend of approaches. Skiba’s questions (paraphrased by Hall) show us just how much remains to be clarified before we can be confident that we have the most effective blend.
Research and the evidence base for nurse education The second reason for the success of the conference was not so obvious to me until recently, but it relates to the strength of research evidence presented and a clear determination to offer a sound evidence base for the innovations and practices submitted to peer-review and public examination. A remarkable feeling of achievement and pride has filled researchers in nursing in the UK since 18th December 2008. This was the day that the results of the periodic Research Assessment Exercise were made public. This peer-review-based national assessment of research quality in universities across the UK revealed a major improvement in the quality of nursing research since the last exercise in 2001. As reported in The Guardian (18-12-08): ‘‘Nursing,
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.01.001
266 for many years medicine’s poor relation, has come of age in the 2008 research assessment exercise. Academics in the field can justifiably claim to be world-leading in terms of research. . . Nursing and midwifery was among the subjects with the most highly rated research in the results published today.’’ This was no isolated perception. The Chair of the main panel which included the subjects of nursing, allied health professions, dentistry and pharmacy declared that the result accurately reflected the true strength of nursing research: ‘‘Nursing research has finally matured. We saw some stunning research.’’ The RAE relates to the UK (and the paper by Lee and Metcalfe indicates alternative efforts in Australia), but while research in nursing has a more established place in some countries, it seems likely that the struggle to establish and maintain this quality of research in nursing is a common endeavour across the world. It is an aspiration which was clearly shared at the NETNEP conference, provoking considerable debate, and a significant proportion of papers at the conference reported the efforts made to establish and challenge the research base for nurse education. The predominance of research-based papers in this edition is impressive. Higgins et al. undertook research with students and educators to inform the curriculum in an area of health care which most would consider to be sensitive, some would find challenging, and others even inappropriate, but which previous research has consistently found to be a serious gap in nurse education. A critical approach to this study revealed issues and solutions which require action in both classroom and clinical practice to redress socialised views of sexuality and mental health. In contrast, Dobrowolska et al. researched the social context of nursing and its link to nurse education, both before and after registration. They found that, in one sense, nursing is what nurses do (occupational role), but social role was affected significantly by widespread changes in the whole educational system in Poland. Often, the focus of research is on education as a reaction to changes in practice, but in this case the effect of changes in education on the definition of practice was the focus. This illustrates that a simple cause and effect view of education and practice may well be misleading, and a much more accurate view may be one in which nursing practice and nurse education are seen to be more freely interactive and mutually developmental. The research into annotation by Ball et al. addresses an issue of communications between students and lecturers: an old problem with decep-
Editorial tively simple solutions. While students’ practice is readily accepted as a topic for appraisal, this study reviewed teachers’ practice and its effectiveness and acceptability to students. This approach of mutual appraisal is a vital issue for enhancing nurse education. The importance of students’ perception and involvement was a major feature at NETNEP 2008. Just as in this study, conference delegates were greatly impressed by students’ ability to contribute to debates, to express pertinent comment clearly, and to accept responsibility for critical appraisal. Begley recognises the severe limitations of evidence for the effectiveness of inter-professional learning, but calls for renewed efforts to maximise the use of such evidence as does exist and the adoption of a planned programme of development and evaluation to provide the required (rigorous) research findings. In the interim, and given the unceasing demand across the globe for inter-professional learning, a series of practical interventions is proposed, designed to maximise the potential for success. There is a serious lesson to be learned here. As it is so often the case in nursing, the lack of sufficient evidence to direct action must not be taken to imply the need to do nothing. Other sources of guidance exist and must be applied while simultaneous efforts are made to develop the evidence base.
Integration of education, practice and research The final stimulus for success was the huge effort made by delegates to draw together education, practice and research. Some issues seem to have been with us since the dawn of professional nursing, fostered, indeed, by Florence Nightingale herself. Levett-Jones and Lathlean set themselves the task of identifying why students turn to compliance and conformity in an effort to fit in when in clinical practice. The strength of the socialising effect of clinical practice has been known for a long time, and seems to be just as dominant today. This study highlights the continuing mismatch for some students between the endeavour of education to promote innovation, inquiry and assertiveness with the reality of ‘‘surviving’’ clinical practice. Another block to the integration of practice, education and research is explored by Lee and Metcalfe. Competing demands on clinicians and academics can easily prevent engagement in research (notably that investigating education and practice).
Editorial Collaboration in a clinical school of nursing was found to be mutually beneficial in supporting research, education and practice, and, most significantly, led to improvements in patient care. Education, practice and research were all well-represented in Dublin, but the challenge of integrating these endeavours clearly continues, particularly with evidence of the ultimate result of enhancing the outcomes of nursing practice.
NETNEP Sydney 2010 Dublin saw delegates revisiting perennial problems, tackling novel technologies, and searching for evidence to drive their work. So what should the aspiration be for Sydney in 2010? It must be for delegates to continue to identify the crucial issues of the time and to drive the agenda; for the consumers of nurse education (students and patients/clients) to be central to the endeavour from planning to evaluation; and for the opportunities presented by such a truly international gathering of expertise and innovation to be grasped and exploited to the full. Sydney must not be a sequel. It must be the seamless continuation of a joint endeavour to move nurse education forward from a sound evidence base and into a future defined by the ever-changing world of health, illness and disease, nursing, and the available means to
267 address the health problems of individuals and populations. The long-time emblem of the Royal College of Nursing once included the inscription ‘‘tradimus lampada’’. The NETNEP conference series should be a consistent means to ‘‘hand on the lamp’’.
References Bennett, P.N., Glover, P., 2008. Video streaming: implementation and evaluation in an undergraduate nursing program. Nurse Education Today 28, 253–258. Dawkins, R., 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, p. 192. Farrell, G.A., Cubit, K.A., Bobrowski, C.L., Salmon, P., 2007. Using the www to teach undergraduate nurses clinical communication. Nurse Education Today 27, 427–435. Garrett, B., Jackson, C., 2006. A moibile clinical e-portfolio for nursing and medical students using wireless personal digital assistants (PDAs). Nurse Education Today 26, 647–654. Hopcraft, A., 2002. E-learning and educational diversity. Nurse Education Today 22, 83–84. Jacobsen, H., 2006. A comparison of on-campus first year undergraduate nursing students’ experiences with face-toface and on-line discussions. Nurse Education Today 26, 494– 500.
Tony Long Professor of Child and Family Health, University of Salford School of Nursing, UK Chair, International Scientific Committee, NETNEP Dublin 2008, UK E-mail address: [email protected]