Andrew McVicar1, Sharon Andrew2, Ross Kemble3. 1. Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Andy.McVicar@anglia.ac.uk. 2. Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom. 3. Lord Ashcroft International Business School, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The learning of biosciences is well-documented to be problematic as students find the subjects amongst the most difficult and anxiety-provoking of their pre-registration programme. Studies suggest that learning consequently is not at the level anticipated by the profession. Curriculum innovations might improve the situation but the effectiveness of applied interventions has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To undertake an integrative review and narrative synthesis of curriculum interventions and evaluate their effect on the learning of biosciences by pre-registration student nurses. Review methods A systematic search of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, British Nursing Index and Google Scholar for empirical research studies was designed to evaluate the introduction of a curriculum intervention related to the biosciences, published in 1990-2012. Studies were evaluated for design, receptivity of the intervention and impact on bioscience learning. RESULTS: The search generated fourteen papers that met inclusion criteria. Seven studies introduced on-line learning packages, five an active learning format into classroom teaching or practical sessions, and two applied Audience Response Technology as an exercise in self-testing and reflection. Almost all studies reported a high level of student satisfaction, though in some there were access/utilization issues for students using on-line learning. Self-reporting suggested positive experiences, but objective evaluation suggests that impacts on learning were variable and unconvincing even where an effect on course progress was identified. Adjunct on-line programmes also show promise for supporting basic science or language acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies of curriculum interventions, including on-line support, have focused too heavily on the perceived benefit to students rather than objective measures of impact on actual learning. Future studies should include rigorous assessment evaluations within their design if interventions are to be adopted to reduce the 'bioscience problem'.
BACKGROUND: The learning of biosciences is well-documented to be problematic as students find the subjects amongst the most difficult and anxiety-provoking of their pre-registration programme. Studies suggest that learning consequently is not at the level anticipated by the profession. Curriculum innovations might improve the situation but the effectiveness of applied interventions has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To undertake an integrative review and narrative synthesis of curriculum interventions and evaluate their effect on the learning of biosciences by pre-registration student nurses. Review methods A systematic search of electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, British Nursing Index and Google Scholar for empirical research studies was designed to evaluate the introduction of a curriculum intervention related to the biosciences, published in 1990-2012. Studies were evaluated for design, receptivity of the intervention and impact on bioscience learning. RESULTS: The search generated fourteen papers that met inclusion criteria. Seven studies introduced on-line learning packages, five an active learning format into classroom teaching or practical sessions, and two applied Audience Response Technology as an exercise in self-testing and reflection. Almost all studies reported a high level of student satisfaction, though in some there were access/utilization issues for students using on-line learning. Self-reporting suggested positive experiences, but objective evaluation suggests that impacts on learning were variable and unconvincing even where an effect on course progress was identified. Adjunct on-line programmes also show promise for supporting basic science or language acquisition. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies of curriculum interventions, including on-line support, have focused too heavily on the perceived benefit to students rather than objective measures of impact on actual learning. Future studies should include rigorous assessment evaluations within their design if interventions are to be adopted to reduce the 'bioscience problem'.