Elsevier

Nurse Education in Practice

Volume 28, January 2018, Pages 285-291
Nurse Education in Practice

Original research
Do action learning sets facilitate collaborative, deliberative learning?: A focus group evaluation of Graduate Entry Pre-registration Nursing (GEN) students' experience

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.023Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Graduate entry nursing students value action learning.

  • Reflecting on case studies offers purposeful, collaborative and deliberative learning.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate if by participating in action learning sets, Graduate Entry Pre-registration Nursing (GEN) students were able to engage in collaborative and deliberative learning. A single focus group interview involving eleven participants was used to collect data. Data analysis identified five themes; collaborative learning; reflection; learning through case study and problem-solving; communication, and rejection of codified learning. The themes are discussed and further analysed in the context of collaborative and deliberative learning. The evidence from this small scale study suggests that action learning sets do provide an environment where collaborative and deliberative learning can occur. However, students perceived some of them, particularly during year one, to be too ‘teacher lead’, which stifled learning.

Section snippets

Research aim

This research investigated if by participating in action learning, GEN students were able to engage in collaborative, deliberative learning.

Background

Graduate Entry Nursing (GEN) programmes are pre-registration nursing courses for applicants who already hold a Bachelor's degree. These programmes attract candidates with diverse skills sets and are reportedly well established in the USA and Australia (McGarry et al., 2011, Stacey et al., 2014). Cangelosi and Whitt (2005) state that the first iteration of this type of course was in 1971 in Louisianna and more recently in Australia (McKenna and Vanderheide, 2012). Courses in the United Kingdom

Eraut's typology of informal learning

Eraut (Eraut, 2000, Eraut, 2004) proposes a typology of informal learning based upon three levels of intention. The first is implicit learning which links to behaviours and tasks carried out instinctively without any need for premeditation or planning (Eraut, 2000). The second is reactive learning, occurring rapidly within an action with limited opportunity to consider the activity. This is often recognised in hindsight and will explicitly provide context for future actions; however, there is

Action learning

Introduced by Revans (Revans, 1982, Revans, 1983, Revans, 2011), action learning enables knowledge to be acquired through reflection on actions, offering insight into future actions (Weinstein, 1999). Alongside the opportunity for inter-professional engagement within nursing programmes, the philosophy of action learning is consistent with and offers a student centred and transformative approach to learning (Mezirow, 1997). McGill and Brockbank (2004) proposed that by using reflective dialogue

Research design

A focus group interview was the chosen research approach as it offered opportunities to understand the meanings and perspectives of the participants (Liamputtong, 2011). The uniqueness of this qualitative approach is that it aims to gather data by listening to the thoughts of participants regarding a given subject (Kreuger and Casey, 2015). In contrast to one-to-one interviews the researcher is interested in the dialogue that emerges from the interactions of the group participants (Cohen et

Sampling

The focus group interview aims to gather information from participants who have certain characteristics in common (Webb and Kevern, 2000). For this reason, the most appropriate type of sampling for this study is purposive sampling, which involves the selection of participants who are deemed to be representative of the study topic (Cohen et al., 2011). Members of the graduating 2013 cohort who had participated in the ALS were invited to join the focus group. There was no obligation to

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was obtained for this study from the faculty research ethics committee. Participants needed to understand the aims of the research, and the potential for publication, therefore informed consent was required (Cohen et al., 2011). Potential participants were approached by the first investigator and information regarding the study was provided verbally, via the cohort virtual learning environment discussion forum, and in paper copy three months in advance. This was also repeated

Quality and rigour

In focus group interviews, there is potential for research outcomes to be biased if participants have a specific agenda to bring to the research. When analysing the data, a careful note was made of the contributions of all participants to ensure the more forceful contributors did not dominate. Researcher bias is possible when interpreting the data, therefore, evidence of transferability and dependency needed to be considered (McDaniel and Bach, 1996). Ideally, data checking by participants

Interview schedule and data collection

The focus group was conducted in the students’ usual place of study using a set of questions to guide the discussion (Table 1). With the aims of the study and research questions in mind, the interview guide was designed to allow all participants the chance to interpret the intended outcomes of the ALS from their attitudes and experiences (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). The intention was to provide a structure but to allow sufficient freedom to let participants share their ideas and perspectives.

Data analysis

The principles of grounded theory analysis were used. Barbour (2007) proposed that researchers who utilise focus groups often adopt grounded theory, whereby the analysis is an iterative process in which the researcher becomes increasingly grounded in the data (Ryan and Bernard, 2000). This would normally require that no pre-conceptions are held by the researcher, which is not possible given the prior relationship of the researchers as facilitators of the ALS. Barbour (2007) suggests that in

Findings

Based on the analysis of the data, the five final themes were as identified: Collaborative/inter-professional learning; Reflection on practice; Problem-solving/case studies; Communication; and Rejection of codified learning. Quotes have been used to provide insight and participants have been identified as p1 to 12 (clarification of p11's role is mentioned earlier).

Discussion

This section will discuss each theme in the context of Eraut's (2007) theory.

Limitations

In addition to the issues previously discussed in the Quality and Rigour section, it is acknowledged in this evaluation that other factors may influence the outcomes. The lack of children's nursing students in the focus group may limit the findings.

Limitations of the focus group approach have been identified by Hennink (2013) and others (Kreuger and Casey, 2015, Liamputtong, 2011, Barbour, 2007) as being dependent on a skilled moderator to manage group dynamics. This is especially poignant

Conclusion

Overall this small study revealed that GEN students appreciated the opportunity to participate in ALS. Bringing together students from the different disciplines of nursing has the potential to enhance their ability to reflect upon and learn from practice experiences in a supportive environment, thus promoting collaborative learning (Eraut, 2000, Eraut, 2004, Eraut, 2007). Participants particularly valued the ALS where case studies, scenarios and practice issues were discussed. There was a sense

Conflicts of interest

The authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interest.

References (47)

  • H. Barr et al.

    Principles of interprofessional education, CAIPE

  • A. Brandon et al.

    Constructivism theory analysis and application to curricula

    Nurse Educ. Perspect.

    (2010)
  • D. Brock

    Interprofessional education in team communication: working together to improve patient safety

    Br. Med. J. Qual. Saf.

    (2013)
  • S. Brookfield

    Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher

    (1995)
  • CAIPE

    Interprofessional Education – a Definition

    (1997)
  • P.R. Cangelosi et al.

    Accelerated nursing programmes: what do we know?

    Nurse Educ. Perspect.

    (2005)
  • L. Cohen et al.

    Research Methods in Education

    (2011)
  • M. Eraut

    Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work

    Br. J. Educ. Psychol.

    (2000)
  • M. Eraut

    Informal learning in the workplace

    Stud. Continuing Educ.

    (2004)
  • M. Eraut

    Learning from other people in the workplace

    Oxf. Rev. Educ.

    (2007)
  • M. Eraut et al.

    The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organisations

    Skope Monogr.

    (2007)
  • M. Eraut

    Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work

    Br. J. Educ. Psychol.

    (2010)
  • E. Guba et al.

    Fourth Generation Evaluation

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Charlotte Maddison was Senior Lecturer in nursing at Oxford Brookes University at the time of the study.

    View full text