Technological competence as a fundamental structure of learning in critical care nursing: a phenomenological study
Abstract
Post-registration education programmes are frequently informed by nationally agreed curriculum frameworks. Although these aim to promote comparability between similarly focused clinical courses, inconsistencies have recently been identified across a range of critical care curricula. This suggests that broad-based frameworks may be insufficiently sensitive to local learning needs. This study was concerned with the extent to which the curriculum met the learning needs of 10 post-registration critical care students and, in particular, aimed to explore the meaning of learning to the students themselves. The study revealed technological competence to be a necessary foundation to the development of clinical practice and this is discussed from a philosophical perspective which allows the nature of contemporary nursing practice to be reconceptualized. It is argued that curriculum development for clinically based, post-registration courses can be constructively informed by local consultation and that phenomenological study can complement more traditional approaches often relied upon in educational research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Non-expert nurses were task-focused because they had not yet learnt or developed adequate procedural knowledge to assist them to perform new tasks, or similar tasks in a new environment.
“Non-expert nurses were task-focused because they had not yet learnt or developed adequate procedural knowledge to assist them to perform new tasks, or similar tasks in a new environment (Coulon et al 1996, Little 2000).”
From The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study (2006) · cites this paper as Little 2000
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study
Bonner, A., & Greenwood, J. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01361.x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Little, C. V.
- Affiliations
- Bournemouth University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Little, Christine V.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 391-399
- ISSN
- 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2702
- OpenAlex
- W2161510931
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
- Keywords
- technological competence, critical care nursing education, post-registration education, nursing curriculum development, curriculum framework, student learning needs, meaning of learning, phenomenology of learning, clinical practice development, nursing philosophy
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Critical Care, Curriculum, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Humans, Learning, Nursing Methodology Research, Models, Educational
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review