What’s going on in the clinical examination room?-An exploratory and comparative study of two types of clinical exams and their meaning for nursing students in the final year of the nursing education

Christina Jensen, Tanja E. Bertelsen, Frederik L. Kuipers, S. R. Jessiman, Lene R. Andersen, Astrid G. Sørensen, Niels S. Larsen, Camilla Bernild
{"title":"What’s going on in the clinical examination room?-An exploratory and comparative study of two types of clinical exams and their meaning for nursing students in the final year of the nursing education","authors":"Christina Jensen, Tanja E. Bertelsen, Frederik L. Kuipers, S. R. Jessiman, Lene R. Andersen, Astrid G. Sørensen, Niels S. Larsen, Camilla Bernild","doi":"10.5430/jnep.v14n7p1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is an education experiment based on a comparative approach, where two clinical exams – a bedside exam and a written case study exam – are investigated simultaneously. The article explores what’s going on in the two exams and how nursing students assess and experience them. Based on these findings, we discuss the types of logics, knowledge, and competencies the two exams enhance and limit, respectively. Data consists of a questionnaire survey with 104 students (56/48), observations of twelve exams (6/6), followed by two focus group interviews with nurse students. The analysis shows that the bedside exam enhances ‘knowing-in-action’, ‘reflection-in-action’, ‘shows how’ and ‘does’ by its focus on nursing actions. It is unpredictable and promotes ‘logics of relational care, care production and care education'. The written case study exam enhances ‘reflection-on-action’, ‘knows’ and ‘knows-how’ by its focus on theoretically based reflections on nursing practice. It is predictable and enhances ‘logic of care education’.","PeriodicalId":73866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nursing education and practice","volume":" 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nursing education and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v14n7p1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study is an education experiment based on a comparative approach, where two clinical exams – a bedside exam and a written case study exam – are investigated simultaneously. The article explores what’s going on in the two exams and how nursing students assess and experience them. Based on these findings, we discuss the types of logics, knowledge, and competencies the two exams enhance and limit, respectively. Data consists of a questionnaire survey with 104 students (56/48), observations of twelve exams (6/6), followed by two focus group interviews with nurse students. The analysis shows that the bedside exam enhances ‘knowing-in-action’, ‘reflection-in-action’, ‘shows how’ and ‘does’ by its focus on nursing actions. It is unpredictable and promotes ‘logics of relational care, care production and care education'. The written case study exam enhances ‘reflection-on-action’, ‘knows’ and ‘knows-how’ by its focus on theoretically based reflections on nursing practice. It is predictable and enhances ‘logic of care education’.
临床考场上发生了什么?--两种类型的临床考试及其对护理专业最后一年学生的意义的探索性比较研究
本研究是一项基于比较法的教育实验,同时调查了两种临床考试--床旁考试和书面案例研究考试。文章探讨了这两种考试的情况,以及护理专业学生如何评估和体验这两种考试。基于这些发现,我们讨论了这两种考试分别增强和限制的逻辑、知识和能力类型。数据包括对 104 名学生(56/48)的问卷调查、对 12 场考试(6/6)的观察以及对护生的两次焦点小组访谈。分析表明,床边考试通过对护理行动的关注,加强了 "在行动中了解"、"在行动中反思"、"展示如何 "和 "做"。它具有不可预测性,促进了 "关系护理、护理生产和护理教育的逻辑"。书面案例研究考试侧重于对护理实践进行理论反思,从而加强了 "行动反思"、"知道 "和 "知道如何做"。它具有可预见性,并增强了 "护理教育逻辑"。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信